Posted on Apr 26, 2023
673 university professors sign letter opposing courses on America's founding, Constitution
574
11
10
4
4
0
I'd agree with the University professors only in that I should not be forced to pay for an elective I don't want to attend. Civics, the Constitution, and our founding US history should be taught in our foundational schools --> K-12
673 university professors sign letter opposing courses on America's founding, Constitution
Posted from foxnews.com
Uncategorized
Education
College
Constitution
Edited 1 y ago
Posted 1 y ago
Responses: 3
Note: this bill only applies to NC public colleges and community colleges, not private institutions.
I agree with the context of your comment - it should be something required in K-12, not something that the students have to pay for (unless the course is offered for free in which case I really don't see anything objectionable). As usual with any news source (be it from the right, left, or even center), investigate more to find the ground truth.
I looked at the actual bill and amendments*, and aside from the fact the course would be "American history or American government that provides a comprehensive overview of the major events and turning points of American history and government", must include those readings above and that there would be a cumulative final exam on the principles of those documents which would be worth at least 20% of the course grade ... there's nothing else.
I AM bewildered by the comment from the faculty that requiring the students to read for the course would the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Emancipation Proclamation, at least five essays from the Federalist Papers, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s Letter from Birmingham Jail and the Gettysburg Address, and the North Carolina State Constitution (different from the article -- this was added in an amendment) would "force students’ educations into pre-approved ideological containers".
I agree somewhat with the 'academic freedom' argument, but not the ideological one (unless those professors hold the opinion that understanding those documents and why they are important is something that is ideologically aligned. After all, the first two (Constitution and Declaration of Independence) are the cornerstones of this country regardless if you are on the left, right or center!
-----------------------------
* Bill - https://webservices.ncleg.gov/ViewBillDocument/2023/1238/0/H96-PCS40148-BE-6
* Amendment - https://webservices.ncleg.gov/ViewBillDocument/2023/2306/0/H96-ABE-18-V-3
I agree with the context of your comment - it should be something required in K-12, not something that the students have to pay for (unless the course is offered for free in which case I really don't see anything objectionable). As usual with any news source (be it from the right, left, or even center), investigate more to find the ground truth.
I looked at the actual bill and amendments*, and aside from the fact the course would be "American history or American government that provides a comprehensive overview of the major events and turning points of American history and government", must include those readings above and that there would be a cumulative final exam on the principles of those documents which would be worth at least 20% of the course grade ... there's nothing else.
I AM bewildered by the comment from the faculty that requiring the students to read for the course would the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Emancipation Proclamation, at least five essays from the Federalist Papers, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s Letter from Birmingham Jail and the Gettysburg Address, and the North Carolina State Constitution (different from the article -- this was added in an amendment) would "force students’ educations into pre-approved ideological containers".
I agree somewhat with the 'academic freedom' argument, but not the ideological one (unless those professors hold the opinion that understanding those documents and why they are important is something that is ideologically aligned. After all, the first two (Constitution and Declaration of Independence) are the cornerstones of this country regardless if you are on the left, right or center!
-----------------------------
* Bill - https://webservices.ncleg.gov/ViewBillDocument/2023/1238/0/H96-PCS40148-BE-6
* Amendment - https://webservices.ncleg.gov/ViewBillDocument/2023/2306/0/H96-ABE-18-V-3
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Seeing the recent events over the past 10 years where students, including law students, don't seem to understand the Constitution, American history, and what led us to the laws in effect now, it is necessary to cover these subjects in College since it doesn't appear that they were taught it earlier in their life or disregarded it.
(1)
(0)
CSM Chuck Stafford
While I agree that that knowledge is foundational to the US, forcing students to pay for electives is not the best course of action - Americans should not be forced to buy anything
(0)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
CSM Chuck Stafford -
I agree, but colleges are already forcing students to pay for and attend classes that are not related to their degree.
I returned to college in 2014 for my BA. Half the classes that I took were required and had nothing to do with my degree. The classes are required to "fill out" a person's knowledge.
I agree, but colleges are already forcing students to pay for and attend classes that are not related to their degree.
I returned to college in 2014 for my BA. Half the classes that I took were required and had nothing to do with my degree. The classes are required to "fill out" a person's knowledge.
(1)
(0)
CSM Chuck Stafford
MSG (Join to see) that sucks. I've never paid for a class that was silly all the way through graduate school. Silver lining is you got the degree, at least
(1)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
CSM Chuck Stafford same for me. I got my BS in 2019. My degree was a General studies degree with a focus in Business Administration. I would have had in in 2018, but I had to complete a Geology course, a World History course, and a music appreciation course, first.
Every major college degree program I have ever seen has some version of a Core Curriculum that all students, regardless of major, have to complete - usually a couple courses each in English, math, science, history, and social sciences (psychology/sociology/philosophy/etc.) plus one or more fine arts.
There is no reason why this cannot be one of those courses. I can see an argument against adding it on for another mandatory course, but no reason it cannot be one of the history courses or take the place of a social science or arts course.
Every major college degree program I have ever seen has some version of a Core Curriculum that all students, regardless of major, have to complete - usually a couple courses each in English, math, science, history, and social sciences (psychology/sociology/philosophy/etc.) plus one or more fine arts.
There is no reason why this cannot be one of those courses. I can see an argument against adding it on for another mandatory course, but no reason it cannot be one of the history courses or take the place of a social science or arts course.
(2)
(0)
0
0
0
I agree these professors on Bill 96 requiring students to take a 3 credit-hour course covering America's founding and history. This should be required prior to going to college. However, Bill 715, eliminating tenure, establishing minimum class sizes, etc sounds perfectly acceptable and necessary. That is unless they can revise the rules for how tenure works. There should never be any guarantee for employment, requiring far too many actions to navigate the termination process. Few people want to go that route and in many cases the individual is able to wait them out.
My kids are looking at the NC public university options, in the near future, and I'm already confident they know far more about what's mentioned in Bill 96 than most Americans. They learned this in middle through high school. No need to make them pay more for a course/information they've already covered.
My kids are looking at the NC public university options, in the near future, and I'm already confident they know far more about what's mentioned in Bill 96 than most Americans. They learned this in middle through high school. No need to make them pay more for a course/information they've already covered.
(0)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
Your kids are the exception, sir.
I knew more about grammar and composition than half the professors at my school, but I still had to take English 101 to get my degree. I knew as much about algebra as my algebra professor - I re-taught half the class the same lesson in different words - but I still had to take Algebra in order to get my degree.
The core curriculum is written to the median, not the exception.
I knew more about grammar and composition than half the professors at my school, but I still had to take English 101 to get my degree. I knew as much about algebra as my algebra professor - I re-taught half the class the same lesson in different words - but I still had to take Algebra in order to get my degree.
The core curriculum is written to the median, not the exception.
(0)
(0)
Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin
Note that many of these can be avoided in college if you take AP courses and the subsequent test. I went immediately into pre-calculus and advance Spanish (bypassing the first 4 courses).
But this is about simple American history, which is and should be a requirement through grade school. From there, if kids want to be even more proficient in American history, they can major in history or take American history as an elective.
But this is about simple American history, which is and should be a requirement through grade school. From there, if kids want to be even more proficient in American history, they can major in history or take American history as an elective.
(0)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin I had taken two different versions of the CLEP test for my Algebra course - a 6 Credit "college math" which covered algebra and geometry, and an "advanced algebra". College accepted neither to fulfill the basic algebra requirement. It all depends on what the college will accept.
Yes, it may be "simple American History" as far as you are concerned. But the fact is that most kids are not getting an I depth knowledge of this stuff through their K12 education.
I had no real "bad" subjects in school, but History was one of my better ones. I learned nothing about MLK's I have a dream speech, aside from that he gave it, and nothing about his letters from Birmingham jail. I knew there was an Emancipation Proclamation and that it freed the slaves, but did not know what it actually said or that it only freed Southern slaves. I learned about the Gettysburg Address and the battle of Gettysburg itself. I had to memorize the preamble and understand the Constitution, including the bill of rights. But the rest of the Amendments? Nada. I had to learn about the Declaration, why it was written, when it was written, and who wrote it. But aside from the three inalienable rights, not a thing about the actual contents. And the other writings of the founders, like the federalist papers, Common Sense, or the essays of Jefferson? Not a word.
I never got less than an A in *any* history course, and yet I never had to learn half the stuff involved here.
You can make the argument that this SHOULD be covered in HS, and I certainly won't argue. But it isn't.
And, as we require college grads to have a deeper understanding of many basic things - math, science, literature, grammar and composition, and more - than an average HS student does, why would making ONE of those things be a deeper understanding of their nation's founding and evolution be a bad thing?
I can see a waiver for international students, provided they took a similar history course that applied to their nation or (if one is not available for their specific nation) region.
Yes, it may be "simple American History" as far as you are concerned. But the fact is that most kids are not getting an I depth knowledge of this stuff through their K12 education.
I had no real "bad" subjects in school, but History was one of my better ones. I learned nothing about MLK's I have a dream speech, aside from that he gave it, and nothing about his letters from Birmingham jail. I knew there was an Emancipation Proclamation and that it freed the slaves, but did not know what it actually said or that it only freed Southern slaves. I learned about the Gettysburg Address and the battle of Gettysburg itself. I had to memorize the preamble and understand the Constitution, including the bill of rights. But the rest of the Amendments? Nada. I had to learn about the Declaration, why it was written, when it was written, and who wrote it. But aside from the three inalienable rights, not a thing about the actual contents. And the other writings of the founders, like the federalist papers, Common Sense, or the essays of Jefferson? Not a word.
I never got less than an A in *any* history course, and yet I never had to learn half the stuff involved here.
You can make the argument that this SHOULD be covered in HS, and I certainly won't argue. But it isn't.
And, as we require college grads to have a deeper understanding of many basic things - math, science, literature, grammar and composition, and more - than an average HS student does, why would making ONE of those things be a deeper understanding of their nation's founding and evolution be a bad thing?
I can see a waiver for international students, provided they took a similar history course that applied to their nation or (if one is not available for their specific nation) region.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google