Why Virginia’s January 6 Teaching Law Should Worry Everyone

If the state can mandate history, is it still history?

(Source: AP)

I spent my teaching career in private schools in Alabama, Virginia and most recently in Massachusetts. I never had to deal with state standards or the rhetoric of politicians, who had a vested interest in shaping how history is taught.

In addition to teaching, I have worked with history teachers in public schools throughout the country, who deal with these very issues on a regular basis. In many states today, the threat of censorship and the constant second guessing of what content to teach and how to teach it is palpable.

Now that Virginia Democrats have control of the state legislature, they are wasting little time in passing legislation that has failed to materialize in previous administrations. A number of bills that will further distance the state from its Confederate past will likely soon be signed into law by Democratic governor Abigail Spanberger.

This week I learned that the legislature passed a bill concerning how the history of what occurred in Washington, DC on January 6, 2021 is taught. The bill allows schools to teach the topic but requires that instruction not describe the event as a peaceful protest or present claims of widespread election fraud as credible, and instead frame it as a violent attack on democratic institutions intended to overturn the 2020 election.

All that stands in the way of this bill becoming law is the governor’s signature.

Supporters argue the law protects factual history. It doesn’t.

This bill is a horrible idea.

One major concern that I have is that laws like this set a precedent for government control over historical narratives. We’ve certainly seen plenty of this from Republican-controlled states over the past few years.

It also bypasses the state’s curriculum standards. Traditionally, legislatures establish curriculum standards—such as which time periods or documents students should study—while teachers and scholars retain freedom to interpret and discuss events.

(Source: Photograph by Harold M. Lambert / Getty)

When lawmakers mandate a specific interpretation in statute, the state begins to determine not only what is taught, but how it must be understood.

This bill represents a significant departure from educational norms. Instead of encouraging analysis, debate, and evidence-based reasoning, the law risks turning history lessons into recitations of officially approved conclusions. Democrats will do little more than push us further down the road of legislating historical interpretation and replacing professional judgment with political directives.

If one political party establishes this precedent, future legislatures controlled by different parties will feel justified in rewriting history standards to fit their own political narratives. Over time, history education will become even more of a political pendulum that shifts with every election cycle.

So much of my work with history educators involves exploring ways to encourage critical thinking in the classroom about controversial topics. A solid history education involves much more than memorizing dates or familiarizing oneself with a standard narrative. It hopefully includes learning how to think like a historian.

Good history education typically involves examining multiple sources, evaluating competing interpretations, and encouraging students to think critically about complex events.

A law that prohibits certain interpretations, even controversial ones, may limit teachers’ ability to discuss why different perspectives exist or how narratives evolve over time. Rather than exploring historical debates, teachers might feel pressured to avoid the topic altogether to prevent controversy or complaints.

Ironically, this could undermine the very educational goals the law seeks to promote. Instead of strengthening understanding of civic institutions and democratic norms, students may receive a simplified or rigid narrative that discourages questioning.

Another thing to keep in mind that is often overlooked is that the events of January 6 remain relatively recent and continue to be analyzed by historians, political scientists, and legal scholars. While many facts about the event are well established, its long-term significance in American history is still being debated and will continue to be debated for the foreseeable future.

When governments codify interpretations of contemporary events into law, they risk stifling historical conclusions before scholars have fully examined them. History is often reassessed as new evidence emerges or as scholars gain greater historical distance from events.

(Source: AL.com)

By fixing an official narrative in statute, policymakers may inadvertently limit the ability of future educators and students to incorporate and consider new scholarship or evolving interpretations.

My biggest concern is that if states begin to legislate how particular historical events must be interpreted, the practice could expand far beyond January 6.

Future lawmakers might mandate interpretations of other controversial topics, including wars, political movements, or social conflicts. Over time, education could become a battleground where competing political factions attempt to codify their preferred versions of history.

You might say that this is already taking place and you wouldn’t be wrong, but much of the state legislation that I’ve seen focuses broadly on certain subjects rather than on specific events. Don’t get me wrong, that is bad enough, but the Virginia bill constitutes another dangerous step.

If the ongoing attempt on the part of the Trump administration to censor how history is told at National Park Service sites around the country concerns you, just imagine the same process taking place in our classrooms.

This trend would risk transforming history education from a discipline grounded in research and inquiry into one shaped, even more directly, by political power.

If Virginia Democrats care about how history is taught, they should provide funding to professional development programs across the state that support teachers and the important work they do with students to encourage critical thinking about history.

If the state can mandate history, is it still history?