Why don't we "admit" that if we taught X we'd not be allowed to teach?  Because
"admitting" entails factuality.  It just ain't so.  At most public
institutions, the teaching of controversial matters is protected under rules
establishing academic freedom.  If I were to teach "materials that suggested
that Black slaves might have been happy under slavery," it would be my students
who would complain.  And they would be right to complain, since the available
materials do not support such a contention.  If we don't teach this, it's not
because a particular line of thought would draw the ire of authorities, but
because we are convinced the evidence shows otherwise.  Nobody would take
measures to remove me from the classroom.

Cheers -- KJB (the other Kevin)

On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 12:32:46 -0500  Discussion of research and writing about
Virginia history             
<[log in to unmask]><[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> 
> I am surprised that no one admitted that if they included teaching  materials 
> that suggested that Black
> slaves might have been happy under slavery that they would no longer  be 
> allowed to teach. True? 
> <BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free 
> email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at 
> http://www.aol.com.
> 
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
> at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
> 
> 
> 

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html