Florida’s African-American History Standards: So Much Less Than Meets the Eye

Two weeks ago, Vice President Kamala Harris traveled to Florida to condemn the state’s new social studies framework for “pushing propaganda on our children” that “people benefited from slavery.” The mainstream media has been buzzing about it ever since, and last week the Congressional Black Caucus asked the Departments of Education and Justice to pursue an aggressive legal strategy to attack Florida.

“In addition to agricultural work,” the standard reads, “enslaved people learned specialized trades and worked as painters, carpenters, tailors, musicians and healers in the North and South. Once free, American Americans [sic] used those skills to provide for themselves and others.”

Oh, no. Wait. Sorry, that sentence was actually from the AP African American history course, which Harris condemned Florida as “extremist” for rejecting.

The Florida standard reads: “Examine the various duties and trades performed by slaves (e.g., agricultural work, painting, carpentry, tailoring, domestic service, blacksmithing, transportation). … Clarification 1: Instruction includes how slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit.”

Do you see why one is an outrage to teach, and the other is an outrage to not teach?

A close reader could note two differences. The Florida standards say, “in some instances,” whereas the AP standards say, “once free.” The Florida standards say, “applied for personal benefit,” whereas the AP standards say, “providing for themselves or others.” Egregious typo aside, the AP standards are slightly more precisely worded than Florida’s.

But does that differential in precision truly render Florida’s standard as “propaganda”? To earnestly believe that, you’d have to believe several other things first, all of which seem extremely difficult.

First, because propaganda is purposive, you’d have to believe that the architects of Florida’s standards truly intended to paint slavery in a more positive light. The scholars have argued that this clarification existed to “recognize the strength, courage, and resiliency” of slaves and how they “took advantage of what circumstances they were in to benefit themselves and the community of African descendants.” It seems far easier to believe that they meant this than that the scholars, several of whom were African-American, were truly trying to rehab slavery.

You’d also have to believe that they intended to execute this moral revaluation of slavery by means of a single sentence in a 216-page document. National Review’s Charles Cooke has usefully compiled every reference to slavery, abolition, or civil rights in the standards. All other references fall squarely within the consensus view of how slavery should be taught. So, you’d have to believe that these scholars were extraordinarily lazy propagandists.

You would also have to come up with some theory of action wherein this standard actually influences the moral impression of slavery communicated to students. Standards are not curriculum; they are a reference point for curriculum developers. And curriculum is not instruction; it is a reference point for instruction. To think that any of this would matter, you’d need to find some plausible story as to how the difference between the words “once freed” and “in some instances,” and between the words “provide for themselves and others” and “applied for their personal benefit,” would change a teacher’s mind about the nature of slavery enough that she would decide to present it in a substantially more favorable light.

It’s extraordinarily difficult to look at this situation and deem that it represents a serious educational issue. But it is, unfortunately, all too easy to see why politicians decided to make hay with it. The only effect that all of this will have on children is a greater degree of alienation and resentment amongst those who follow and credulously believe the corporate media.