re: #12 Dark_Falcon

You should take Stanley Kurtz seriously. He documents his conclusions well and he stays away from the crazy stuff to focus on making his point. His work is worthy of examination.

I read Kurtz’s article closely. He attempts to connect the dots, a la Glenn Beck, between the redesigned APUSH framework and a liberal historian named Bender, who worked with one member of the committee, and edited a book to which two other committee members contributed essays. I am not convinced Bender’s indirect influence was as important as Kurtz alleges, as there were 17 other high school and college instructors on the committee.

Also, I would call your attention to the possibility that Kurtz had not bothered to read the framework before writing his Beckish column. First, he says he’s going to analyze the framework in more detail later. His allegations of liberal bias are also not supported by the evidence — the framework document in question. It proposes concepts and proposes questions. It does not prescribe answers or interpretations, as he alleges.

You can read it here (PDF)

I’d be interested if you can find the liberal bias Kurtz does in it. I can’t.