A Trojan Horse for Patriotic Education?

The Department of Defense’s introduction of a course centered on Western civilization and Christianity in its schools serving military families has sparked controversy over the textbook’s alleged biases and broader implications for education. Critics argue that “The Golden Thread: A History of the Western Tradition” presents a misleading depiction of historical events, conflating Western civilization with Christianity and portraying Islam as a threat to both.

Historian Phil Gorski, a professor at Yale University, has questioned whether Western civilization is being used as a Trojan horse for classical Christian education. This concern cuts to the heart of the issue. The Defense Department’s schools are often seen as a testing ground for reshaping education, and this course is part of a wider effort by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to redirect the education system toward patriotic values and classical learning.

Hegseth has long been an advocate for classical Christian education, shaped by his background in conservative politics. In his 2022 book “Battle for the American Mind,” he describes a history of progressives working to remove God and religion from public and private schools. For Hegseth, classical Christian education is seen as an antidote to what he views as unflattering depictions of US history.

However, critics argue that the movement toward classical learning has its own set of problems. While some proponents see it as a way to promote critical thinking and citizenship, others have argued that it focuses too heavily on foundational texts from Western writers and gives short shrift to achievements in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. Critics also worry that this approach reinforces a narrow view of education, one that prioritizes Western culture over other perspectives.

Reviewers of excerpts have criticized “The Golden Thread” for depicting Western civilization and Christianity as intertwined, with Islam cast as an external threat. This narrative has been described by some as “a right-wing idea that when immigrants come to a country, they care more about their own traditions and history and seek to replace the tradition of the place.” It’s a narrative that reinforces a zero-sum view of culture and identity.

The implications of this course are far-reaching. If adopted more widely, it could reinforce a narrow, triumphalist view of Western civilization, one that sees external threats as the primary concern. But what about the diversity of human experience? What about the achievements of non-Western cultures?

In recent years, there has been a growing trend towards incorporating diverse perspectives into education. Some classical educators have pushed to include texts from Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, recognizing that a shared literary heritage is not just a product of Western civilization.

The Defense Department’s decision raises questions about the role of education in shaping national identity and promoting cultural understanding. Will this course reinforce a narrow, exclusionary view of Western civilization, or will it promote a more inclusive, nuanced understanding of human history? The debate surrounding “The Golden Thread” is not just about a textbook or a course; it’s about the future of education and the kind of citizens we want to produce.

This controversy also highlights the role of government in shaping educational curricula. As the debate continues to grow, it remains to be seen whether Hegseth and his allies will listen to criticism or push ahead with their vision for patriotic education. The implications of this decision will be felt far beyond the Defense Department’s schools.