Last year, final examinations in history and social studies were cancelled in the Soviet Union. The cancellation was ordered because of the "revelations" within the USSR that what had really happened in history was quite different from the official versions that had been fed to students and the public. Now it may be our turn. As a result of recent events in China, Poland, Hungary and the USSR, some of our social-studies material and curricula many need to be re-written, as well.
In recent years, there have been many efforts to make sure that history and social studies are not presented in American schools from a biased -- that is, American or Western -- point of view. These efforts are especially evident in the growing movement for global and multi-cultural education and in many of the curriculum proposals and materials associated with this movement. No one can quarrel with the need for global and multicultural education. It's essential to know about other nations and cultures and the contributions they have made. We also need to know about the growing interrelationship and interdependence among us all. But we don't need to assume -- as many social-studies programs now do- - that the only way to accomplish this and to avoid chauvinism is to treat all views and all forms of government as equally valid and desirable.
Our own experts in history and social studies have been saying that it's wrong for us to teach our children that our political system is superior because it's democratic. If other people have other values, who are we to say that our values are better? For example, a major professional publication in social studies stated, "In Western Europe and the United States, civil and political rights such as freedom of speech, voting, and due process are of prime concern. In Eastern European countries, economic rights such as the right to work, to form trade unions, to strike, and to take vacations are considered essential. ... The rights which are deemed most important depend upon the social, economic, legal and political traditions of the people."
This tract was distributed to thousands of American teachers, but both the facts and the reasoning are wrong. Since when are Eastern European countries noted for their tolerance of trade unions ( except those controlled by the regime) or of strikes? How could anyone possibly conclude that the governments' denial of free elections, free speech or due process rights in these countries is proof that the people there didn't want them? Where is the evidence that the people in these countries made a rational choice and decided to give up free speech and due process for the right to a vacation? And what really deemed which rights were important in Eastern Europe: the "traditions of the people" or the barrel of a gun?
The recent elections in the USSR and Poland show that if the peoples of those countries are given a choice, they make the same choices we do. They not only elected nearly all the candidates who stood for pluralism and democracy, but in the races in which the people were not allowed a choice, they also defeated a large number of the candidates who ran without opposition. Yet if the above social-studies publication were to be believed, none of this should have or could have happened. The events in Beijing over the past few weeks shouldn't have happened either, if the answer to a widespread test question is to be believed. This question has been given to thousands of American students as part of the effort to rid them of Western biases and stereotypes: "Maria and Ming are friends. Ming's parents were born in China and have lived in the U.S. for 20 years."
"'People have no freedom in China,' Maria insists. 'There is only one party in elections and the newspapers are run by the government."'
"'People in China do have freedom' Ming insists. 'No one goes hungry. Everyone has an opportunity to work and medical care is free. Can there be greater freedom than that?"'
"What is the best conclusion to draw from that debate? (A) Ming does not understand the meaning of freedom. (B) Maria and Ming differ in their opinion of the meaning of freedom. (C) There is freedom in the United States but not in China. (D) People have greater freedom in China than in the United States."
The correct answer is supposed to be (B)! But who can look at the courageous students in China -- risking and sacrificing their lives, building a copy of the Statue of Liberty as their own monument of freedom - and conclude that the Chinese aren't moved by the same hunger and drive for democracy as Westerners? Was it really so wrong to conclude that there is freedom here but not in China? Must we be embarrassed about praising democracy and valuing our own traditions, as many of our social-studies curriculum experts would have us believe?
The recent heroism and bloodshed that has kept us glued to our newspapers and TV sets should cause us to take another hard look at our social-studies curriculum materials. How was it possible for so many American educators to buy the idea that only Western Europeans and Americans value freedom and democracy? Or that many people actually prefer systems of tyranny and that these systems are morally equal to our form of government? Even before the global drama of the last few weeks, how could they ignore the drive for democracy and the struggle to restore or create it in so many non-Western places such as India, Japan, Korea, Chile, the Caribbean and Africa?
In the name of eliminating bias and chauvinism, a number of curriculum designers have merely invented new forms of bias and chauvinism. They would have us believe that freedom and democracy are just a Western taste, that totalitarianism is the product of free choice or the natural result of a people's culture and that there is little difference between governments that are perpetuated by votes and those that are sustained by guns. The peoples of Eastern Europe and China know better. So should we.