Patriotism in the American Education System Essay

The debate regarding the education of our children has been going on since the institutionalization of education and will continue as long as we are a liberal democracy full of free thinking citizens. People will always have an opinion and we will, most likely, never be able to please every single person. William Galston and Robert Fullinwider are in full support of teaching a version of history that promotes patriotism and inspires those learning of it to feel a sense of pride and a duty to, in a sense, carry on the mission of the American heroes that have come before us and done great things in terms of the progress for our country. Harry Brighouse is quite different than Galston and Fullinwider in that he believes that by keeping the full truth, gruesome or not, from those that are being educated that we are doing a great disservice to them. I tend to side with Galston and Fullinwider with the feeling that our history needs to be taught in an inspiring sort of way. What benefit do we truly gain by teaching young Americans that yes, in fact, Martin Luther King, Jr. was a great American whose work during the Civil Rights Movement was essential to where we have progressed to as a society today, but he was also an adulterer and plagiarist? By revealing the holes in an American hero’s character we are diminishing his greatness and his impact on the people that have learned of his story years and years after he made such a monumental impact on our country and the progress to end segregation. The gain from sharing that knowledge is extremely minimal compared to the damage it does to the credibility of his work that he is truly known and greatly respected for. It is much simpler and much more productive to producing patriotic citizens if we leave certain, inconsequential parts of the story out. This doesn’t mean we lie to anyone, we simply tell the part of the story that generates the desired feelings of national pride and/or patriotism while instilling the necessary knowledge to generations that will move forward to produce similar greatness, or as Fullinwider puts it, â€Å"historical knowledge contributes to citizenship, and thus â€Å"nation-building,†Ã¢â‚¬  (Fullinwider, 1996, pg. 204). Harry Brighouse is of the belief that by shielding any tiny bit of the truth from children as we educate them we are doing a lot more harm than good to them. He argues that children should be exposed to the entire truth regardless of the negative light that may be revealed of anyone involved, â€Å"American hero† or otherwise. Brighouse feels that it is the responsibility of an educational system to expose kids to as much factual information as we can and allow them the freedom to choose what they will believe and what will inspire them both in the present and the future. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. sides with Brighouse and establishes that argument that â€Å"writing or teaching history as a means of ‘defining national identity’ turns history ‘into a weapon’,† (Schlesinger, 1999, pg 37). Both Schlesinger and Brighouse would argue that history should never change, all the facts should be laid out on the table and nothing should be held back, because, if we make the decision to hold something out of curriculum, who makes that decision and what qualifies as unnecessary? Schlesinger and Brighouse’s argument centers on the main idea that educators do not have the right to manipulate history. Schlesinger goes in depth in his writings in The Disuniting of America that certain false views of history are wrong, but even dangerous for citizens to be exposed to. He claims that, â€Å"the proper account of our past strengthens the â€Å"common purpose† that holds us together. It reinvigorates the American Creed,† (Schlesinger, 1990, pg. 37). Galston and Fullinwider are on the other side of the argument, they believe that educators should teach history in such a way that instills national pride and creates informed, proud American citizens. Fullinwider calls this type of history â€Å"patriotic history.† He believes that this sort of education will inform, of course, but more importantly will establish a system of values that, in the end, will create citizens. Both Galston and Fullinwider argue for a type of history that they refer to as a â€Å"usable past.† A usable past is one that informs citizens and institutes a willingness to â€Å"make the sacrifices necessary to support and improve the nation’s political institutions,† (Fullinwider, 1996, pg. 207). Truth of the matter, like in the case of the exclusion of facts regarding Martin Luther King, Jr. unfavorable personal lifestyle during the telling of his involvement in the Civil Rights Movement, is that not all men who do great things are great men of high character. In some cases, inclusion of all the facts does nothing to diminish any greatness and may, in fact, create a greater sense of the ability for one single person to make a great impact regardless of any shortcomings they may have. On the other, if all the details are not necessary then why include them? Why would we make a hero less of a hero by revealing the unnecessary truth? Facts that bind the entire story together should never be omitted. Galston and Fullinwider believe in, and support, an education that promotes national pride. They are all for a patriot history, because we will then instill the idea and sense of responsibility in young Americans that they should carry the torch, so to speak, and continue to build upon the greatness that is America. Fullinwider concludes that the purpose of teaching a patriotic history â€Å"is to help students â€Å"develop a keen sense of ethics and citizenship,† so that they might â€Å"care deeply about the quality of life in their co mmunity, their nation, and their world,† (Fullinwider, 1996, pg. 222). In Patriotic History, Fullinwider argues against Schlesinger’s point for the â€Å"nothing left out† type of historical education, by saying the Schlesinger is intending to make history seem very precise and when that becomes the case we’re leaving it up to what truth the educator believes in. Fullinwider goes even further in his argument against Schlesinger’s writing by claiming that Schlesinger’s book The Disuniting of America is, in fact itself, purely history told for effect without the intention to simply inform, but rather to draw out and strengthen commitments to national unity (pg. 210). The presentation of history is storytelling and storytelling must come from a particular point of view. Historical education may never be 100% accurate because we’ll never truly know the intentions or finer details from all the angles or perspectives of each event. Somebody has to tell the story to present the history, but it will always come from a l imited point of view. It is the duty of the educational systems to determine which point of view the story should come from and this is where I agree more with Galston and Fullinwider; before we, as an educational system, decide what we want taught to our citizens, we need to decide what we hope listeners or those being educated should get out of the experience. Like Galston and Fullinwider, I think it is in the best interest for our country to try and promote patriotism and pride in being an American. The responsibility of shaping and molding upstanding, progressive citizens falls on the shoulders of our educational systems as well as public institutions and they both must come together to determine what is best for the development of our nation. Within that responsibility lays the decision of what aspects of history we will teach our young students. For me, it comes down to favoring civic education over philosophic education. I’d rather the goal of our educational programs be to pass along the knowledge necessary to create individuals that feel a loyalty and responsibility to do something great for their country, whether that be along the lines of being a great American hero like Martin Luther King, Jr. or simply by being a consistent, educated, responsible American citizen capable of supporting and functioning within our democracy. I disagree with the argument that by teaching a certain version of history we are limiting a child’s autonomy. We are not enforcing any beliefs or completely eliminating any bit of history, we are simply fostering an environment that will produce good and loyal citizens. Agreeing to tell a story (teaching history) a certain way does not mean we are telling people how to think; quite the opposite. We are inspiring greatness and allowing people to be free thinking and promoting the idea that anyone, common, uncommon and anywhere in between, can make a great impact that will last forever. The argument that exists between the Galston/Fullinwider side of teaching a patriotic history and the Brighouse/Schlesinger side of giving the whole â€Å"truth† regardless of degrading details just muddies the argument that we should really be having: What do we hope to get out of those that are being taught this history? When we look at that question we will be able to work together to find a solution. We could go on forever, just like this argument already has, debating what story to tell and from which perspective, but that, ultimately, gets us nowhere. Lets agree to teach from a perspective of â€Å"nation building† that Galston and Fullinwider promote and continue to develop as a country. Bibliography Fullinwider, R. (1996). Patriotic History. Cambridge University Press, pages 203-225. Galston, W. (1991). Civic Education in the Liberal State. Cambridge University Press, pages 470-478. Schlesinger, Jr., A. (1999). The Disuniting of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society. W. W. Norton & Company, pages 12-37.