Texas bills invite political interference in the teaching of U.S. history
As a historian and faculty member at the University of Texas, I love teaching students about the complexity of the American past and helping them make connections between what seems like ancient history and their own daily lives. Several pending bills in the Legislature would make those aspects of my instruction harder, by hindering or outright prohibiting the teaching of honest and comprehensive U.S. history in public colleges and universities in our state.
According to Texas Education Code §51.302, every student graduating from a college or university receiving state funding must complete six semester hours of American history, which may include up to three semester hours of credit in Texas history. Courses partially fulfilling this requirement — which I regularly teach — would be directly affected by Senate Bill 37/HB 4499 and SB 2714/HB 2548, should either or both of these bills become law.
SB 37, one of Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick's top 40 legislative priorities, would require the politically-appointed governing board of each public institution of higher education to review general education courses to ensure that they do not 'distort significant historical events' or include a curriculum that 'teaches identity politics,' 'requires or attempts to require students to adopt an ideology,' or 'is based on a theory that systemic racism, sexism, oppression, or privilege is inherent in the institutions of the United States.'
These restrictions invite political interference in the teaching of U.S. history through both their vagueness and their specificity. SB 37 does not explain what it means to 'distort' the teaching of history, and it does not attempt to define what constitutes an 'ideology,' thus allowing administrators wide latitude to censor teaching on aspects of American history they find objectionable.
At the same time, these prohibitions explicitly seek to constrain teaching on issues of inequality in the U.S. My own research focuses on women's and LGBTQ history. By merely presenting students with evidence of trans and gender non-conforming people's existence in the past I could easily be accused of indoctrinating students with 'gender ideology.'
SB 2714 goes even further in constraining teaching in core curriculum courses by banning discussions of 'whiteness,' 'systemic racism,' 'intersectionality,' 'gender identity,' 'social justice' and 'decolonization' among many other concepts. This language pertains to teaching regarding 'contemporary American society,' and the bill purports to exempt instruction on race and racism in the past.
But I encourage students to see the legacies of historical events, policies and people today. For example, after discussing the development of the suburbs, housing segregation and the meaning of the American dream in the post-World War II period, I ask students to research the history of their homes and communities and interpret it for themselves. Many students see this project as a highlight of the course.
SB 37 and SB 2714 and their companion bills threaten the teaching of U.S. history in Texas public colleges and universities in accordance with the Texas Education Code. If signed into law, these bills would undermine the liberty to learn and to think that has long been at the core of American institutions of higher education.
As Thomas Jefferson wrote regarding the University of Virginia, which he founded in 1819: 'This institution will be based on the illimitable freedom of the human mind. For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error, so long as reason is left free to combat it.'
In considering SB 37 and SB 2714, I hope our state lawmakers will stay true to Jefferson's vision of higher learning and choose not to impose limits on the minds of Texas students who are more than capable of drawing their own conclusions about the American past.
Lauren Gutterman is an associate professor of American Studies at the University of Texas.
This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Texas bills would silence honest discussion of U.S. history | Opinion
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Is a $5,000 DOGE stimulus check a real thing? What we know
In February, President Donald Trump said he was considering a plan to pay out $5,000 stimulus checks to American taxpayers from the savings identified by billionaire Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Are they happening? No official plan or schedule for such a payout has been released, and a decision on the checks would have to come from Congress, which has so far been cool to the idea. And there have been questions as to how much DOGE has actually saved. The idea was floated by Azoria investment firm CEO James Fishback, who suggested on Musk's social media platform X that Trump and Musk should "should announce a 'DOGE Dividend'" from the money saved from reductions in government waste and workforce since it was American taxpayer money in the first place. He even submitted a proposal for how it would work, with a timeline for after the expiration of DOGE in July 2026. "At $2 trillion in DOGE savings and 78 million tax-paying households, this is a $5,000 refund per household, with the remaining used to pay down the national debt," he said in a separate post. Musk replied, "Will check with the President." "We're considering giving 20% of the DOGE savings to American citizens and 20% to paying down the debt," Trump said in a during the Saudi-sponsored FII PRIORITY Summit in Miami Beach the same month. DOGE has dismantled entire federal agencies, wiped out government contracts and led the firings of tens of thousands of federal workers, leaving many agencies struggling to continue operations. DOGE checks? Elon Musk dodges DOGE stimulus check question during Wisconsin rally: Here's what he said. Fishbeck suggested that the potential refund go only to households that are net-income taxpayers, or households that pay more in taxes than they get back. The Pew Research Center said that most Americans with an adjusted gross income of under $40,000 effectively pay no federal income tax. They would not be eligible. If DOGE achieves Musk's initial goal of stripping $2 trillion from U.S. government spending by 2026, Fishback's plan was for $5,000 per household, or 20% of the savings divided by the number of eligible households. If DOGE doesn't hit the goal, Fishback said the amount should be adjusted accordingly. 'So again, if the savings are only $1 trillion, which I think is awfully low, the check goes from $5,000 to $2,500,' Fishback said during a podcast appearance. 'If the savings are only $500 billion, which, again, is really, really low, then the [checks] are only $1,250.' However, while Musk talked about saving $2 trillion in federal spending during Trump's campaign, he lowered the goal to $1 trillion after Trump assumed office and said in March he was on pace to hit that goal by the end of May. At a Cabinet meeting in April, Musk lowered the projected savings further to $150 billion in fiscal year 2026. Musk left the White House at the end of May when his designation as a "special government employee" ended. DOGE, the advisory group he created, is expected to continue without him. That depends on who you ask. On its website, DOGE claims to have saved an estimated $175 billion as of May 30, "a combination of asset sales, contract and lease cancellations and renegotiations, fraud and improper payment deletions, grant cancellations, interest savings, programmatic changes, regulatory savings, and workforce reductions." The site says that works out to $1,086.96 saved per taxpayer. However, many of DOGE's claims have been exaggerated and several of the initiatives to slash agency workforces have been challenged in court. DOGE has been accused of taking credit for contracts that were canceled before DOGE was created, failing to factor in funds the government is required to pay even if a contract is canceled, and tallying every contract by the most that could possibly be spent on it even when nothing near that amount had been obligated. The website list has been changed as the media pointed out errors, such as a claim that an $8 million savings was actually $8 billion. On May 30, CNN reported that one of its reporters found that less than half the $175 billion figure was backed up with even basic documentation, making verification difficult if not impossible. Some of the changes may also end up costing taxpayers more, such as proposed slashes to the Internal Revenue Service that experts say would mean less tax revenue generated, resulting in a net cost of about $6.8 billion. Over the next 10 years, if IRS staffing stays low, the cumulative cost in uncollected taxes would hit $159 billion, according to the nonpartisan Budget Lab at Yale University. The per-taxpayer claim on the website is also inflated, CNN said, as it's based on '161 million individual federal taxpayers' and doesn't seem to include married people filing jointly. This article originally appeared on Florida Times-Union: DOGE dividends: Will American taxpayers get a $5,000 check?
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Alberta resumes buying U.S. alcohol, months after pause meant to fight tariffs
EDMONTON — Alberta is buying American alcohol and gambling machines again, three months after Premier Danielle Smith announced restrictions aimed at fighting back against U.S. tariffs. Service Alberta Minister Dale Nally says the move signals a "renewed commitment to open and fair trade" with the United States. Smith said in March that the province would no longer buy U.S. alcohol and video lottery terminals, or sign contracts with American companies. That came a day after U.S. President Donald Trump slapped heavy tariffs on Canadian goods and energy. Nally says the decision to resume buying U.S. alcohol and gambling machines "sets the stage for more constructive negotiations" ahead of a renewal of the Canada-U.S.-Mexico trade agreement. The minister says Albertans are encouraged to continue supporting local producers, even as more U.S. options return to store shelves. Nally said in April that the province was pausing its policy around procurement from U.S. companies "in the spirit of diplomacy." He said since the province's retaliatory measures were first announced in early March, the Trump administration had put a hold on further tariffs. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 6, 2025. The Canadian Press Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Perspective: From Trump v. Musk to Carlson v. Levin, are Republicans losing sight of the mission?
What started as something like a barroom brawl devolved quickly into a cage fight, which was distressing for those of us who don't drink and don't enjoy mixed martial arts. The symbolism, however, was rich. Just two months ago, Elon Musk and Donald Trump were ringside in Miami watching the Ultimate Fighting Championship; this week, they were the ones pummeling each other while all of social media watched, wide-eyed and open-mouthed. But Trump and Musk are not the only ones sparring. Political brawling has broken out across the country in ways that feel unusual, as if we are just a couple of social-media fisticuffs away from bringing back the great American duel, the kind that killed Alexander Hamilton. Dueling, however, has been called 'the violence of gentlemen,' so maybe we are safe because gentlemen are scarce in the current political landscape. It's not just Trump and Musk. Tucker Carlson and Mark Levin are feuding, so are Ben Shapiro and Matt Walsh, and we're not that far past Shapiro's epic battle with Candace Owens and Marjorie Taylor Greene's heated drama with Lauren Boebert. There are other battles not suitable for mention in a family publication. It's tempting to say that the recent infighting is all within the GOP, and all about divisions between MAGA versus Never Trump, but it's not. Witness the Democrats' piling on Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary under Joe Biden, who is about to scorch Democrats in her forthcoming book. For Republicans, who under Trump have grown accustomed to governing with the gloves off, the infighting may be accelerating because they've temporarily lost their chief rival, the Democratic Party. The fortunes of the Democratic Party have fallen so low that they're spending millions on initiatives designed to win back young men while one of their star contenders for 2028, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, is picking the brains of conservatives on his podcast. Absent a robust foe, Republicans are like a desolate Rocky Balboa with no one to fight, and so have turned on their own tribe. But what is happening is also a predictable result of when politics turns transactional instead of relational. Once the transactions are over, or once the transactions curdle and sour, there's nothing foundational to sustain the human relationship. We've seen this before with Trump, in his transactional relationship with Mike Pence. Many of us had hoped that there was something deeper there with Musk, with whom Trump seemed to have an almost fatherly relationship. It was not coincidence that much of the social media discourse about their 'breakup' was couched in terms of family — either divorce or estrangement. And while it was, on one level, train-wreck, cringe entertainment, like watching 'Housewives' or 'Tiger King,' it was also painful since so many of us know what it's like to have a close relationship implode. Utah Sen. Mike Lee spoke for many when he posted a photo of both men, with the caption 'But ... I really like both of them.' On his radio show Friday, Glenn Beck urged Trump and Musk to reconcile and to keep sight of their shared mission. It is that mission that is too often a casualty when two formerly aligned parties or individuals fall out, whether in politics or in a marriage. A mission can be hard to define; it can be too vague or have too many components. 'Essentialism' guru Greg McKeown says that a 'priority' is one thing, not many, and we risk failure when we set 'priorities.' Maybe that's part of what happened here. Trump and Musk had priorities, and some were in conflict with each other. It's much too early to say that the breakup is permanent; the men have mutual alliances and shared friends who presumably will work hard to bring about a reconciliation. But if the fissure lasts, the relationship that unfolded over the past year — with iconic moments like Musk jumping on the stage at a campaign event and Musk's son trotting after Trump on the White House lawn — was not really a relationship, but a transaction between two powerful men. And Democrats stand ready to reap the rewards.
