I’d like to comment on Caleb Dixon’s article, “Founding documents still relevant” of July 16 — 22. I generally agree with all the cogent points he makes. As a political science student at Whittier College in California the founding documents were only covered in Constitutional Law and briefly in an American History survey course and an upper-level course called American Political Philosophy and Jurisprudence.
I would surmise among the classes that 60 percent of the USC students take might include a cursory study of the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution, unless they are political science students.
As a social studies teacher in California, I taught U.S. Government and History in which I did briefly analyze them. As a Richland 1 ESL teacher, I taught a Citizenship course in which I covered them line-by-line.
USC President Harris Pastides isn’t a social scientist and states that he’ll ignore the state legislators’ mandate. He further considers the documents to be “archaic.” This is common among those with a postmodern, multi-cultural, relativistic worldview. It seems that it’s unpopular to study the primary sources that have had a profound effect upon this nation due to the fact that they’re written by dead, wealthy slave-owning white men.
In 25 years of teaching I’ve become very concerned about the lack of general knowledge as Dixon so aptly points out. The founding documents are essential in understanding the institutions, values and worldview of this great nation. From the Bible to the reformers [John] Calvin and [Martin] Luther to the Pilgrims and Puritans. 34 percent of the founding fathers’ quotes are taken directly from the Bible. Even rational skeptic Thomas Jefferson was very concerned about an uniformed electorate as played out in the election of Democratic senatorial nominee Alvin Greene.
Possible texts are, Clarence Carson’s, “The Colonial Experience” and “The Beginning of the Republic” along with Peter Marshall and David Manuel’s, “The Light and the Glory.” They’re both well documented with solid primary and secondary sources. I would also recommend along with the “Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates,” edited by constitutional scholar, Ralph Ketcham. They can all be obtained at Amazon.com.
It would also be great if a political science professor team taught the class with a history professor. They could also invite the law faculty to come and give a lecture to the class.
During my tenure as an adjunct faculty member at USC, I have personally experienced the restriction of my First Amendment rights and academic freedom as contained in the Carolinian Creed. How do I know this? Because I have the privilege of studying and teaching the founding documents. After all isn’t the purpose of higher education to engage the student in the marketplace of ideas and utilize critical thinking?