The Talk We Need to Have with China

As a former teacher of American History, I can recall the frequent mention in our public school social studies textbooks of the deliberate dissemination of smallpox blankets among Native American tribes. This event, condoned by British Colonel Henry Bouquet in the 1760s, serves as proof of our use of genocidal chemical warfare against them. This is only one example of how our textbooks teach today's youth to hate western civilization and our nation's past. Today's students are never asked to consider comparing this past event to China's current actions against our citizens--hence the motivation for this article.

A published version of this article may be found on American Thinker at: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/07/the_talk_we_need_to_have_with_china.html 

There is much that America can be proud of in our relationship with China. Our nation was often at odds with other global powers in our attempt to protect that nation’s sovereignty. Often, we stood alone. Following independence, our new nation was shut off from trade within the British Empire and both China and the U.S. benefited from cooperative trade agreements. Until driven out by the communists 150 years later, American missionaries in China established churches, schools, and worked to relieve the distress of the poor. When Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and Japan began carving out spheres of influence within China, the United States sought to negotiate “Open Door Agreements” with them to protect Chinese interests. When the Boxer Rebellion threatened the lives of thousands of Europeans and an international military coalition restored order in China, the United States made it a point to use the Chinese financial reparations to educate Chinese students in American universities to assist in its modernization. In the 1930s, as Japan's military invaded China, America refused to invoke neutrality in order to be legally supply China with weapons. Hundreds of American pilots volunteered to defend China against Japan as part of the famous Flying Tigers fighter squadrons. America’s continued defense of China was the reason behind Japan’s attack upon Pearl Harbor and our entry into WWII. Americans then built the Burma Road to get needed supplies to Chinese military forces fighting Japan. Following a thaw in the Cold War relations between our nation and China, American businesses led the way in efforts to modernize China. As American corporations invested heavily in China, our own factories were allowed to rust and millions of our manufacturing jobs and much of our middle class disappeared entirely.   

     What has the United States gained from being China’s long-time protector and most fair western trading partner? We’ve seen Chinese espionage take place at unprecedented levels within our universities, businesses, and scientific research facilities. The FBI recently announced it opens two new investigations each day related to Chinese espionage. China has succeeded in copying our most advanced weapons systems, even to point of having superiority in some areas. The disastrous trade imbalance America shares with China threatens our country’s future. The Chinese openly brag of their influence and infiltration within the top levels of our government.  Chinese spying has led to an unprecedented joint U.S. FBI--British MI5 warning to alert our citizens to the danger. FBI Director Christopher Wray has stated he “was blown away” by the level of current Chinese espionage efforts. China is simultaneously trampling democracy in Hong Kong, committing atrocities against the Uyghurs, and employs slave labor to keep its production costs low. It  has provided military aid and has entered into strategic partnerships with our enemies and has even announced the U.S. and NATO should be treated as an enemy.  

     While many of the above issues have been the subject of negotiation between our two nations, little or no pressure has been placed upon Xi Jinping to halt China's distribution of fentanyl to third party nations such as Mexico. Chinese drug lords and Mexican Cartels now export hundreds of pounds of the deadly drug into the United States and collaborate in extensive money laundering schemes to fund their operations. Last year over 100,000 Americans died from drug overdoses, mostly from Chinese fentanyl. This represented a 29% increase from the year before. Enough of the drug was seized in 2021 to kill every American. Sadly, as it is deliberately laced with other counterfeit drugs it has become the number one killer of young American adults. The fact that all Americans could possibly be killed by conterfeit drugs laced with Chinese fentanyl which are deliberately made to appear as over-the-counter drugs can only be described as an act of genocide against the American people. 

     The refusal of the Biden administration to secure our border will, of course, only increase the number of Americans murdered by this drug. The president must remind Xi Jinping of America’s long history of support for China. He must also live up to his constitutional duty to protect the lives of innocent Americans who are increasingly being murdered by Chinese drug lords, deadly Mexican Cartels, and a complicit CCP. To counter this threat, the president needs to warn China that it will face increased U.S. criminal prosecutions, the threat of additional tariffs on its exports, and  calls for investigations by World Health organizations and the United Nations into the manufacture of its illegal drugs. Without such pressure, the genocide against our citizens will continue unabated.

____  

Jack Bovee

Fort Myers, FL 
The writer has been a social studies educator, founder of Rho Kappa--the National Social Studies Honor Society--past president of the Florida Council for the Social Studies, and a former Elementary School Principal of the Year in Lee County, Florida. He may be reached at: jsbovee@aol.com.

New Powerpoint Program on Rob't. E. Lee now available!

 In the hope of providing local elected officials, Lee County residents, media-types, and perhaps SW Florida teachers and students of history an accurate and well-researched biography on the life of General Robert E. Lee, we're posting the following Powerpoint on this website. Contained within the notes of each slide and in the accompanying script for the program are many factual details, reference sources, maps, and other details--all of which give a background of Lee's life and the controversy surrounding the Memorial to him in Lee County. 

Download the Powerpoint program     HERE

Download a PDF of the Program.        HERE

Download the script of the Program     HERE

Letter to JES in Erie Re: "Response to Andrew Roth's Article: "Robert E. Lee-Traitor"

May 3, 2021

MEMORANDUM

TO:    Andrew Roth, PhD.           roth@jeserie.org 

CC:    Ferki Ferati ,   ED.D.          ferati@jeserie.org
          Ben Speggen,  M.A.            speggen@jeserie.org 
          Bill Steger, Erie CWRT     bill.steger1137@gmail.com

RE:    A Response to Andrew Roth’s article: “Robert E. Lee—Traitor?”   

https://www.jeserie.org/uploads/Book%20Notes%20--%20Robert%20E%20Rinderle.pdf 

I always find myself looking forward to the articles written by Jefferson Society Scholar-in-Residence, Dr. Andrew Roth.  His eloquent prose, depth of knowledge, and wide array of interests and expertise make for not only interesting reading, but generally leave the reader more informed about the subject under his examination. Unfortunately, this was not the case with his recent opinion entitled “Robert E. Lee – Traitor?”—a praiseworthy review of Ty Seidule’s book, Robert E. Lee and Me.  Seidule, a former history professor at West Point who was an undergraduate student of Washington and Lee University, visited that campus some years ago to urge the removal of Lee’s name from the school.  The university has been in turmoil ever since. Like Seidule, Dr. Roth fully embraces the “woke culture” of today’s campus. I found it a bit surprising that in his review of Seidule’s book, Dr. Roth had no desire to present a balanced view on the contributions of Lee—a man whom countless American presidents and world leaders have held to be worthy of respect and emulation. Amazingly, Dr. Roth—a former college president—could not find a single word of praise for Lee. He chose instead to link the Confederate general to the solitary individual who—among the hundreds of thousands of persons who descended upon the nation’s capital on January 6th –dared profane Congress for a few hours by carrying a Confederate flag within its sacred halls. Roth deliberately chose not to mention the fact that former WWII Supreme Commander and president Dwight Eisenhower chose to defend his hanging of Lee’s portrait in Abraham Lincoln’s office just down the street for eight long years—an act which I’m sure he thinks was equally profane.

Perhaps it’s Dr. Roth’s long-time association with post-secondary ‘cancel culture’ institutions of higher learning that leads him to lecture, instead of fully educate, his readers about the now mostly forgotten life of Lee. Although Dr. Roth continually reminded his readers that Lee “renounced his oath and fought a war against his country,” there wasn’t much explanation why Lee was held in such high esteem by all Americans on both sides of the Civil War for generations.  This was primarily due to the last five years of Lee’s life—a subject that both Seidule and Roth gloss over.               

None of us should ever be cast in the position of Robert E. Lee—that of having to choose to wage war against his own family, neighbors, and state against the country he already served for decades and for whom he had already risked his life. Dr. Roth conveniently omits the fact that Lee was given the opportunity to command armies for either side and he takes the position of Seidule that Lee really resigned from the army in order to defend and perpetuate slavery. He makes it a point to portray Lee as an unprincipled man who broke his oath and thus deserves the epithet of ‘traitor.’ He writes, “For those who say Lee had no choice but to serve Virginia, Seidule points out that of the eight West Point graduates with Virginia ties, only one fought against the United States. That one was Lee.” 

Lee the only Virginia West Point graduate to do so? Erie County Civil War Roundtable members probably raised their eyebrows at this statement. First, Generals Joseph E. Johnston, Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson, Jeb Stuart, George Pickett, James Kemper, Jubal Early, George Washington Custis Lee, and Fitzhugh Lee—all Virginians—graduated from West Point and fought for the Confederacy. (This doesn’t count Lewis Armistead, who was famously expelled after breaking a plate over Jubal Early’s head, and others who didn’t rise to the rank of general.)  Another mistake was Dr. Roth’s comment that the Confederate flag known as the “Stars and Bars” was carried into the capitol building on January 6 by that lone transgressor. A minor point, perhaps, but it was the battle flag for Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia, not the official Confederate banner known as the “Stars and Bars” that media outlets across the nation flashed repeatedly to viewing audiences that day.  

Dr. Roth wonders why one of the barracks at West Point is named after Lee when all the others are named for generals who served the United States military in combat—a distinction Lee never attained. The reader is left to wonder, along with Professor Seidule who taught there, why a West Point building would still bear his name. Roth neglects to inform the reader that Lee had many distinctions while serving in the U.S. Army. He graduated second in his class without a single demerit. Winfield Scott, commander in the Mexican War said of his service: “Success in the Mexican War was largely due to Robert E. Lee’s skill, valor, and undaunted energy.” Scott considered Lee the best soldier in the army and offered him command of all Union forces in 1861. Lee also served as the Superintendent of the U.S. Military Academy from 1852-1855. To not name a barracks after Robert E. Lee would be surprising.

Dr. Roth—along with Ty Seidule—also wonders “why are we honoring people who sought to destroy the United States of America and the ideals for which it stands?” They both seem to forget Lee’s stated words in his letter of resignation from the Army that except in the defense of his own state he was forever laying down his sword. Rather than break his oath, Lee and countless other Southerners resigned. Moreover, secession was still thought of as constitutional by many scholars in Lee’s day—another fact omitted by Seidule and Roth. The nation had several times before toyed with the idea of secession—once with the demands of the New England Confederation and again during the Nullification Crisis. Although Lee personally opposed secession as he did slavery, it was Lincoln’s call for Virginia to furnish troops to invade the South and the threat of Northern invasion that finally forced Lee and Virginia into officially joining the Confederacy. Dr. Roth conveniently omits all this as well as the fact Lee was no longer under his oath to protect the United States from invasion. Rather, the threat to Lee was the United States. 

Dr. Roth, like Seidule and so many adherents of Critical Race Theory today, would have us believe that “racism is the virus in the American dirt, infecting everything and everyone.” He is greatly offended by Lee—who worked to “destroy the United States.”  I’ll assume his liberal credentials never permitted him to inform his readers of the seventy-plus odd occasions that race-baiter Al Sharpton visited the White House to see then president Barack Obama. [When Rudy Giuliani spoke out about this and was attacked with four Pinocchio’s from the Washington Post for being reckless with the charge, even the Post had to print a correction and admit Giuliani was right.]  Nor will we probably find any criticism from Dr. Roth of president Obama for proudly posing with—then covering up—his cozy portrait with the well-known racist and anti-Semite, Louis Farrakhan. Did the former college president object to the many times President Obama had meetings with Jihadist-linked individuals at the White House? Today, persons in the know within the nation’s Beltway confirm Barack’s influence within the Biden administration is a primary reason our nation is once again moving away from our strongest ally in the middle east and cozying up again with Iran. With such reasoning, should Roth’s and Seidule’s criticism of Lee be extended to our former president?

Dr. Roth further describes Ty Seidule as being ‘vaguely aware’ of Virginia’s racist past and the South’s racial lynching record. What he and so many other liberals today omit, however, is mention that over one-fourth of those lynched in the South were white. These were mostly white Republicans who defended Negro rights during the time when Democrats reinstated white Democratic Party rule in the South. Although the U.S. Senate apologized in 2005 for not enacting the anti-lynching legislation 100 years earlier, the Democratic Party has yet to do so. It was a Republican Congressman, Leonidas Dyer, who first introduced anti-lynching legislation in 1918. It was a Republican president, Warren Harding, who first spoke in favor of the bill. In 1920 the Republican Party Platform endorsed an anti-lynching bill—something FDR openly opposed, despite Eleanor’s being in favor of it. Through these decades, Southern Democrats used the filibuster to kill all attempts to make lynching a federal crime. It wasn’t as needed that the Senate apologize for slavery as it was that Democrats apologize. Perhaps we can look forward to seeing Dr. Roth using his personal influence with the Democratic Party to now correct this historical omission. Personally, I think it’s not such a bad idea to have today’s Democratic Party apologize for both its racial lynching of Blacks as well as its political lynching of whites. 

Still another egregious error of Dr. Roth lies in his belief that any criticism of Robert E. Lee and Me  must naturally come from the “nethermost regions of the internet” or that it might reside in one of Tucker Carlson’s “replacement rants.” (Interestingly, Dr. Roth is silent as to his own personal theory why our current president has refused to enforce current immigration law or why two separate Latin American presidents blame Biden—not Trump—for the current border crisis.)  According to Dr. Roth, anyone attacking Seidule must have the “nerve to overtly defend racism.”  Really?  How about two other fellow Washington and Lee University students who—like Ty Seidule—now hold doctorates in the history profession? In their short YOUTUBE video, “Defending Lee and Rebutting Seidule,” professors Al Eckes and Neely Young attack Seidule’s book on many different fronts. They confront Seidule’s claim that Lee committed treason as “nonsense.” Dr. Young states, “When offered command of the Union army, he [Lee] declined saying, ‘I look upon secession as anarchy. If I own the 4 million of slaves of the South, I would sacrifice them all to the Union, but how can I draw my sword upon Virginia, my native state?’ ” Dr. Eckes continues, “On a number of occasions before the war, Lee described it as a moral evil. There are numerous statements on the record for Lee that he did not resign from the army to perpetuate slavery, but instead to defend his native state.”

The two historians argue that Seidule’s claims “are not proven by the historical record. . . . In every case where it was demonstrated that [Washington College] students acted badly, Lee reacted swiftly and appropriately either through suspension, expulsion or allowing a student to withdraw. He also cooperated fully with local and federal authorities and encouraged them to do their job. According to David Cox in his book, The Religious Life of Robert E. Lee, “his influence helped dissipate one lynch mob aimed at a black man and another aimed at a white. Lee specifically condemned bad behavior and on several occasions forbade students from participating in demonstrations or acts of violence.”

According to Young and Eckes, Seidule “largely ignores or minimizes Lee’s efforts to promote national reconciliation and better education after becoming president of Washington College.  These were the primary reasons that so many leaders, north and south, honored Robert E Lee—individuals as different as General Grant and Booker T. Washington praised lee for his contributions to peace and national reconciliation.”  When Congress ordered the southern states to submit new constitutions to Congress, Lee announced it was “the duty of the southern people to accept the situation fully.” When other Confederate leaders either talked of or actually did move abroad, Lee urged them to remain in their native states and work toward reconciliation. Among the thousands who wrote to Lee asking for his advice after the war was an embittered Confederate widow. He replied, “Abandon your animosities and make your sons Americans.” This is seen in countless letters from Lee in the period of time 1865-1870.  

In defending Lee, the two professors cite the historical record to refute Seidule’s claims. To conclude, they argue Seidule is just as wrong as the “Lost Cause” historians who attempted to disguise the role of slavery as a cause of the Civil War. The new historians like Seidule incorrectly argue that everything was a result of slavery. They denigrate the economic differences between the sections, the Constitutional questions over secession, and sectional arguments over a strict v loose interpretation of the powers of Congress. Their belief that the underlying framework of 10th Amendment and that state’s rights played no role in secession is as wrong as saying that slavery was the only cause of war.  Seidule—and professor Roth--operate in the narrow tunnel of ‘presentism.’  Eckes concludes: “It seems to me that much of Seidule’s narrative is based upon a hasty reading of several authors, especially Elizabeth Pryor’s book [Reading the Man: A Portrait of Robert E. Lee Through His Personal Papers]. . . . This book does not display the hand of an experienced Civil War era researcher. In attacking Lee’s reputation, Seidule embraces the woke history of racial justice as the central theme in American history. . . .  Thus, he does not successfully attack the real reasons for honoring President Lee in 1870—his contributions to national reconciliation and education in the South.”

Professors Eckes and Neely are correct to point out that Seidule almost totally ignores the last five years of Lee’s life. What’s even less well known is the fact that Lee’s example has served our nation at times even after his death in 1870. For example, when LBJ urged Congress to approve the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he reminded Southerners of the legacy and personal example of Robert E. Lee.  He remarked to his fellow southerners, “If we are to heal our history and make this nation whole…opportunity must know no color line. Robert E Lee…a great leader of the South—and I assume no modern-day leader would question him or challenge him—Robert E. Lee counseled us well when he told us to cast off our animosities and raise our sons to be Americans.” 

When the nation was terribly divided during years of conflict in Vietnam, it turned to Lee again. When Lee’s lost Oath of Allegiance to the United States—dated after the war in 1866—was discovered in the National Archives in the last years of the Vietnam War, a national movement to posthumously restore his citizenship took our nation by storm. A bill was quickly passed by both Houses of Congress (nearly unanimously) and was eagerly signed into law by President Gerald Ford.  Not long afterward President Carter pardoned and restored civil rights to an estimated 400,000 Vietnam War draft dodgers in a similar spirit of “national reconciliation.” 

Once again it appears, Lee’s personal life story closely mirrors our own. Today, America is almost as divided as it was 160 years ago when a tragic Civil War destroyed half the nation and took an estimated 750,000 lives. Robert E. Lee’s personal efforts to reconcile the division in our nation at that time won him the praise of countless U.S. Presidents and world leaders and he continually serves as a future example to us all. Lee’s Christian faith guided all his actions; his desire to mend fences and not tear them down, find workable compromises, forgive his enemies, not harbor resentments from the past—all this and more serve as sound examples for Americans today. 

This past year saw countless monuments to America’s heroes desecrated and destroyed on college campuses across the north—just as mobs were simultaneously destroying memorials to Confederate soldiers throughout the South. College cancel culture saw monuments to Lincoln, Grant, Franklin, Theodore Roosevelt, Wm McKinley, and countless others—including abolitionists—attacked and destroyed. Given Dr. Roth’s and Ty Seidule’s call to remove Lee’s name from barracks and schools, perhaps the City of Erie should revisit and remove the name of Anthony Wayne from the street, park, and school that bear his name. After all, it could be argued that our own local celebrity was even guilty of prospering under slavery than Robert E. Lee.  

Jack Bovee
Erie, PA
Email:   jsbovee@aol.com

The New McCarthyism

 

During the televised Army-McCarthy Senate hearings in 1954, the nation sat riveted as anti-McCarthy attorney Joseph Welch admitted a lawyer in his firm had once been a member of a communist-front organization.  Nevertheless, he excoriated McCarthy for exposing the ‘young lad’s’ indiscretion of many years before: “We know about it, Senator…. [but] have you no sense of decency, sir?  At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”  Americans agreed with Welch that it was not proper to unfairly smear an opponent. When the Army-McCarthy hearings were over, so was McCarthy. That was then.

Today’s Democratic Party, once the target of Republican investigations under the McCarthy, now seems to have forgotten both him and his tactics. They’ve recently not only embraced the worst of McCarthyism, they’ve surpassed him. After Trump Press Secretary Sarah Sanders was denied service at a Washington restaurant, Rep. Maxine Waters encouraged all Democrats to get in the face of any Republican supporter of Trump. “If you see anyone from that {Trump} cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them.  And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere. We’ve got to get the children connected to their parents.”  

Likewise, Dem. Senator Cory Booker gave an address where he encouraged his audience to be more aggressive, to “go to the Hill today…[and] please, get up in the face of some Congress people.”  Kamala Harris—who bailed out looters and arsonists during last summer’s riots—said the Black Lives Matter rioters “would not and should not” stop rioting.  She was speaking of riots that had already took too many innocent lives, injured hundreds of police officers, caused $2 trillion in damages to a score of cities, used lasers and pre-arranged piles of bricks to permanently blind and injure federal officers, and saw activists attempt to burn down a federal courthouse with personnel still inside. Senator Jon Tester (D-MT) said on nationwide television “to take on Trump, you have to punch him in the face.”  Joaquin Castro (D-TX) was only one of several liberals who have doxed private citizens who were key fundraisers for President Trump for the purpose of making their lives miserable. 

Nor was the January 6th Capitol riot the first time officers were injured or killed defending federal property. Violent demonstrations in Washington this past summer saw BLM activists injure 60 Secret Service Agents who were protecting the White House. Protestors destroyed automobiles and businesses, threw bricks, bottles, rocks, fireworks and bodily fluids at the officers, and send 11 agents to local hospitals.  While protecting the Oakland Federal Courthouse, one federal agent was murdered and another wounded while BLM protests took place only blocks away. Among the numerous examples of Trump supporters being assaulted by leftists, the worst attack took place against Republican Congressmen in 2017 while practicing for their annual charity baseball game. Over 100 shots were exchanged for ten minutes, killing the gunman and wounding four others, including House Majority Whip, Steve Scalise.  

In September 2018, over 200 arrests were made during the confirmation hearing on Justice Kavanaugh. Leftist demonstrators attacked and pounded on the doors to the Supreme Court chamber and continually disrupted the Senate hearings themselves. In March 2020 Supreme Court Justice Roberts had to admonish Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer for his incendiary speech to pro-abortion activists and his personal warning to Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch “…you will pay the price, you will not know what hit you.”  In August 2019, shots were fired into Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) office in San Antonio, nearly hitting two officers and marking the fourth attack upon the agency that month. In Tacoma, an ICE Office was firebombed and the armed, leftist Antifa terrorist killed.

Nor are violent demonstrations the only way Democrats attack conservatives. Just as liberals once accused McCarthy of smearing opponents, House Speaker Pelosi has compared federal agents protecting a federal courthouse in Portland as Nazi “storm troopers.” Majority Whip James Clyburn agreed, saying the Trump administration “seem[s] to be doing everything they possibly can to impose Gestapo activities on local communities.” Just days after Republicans stripped Steve King of his committee assignments and condemned his rhetoric, Democrats promoted Ilhan Omar to the important Foreign Relations Committee—despite repeated anti-Semitic comments. Democratic Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib rallied her supporters against President Trump by saying on open microphone “we’re gonna impeach the mother____.”   

Moreover, like the blacklists of the McCarthy era, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other Democrats are now calling for compiling lists of “Trump sycophants” so they can be “held accountable” when they try to return to private life. Going beyond the tactics of McCarthy, Democratic senators Sheldon Whitehouse and Sherrod Brown have called for the expulsion of their colleagues Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz for simply objecting to the certification of some electoral votes—something Democratic Senators themselves have done three times since 2001. As McCarthy was accused of the ‘big lie’—that communists had infiltrated high positions in our government—Joe Biden has similarly likened the claims of Hawley, Cruz, Trump and others that Trump won re-election to the “big lie” tactics of Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels.  He implied that their “lies” led to the Capitol Riot of January 6 giving even more voice to calls to expel any Republican legislator who dared vote against contested electoral votes.  

Far from ‘healing’ the nation following a bitter presidential campaign where questions still abound about its integrity, today’s Democratic Party continues to heap incendiary comments upon all opposition. These roughshod tactics, popular with their base and the mainstream media, will do little to dispel the anxiety of 75 million Americans who feel they are victims of the New McCarthyism. Such tactics didn’t work in the 1950s. Whether they will in 2021 remains to be seen.

Jack Bovee
Fort Myers

The writer has been a social studies educator, founder of Rho Kappa—the National Social Studies Honor Society--and a former elementary school principal.  He may be reached at JSBovee@aol.com. 

Constitution Day Consternations! (Originally published September 16, 2005)

This September 17 marks the first annual requirement -- sponsored by Senator Robert Byrd (Dem. WV) --  that all schools implement a program to instruct students about the Constitution.   As one who has dedicated his adult life to that endeavor let me go on record as being strongly opposed to this law.    

    Why?   Because there is a better law which both the Senate and the media continue to ignore.  It’s time for Congress to finally pass some substantive legislation that would restore American History and Civics as part of the nation’s core curriculum.  It’s time to place these subjects at least on an equitable footing with others that are assessed by what is commonly referred to as “The Nations Report Card”.   How?   By holding states accountable for how well they prepare our students to be citizens – by comparing them to one another and to a national average -- just as we do in reading, writing, math and science.   What?  We don’t do that already, you say?  Of course we don’t.  And that’s  the reason for the drastic decline in civic knowledge for over the last 30 years!   

      Believe it or not, American History and Civics have been repeatedly discriminated against in the testing process and postponed on the national testing calendar.   For decades, we’ve compared all the states to one another in reading, writing, math and science.  Governors and Education Commissioners post bragging rights on their web sites when their states do better than the national average and they appropriate huge sums of money to remedy their academic deficiencies.  The U.S. Department of Education even compares how well they effectively deter students from using drugs, alcohol or tobacco.  In history and civics, however, we simply don’t care enough to even keep score.    Nor does anyone seem to care!   Look in earnest through the words of Diane Ravitch, Chester Finn, Charles Quigley and others for any articles in support of state accountability or for support for a revitalized NAEP, and you’ll be searching in vain.   When Charles Smith, Executive Director of the National Assessment Governing Board, recently testified to the Senate about the importance of U.S. History and how dismally our students perform in it, he bragged that under a ‘new’ testing calendar, U.S. History would be assessed more often.  Good.  It needs to be.  What he forgot to mention, however, was that it was the plan of his own shop only a couple of years ago to basically eliminate testing this subject on future NAEP tests at Grade 12.  Nor did he mention President Bush supported the evisceration of these subjects at the very grade when schools are registering students to vote.  You can bet no one asked him why this plan was even proposed for a course in which our students ‘perform worst’.  Nor did anyone have the foresight to ask Secretary Spellings about her plans to restore Civic and Historical Knowledge to the nation’s schools during her confirmation process.   Can it be that no one cares?

     Sadly, Senate Bill 860 -- which is designed to shed some light and accountability on the subject-- continues to languish in Congress.   It died in the last Congress and appears doomed to die in this one.  David McCullough’s appearance some weeks ago before the Senate on this bill apparently did very little to stir them into action.  This is the subject that provides the “glue” which holds the nation together.  Politicians love to point out that we are not united by a common religion, ethnicity, race or even perhaps now, language.   It’s this ‘love of our sacred documents’, our understanding of how ‘America has served as a beacon of liberty to countless others around the globe’, and the realization of the ‘sacrifice of countless others’ who have preceded us that unifies us as a people.  Sure, right.   Read the reports over the last 20 years and tell me if anyone really thinks that Senator Byrd’s generation – or mine, for that matter – have kept the promise to properly provide young Americans today with the requisite knowledge and skills for citizenship.  

    Congress has been able to appropriate about a half billion (that’s with a “B”) dollars to train teachers to do a better job teaching American History, yet it can’t agree to pass a bill that would authorize a measly $10 million to end the second-class status this subject has in the U.S. Department of Education and in the 50 states.  They can’t seem to pass a bill that would actually hold states accountable for what used to be the basic reason for a public education.   As a result, we know with more scientific accuracy when the last time a typical middle school student in Michigan took a swig of beer than we do about that student’s knowledge of our Constitution.  Why is this?  You’ll have to ask Senator Byrd and his peers.

    This isn’t rocket science – nor is it a novel idea.  Surveys have been reporting these findings since Chief Justice Warren Burger’s “national civics lesson” in the 1970s.  Thank goodness Burger, like the Founders, isn’t around today to see just how bad things have become.  McCullough worries about this very real threat to America’s security and future.  Like him, I’m very worried whether today’s young adults possess even the rudimentary knowledge to keep the Republic going when the mantle of authority is passed on to them.   A Roper Survey in 2002 found Americans aged 18 to 24 coming in last or second to last when compared to their peers from among eight other nations in such things as: the ability to identify the location of our country on a world map, knowing the approximate size of the U.S. population, being able to identify what two nations each have over 1 billion people, or even knowing which of our enemies took credit for the slaughter of over 3,000 innocent Americans only months before.  Mexican students beat their American counterparts on all of those questions.  Perhaps we can just extend our right of franchise south of the border.

     Without some form of accountability, states will continue to relegate civic knowledge to the educational backburner.  Take Florida for example.  Governor Jeb Bush and several of Florida’s leading legislators serve as ‘state directors’ to the Education Commission of the States.  As such, they also serve on its subsidiary group -- the National Center for Learning and Citizenship.  Both are charged with improving Civic Education programs.  While serving in this capacity, Jeb Bush signed into law a few years ago an act that eliminated American History, American Government, and Economics as graduation requirements in Florida.  Incensed, Tampa Congressman Jim Davis immediately introduced HR 3592 in the last Congress to threaten his own state with the loss of federal funds.  It took a battle, but these courses were eventually restored as graduation requirements.

    Why would Jeb Bush do such a thing?  For the same reason the President delayed the Civics N.A.E.P. assessment some years ago.  If no one keeps score – who cares?  Funny, but I never hear anyone at the national level point out to the President or his younger brother that things such as non-accountability, the second-class status given to civic knowledge, advocating the elimination of such assessments at grade 12 or eradicating such courses as graduation requirements might actually give folks the impression that civic knowledge isn’t very important!   

    Let’s hope that Congress will not blow another chance to hold still yet another generation of young Americans and their state leaders accountable for what is the most important mission of public education!  Perhaps if they got behind the Alexander bill, we could begin to treat these subjects equitably.  Some state leaders might even take their responsibilities as ‘national directors’ and guardians of civic knowledge more seriously.  And perhaps, if we’re lucky, we’ll begin to work on improving the glue that might actually hold this nation together in the future.  

The writer has been a social studies educator, a former elementary school principal, and serves as Legislative Chair for the Florida Council for the Social Studies.   He may be reached at JSBovee@aol.com.   

Flag Day Frustrations. (Originally published June 17, 2005)

I woke up early on June 14th.  After hanging up “old Glory” at my front entrance and draping a few historical replicas over the garage door, I returned to a second cup of coffee and began my search on the internet.  After checking the editorial pages of over a dozen papers across the nation, I found just two that had anything resembling mention of “Flag Day”.   More space was seemingly devoted to latest work of our nation’s most famous historian, David McCullough, than to traditional “Flag Day” sentiments.  That seemed okay.  His book, 1776, might just provide an even better history lesson.   One thing all the stories seemed to have in common was the belief – thanks to the widespread ignorance of today/s America’s youth - that the Republic’s civic health is in grave danger.   McCullough was described as ‘demoralized’ by Jim Ritter of the Chicago Sun Times, who heard him speak recently.  In his Flag Day article, “What Young Don’t Know About History is Staggering”, Ritter - who cited no statistics concerning the extent of such ignorance among our young - concluded with the hope that Tom Hank’s two upcoming HBO miniseries about McCullough’s books may eventually “spark some interest in young people”.   Malcolm Kline, the executive director for Accuracy in Academia who also heard McCullough speak recently, noted the same tone in the best selling author. “Why is it possible that an otherwise intelligent person does not know that the original 13 colonies were on the East Coast or who George Marshall was,” McCullough “ruefully” asked the crowd?   I’ll try to answer him..

    First, what should he expect?  Surveys have been reporting this result since Chief Justice Warren Burger resigned from the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1970s to give us, what he then termed, a very needed “ national civics lesson”.    Thank goodness Burger, like the Founders, isn’t around today to see just how bad things have become.  McCullough worries about “George Marshall”.  I’m more worried whether today’s young adults possess even the most rudimentary knowledge to function as citizens.   A Roper Survey in 2002 found Americans aged 18 - 24 coming in last or second to last when compared to their peers from among eight other nations in such things as: the ability to identify the location of our nation on a world map, knowing the approximate size of the U.S. population, being able to identify what two nations have over 1 billion people each, knowing who the Taliban are, and in understanding other basic bits of information.  I can easily imagine that their European peers could tell them who George Marshall was.

     This is no surprise.  The National Assessment for Education Progress (N.A.E.P.) is responsible for national testing and maintains a web site called “The Nation’s Report Card”.  What McCullough never mentions in his talks is that U.S. History, Civics and Geography are viewed as “second class subjects” by N.A.E.P., Congress and the U.S. Department of Education.  While state-by-state comparisons are available for reading, math, writing and science, no such accountability is available in courses thought helpful for effective citizenship.  Any K-12 educator will tell you that if you don’t hold states or schools accountable, not much will get done.   Take Florida for example.  Governor Jeb Bush and several of the leading legislators serve as ‘state directors’ to the Education Commission of the States (ECS).  As such, they also serve on a subsidiary group known as the National Center for Learning and Citizenship (N.C..L.C.). The second group is charged with improving Civic Education programs in all 50 states.  While serving on this group, Jeb Bush signed into law an act that eliminated American History, American Government, and Economics as graduation requirements for all students in our state.  Incensed, Tampa Congressman Jim Davis immediately introduced HR 3592 in the last Congress to threaten his own state with the loss of federal education funds for eliminating these vital courses .  Social studies educators had to actually amend Senate Education Chair Lee Constantine’s bill to ‘resolve’ this issue the following year in order to restore these graduation requirements.  Why would Jeb Bush do such a thing?  For the same reason the President delayed the Civics N.A.E.P. assessment only a few years before.  Again, if no one keeps score – who cares?  President Bush, whom David McCullough has met with regularly to discuss how to improve the teaching of history, has also recommended eliminating assessing this very subject by N.A.E.P. at grade 12.   Funny, but I never hear Dr. McCullough or anyone else at the national level point out to the President or his younger brother that things such as non-accountability, the second-class status given to civic knowledge, advocating the elimination of such assessments at grade 12 or eradicating such courses as high school requirements might actually give folks the impression that civic knowledge isn’t very important.   

    I happen to agree with David McCullough that civic knowledge among young adults is so bad that ‘national security is at stake.”  But you wouldn’t have thought this from watching this spring’s confirmation hearing of Margaret Spellings as Secretary of Education.  Not one question was posed to her about how she and the federal department of education might reverse the decline of civic literacy.    

    Into the fray comes Senator Lamar Alexander.  His current bill – S850 – has a public hearing on June 30th.  The bill would grant some equity to History and Civics on N.A.E.P.  by authorizing enough funds to compare up to 10 states to a national standard on the upcoming 2006 N.A.E.P. History and Civics assessments.  Senator Alexander cited in a speech in the last Congress that, according to N.A.E.P., U.S. History is our students “worst subject.”   His bill would cost a few millions as compared to the almost half Billion we’ve spent on training U.S. History teachers in the last four years.  Unfortunately, his bill wasn’t even given a hearing in the last Congress.  Concerned citizens can only hope it passes committee in time for Independence Day on July 2nd.    

     For over two years national groups and noted historians like Dr. McCullough have bemoaned the decline in civic understanding.  Perhaps if they get behind the Alexander bill, some state leaders might even be held accountable for how well they prepare young adults to be citizens.  Some might even take their ‘responsibilities’ as directors of N.C.L.C. – and guardians of civic knowledge -- more seriously.  

Jack Bovee

"Patriot's Day" (Originally submitted to Education Week--April 25, 2005)

EDITOR:  Education Week

Re:  Guest Editorial or Article

Sadly, most of the nation’s newspapers (Education Week included) seemingly ignored an important event that recently involved several of the nation’s noted historians, key Congressional leaders and educators.  The National Council for History Education brought these groups together in the nation’s capitol last week to commemorate both “Patriot’s Day” and to call for a national campaign to “Make History Stronger in Our Schools”.   That this is needed, no one denies.  Kathleen Manzo’s recent article (“Social Studies Losing Out to Reading, Math,” March 15, 2005) accurately described the deplorable state that the subject has come to in the nation’s schools.   She cited a litany of problems in the teaching of History, Civics and Social Studies in states such as California, Maryland, Florida, and Illinois.   

   But it’s worse than this.  Knowledge of economics and geography is equally deplorable.  Several international surveys now indicate that American young adults possess less knowledge requisite for U.S. citizenship than even their peers from around the world!   A Roper Survey for National Geographic conducted in nine countries in 2002, for example, showed American students coming in last in knowing the correct size of our population, identifying which nation gave sanctuary to the Taliban and Osama bin Laden, and even the ability to identify our nation on a world map!  Not surprisingly, noted historian David McCullough recently stated that nothing less than “national security” is at stake due to this rising tide of historical and civic ignorance.   

Those assembled in the nation’s capitol for “Patriot’s Day” last week put forth a powerful argument for the revitalization of American History.  Senator Lamar Alexander has repeatedly stated that based upon National Assessment for Education Progress (N.A.E.P.) results for all academic subjects, “American history is our students worst subject”.  

It’s interesting to note that during the confirmation hearing for Margaret Spellings, not a single question was directed to her as to what plans she has for how the Department of Education might reverse this trend.  One legislative proposal filed by Senators Alexander and Kennedy to coincide with “Patriot’s Day” -- Senate bill 860 -- may offer a solution.   Aimed at the elimination of ‘second-class status” on N.A.E.P. for History and Civics, it would authorize Spelling to spend $5 million to hold up to 10 states accountable for how well they prepare students in History and Civics.   Comparisons of states to one another and to a national average have been done for many years in the areas of Math, Reading, Writing and Science at grades four and eight, but these have never occurred in History or Civics.    The federal Department of Education actually spends more money annually to collect comparable state data on the extent of teenage drinking, smoking and drug use than that being proposed by S860!  This is the second time the bill has been filed by the senators.   In the 108th Congress the measure (S2721) never even came up for a vote.   Nor was there much of a cry amongst History or Civics educators that it do so.  Surprisingly, it was strongly advocated by social studies educators.   These folks, perhaps more familiar with the realities of K-12 public education, realize that until you begin tohold some states accountable, History and Civics will continue to lose valuable time and resources.  The old adage, “What gets tested is what gets taught,” holds true today more than ever before.  I might add, however, “This only happens if you’re keeping score.”  In the case of History and Civics, no one is.

    It’s easily argued that when states are not held accountable to a national standard, they need mot worry or do much to improve.   Take Florida, for example.   Governor Jeb Bush and leading legislators serve as commissioners to the Education Commission of the States.    One of the main missions of this group is to improve civic education programs.  As a result, a subsidiary of this group - the National Center for Learning and Citizenship (NCLC) - has been formed to carry out this mission and to serve as a repository for civics educators.   Perhaps not surprisingly, NCLC argues for increased assessment of civic knowledge by local school districts or by the state.   It is mute on the idea of granting Civics parity -- by comparing states’ performance in this subject -- with other subjects on N.A.E.P.   As a result, Florida politicians who serve on the Education Commission of the States need not worry about how Florida will compare to other states or to a national average.  Incredulously, in recent years Governor Bush and these same legislative leaders have signed into law proposals eliminating American History and American Government as required high school courses for all students.  Moreover, despite support from the Florida League of Women Voters and from social studies teachers, the legislature has for three years refused to pass a bill which would require districts to take student performance in history/civics/social studies into consideration when children are promoted from one grade to the next.  Nor should it be any surprise that none of these subjects are part of the state’s assessment program.

     What is surprising is the near total silence on the subject of revitalizing the upcoming 2006 N.A.E.P assessments in U.S. History and Civics by nationally renowned educators – even those with a strong affinity for the civic mission of our schools!   Chester Finn and Diane Ravitch, both well known for their heated editorials attacking “social studies” as the primary culprit for today’s decline of historical and civic knowledge, have never argued for a revitalized N.A.E.P similar to that proposed by former Secretary of Education Lamar Alexander.  They argue for, among other things, increased history training opportunities for teachers.   They miss the fact that by never holding states accountable, nothing will ever change!  What many seem to forget is that Congress has appropriated almost $400 million in the last few years for training teachers in the areas of history and civics.  While appreciative of this, I’m amazed that Congress has yet to authorize a paltry $5 million to find out how well the states seem to be living up to their civic responsibilities.  When 2006 passes, the opportunity to do this again won’t come around in the N.A.G.B. schedule until 2012 (Civics).  The next U.S. History assessment isn’t listed on their current schedule, and can be presumed to come until after 2012.  

     Equally surprising is the lack of Op-Ed articles from leading national educators decrying the proposal by the National Assessment Governing Board (N.A.G.B.) to possibly eliminate future 12th grade assessments in U.S. History, Civics and Geography.   These provide our only window on how well we’ve prepared voting age students in these vital subjects.  President Bush, who unfortunately once endorsed a delay in the 2001 Civics assessment so resources might be reallocated to Reading and Math, endorsed this new 12th grade plan some time ago.  He did so in order that N.A.G.B. could use their resources to consider initiating for the first time statewide comparisons in Reading and Math at grade 12.    

     If there is a trend, it is the movement to postpone, eliminate or eviscerate any attempt to hold states and students accountable in these vital subjects.  There is a dire need to restore History andCivics to their rightful place in public education.   In the rush to do so, however, let’s not lose sight of the important need to hold a few states accountable for what our students have learned!   Until this happens, things will only get worse!

Jack Bovee

Legislative Chair, Florida Council for the Social Studies  

The writer is a 32-year social studies educator, a former elementary school principal, and now the coordinator for K-12 Social Studies in Collier County, Fla.

Where's Warren Burger Now?

The author submitted a similar letter to Education Week which was published it April 14, 2004.

I’ve just finished reading the recommendations of the National Assessment Governing Board’s (NAGB) report "12th Grade Student Achievement in America: A New Vision for NAEP" and couldn’t be more alarmed ("Panel Recommends State-Level NAEP for 12th Graders," March 10, 2004). 

The word "citizen" appeared once or twice in the report and, at one point, the importance of students’ knowledge of history and civics was even put into writing.  The Reports’ plan, however, to place History, Geography, Civics, Economics, and other social studies disciplines on the ‘back burner’ has caused me to be more than a little upset. 

I have followed National Assessment of Educational Progress reports (popularly known as the “Nation’s Report Card”) for over 30 years, and NAGB, the U.S. Department of State, and Congress have never had any interest in doing state-by-state comparisons in U.S. history, civics, geography (and now, the new world-history and economics disciplines).  As a result, all states today operate totally in the dark with regard to how their students stack up against peers in neighboring states and across the nation. 

When I initially came across the report, I was left unguarded and a bit hopeful. After all, perhaps now there might be something positive from NAGB.  Since 9/11, the nation has seen a revitalization of concern over students’ civic awareness.  The twelfth grade could, after all, be seen as preparing students for the only career they will all have upon graduation—that of citizen. 

The recent completion of American history and American government courses for almost all the nation’s students would present an almost perfect curriculum alignment for such an opportunity. We might never have had such comparisons at grades 4 and 8 like those in the other subjects, but we could perhaps learn to live with a capstone understanding of such content as an exit picture of how well we had prepared our students for their careers as consumers, workers, voters, or as servicemen and women. 

Needless to say, I was totally shocked to find that, rather than recommend such state comparisons for grade 12, the governing board is going to continue testing these subjects only as a "national representative sample" and only "if resources permit."  Does this mean "never"?  Either the report’s authors are hypocrites, the states truly don’t care about civic efficacy, or the maxim "ignorance is bliss" is astonishingly accurate. 

Might I mention that millions of students take the ACT and the SAT, and while the NAGB report very accurately points out this isn’t everyone, these tests do provide a lot more data than we have concerning what our students know about their governmental and economic systems, the nation’s past, or the world in which they live. 

Help me understand why it is that reading and mathematics will be assessed every two years, science and writing every four years, and history, civics, geography, and economics once every generation ("resources permitting"), or not at all?  This represents the "best thinking" of NAGB?  And of course, let’s continue not to hold any state accountable for any of these disciplines. This is wonderful news in light of the nation’s increasing diversity and the fact that an ever-higher number of immigrants crossing our borders now come from nations without established democratic traditions. 

As important as it may be among the states to compare 12th-grade student performance in our overly tested areas (reading and math), wasn’t civic knowledge at one time a primary reason for public education?  Wasn’t it among the first  NAEP assessments? 

Isn’t it true that states are moving away from their own civic assessment programs due to a lack of emphasis and scorekeeping at NAEP?  (My count shows Maryland, Maine, and Washington as having recently disbanded such programs. In Florida, we’ve been lobbying since 1986 to know what our students understand regarding civic education!)  The NAGB plan will undoubtedly encourage many more states to disband what remains of their civic assessments.  One wonders what the Founding Fathers would say of this plan. 

Survey after survey—the governing board’s own often-delayed NAEP assessments included—point out that urban students can name more alcoholic beverages than they can U.S. presidents; that Mexican young adults ages 18 to 24 can better identify than American students the location of the United States, the approximate population size of the United States, who the Taliban and al-Qaida are, and the locations of such places as the Pacific Ocean, Russia, Japan, and Italy.  Additional surveys show that American students lack an understanding of the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and some of the most basic principles of American government and economics. 

One can only assume that the authors of the report feel comfortable with this level of performance.  

Finally, I compliment the NAGB on their stroke of genius of encouraging the other, ‘nonessential subject-area’ disciplines to fight amongst one another over what few "resources" exist.  If we don’t like the lineup of priorities for future assessments as they’ve recommended them, we’re to lobby NAGB to move us to the head of the line over the others.  Keep us all fighting among ourselves so we’ll have no time to do battle with the report’s authors, ’eh? 

Based upon the recommendations of this report, I guess it is safe to presume the National Assessment Governing Board is now actually hostile to civic education.  What facts could possibly be cited to prove otherwise?    I’m old enough to remember the example of an earlier champion of Civic Education, former Chief Justice Warren Burger, who resigned his position on the Court in the summer of 1986 in order to become national Chairman of the Bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution Committee for the purpose of giving the nation, as he called it – ‘a needed lesson in civics’.    Where is our Warren Burger of today?

Jack Bovee

Legislative Chair, Florida Council for the Social Studies, Lehigh Acres, Fla.   

The writer is a 30-year social studies educator, a former elementary school principal, and now the coordinator for K-12 social studies in Collier County, Fla.    [Editors note:  NAEP assessments are given in grades 4, 8, and 12 and state-by-state comparative data for grades 4 & 8 have always been provided for reading, writing, math, and science.  Virtually every state department of education website contains numerous newsletters, articles, and data comparing how children in that state compare with peers across the nation.  On April 14, Education Week reported “Mr. Bush wants to broaden participation in NAEP, often referred to as "the nation’s report card," to measure the reading and math skills of 12th graders in every state” and has thrown his support behind the measure.    The NAGB website states: “The recommendations would alter NAEP in significant ways.  Your views on the recommendations are important and will be considered carefully. You may email comments (Ray.Fields@ed.gov) or mail them to:  Mr. Ray Fields, National Assessment Governing Board, Suite 825, 800 North Capitol Street, NW  Washington, DC 20002.  Please submit your comments by June 30, 2004.]

________________________________________