According to Williams, the current AP US History curriculum encourages "civil disorder" and "disregard of the law." She also incorrectly stated that the course omits topics such as the Gettysburg Address and the founding fathers. Either way, her plan would establish a curriculum overview committee that would decide whether or not to teach certain aspects of the course.
Tensions became even higher, however, when the College Board submitted a statement in support of the students who walked out of school. "These students recognize that social order can--and sometimes must--be disrupted in pursuit of liberty and justice," the organization said. They also threatened to disqualify Jefferson County schools from the AP history program if changes were to be made.
Which side do you agree with? Should the school board be able to alter curriculum while keeping the AP label? Is a walk-out a valid form of student protest? Is it true that the student protest is an example of necessary civil unrest?
5 comments:
For this issue I am on the students'side. It seems to me that there is a fallacy in the thinking of board member Julie Williams because while she states the curriculum wrongly condones "civil disorder, and disregard of the law" (from the original article at kdvr.com), she also states that integral lessons such as that of the Boston Tea Party are not adequately taught. I would argue that the Boston Tea Party is an example of an exercise in civil disorder by the Sons of Liberty in order to protest the Tea Act in 1773. Therefore, it is ironic that she would want other lessons which show similar civil disobedience to be thrown out. I think that a student walk out is legitimate if the students feel that by altering the curriculum they are at a disadvantage for the AP test. By asserting their outrage towards the changes, students can convey how they will fall behind the rest of the country if they are held to different standards and possibly hurting their endeavors in May during the AP test. If the course is substantially different from a typical APUSH class, it should no longer carry the AP label because the students aren't responsible for learning the same information as an AP course.
I am going to have to agree with John that students were correct in their choice. For the Jefferson board of education to state that the APUSH curriculum insites civil disorder seems like a blatant ignorance for how rights throughout history have been sustained. From the teaching of Gandhi to Martin Luther King's wise words "make good trouble", civil and basic human rights have been achieved. For the board of education to denounce such teachings ,furthermore, has some what of a tyrannical feel to it, trying to teach students to not stand up against what they feel just. all in all, beyond the obvious disadvantage on the AP test, I glad the students and the college board stood up for the morals behind this whole situation.
I do agree with what both John and David have already stated. The students are in the right regarding this matter. Williams' interpretation of the AP US History curriculum is simply just off. In believing in encourages "civil disorder" and "disregard of the law," she forgets that this is for a history curriculum. These practices were fundamental parts of American historical development and cannot be refuted, as they are essentially true. In addition to this, Williams places sort of a negative spin on these terms, using "disorder" and "disregard," words that can often be associated with delinquency, emphasizing her already negative view of the concepts. I believe the school board should be able to alter the curriculum, but should only do so in a way that would not alter the objective truths of history, not giving it some sort of biased spin, like what it seems like Williams is doing. In regards to the protest, I really don't have any opinion on that. I feel that general disagreement can be expressed in anyway, as long as it is not disruptive to others. Under my definition, this would be valid. I wouldn't say that civil unrest is "necessary," but rather a healthy skepticism is required. Unrest is more of a widespread concept, one that affects more of the general public. Skepticism is something more applicable to a smaller, more niche population, such as the students here. Even with this, action can derive from skepticism, not really the other way around.
I agree with the other students, it is acceptable for students to protest a decision that affects them. The students have little influence over the school board's decisions, so this is one of the few ways that they can influence the decision.
I find it very surprising that the College Board actually supported this civil disobedience. Organizations so large tend to have an obligation to be extremely bland and uncontroversial.
Regarding John Graham's comment, I would disagree that the Boston Tea Party was a form of civil disobedience. To qualify as civil disobedience, the act must be civil. Destroying the property of others is by definition not civil, so the label "civil disobedience" would not fit, whether the destruction was justified or not.
"When asked about the apparent confusion, Williams noted that she had not reviewed all of the material."
If she doesn't even know the curriculum, she's unqualified to make comments on what is or isn't in.
The students are right to protest against something which may muddy the accuracy of future APUSH curriculum. In making this change, the college board would run the risk of losing it's monopoly to another more historically accurate set of curriculum.
Post a Comment