In one of the scariest moments in modern history, we're doing our best at ScheerPost to pierce the fog of lies that conceal it but we need some help to pay our writers and staff. Please consider a tax-deductible donation.
People who shut their eyes to reality simply invite their own destruction.
James Baldwin
Stranger in the Village 1953
History is not old, especially with people still living with its consequences.
Delicia Turner Sonnenberg
Comments on Directing August Wilson’s Fences
2026
Part one of Autocracy, Confusion and Teaching History dealt with how the Trump Administration has fostered an atmosphere of political chaos within which they have attacked all levels of American education largely by creating delusional portraits of both schools and universities.
Part Two outlines how and when American history is to be taught in California. I will also summarize the results of a 2026 survey of post-graduate students now preparing for a teaching career. Hopefully this will highlight the possible effects of Trump’s attempts to decimate K-12 education by intimidation.
As I listen to various declarations of what should be taught about American history and at what level of K-12 schooling, I have come to realize that unless someone is a veteran educator, most people, including most parents, do not know how complex it is to educate students who range in age from 5 to 18. And I include Donald Trump, and many who surround him, among those who do not understand what teachers do or what education is.
To make this simpler, let’s focus on how students learn, or don’t learn, about the history of this country. Trump’s demand that we “teach” students that they live “in the most exceptional nation in the history of the world” is a non-starter. What, I wonder, does the President imagine would be in the daily lesson plans?
In the real world, each state has an outline of what and when American history is to be taught. In California that sequence is outlined in the State Framework. In grade 5, U.S. history is taught “up to 1850.” In grade 8 it is taught “up to the early 20th century.” In high school, U.S. history is scheduled to be taught in grade 11, and it is to cover “the early 20th century to the present day.” This division of what and when American history is to be taught is, at best, problematic. Consider what it actually means.
In 5th grade most of the students are 10 or 11 years old. “Up to 1850” suggests these children will learn about the establishment of 13 British colonies and the varied relations in each colony with the Indigenous peoples. Fifth graders should also be taught about slavery, including the fact that, by 1750, slavery was legal in each colony.
These same 10-year-olds theoretically will be exposed to the complexities of the Louisiana Purchase and the justifications for additional territorial conquest, often referred to as “Manifest Destiny.” That would include wars against the Indigenous and the war with Mexico that ended in 1848. Obviously, teaching all of that to very young students would, at best, be difficult.
In grade 8, the students, who are now 13 or 14, are supposed to be taught about the complexities of immigration, which would include key struggles of labor: the Lowell Mill Girls Strikes in the 1830s, the Great Railroad Strike in 1877 and the Haymarket Affair in 1886. Eighth grade history then ends with the start of American imperialist expansion in 1898.
Just listing what is suggested in the State Framework should make the problems with implementation apparent.
In my experience, when high school students begin to learn about U.S. history from the “early 20th century to the present day” they are understandably unprepared. In fact, I have worked with students who, as high school juniors, actually believed that George Washington, as a child, chopped down his father’s cherry tree and then admitted what he had done. That story was invented by a traveling minister and bookseller named Mason Weems.
What Do High School Juniors Know about American History?
Despite my 35 years in the classroom, I do not know what is appropriate to teach about American history in 5th or 8th grade, but to assume that high school juniors have a genuine grasp of American history from colonial times to World War I is a fantasy.
I’ve taught 11th grade history courses many times, and I do not exaggerate when I say that it takes at least a month (which teachers don’t actually have) to give the students even a rudimentary sense of how the country got to be what it was in the “early 20th century” when it entered WWI.
As I mentioned in Part 1, President Trump, in his Executive Order 14253, offers his solution to all this by suggesting that we restore “Truth and Sanity to American history” by teaching that the United States is “the most exceptional nation in history.” Is it not obvious that this does nothing to produce an educated population?
Teaching students at any level is hard work, and I am convinced that Trump, and most members of his administration, have no idea what it means to teach in K-12 classrooms. Yet they make accusations of indoctrination, and they suggest that teachers at all levels are conspiring to teach anti-American propaganda.
What I Did as a Classroom Teacher
The first time I tried to teach, I was in front of a small group of eight or nine fellow college students as part of an anti-war teach-in. Having read parts of a couple of Bernard Fall’s books on Indochina, I was able to base much of what I said during that teach-in on information I took from the last chapters in Street Without Joy. Subsequently, I began reading everything I could on history, and “teach-in teaching” became a habit. Eventually, teaching became a job.
It was possible in the 1970s to become a teacher without attending education classes. One simply needed to graduate from a university and to complete a certain number of units in the areas required to apply for a credential.
In my first year in the classroom, I discovered Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States and Studs Terkel’s Working. I convinced myself that one way for a teacher to be interesting and to encourage independent thinkers was to read constantly in areas related and unrelated to what one is required to teach and then to share whatever insights were found with students. It seemed to work.
Skipping About Two Decades
After at least 20 years of teaching, I began to guest-lecture in education courses at a local university. Since I had never attended an “education” course, this was a new experience. The classes were filled with college graduates in a variety of fields, most of whom were in the process of student teaching in social science or history.
Almost every time I spoke, for reasons not clear to me, I was introduced as being (or having been) a “controversial” educator. I have two theories about how I earned that title. Perhaps I was controversial because I taught students history that was not in the textbooks, or perhaps I earned the title for what I did outside the classroom.
From the start I found textbooks lacked a lot of what I consider essential. That made it necessary to supplement. After all, teaching American history without an in-depth exploration of multiple forms of discrimination as well as an exploration of the valiant struggles to outlaw such discrimination is simply not teaching history.
Then there was what I did outside the classroom. Almost every year I sponsored student groups affiliated with Amnesty International and/or Human Rights Watch. These groups publicized human rights violations worldwide. Sometimes, students wrote letters advocating for political prisoners and they also led workshops for other students.
On campus we organized yearly student-run seminars. Topics varied, but usually were focused on the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenants that were meant to make Human Rights enforceable.
We invited speakers to discuss important issues with as much of the student body as possible. The school administration allowed us to rearrange some of the class schedule for up to two weeks each year. We put on panel discussions on a number of issues. The ones featuring PFLAG (Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) were very popular and occasionally attended by community members including parents.
We put together panels to explore various religious, and non-religious, perspectives on issues brought up by students. And we participated in off campus demonstrations against such human rights violations as the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” (also known as torture) during the American war in Iraq.
That is a brief summary of what I did outside of the classroom. I leave it up to you to determine what activities, if any, would be subject to challenges by the current regime.
What Might Be the Future of Teaching?
A big question is how the current and growing attacks on K-12 education might affect one group of soon-to-be teachers. In an effort to understand that, I collaborated with a university professor currently teaching post-graduate students earning teaching credentials in history and social science. More than a dozen students participated in the survey.
Together, the professor and I came up with a list of questions, many based on student reactions to my ScheerPost columns about what is missing in most high school history textbooks. We asked for written responses, thinking that would give each student room to express specific observations.
The Survey Results
In order to maintain confidentiality, the names of the university and the professor have been withheld, and the students will be identified only by pseudonyms. When possible, I organized responses in subject areas that have been specifically challenged as “indoctrination” by the Trump Administration.
As expected, many responses are similar. So, in the interest of brevity, I have eliminated repetitious commentary.
On Race and Racism
The responses to questions about race and racism are reactions to material in a column titled “Missing Links in Textbook History Racism and Race.” In it, I referred to “scientific” racial groups, which were often tied to the claims of white supremacy that run throughout U.S. history. These claims served as justification for enslaving Africans and murdering Indigenous peoples.
Question 1: “Would you feel comfortable discussing Mr. Mamer’s comments on how genocide and slavery have been historically justified?”
All but two of the students wrote that they would feel comfortable discussing these ideas in their classes. Nevertheless, the reluctant students both wrote that they could use the material given some preparation. Here are individual comments:
Dave: “When these issues are not discussed, it results in no one standing up to say that white supremacy is wrong.”
Ngo: “I find it imperative to focus on how these false ideas caused real harm and shaped laws for generations.”
Dominic: “As a white male educator it is important for me to be vocal about this history since it was orchestrated by men who looked like me.”
Daniel: “Race is a social construct that perpetuates inequality. History teachers should be able to speak about this.”
Alice: “During my K-12 schooling, I was deprived of learning the realities of prejudice. I think it is important that students now understand how things developed.”
Question 2: Would you feel comfortable discussing the possible long-term impact of John H. Van Evrie’s belief that “Negroes were a distinct species, fit only for slavery?”
Kay: “It is important to discuss with students how people are often influenced by what they are taught and how they eventually become believers if not confronted by the truth.”
Dave: suggested students “need to understand that while these theories were common in the past, it doesn’t mean they were right or based in fact.”
Daniel: “To effectively confront racism, we must help students understand how they were led to believe absurd things.”
Alice: “There are probably many ideas in the American consciousness that should be challenged.”
Jean: “I would spend my time trying to refute his [Van Evrie’s] arguments by comparing them with facts and the accomplishments of real people.”
KT: lauded the importance of good mentors for new teachers: “I think I would feel less confident discussing these topics if I didn’t have the example of my mentor teacher.”
Dominic: This student seemed reluctant to discuss the quote. He wrote “I would first feel the need to better educate myself on the topic. Once I was better educated, I would be able to give the students an honest answer that would be absent any bias.”
Sam: “I would not necessarily feel comfortable discussing this, but I would have this discussion regardless, because I believe it is important to do so.”
Question 3: How would you prepare to deal with an openly gay or trans student who might ask about current hostility to gender dysphoria?
Alice: She suggested the proper thing to do would be to acknowledge multiple arguments over the issue. However, she also wrote, “I’ve seen the pain of people struggling with gender dysphoria firsthand because I was a crisis counselor. I know it takes a lot of courage for people to try and live their authentic lives.”
KT: “In situations like these, the best thing to do is to present the facts in as neutral a manner as possible. Nevertheless, it is a fact that the Trump administration has been openly hostile to this community and I would feel comfortable saying so. But I would be a little nervous about crossing a line that could potentially land me in hot water.”
Jean: “People are inherently scared of things they do not understand. They can also be scared of things that are foreign to them. I would try to provide students with facts.”
Dan: “I would treat the question with compassion and respect. Nevertheless, the Trump Administration has shown itself incapable of tolerating people that do not resemble themselves.”
Questions Based on Articles Chosen from a List
In the final section of the survey students were asked to choose one of the articles from those on the following topics: Indigenous Peoples, The Roots of the American War in Vietnam, Colonialism, War, Opposition to War, The American Empire and The American Left. Again, responses may be shortened for clarity.
Article on The Roots of the American War in Vietnam:
Alice: After reading the article I looked at the textbook and I noticed that it lacks depth about Vietnamese nationalism. In an effort to bring more detail to the classroom, I would discuss the Pentagon Papers more extensively.
Dave: I can attest that much of what was mentioned as missing are things that I only learned about when I was in college. They need to be taught earlier. Students need to develop the skill to constantly question the information they are receiving from sources.
Article on Opposition to War:
KT: I think it would be important to talk more about conscientious objectors to learn about perspectives beyond what is in the textbooks.
Article on American Empire:
Dominic: Textbooks see the United States as an empire in the late 19th century and early 20th century and then forget to follow-up on that theme once World War I began. It is important to discuss the fact that we have continued to be an empire.
Daniel: There are examples of the American empire in textbooks that seemed to be justified in the text, but we need to call it what it is in our classrooms. We’re all about self-determination until it involves nations filled with black and brown people doing the determining.
Article on Indigenous Peoples:
Dan: I was a high school student in the early 2000s. All the history that I have learned about the Indigenous was only introduced to me in college. This should be also taught in primary and secondary schools. It would empower students to find their own voices.
.
Kay: Mr. Mamer mentions that there were many wars fought between the United States and the natives. That might come as a surprise to students because most of the wars are ignored in textbooks. I would teach this history.
Belinda: Students may only be aware of Native Americans as “disappearing” from North America, rather than learning about how they were exterminated, indoctrinated and sometimes assimilated. I want to do justice to Native American history by teaching students that these are peoples of diversity, resilience and enduring cultures.
Courage Should be Contagious
I had feared that the survey responses would contain substantial trepidation engendered by the recent charges of classroom indoctrination in “anti-American ideologies.” I was wrong.
Instead I was happily surprised that, in their responses, none of these students showed any objection to what I identified as missing from history textbooks. In what they wrote they all seemed well aware of textbook limitations and were looking for ways to supplement.
As I mentioned earlier, over the last 20 years I have spoken with many classes of graduate-students preparing to teach history and social science. In my conversations with these students, many demonstrated a passion for teaching and a real commitment to social justice.
The majority of these teacher candidates seemed uninterested in simply preparing students to score well on tests. Instead, they seemed to be aligned with the description of James Baldwin, that is, the point of education is to” create in a person the ability to look at the world for himself (and herself), to make his (and her) own decisions.”
I was impressed that the majority of these soon-to-be teachers did not seem intimidated by such things as Trump’s Executive Order to restore [his] “Truth” to American history. My most hopeful discovery was that the majority of student teachers clearly wanted to teach an honest, multifaceted and complex history.
As I said, I have no way of knowing who wrote what response to any particular question. It is impossible to imagine that any student was trying to please me or their professor with their answers.
In the end it is impossible for me to imagine that these graduate students, when they obtain their teaching credentials and a job teaching, will be bullied into teaching anything resembling Trump’s ahistorical fantasy.
Hopefully, their courage in preparing to teach a complex and honest history will be contagious.
Jim Mamer is a retired high school teacher. He was a William Robertson Coe Fellow for the Study of American History at Stanford University in 1984. He served as chair of the History and Social Sciences department for 20 years (first at Irvine High and then at Northwood High). He was a mentor teacher in both Modern American History and Student Assessment. In 1992 he was named History and Social Sciences Teacher of the Year by the National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS).
Editor’s Note: At a moment when the once vaunted model of responsible journalism is overwhelmingly the play thing of self-serving billionaires and their corporate scribes, alternatives of integrity are desperately needed, and ScheerPost is one of them. Please support our independent journalism by contributing to our online donation platform, Network for Good, or send a check to our new PO Box. We can’t thank you enough, and promise to keep bringing you this kind of vital news.
You can also make a donation to our PayPal or subscribe to our Patreon.