Comments on: A dumb and dishonest view of American history education in Texas http://www.historiann.com/2013/01/12/a-dumb-and-dishonest-view-of-american-history-education-in-texas/ History and sexual politics, 1492 to the present Sat, 20 Sep 2014 01:22:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.9.2 By: Aaron http://www.historiann.com/2013/01/12/a-dumb-and-dishonest-view-of-american-history-education-in-texas/comment-page-2/#comment-1944090 Sun, 09 Mar 2014 16:05:23 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=20384#comment-1944090 Having taken the “Race and revolution” course, and reading what you have said here,I am left with the impression that you have not taken the time to really delve into these courses in their executions, but stopped at a somewhat superficial reaction to the appearances. I can assure you that the course I took was almost completely anthropological in nature, deali g with political history in a very limited way. Until you have actually sat in on and taken part in the discussions, it is impossible to ascertain what the classes are “about.” Serious college courses can never be accurately accounted for by the superficial analysis of course titles, reading lists, and syllabi.

]]>
By: Conservatives’ Criticism of History in the Classroom « Jacksonian America: Society, Personality, and Politics http://www.historiann.com/2013/01/12/a-dumb-and-dishonest-view-of-american-history-education-in-texas/comment-page-1/#comment-1330264 Thu, 07 Feb 2013 12:27:33 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=20384#comment-1330264 [...] of Scholars (NAS) regarding history instruction in the college classroom. Historians such as Ann M. Little (Historiann) and Jeremi Suri have rightly taken the NAS to task for its nonsensical methodology and [...]

]]>
By: History and the Culture Wars | All Things Michael Miles http://www.historiann.com/2013/01/12/a-dumb-and-dishonest-view-of-american-history-education-in-texas/comment-page-1/#comment-1289434 Sun, 20 Jan 2013 18:35:15 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=20384#comment-1289434 [...] M. Adelman at Publick-Occurrences 2.0 Historiann: History and sexual politics, 1492 to the present Robert Jensen on Academe [...]

]]>
By: J. Otto Pohl http://www.historiann.com/2013/01/12/a-dumb-and-dishonest-view-of-american-history-education-in-texas/comment-page-1/#comment-1286610 Sat, 19 Jan 2013 11:36:50 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=20384#comment-1286610 I do not get how race and ethnicity are not distinct from gender. This semester I am teaching a graduate level class which assigns eleven whole books, four book chapters, and eight journal articles on ethnicity and race. There is not a single reading assignment, however, on gender. In fact it has been my experience that the US scholars obsessed with gender tend to totally ignore issues of race and ethnicity outside the US. For instance if you look at the scholars most militant in denying the existence of racism in the USSR you will find that a lot of them are women such as Francine Hirsch.

]]>
By: truffula http://www.historiann.com/2013/01/12/a-dumb-and-dishonest-view-of-american-history-education-in-texas/comment-page-1/#comment-1285052 Fri, 18 Jan 2013 18:07:47 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=20384#comment-1285052 You stated—“If we can agree that “Race/Ethnic Emphasis” is sufficiently distinct from “Gender Emphasis” than Historiann’s sums are fine.” They are not distinct, therefore Historiann’s analysis and yours are wrong!

As, then, is yours. Glad we could agree on something.

]]>
By: Richard Fonte http://www.historiann.com/2013/01/12/a-dumb-and-dishonest-view-of-american-history-education-in-texas/comment-page-1/#comment-1282487 Thu, 17 Jan 2013 22:49:42 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=20384#comment-1282487 In the case you advance–where each article is only in one category, you would have 14 readings assignments. Since 9 of them are either Race, gender or class, that would be 9 of 14 or 64%. That would make you a “high” assigner under the study.
However, if three of those 9 were changed, for example to one Business & economic, One to Philosophic and Intellectual, and one to Diplomatic and Military, then you would no longer be a “high” assigner, but a Moderate assigner. In most American History Courses, I would think, you would expect “moderate” assignment of Race, Gender or Class readings assignments. Personally, I would think the course is overloaded also with Religious history, so it probably would be better if one of those changed to another category for real breath of coverage, perhaps to something like Scientific or technological advances.
We used the readings assignments as a proxy of the nature of the course, since we cannot know, obviously what goes on in the classroom. However, we do believe that “it is reasonable to suppose that there is a relationship between class content and reading assignments.”–page 15 of the study. Other approaches such as visiting classes by an observer, of course, would have led to charges, appropriately of subjectivity. We picked an objective and consistent variable.
In reality, the easier way to increase the liklihood of broad coverage is to use anthologies or provide students access probably through blackboard to many, many articles and primary sources that cover a wide range topics & themes.

]]>
By: Richard http://www.historiann.com/2013/01/12/a-dumb-and-dishonest-view-of-american-history-education-in-texas/comment-page-1/#comment-1282274 Thu, 17 Jan 2013 20:40:05 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=20384#comment-1282274 Actually, change that. Say I teach a survey course on American history that uses two books on political history, 3 articles specifically on gender, 3 articles specifically on race, and 3 articles specifically on class, and 3 articles specifically on religious history. How do I come out looking as an individual faculty member? Does the study account for how much time in the classroom (and in non-reading assignments) is spent on each of these topics (which of course cannot really be separated so clearly)? Does it account for relative emphasis on each of these in the course over the duration of the semester?

]]>
By: Richard http://www.historiann.com/2013/01/12/a-dumb-and-dishonest-view-of-american-history-education-in-texas/comment-page-1/#comment-1282265 Thu, 17 Jan 2013 20:31:50 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=20384#comment-1282265 Hypothetically, if I taught a course on American political history that used two books, say important, difficult, influential books, and I also taught a survey course on American history that used 20 shorter articles, say 25% of them focused on gender, 25% on class, 25% on race, and 25% on legal history, how would I come out looking as an individual faculty member? Would I look biased towards RCG?

]]>
By: Richard Fonte http://www.historiann.com/2013/01/12/a-dumb-and-dishonest-view-of-american-history-education-in-texas/comment-page-1/#comment-1281922 Thu, 17 Jan 2013 16:55:21 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=20384#comment-1281922 Truffula—You are mistaken about how the report statistics were calculated.
You are correct that there were 625 separate reading assignments made by faculty—46 faculty. In total there were 499 separate titles. Most of these titles 332 of the 499 were contained in Anthologies used by 7 faculty members in survey courses.
In understanding the findings and statistics of the study, it is important to recognize that the principal findings relate to what did the 46 faculty do in their individual courses. Therefore, the percentages (78% at UT overall, 60% in survey courses and 89% in special topics courses, refers to the percent of individual faculty members who were “high” assigners of reading assignments that had been identified as either race, class or gender. “High” was defined as being more than 50% of the assignments of that individual faculty member. Figures 3, 4 & 5 & 6 represent the summary of findings concerning these faculty members.
Therefore, the focus is on individual faculty member assignments, not the aggregate reading assignments by institution since students experience the institution with a course of an individual faculty member. We did sort the faculty by institution and report on the faculty who high, moderate and low assigners. We did not report a total of reading assignment for “RCG” by institution, only by percent of faculty users. We only reported aggregates by the 11 categories and these were never summed. Even then we differentiated by anthology versus non-anthology since we did not want the assignments of 7 faculty overly impact the result
The “RCG group” of reading assignments was not developed by summing the three categories. Therefore, we did not take, as you suggest , the red, blue & green assignments and sum them up and call them Primary colors. Therefore, the analogy you make to secondary colors (all the rest) is also inaccurate—you cannot sum those up, the NAS study did not sum them up.
The RCG category is composed of any reading assignment that was either Social history with race & ethnicity, or Gender or Class in nature—Any one of these. We did find however, massive overlap between these three categories. This same overlap was found in research interest of the 46 faculty. In fact, we found your alternative—clustering of attributes—into a very firm factor that we have labeled RCG. This can be seen in Figure 21, where those with research interests in Race had a 73% research interest also in Gender and also social class, Those with a research interest in Gender also had a 88% research interest in Race & Social Class and those with a research interest in Social Class also had a 80% race and Gender.

You stated—“If we can agree that “Race/Ethnic Emphasis” is sufficiently distinct from “Gender Emphasis” than Historiann’s sums are fine.” They are not distinct, therefore Historiann’s analysis and yours are wrong!

These patterns of overlap are so strong and not distinct, in fact that we believe a distinct factor—a combined theme (RCG), is completely justified. The overlap between any three of these categories and one of the other 8 categories was much weaker with Political history having some tangential connection (31% of faculty were interested in RCG research and also political history research). The other 8 categories were rarely intertwined either in reading assignment overlap or research interest overlap to the same extent as the RCG grouping (percentage of cross-tab).

]]>
By: Richard Fonte http://www.historiann.com/2013/01/12/a-dumb-and-dishonest-view-of-american-history-education-in-texas/comment-page-1/#comment-1281916 Thu, 17 Jan 2013 16:51:11 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=20384#comment-1281916 Historiann.
I am sorry also that you are unwilling to engage in serious dialogue! Since the NAS report has not objection to Race class and gender being a significant part of the narrative, but wishes only that reading assignments be inclusive, it seems to be that you seem now to have withdrawn into your selp-proclamed ideology as a “Marxist feminiazi.” Don’t think your comments were save by truffula, they were not!
Can faculty members with such ideology rise above their own ideology in what reading assignment they make, of course, remains a key question. We saw in the report that it can happen in broad survey course, if inclusive readers are used, but does not happen in narrow focused, special topics course.

]]>