Our kids know TikTok stars — but not who freed the slaves



John and Abigail Adams envisioned an America with a school in every neighborhood and a well-informed citizenry that was adept in languages, literature, and music, as well as science, history, and religion. Their vision was practical until the ages recast it, little by little.

Then, sometime between Joseph McCarthy and Joan Baez, the status quo of the educational system came undone.

Only about 18% of colleges and universities nationwide require the study of history and government in their general education programs.

Students accustomed to a traditional 50/50 split between the humanities and the sciences were capsized academically by the surprise Sputnik launch in 1957. The space race sent higher education into a tizzy, leading to a fixation on improving science education above all. In the succeeding seven decades, resources have consistently risen for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, which has been to our benefit. But this has come at an unnecessary cost: The humanities have been downplayed, devalued, and dodged.

That uneven ratio has bestowed an unfortunate historical illiteracy on three generations. Most people, for example, do not know the philosophical roots of the Declaration of Independence, their rights as laid out in the Constitution, or the civic virtues their teachers should have taught them. For these three reasons, many Americans do not vote in local, state, or national elections.

Universities drop the ball

Even amid this crisis of civic illiteracy, only about 18% of colleges and universities nationwide require the study of history and government in their general education programs. In years past, when the architecture of academe was different, a plethora of institutions, such as Harvard, Rice, Notre Dame, Johns Hopkins, and William & Mary, proffered requirements for focused classes in American history. But their phaseout — which began in the 1960s — was practically completed by 2000.

According to a report from the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, at Columbia University:

Students must take at least nine courses to graduate with a B.A. in history. Of these courses, four must be in a chosen field of geographical, chronological, or thematic specialization, and three must be outside of the specialization, including one course removed in time and two courses removed in space.

In other words, the major requires exposure to a variety of histories — none of which need touch on America.

That gap in Columbia’s history major requirements is deeply troubling, though it at least has a contemporary civilization requirement in its signature core curriculum for undergraduates that addresses founding documents and key concepts of United States government. Meanwhile, at Colgate University, which has no such option in its general education requirements:

Students choose one of two pathways to graduate with a B.A. in history. Both require nine courses. The Field of Focus (FoF) Pathway requires one history workshop, seven electives. ... The FoF Pathway allows students to devise individualized, intellectually coherent specializations. Possible fields of focus include environmental history, gender and sexuality, and race and racism.

This reorientation away from the study of American history — even as a point of reference for students focusing their studies on other parts of the world — is now the norm in the American academy. In the 2020-2021 academic year, 18 of the top 25 public universities did not have a wide-ranging American history requirement for students seeking a B.A. in history in the major or core curriculum — nor did 24 of the 25 best national schools.

Even the legendary linchpins of the liberal arts — Amherst, Swarthmore, Vassar, Smith, Williams, and Pomona — fared poorly: 21 out of 25 colleges examined did not have an American history requirement.

The consequences of forgoing the study of American history have a powerful effect on the population. Much of what is not learned — or stays uncorrected — turns into the misinformation that is so damaging in a free and democratic society.

The civic literacy crisis

When eighth graders were asked in 2011 "to choose a ‘belief shared by most people of the United States,’ a majority (51%) picked ‘The government should guarantee everybody a job,’ and only a third chose the correct answer: ‘The government should be a democracy.’”

In 2015, 10% of college graduates believed Judy Sheindlin — TV’s “Judge Judy” — was a member of the Supreme Court.

In 2019, the American Council of Trustees and Alumni found that 18% of American adults thought Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) was the architect of the New Deal — a package of programs President Franklin Delano Roosevelt introduced in 1933. Twenty-six percent believed Brett Kavanaugh was the current chief justice of the Supreme Court, along with another 14% who identified Antonin Scalia — even though he had been dead for two years at the time of the survey. Only 12% knew the 13th Amendment freed the slaves in the United States, and 30% thought the Equal Rights Amendment guaranteed women the right to vote.

In 2024, an American Council of Trustees and Alumni survey of college students showed that fewer than half identified ideas like “free markets” and “rule of law” as core principles of American civic life. The survey also found that 60% of American college students failed to identify term lengths for members of Congress. A shocking 68% did not know that Congress is the branch that holds the power to declare war; 71% did not know when 18-year-olds gained the right to vote.

All of these results were based on multiple-choice questions. All the respondents had to do was select the correct option out of four possibilities.

Forget history, forgo your future

The late Bruce Cole, chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities from 2001 to 2009, admonished, “Unlike a monarchy, a democracy is not automatically self-perpetuating. History and values have to be renewed from generation to generation.”

Our failure to educate future citizens for informed civic participation compromises the country. Institutions need to take the American Council of Trustees and Alumni’s findings to heart and, starting with their requirements for the history major, embrace their obligation to address the crisis in civic education.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPublicAffairs and made available via RealClearWire.


NY Democrats Seek To Punish Musk Over His Politics

A Democrat member of the state legislature has introduced a bill avowedly aimed at punishing Elon Musk for his political activities.

Kavanaugh Pal, Meta's 'Most Prominent Republican,' Will Run Company's Global Public Policy

Joel Kaplan, the former George W. Bush adviser known for his outspoken support of Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court, is being promoted to head of the global policy team at Meta (formerly Facebook), where he has worked since 2011.

The post Kavanaugh Pal, Meta's 'Most Prominent Republican,' Will Run Company's Global Public Policy appeared first on .

Myth of DOJ ‘independence’ crumbles with Gaetz’s nomination



Editor’s note: This article appeared originally on September 19, 2023, under the headline “Enough with the Justice Department ‘independence’ myth.” We’re republishing it today because President-elect Donald Trump on Wednesday nominated Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) to be his attorney general, and the Democrats — and more than a few Republicans — lost their minds. Gaetz, Trump wrote on Truth Social, “will end Weaponized Government, protect our Borders, dismantle Criminal Organizations and restore Americans’ badly-shattered Faith and Confidence in the Justice Department.”

But Gaetz’s critics don’t see it that way. They say Gaetz would politicize the Justice Department and threaten its “independence” an independence that Deion Kathawa carefully explains does not exist, either in the Constitution or the law.

***

A powerful and entrenched myth plagues American politics — namely, that the Department of Justice is, to some degree, “independent” of the president. The idea is plainly unconstitutional, actively harmful to the intended operation of our system of government, and a major contributor to the derangement of our common life. A critical step toward restoring sanity in our politics requires its eradication from our day-to-day practices and the people’s collective consciousness.

If the president is truly in charge of the entire executive branch, then he must have control over all of his officers and employees.

The myth originates from the Watergate scandal 50 years ago. For those unfamiliar with the history, a brief summary is in order.

The series of events that most contributed to the birth of the myth of the Justice Department’s “independence” began on the evening of Saturday, October 20, 1973 — the “Saturday Night Massacre.” President Richard M. Nixon ordered Attorney General Elliot L. Richardson to fire Archibald Cox, who in 1973 had been appointed as the special prosecutor to oversee the federal criminal investigation into the Watergate burglary and related crimes. Richardson refused to fire Cox and resigned. Nixon then ordered Deputy Attorney General William D. Ruckelshaus to fire Cox. Ruckelshaus likewise refused and resigned. Nixon then ordered the next most senior department official, Solicitor General Robert H. Bork, to fire Cox. Bork carried out Nixon’s order.

Nixon’s actions that night set off a firestorm, culminating in his resignation from the presidency in the face of the House of Representatives’ threat of impeachment and the Senate’s near-certain conviction, as well as the eventual passage of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978.

A section of the EGA that authorized independent counsel investigations came before the Supreme Court in 1988. In Morrison v. Olson, a 7-1 majority (Justice Anthony M. Kennedy recused himself) held that the independent counsel provisions of the law “do not violate the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, Art. II, § 2, cl. 2, or the limitations of Article III, nor do they impermissibly interfere with the President’s authority under Article II in violation of the constitutional principle of separation of powers.”

Justice Antonin Scalia, the decision’s lone dissenter, penned what is widely considered his best opinion. He famously observed the case was about:

the allocation of power among Congress, the President, and the courts in such fashion as to preserve the equilibrium the Constitution sought to establish — so that “a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department,” Federalist No. 51, p. 321 (J. Madison), can effectively be resisted. Frequently an issue of this sort will come before the Court clad, so to speak, in sheep’s clothing: the potential of the asserted principle to effect important change in the equilibrium of power is not immediately evident, and must be discerned by a careful and perceptive analysis. But this wolf comes as a wolf.

Scalia’s basic point was that the independent counsel provisions of the EGA were void because prosecutorial power is quintessentially executive power and that because Article II of the Constitution provides that “the executive Power” — all of it — “shall be vested in a President of the United States,” any diminishment of the president’s authority is ipso facto unconstitutional.

Scalia noted that although the majority agreed with him that “the conduct of a criminal prosecution (and of an investigation to decide whether to prosecute)” is “the exercise of purely executive power” and that independent counsel provisions “deprive the President of the United States of exclusive control over the exercise of that power,” it nonetheless upheld those provisions because they did not completely eliminate the president’s control over the independent counsel — the counsel could still be fired for “good cause.”

Ultimately, Congress did not renew the independent counsel statute, which, as the Washington Post reported in June 1999, “gave rise to Kenneth W. Starr, the impeachment of President Clinton, and 20 other investigations of high-level federal officials over the past two decades.”

On both constitutional and pragmatic grounds, this was the right outcome. Scalia’s Morrison dissent was prophetic.

If the president is truly in charge of the entire executive branch (the academic literature refers to this as the “unitary executive theory”), then he must have control over all of his officers and employees. As a practical matter, of course, the president cannot personally “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” as Article II, Section 3 commands, but if he cannot, when necessary, direct the actions of his subordinates — and remove them if they do not comply — then he is not really in charge.

After all, if the buck does not stop with the president, what on earth is the point of all the billions of dollars’ worth of drama we go through as a country every four years to elect one?

Illegal Immigrants Can Carry Guns, Obama-Appointed Judge Rules

An Obama-appointed judge decreed foreign citizens can use guns while illegally present on U.S. property.

Court Affirms Arizona’s Need To Keep Noncitizens Off Voter Rolls, But Makes It Harder To Do So

Arizona voters approved Proposition 200 in 2004 that required proof of citizenship and photo identification to vote.

Ballots Cast Without Proof Of Citizenship ‘Exploded’ After Lawfare Crippled Arizona Election Laws

About 1,700 people in Arizona voted in 2018 with a federal-only ballot. Two years later, the number grew to 11,600 individuals.

Elon Musk Rightly Says Arizona Doesn’t Verify Federal Voter Citizenship — But The Feds Don’t Let Them

The federal government forces states like Arizona to give federal ballots to potential noncitizens, but messy voter rolls make matters worse.

No, Dry Land Isn’t ‘Navigable Water’ For Federal Bureaucrats To Regulate, And SCOTUS Must Say So

In Sackett v. EPA, the Supreme Court should clarify government jurisdiction over wetlands under the Clean Water Act.

Another Racist Biden Program Looks To Help Anyone But Whites

All white-owned businesses are considered 'not disadvantaged' by the program, but the Constitution broadly forbids such race discrimination.