In 14 years in the Virginia House of Delegates, Republican gubernatorial candidate proposed only two bills dealing with education (as compared with 35 limiting a woman's right to choose). One of the two drew some recent attention. In 2002 McDonnell proposed all Virginia students grades K-12 be required to read from The American Citizens Handbook (HJ 158). Since none of the other members of the legislature had apparently ever encountered it, that particular effort did not get very far.
As a teacher of government for more than a decade, I was curious as to why McDonnell specified this particular work, and became even more curious when I discovered several other things. It was first published in 1941, and last published in 1968. The first person to push its use was former Rep. Lt. Gov. nominee Mike Farris, whose main focus in life in advocating for home schooling. It was also commended by Bill Bennett on his radio show. In 2005 the 1951 edition was praised by the Eagle Forum, founded by right-winger Phyllis Schlafley.
So I decided to explore the handbooks to see what we can learn about Bob McDonnell as a result. I invite you to keep reading.
The book in question first appeared in 1941, published by the National Education Association. The final edition, the 6th, was published in 1968. By then responsibility for the handbook had devolved upon the National Council for the Social Studies, which at the time was a division of the NEA, but is now an independent professional organization for those who teach social studies - I have been a member for almost all my teaching career, which began in 1995. The first edition contained 366 pages of text, the final 629 (pagination including introductions, tables of contents and indices).
Its purpose? As Joy Elmer Morgan concluded in the Forward to the 1st (1941) edition:
This book belongs to you as an American citizen. In it you will find the ideals that have inspired generations of the best men and women to work out on this continent a democracy of liberty, equal opportunity, and personal growth. Read this book carefully; study the documents on which your rights as a citizen are based, memorize its songs and poetry; enjoy the inspiring statements which have given purpose, hope, and courage to millions of Americans.
I am now 63, having graduated from high school in 1963, before the final edition. I lived through a period of school in which our education was shaped by many things, including in my earlier years a palpable fear of communism that was fueled by the demagoguery of people like Sen. Joseph McCarthy. Our education included memorization of poems and songs believed to inspire a sense of patriotism. I might note that by the time I graduated and headed off for Haverford College, educators were already recognizing that such an approach was not particularly effective, and by the year of the final edition Civil Rights, Vietnam and a recognition of need to address the economic and social inequality of the nation had led to significant - and I think positive - changes in the way we taught our young people what it means to be a citizen.
I suppose that for some conservatives - like Mike Farris (who advocates for homeschooling) and Bill Bennett (who himself attended Gonzaga, a Jesuit prep school DC) - there is still a tendency to look back at some supposedly more ideal time in our past and want to return to it. So I wondered whether there would be anything objectionable in any of the three editions to which I have had access in the past few days. Certainly the book review that appeared in the Eagle Forum should have raised some questions. Even as they attempt to use the 1951 edition to bash the NEA, they note:
Not everything in the volume is uncontroversial. It devotes a large chapter to promoting the United Nations. It praises public education and decries the declining proportion of national income then devoted to education. It contains a rather embarrassing endorsement of eugenics as a goal of education, so that "highly gifted young people" are encouraged to bear children to "greatly improve our national stock."
So was Bob McDonnell advocating racism, or worse? Some Democratic political bloggers were prepared to go in that direction. I do not think the documents support such a conclusion. Rather, I think one can, after examining the three volumes as I have done, raise a serious question whether McDonnell had really examined the volumes. After all, he did not specify which of the 6 editions were to be used, which leads to lots of problems.
Let me note a few. Let me go to the instructions about the Pledge of Allegiance, as they appear in 1941 1st edition, on pp. 145-146. OF course, the words "under God" do not appear in the text of the Pledge on p. 145, as they were not added until 1954. But it is not that which is potentially objectionable. After noting that one begins the recitation of the Pledge with one's hand over one's heart, the handbook instructs
At the words "to the Flag," the right hand is extended, palm upward, toward the Flag, and this position is held to the end. After the words, "justice for all," the hand drops to the side.
Try doing it in front of a mirror, and I think you will see the problem. Fortunately, the Flag code was amended in 1942 so that an action similar to the Nazi salute was no longer part of the Pledge Ceremony - since 1942 the hand is supposed to remain over one's heart during the entire pledge. However even though the later editions have eliminated this, one still finds words, such as these, in the final edition on p. 423:
However, civilians will always show full respect to the flag when the pledge is given by merely standing at attention, men removing the headdress
Surprisingly, this passage seems to be oblivious to the 1943 Supreme Court decision West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, in which the opinion of the Court written by Robert Jackson makes clear that there can be no compulsion to participate in the Pledge ceremony.
Still, that is perhaps a minor point.
There are other problems, and these perhaps are indicative of a mind set still retained by some, even as in its presentation it represents historic error. Let's go back to the 1st edition, to p. 14, and read this:
The birth of our democracy goes back nineteen hundred years to the birth of Christ. It was His teachings, gradually permeating tyhe minds and hearts of the people of the western world, building up their selfrespect, that led to a demand for larger liberty and justice. Let us never forget that our democratic institutions have their foundation in the principles of life that were set forth by the great Teacher.
I can see why such language would well appeal to the likes of Farris, Bennett, and apparently McDonnell. Yet they entirely ignore the explicit words of Article VI of the Constitution that there be no religious test for any office under the Constitution, nor the particular attitudes towards religion of many of the Founders, including but not limited to Adams, Franklin, Washington, and most of all Jefferson, from whom I note the following well-known expression:
But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
It is a distortion of our founding as a nation to insist that it has a specifically religious base. Yes, it is true that there were religious bases for the founding of a number of the colonies, but we tend to mythologize and distort - thus Massachusetts Bay was one of the most intolerant governments in history, being a theocracy. And Maryland's Act of Toleration proscribed death to anyone who denied the Holy Trinity (although the punishment was never applied).
One key feature of the book is to offer exemplars of American History that it calls "Heroes of American Democracy." It provides pictures of sculpturs and brief biographies of a large number of notables - this is a feature of all the editions. These are taken from The Handbook of the Hall of Fame that was established at New York University. I note that all listed were Christian, in the first edition all were white, and only about 10% were female, most of them educators. This can be addressed by noting that the authors of the handbook were referring to the selection made by another institution. And yet, even in 1941, the date of the first edition, there are some surprising omissions. Thus Jane Addams, who shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 1931, and for whose funeral in 1935 the entire city of Chicago basically shut down, was not in either the 1st or 3rd editions, although she does appear in the 6th in 1968, albeit without mention of her Peace Prize. Booker T. Washington appears in the 1951 edition and remains for the 1968. Om p. 104 of the 1968 edition we can see the dates various notables were added to this Hall - Addams in '65, Washington in '45. As of 1968 Booker T. Washington was the only person of color to be offered as such a model, although in fairness that edition contains the entire text of Martin Luther King, Jr's "I have a Dream" speech, not merely the nice words that are so often quoted more than a little out of context.
Let's address the issue of "eugenics." First, there is nothing in any of these volumes which discusses aggressive actions, such as forced sterilization, which in fact were a part of government policy in the early 20th century, even to the point of the famous statement by Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. in his opinion for the Court in Beck v Bell that Three generations of imbeciles are enough.
The passage referred to by Eagle Forum occurs in a section Titled "Goals of America - And What Schools Can Do To Achieve Them" which begins on p. 71 of the 1951 edition, and p. 599 of the 1968 edition. The words were condensed from an NEA statement developed during the 1930s, and finalized in 1937, even though the material did not appear in the 1st edition.
The first of the goals has the lable "Hereditary Strength." I think it worthwhile to quote the entire goal as it appears:
The future of our country is vitally involved in education for hereditary strength. As links in the chain connecting past and future, each of us is a trustee for our country's welfare. Everyone should be well-born under conditions which will conserve his innate strengths and capacities. The building of a sense of individual responsibility for the future of the race is education's obligation. We must create thru education a sense of responsibility for the future of the race [hereditary-conscience] which will move our strongest men and women to bear children. One child in every hundred in the United States is as far above average as the feeble-minded child is below average. The rearing of children by these highly gifted young people would greatly improve our nation stock.
That language was clearly offensive even to the Eagle Forum. It is hard to see how one would, in 2002 when McDonnell proposed his legislation, want to mandate use of a book that contains such language, representative of a mindset that - quite frankly - was well obsolete and offensive to most by 1968.
Eagle Forum complains about the material about the United Nations. There are other things in these volumes that might upset some of the conservative base upon which McDonnell depends. Each of the volumes offers some extracts from religious teachings. In the 1941 volume, under a section "religious Ideals the Foundation" we find 3 New Testament Quotations and a quotation of the Ten Commandments. In 1951 there is an extended section called "A Golden Treasury for the Citizen" (about which more later) in which the first section is "From Sacred Writings." There are now well over a dozen biblical quotations, but we also see the addition of "Proverbs of Hindustan" and "Sayings of Mohammed." Those additions are contained in the 1968 edition, and are joined by "The Wisdom of Gautama Buddha," "The Wisdom of Confucius," "The Wisdom of Haha'i," and "The Wisdom of Mahatma Gandhi." Somehow I have trouble seeing how the religious right base upon which conservative Republicans like McDonnell rely being happy with requiring use of book containing such material. I can see them somewhat happier with the material from the 1941 edition, which includes in the introduction to the section the following words:
Is it not plain that what the world needs just now is a new devotion to the great Christian ideals? In statecraft, in business, in industry, in law, in the church, in science, or in teaching, can anything be more intensely fruitful than a renewed faith in the high and finer things of life? As Woodrow Wilson points out in The Road Away From Revolution:
"Our civilization cannot survive materially unless it be redeemed spiritually. It can be saved only by becoming permeated with the spirit of Christ and being made free and happy by the practices which spring out of that spirit. Only thus can discontent be driven out and all the shadows lifted from the road ahead."
Quoting from a former president who was a scholar might seem to justify conclusion of those words. And yet we need to remember some things about Wilson. Thomas Woodrow Wilson was born in Staunton, Virginia to a man who (1) supported slavery; (2) was co-founder of the Southern Presbyterian Church when that denomination split at the time of the Civil War; served briefly as a Chaplain to the Confederate Army; and (4) moved his family to Georgia, where the future president lived for most of his formative years. As President Wilson resegregated Washington DC, which prior to his presidency was far less of a Southern oriented town. He also showed the racist film "Birth of a Nation" (based on a novel titled "The Klansman") and called it great history. While he was a major figure in certain parts of the Progressive Movement, he is one of the more problematic figures in American history, and not one whose personal beliefs speak to most Americans today.
Certainly by the final edition in 1968, one would hope for modifications showing sensitivity to the changing shape of American culture. I have noted the inclusion of King's speech in that final edition. But I also must note that same edition includes among the national songs "Dixie" in full dialect, beginning "I wish I was in de land ob cotton...." That is on page 446. The following page has Stephen Foster's "My Old Kentucky Home," with several references to "darkies."
Over the years the Handbook expanded with the inclusion of more and more material. Multiple pages of poetry devoted nature. Poems from non-Americans - why include poems by Anglo-Brit Rudyard Kipling in a handbook on citizenship for Americas?
As I have examined these three (of the total of six) editions, I have become increasingly puzzled as to why McDonnell ever introduced his legislation. Is it possible he did no more than glance at a volume, or - and this would be worse - merely rely on the recommendation of someone else, say Michael Farris? I truly don't know.
We clearly have a need to make sure our students are grounded in our system, in what citizenship needs. We certainly do not need to subject them, as my generation was subjected, to reading Hubbard's "A Message to Garcia." Materials on the Constitution, the Declaration, speeches by Washington and Lincoln - the kinds of things one would expect in any book used to teach civics - are regularly part of textbooks in both government and history. They - and many other relevant materials - were by 2002 already easily accessible through the internet.
And even the latest of these volumes was published in 1968, more than three decades before McDonnell introduced his legislation. Were these volumes to become the principle source for the teaching of civics, students would not be exposed to many very important concepts, laws, Court decisions, and speeches. They would be ignorant of the significant contributions of many Americans who did not get voted into that NYU Hall of Fame. They would have a misguided if not downright distorted vision of what it means to be an American.
Even the very conservative Eagle Forum, while using the 1951 volume to bash the NEA in 2005, found things about which to criticize the work. It is interesting to see that the others advocating for its use - Farris and Bennett - both lie very much to the extreme right of the American political perspective. Thus perhaps one thing we can learn about McDonnell is that he is far more of the extremist than he is now trying to portray himself, that he is backward and not forward looking.
Governors have a great deal of control over education in their states, through their appointment power, their ability to propose legislation and to veto legislation they do no like. If this is an example of what McDonnell thinks about education, I think it is relevant to examine. The books were a noble idea, and did offer a great deal of useful and positive material. Over the history of the 6 editions there were important adjustments to the changing nature of American society. But even the final 6th edition was flawed even before the passage of several more decades made it obsolete. That McDonnell would even consider imposing the series upon Virginia schools should frighten people.
But it should not surprise anyone who has paid attention to his career. It is not only the anti-choice legislation he has championed. It is not only his willingness to allow pharmacists to refuse to dispense birth control. It is not only his ongoing relationship with Pat Robertson, from whose law school he graduated. He was one of the strongest opponents of fixing Virginia's broken government finances, which when Mark Warner addressed was supported by many important Republicans in the General Assembly - not Bob McDonnell.
And more recently, McDonnell weighed in as an alumnus of Notre Dame when Obama was invited to give the commencement speech. McDonnell not only opposed giving the President an honorary degree because of his positions on "moral" issues, he opposed even allowing the President to give the address.
Bob McDonnell is, has been, and will continue to be extreme on many issues. His advocacy of these handbooks is not, however, clear evidence of extremism per se, and should not be addressed as such. It does to me demonstrate a clear lack of judgment - whether or not he actually read the books, the idea that he would mandate a 34 to 61 year old book (remember, he did not specify which edition) for use in all public schools indicates to me a total misunderstanding of the nature of education and the current shape of American society. If he read the books, and failed to note the prolems, perhaps there were too many pages and he read selectively. If he did not read them, as I think might be possible, his introducing his legislative proposal should make one cynical about any action he does.
Bob McDonnell wants to look back. He thinks the Bush economic ideas were good for the nation. He thinks obsolete and flawed handbooks from the past should be imposed upon the school children of Virginia. I think the more Virginians understand how Bob McDonnell thinks, the less inclined they will be to support his candidacy.
For the sake of our children, for the sake of all Virginians, I sure hope so.
Peace.