I really like 1776 unites.

@TheMiddleWay Usually these commissions are bipartisan. But I guess we'll find out.

@TheMiddleWay @keiththroop what makes you think it would be exclusionary - "all" this or that. Thats just a silly idea - if any other person(s) or orgs besides the Trump admin were to create such a panel (which they have I do believe there are numerous such panels - think tanks) ...if anyone but the Trump admin were creating this it is a sure thing that Conservative/Literal Constitutionalists - especially if they were White and male - would be absolutely absent - un-included...and I think you know that.

@iThink I didn't suggest that it would be exclusionary.

@TheMiddleWay That's a good question. I would like to know as well. I actually only found out about some of the oddest additions to schooling, like 1619, CRT, and sexual idenity type stuff recently. When I heard about common core math, I was thinking more of it being just something I was out of touch with (too old for new tricks) But, the other things seem more like stuff parents should be discussing with their kids rather than the school, if they choose.

Also, from reading "White Fragility", "Anti Racist Theory", CRT, etc, these ideologies based on the foundation of an inherently racist country we live in is pretty harmful mentally. Especially if it's being directed at only white children. I would like to see these types of exercises taken out of schools all together.

@TheMiddleWay There you go again, dividing us according to some arbitrary criteria.

@KeithThroop While I appreciate the principle of bipartisanship, leftist partisans created this mess. Leftist partisans still actively support this rubbish. Don't let leftist partisans sabotage this fight for your country!

@DaveO276 I suspect that any bipartisan commission would be made up of both Democrats and Republicans who agree, for example, that the 1619 Project is not historically correct. The president certainly wouldn't want anyone on the commission that doesn't agree with what it is supposed to be doing. At any rate, I was not advocating any particular approach. I was just saying how Presidential Commissions usually tend do things, at so far as I know.

@TheMiddleWay Such a commission would not likely be made up of any politicians, but rather of historians and educators committed to getting the historical facts right in the curriculum. And, if it's like presidential commissions from the past, it would also most likely be made up of scholars who are both Democrat and Republican, liberal and conservative, but who all agree that the focus shouldn't be on ideological indoctrination so much as historical accuracy. To be sure, nothing is going to be perfect, but it could at least correct the Left leaning focus of much that is currently out there. Now, I of course have no real idea what will actually happen, only what I would expect would be the typical approach, but I could be totally wrong. As I said above, I guess we'll find out.

@TheMiddleWay
The larger point is that politicians should not be in charge of determining what is "true" history or not. In fact, they shouldn't be in charge of any aspect of education or setting what the country should deal as "true" or not

Do you really believe a bunch of politicians would be chosen to populate the panel? You don't believe the president or his advisors would carefully select qualified people?

@KeithThroop LOL - I know you didn't...I just wanted you to see my comment ha!

@TheMiddleWay Actually the first amendment States that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The amendment itself thus contains "government sanctioned beliefs," such as the belief in freedom of religion and the belief in freedom of speech and the belief in freedom of association, etc. But what has been happening in our education system more and more actually goes against these beliefs and actually results in the stifling of, for example, freedom of speech (think of the kind of political correctness that has men like Jordan Peterson or Sam Harris up in arms). It also has more and more sought to undermine the very principles embedded in the Constitution, either explicitly stating or necessarily implying that they all stem from such impure sources as "white privilege." The President has taken an oath, however, to uphold the Constitution -- not dissimilar from the oath I myself took when serving in the U.S. military -- which requires him to try to correct that problem without demanding that anyone agree with his own particular political views, only that the principles upon which we stake our existence as a nation be taught correctly and fairly. This also just happens to require a proper understanding of the historical background of our founding document, and it also just happens to be quite "patriotic." Now, some may not like this approach, but it has pretty much been our approach in teaching history and civics from the foundation of our nation, and there is nothing wrong with getting back to it. To be sure, there have been some negative things about our history that were sometimes glossed over in the past, but these things have been corrected along the way by scholars from various points of view, and I believe we can trust that such correction, where necessary, will continue ... well, at least they will continue if we can manage to find our footing once again upon the bedrock principles upon which our nation stands.

@TheMiddleWay We have managed to have a long history of academic freedom while teaching an accurate understanding of our Constitution and its historical background, and no one's voice was ever stifled because of it. As I implied in my previous comment, it was getting away from that approach that has led to the very problems we've been encountering.

Also, no one has said here that there should only be "government sanctioned scholars" teaching history, as though the government would decide who gets to teach. Selecting a diverse group of scholars for a presidential commission, scholars who share the same convictions about the importance of our Constitution and the principles contained in it, does not mean choosing only people from the right, for example. A government commission typically only advises anyway. I would guess that federal funding would be at stake though. But, frankly, I don't think universities should get federal funding in the first place. When it comes to precollege education, there are school boards across the country that would decide what is taught, and I would think at the very least that they would be expected to teach both sides of an issue instead of only one. But we have no idea what will really happen yet anyway. We will have to wait and see. I only know what I hope will happen.

As for your statement that "there is no lack of conservative universities and conservative scholars and liberal universities and liberal scholars," I would take some exception to that. To be sure, there are quite a few conservative universities out there, but almost all of them are private -- and expensive -- whereas many other private universities, as well as virtually all the state universities (which receive state and federal funds), have become almost completely liberal, and even far left (especially the humanities). So there really isn't as level a playing field as you seem to think.

You also suggest that there shouldn't be any government interference, but I'm wondering where you've been if you think that this hasn't already been happening. Do you really think that the Obama Administration, for example, wasn't pushing a particular agenda through the Department of Education? As I see it, the Trump Administration is simply attempting to undo the previous administration's meddling (as well as that of a few other administrations, perhaps). At any rate, the announcement of a commission to look into what is happening and to seek to stop the indoctrination of students in a system of thinking that runs counter to our Constitution and the principles upon which our nation is founded is not a great danger to our country; it is an attempt to remove the danger.

By the way, our nation actually requires people who want to become citizens to study civics and to take a civics test to demonstrate a proper understanding of our Constitution and our system of government, and then to take this oath:

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

Should we really expect those who seek citizenship in our country to be taught such things, to believe them, and to pledge their lives to them without expecting the same of those who are already citizens? I certainly don't think so. And, when we reach the point where we refuse to teach these principles to our citizens and to expect them to remain true to them, then we have reached the end of this experiment in human government. I know this may be what many far left people would like to see happen, but this just makes them traitors. As I see it, they should go seek out a country they would prefer rather than try to destroy this one. This is what is at stake here, and President Trump seems to understand that, even if you don't.

By the way, here is the oath I took when enlisting in the U.S. Navy:

"I, Keith Throop, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

I was able to swear that oath of allegiance with understanding because I had been taught our Constitution and the history behind it, and I believed with all my heart that it was worth fighting for and even dying for ... and I still believe that. But there are people rioting in our country right now who don't care at all about this because they have been indoctrinated in a way of thinking that is opposed to every high ideal embedded in the Constitution and purchased by the blood of many thousands of Americans. I guess I shouldn't expect you to understand any of this, but the fact is that the freedoms you seem to want to stress -- without a proper context, it seems to me -- won't even exist any more if our nation keeps heading down the path it has been on. The simple fact is that there are core principles without which we have nothing, and, yes, citizens must accept those principles or find a new country, because those principles are what makes our country distinct and without which it is doomed.

With that I am content to let whatever you have to say next be the last word between us on this matter.