We Should Be Teaching Motivations Instead of Morals in History Classes

There's no secret that I'm not a fan of the recent wave of anti-Critical Race Theory (CRT) laws sweeping the country. This includes the recent Texas law, which bans CRT and limits discussion of current events. I noted in an earlier post, that this current movement to debate what should and shouldn't be taught in the classroom was specifically in response to the 1619 Project. The Texas law has been in effect for just a month and a half, and it has already led to a number of controversial incidents since its implementation.

On September 1, 2021. McKinney school officials canceled a Youth and Government class for fear it was in violation of the new law. Parents in Katy ISD pulled a book from their children's school, which portrays the struggles of a black student fitting in a new school because they considered it as teaching CRT. Most recently a top school administrator in Carroll was noted as advising teachers to teach "opposing" views regarding the Holocaust, which was very similar to the argument made by the Louisiana lawmaker this summer that the "good" of slavery needed to be taught in schools.

These instances are tragic, but not surprising, especially considering how vague the law was written. However, the discussion made me come to a conclusion that a large part of the reason that we find ourselves in this debate is that we spend too much time discussing the moral "goods" and "bad" of the past, instead of the motivations that led to those results. As such, I'm going to reflect on why teaching children the motivations that moved people to act in history, is far better than just labeling what they did as "good" and "bad" behavior.

Moves the Conversation from "Good" and "Bad" to Reasons for the Behavior

As a father, I've spent lots of time telling my children the difference between "good" and "bad" behavior. Now that they are in the age category of the teen and tween, we are able to have a more nuanced discussion of not only the behavior but the factors that cause us to behave in the ways we would once just classify as "good" and "bad" behavior, as well as the long term ramifications for such behaviors.

I also let them know that the world is usually too complex to classify most people and things as simply "good" and "bad." Even after getting robbed (see this post for details), I had a specific discussion with my son about not being so quick to label people, including the robbers, as "good" or "bad." To drive the point home, I reminded him that he himself had done things we would both categorize as "bad" behavior (although never robbery), but that didn't necessarily make him a "bad" person.

In like manner, history is far too complex to simplify everything down to "good" and "bad" episodes. Granted there are atrocious events throughout history that we should all note, but we do ourselves a disservice when we just say something was a "good" or "bad" chapter and leave it at that. Beyond discussing what made the event "good" or "bad," we should discuss what caused it to take place in the first place. In other words, what motivated the actors in history to make the decisions we have labeled as "good" or "bad." This leads to a discussion that allows us to place ourselves in the shoes of the actor in history and see it from their point of view and their reasons for their actions.

Also, as recent events have shown, discussing the "opposing" views, like the "good" and "bad" aspects of really dark subjects like the Holocaust, slavery, and genocide can be near impossible, not to mention culturally insensitive. However, even the darkest chapters in history have a number of motivating factors involved, which can be discussed in a respectful manner. Also, without the simplified labels of "good" and "bad," there shouldn't be as strong as an inclination to point fingers at anyone for being on the "good" or "bad" side of an issue in history. So instead of just labeling slavery as a "bad" thing done to black people in this country, we should discuss what caused it to become a fundamental part of our nation, why race became a defining factor of it, what caused it to end, and how a number of all of those motivating factors still affect our country today.

While Morals Change Over Time, Motivations Remain Consistent

Another reason we should focus on motivations when discussing history is that they remain more consistent than what we deem morally "good" and "bad" at the time. Even over the course of most of our lives, we notice how things like how the standard of political correctness changes. This becomes even more drastic when we look at events in history, which might have occurred hundreds or even thousands of years prior. As such, using a standard of what is considered morally right and wrong by today's standards, becomes an ineffective measuring tool. However, motivations like the pursuit of money, power, influence, etc. remain pretty consistent over time.

Turning once again to the issue of slavery, while it is generally deemed repugnant now, that was not always the case. Some might even point out that slavery as an institution is thousands of years old and can even be found in religious material like the Bible, proving that it was not always deemed morally wrong as an institution. Seeing this clear difference in moral standards, we will have a hard time making any assessment of this institution, other than it is currently wrong, which while true is not very engaging. However, if we focus on the motivations of those who perpetuated slavery, those who opposed it, and those who were indifferent to the institution, we uncover factors like pecuniary gain, religious conviction, and apathy. These are all factors that many of us can relate to on a societal level and a personal one.

Allows Us to Better Apply History To Today

One of the biggest advantages of looking at motivations instead of morals, we can better see when similar factors are present today, and as a result have a better idea of how to move forward, which is one of the biggest points of history. For instance, we could look at the motivations of those who marched during the Civil Rights Movement, and see how they compare to the motivations of those who marched after the murder of George Floyd last year. Using only the moral standard, we'd likely just compare the causes for each march as morally justifiable or not, and as we've already noted that standard can shift over time. For instance, many who didn't support the marches of the Civil Rights Movement at the time might now deem them as morally acceptable causes, but at the same time not accept the moral reasons for the marches for George Floyd.

Unfortunately though, as previously mentioned, the recent Texas law currently limits the discussion on current events, which would make the comparisons of motivations even more difficult to do, without fear of running afoul of this new law. This, along with a slew of other reasons, is why I believe the law should be challenged in court. If we're having this many issues with the law a month and a half into its implementation, we can only imagine how bad things will get from here and I don't see the federal government addressing this issue of educational standards anytime soon. With any luck, someone will challenge the law in court, or if they take too long, I might have to do it myself.

Conclusion

Since many are hellbent on how history is being taught in schools these days, I'd suggest that we consider teaching the motivations of the actors in history, instead of reducing their actions as morally "good" and "bad" ones. Moving the conversation to one about the motivations instead of morals, deepens the discussion, allows us to use a standard that doesn't change as much over time, and is far easier to apply to the situations we see taking place today.