Burns: On March 12, the Texas Board of Education controversially revised the social studies curriculum to include more “conservative” aspects of American history while excluding more “liberal” components.”Since January, Republicans on the board have passed more than 100 amendments to the 120-page curriculum standards affecting history, sociology and economics courses from elementary to high school,” the New York Times reported.Because of Texas’ substantial influence as the nation’s largest purchaser of textbooks, many academics worry the board’s conservative-leaning amendments will pervert history for students across the country. As a history geek, I fear the notion that one state’s school board holds so much sway over the national public school curriculum. Do you think the board’s decision is really as far-reaching as some critics contend?Macmurdo: While I think there is certainly a lot to talk about here, I’m skeptical about how much these changes are going to impact the rest of the country. For the past week or so, cable news has been playing this story up as though Texas controls what goes into the nation’s textbooks because of its market power.In these modern times, it seems perfectly plausible that textbook publishers have the ability to continue to publish the traditional history for the majority of Americans. It’s not like they’re using Gutenberg’s press. However, I’m concerned politicians are making decisions which have traditionally been made by trained historians.Burns: We clearly don’t want to see academic curriculums distorted by political prejudices. But history is a unique subject. Oftentimes there’s no real consensus on many of the important issues history texts cover. I’d like to see more classes reflect that fact by incorporating more perspectives.I realize there’s probably no easy fix here, but I’d prefer we expand the availible pool of resources by letting each school choose which text it prefers — even if that means going against their own state’s decision.Macmurdo: There may not be consensus on the economic impact of the railroad in the 19th century, but issues such as whether the founding fathers envisioned a theocracy have reached an acceptable threshold to be considered “fact.” Good historians make arguments while deconstructing alternative viewpoints. No, it’s not as black and white as a math problem. But some of the revisions put forward by the Texas textbook panel were clearly politically motivated and are clearly on shaky (or non-existent) historical ground. That’s scary stuff.I want to make sure political ideology is not a factor in choosing what children learn. I’m not sure if giving each school the choice of its textbook is the answer. I like that it decentralizes the choice (and thus the target of political influence), but it could lead to a pretty chaotic system. Then again, the centralized approach is clearly subject to undue political influence. Maybe school boards could be trusted with choosing the textbooks, but not dictating how those textbooks are written.Burns: Those are all extremely good points. I’d just prefer we err on the side of giving students access to a hundred different viewpoints rather than potentially spoon-feeding them one incorrect one. To be clear, though, I don’t think history teachers are intentionally filling students’ minds with ideologically-motivated myths and propaganda. But I definitely have a problem with how many critical aspects of American history are often presented.As a kid, I remember being convinced Abraham Lincoln benevolently freed the slaves, America courageously entered World War I to ward off the “barbaric” Germans and FDR’s radical New Deal and World War II ended the Great Depression. Looking back, these assertions seem questionable, to say the least. Had I known the impact American intervention had during and after World War I, for instance, I’d have a completely different perspective of World War II and modern American imperialism. In hindsight, the side of the story I got seems pretty slanted.Again, I understand history teachers face many time constraints. But important topics like these merit far more than a cursory glance and a 2-minute overview. With the advent of the Internet, I hope more educators encourage their students to do their own investigation. Far better we teach our children how to think critically rather than merely asking them to mechanically regurgitate a laundry list of meaningless names and dates.Macmurdo: Obviously, I can’t argue with what you were taught. The only real qualm I have with the material I learned was the significance of Christopher Columbus — whose less endearing qualities were significantly downplayed. It also presented our history from a perspective which is clearly unfair: that America was “discovered” by Europeans. As far as the examples you give for a “counter-history,” I’d say I disagree entirely with all but one of them.Again, I’m more concerned with the injection of political ideology — not historical simplifications. I’d like to think that we teach kids the “right” history, but you have to recognize the inherent complications of applying true historiography to everything they learn in middle school. Learning the commonly accepted history is itself a process which challenges learners to analyze a number of viewpoints and situations.Burns: I’ll concede a certain level of simplification might be unavoidable. I just worry these seemingly trivial historical concessions might deter students from grasping the extremely valuable yet often overlooked lessons from our nation’s past. I fear many of the problems our nation is encountering today stem from our ignorance of history. Like they say, those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it.Macmurdo: Even those who know history repeat the same mistakes. I think we can sum up all of this by saying flatly, we’re screwed.Burns: I’ll drink to that.Scott Burns is a 20-year-old economics junior from Baton Rouge. Follow him on Twitter @TDR_sburns.Mark Macmurdo is a 23-year-old history and economics senior from Baton Rouge. Follow him on Twitter @TDR_mmacmurdo.————Contact The Daily Reveille’s opinion staff at [email protected]