To the Editor:
In a recent essay, Julie Reuben argued that “No professor could responsibly use the 1776 Report in the classroom” (“What Is ‘Indoctrination,’ Anway?” The Chronicle Review, February 20). I do so in four courses, in tandem with the 1619 Project. (I also do this in public library discussions.) Reuben argues that academics should present our students only with sources which meet the best standards of our fields. I think this is a serious mistake.
First, in grad school, I learned as much, perhaps more, from flawed texts as I did from excellent ones. Second, and more importantly, conservatives have come to distrust mainstream sources of information. Any liberals who have continued engaging conservative friends and family members knows the impossibility of winning these arguments by piling up evidence. They simply do not trust our evidence or our sources. They distrust our good faith. In part, this cynicism is fed by purveyors of lies in politics and the media. But their distrust is substantiated when conservatives do not see any of their ideas on the table for discussion. We won’t get many conservative students to seriously engage our arguments until we demonstrate good faith.
So, I teach both the 1619 and the 1776 documents, and I ask the students to critique both of them. At least half of my students are conservative. They find the historical rigor of the 1776 project disappointing. But they make this discovery themselves. I don’t “make it for them.” All my students tell me that they think both documents should be read in all high-school history classes. I agree. Because I want to win the battle for the American democracy. The 1776 Project is a weak historical argument. Yet, it’s what conservatives want our students to read. We should let them.
Mark Schultz
Professor
Department of History
Lewis University
Romeoville, Ill.
