Last week, the Associated Press reported that while he was governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels described Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the American People as “a truly execrable, anti-factual piece of disinformation that misstates American history on every page” and indicated that “This crap should not be accepted for any credit by the state.”  Daniels is now President of Purdue University.

Opponents of Daniels have predictably reacted against his apparent lack of commitment to Academic Freedom.  They rightly argue that professors should not be constrained by the government as to what they teach.  Daniels supporters, such as Peter Wood, argue that Zinn’s book is not credible history and that Daniels was correct.

Instead of becoming mired in the Daniels v. Zinn debate, I will consider these issues in terms of my own teaching.

During the 2013 Fall semester, I am teaching a potentially questionable history text in my ancient world history course:  Reay Tannahill’s Food in History (1995).  Critics could argue that the text is too narrowly focused to be appropriate for an introductory course.  Supporters of academic freedom would argue that I can teach what I want.  But, as with the Daniels v. Zinn debate, neither camp would be approaching the issue appropriately.

While I should have the academic freedom to select Food in History, academic freedom does not absolve me from questions about quality.  Nor does academic freedom  give me the right to ignore the course description and core competencies established by the history department.  Academic freedom does not permit me to turn an introductory history course into a food history course.  My right to teach what I want is not unlimited and my colleagues and students have the right to question me about an unconventional choice of text without my becoming defensive.

Critics of Food in History seemingly have a valid point in arguing that the book is too narrowly focused for an introductory course.  In fact, they would not be incorrect if they ignore how I am incorporating the book into my course.

My colleagues and students might rightly inquire as to how Food in History will advance core competencies.  “Academic freedom” is an inadequate answer.  But to attack my choice of textbook or any other teaching materials without knowing how the teaching materials are actually being incorporated into the course is an illegitimate form of criticism that does not lead to meaningful discourse.

Food is integral in understanding historical development and Food in History touches on all of the main issues that should be covered in an introductory class.  While Food in History will not adequately address the issues that need to be covered, it will inspire research into those issues insuring that the core competencies will be met.  Furthermore, students tend to enjoy having the course organized around a theme that they can relate to the core competencies.

Carl Weinberg co-taught a class that included an excerpt from Howard Zinn during the period that Daniels raised his questions.  In yesterday’s , Weinberg provided the context as to how he taught Zinn.  We do not have to agree with Weinberg’s explanation any more than colleagues or students need to agree with my approach to ancient world history.  But a discussion rooted in context is appropriate and can lead to clarification and quality improvement.

Unfortunately, debating Howard Zinn—or Food in History—out of context misses the essence of quality teaching and academic freedom.  To simply look at what is being taught without asking how it is being taught is a fruitless exercise that reeks of the type of anti-intellectualism to which both Daniels and Zinn have been accused.

–Steven L. Berg, PhD