March 12, 2008
What (if anything) Should the Schools and Colleges Be Required to Teach about the Constitution?
Stanley N. Katz
Lecturer with the Rank of Professor, Woodrow Wilson School,
Princeton University
Minutes of the 23rd Meeting of the 66th Year
President Giordmaine called the 23th meeting of the 66th year to order at 10:15 AM at the Friend Center. There appeared to be 108 members in attendance. The invocation was successfully intoned. Introductions were swiftly accomplished. The minutes of the meeting of March 5 were read.
Ruth Miller introduced the speaker, Professor Stanley N. Katz, a colleague of Mrs. Miller at the Woodrow Wilson School, and a distinguished constitutional scholar. Mr. Katz’s CV was so extensive that your reporter was unable to get it all down. Your scribe hopes it will be sufficient to note that Mrs. Miller stated many of our distinguished speaker’s impressive accomplishments on campus and off, including the fascinating bit of inside information that the Professor tied his own bow ties, which appeared to be, from my observation, a skill which he had mastered magnificently.
Professor Katz sought to help the Old Guard explore the question: What, if anything, should schools and colleges be required to teach about the Constitution?
His remarks were largely drawn from a lecture he delivered on September 17, 2007, at the Woodrow Wilson School entitled “Who’s Afraid of Senator Byrd?” The full text is on the Princeton web site: http://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/snkatz/files/snkatzconstitution.pdf (surely of interest to each of you because all Old Guard members are now presumably fluent on the internet after a slow start for many of us). Professor Katz’s full lecture is commended to your attention.
The country got along without a Constitution Day for the first 150 or so years of its existence. This monstrous injustice was corrected in 1940 and such a day has been celebrated ever since.
September 17, the date the Constitution was originally signed in Philadelphia in 1787, has been officially designated “Constitution Day and Citizenship Day” by the Congress and is commemorated annually in a proclamation by the President.
Senator Byrd felt that a mere proclamation wasn’t enough for such an important matter and sponsored legislation requiring ANY educational institution receiving Federal aid to offer an instructional program on the U.S. Constitution on each September 17. Thus, there is already a Federal requirement that a program on the U.S. Constitution be offered on one day each year in virtually all our schools and colleges. Professor Katz does not find this requirement to violate academic freedom or to raise serious constitutional objections.
Mr. Katz is concerned that any required teaching of the sanctification of the constitution qua constitution, that is the veneration of a parchment signed in 1787 and of its signers in and of itself (constitutionism) which overlooks the product of the 225 year political struggle within our society which has produced the constitutional rights we enjoy today (constitutionalism) would be dangerous. Professor Katz is of the view that the Constitution embodies a particular kind of constitutional order. What we should revere and teach is not the document and its signers which embody the ideas of two centuries ago, but rather that greatest of American intellectual and political contributions to the world – the idea of constitutionalism.
Although Professor Katz has grave constitutional misgivings about the effect of federally mandated instruction on academic freedom, he is appreciative of the Federal support for the teaching of history. Senator Byrd, being a man of honor, put our money where his mouth was and sponsored legislation, duly adopted, appropriating 100 million or so annually to foster the teaching of history. Thus, after doing nothing to support the teaching of history for our first 200 years, the Feds now support this teaching at a level of two-thirds of what is appropriated for either the National Endowment for the Arts or Humanities. Many students around the country have benefited from Professor Katz’s views on the teaching of history as a result of his participation in Senator Byrd’s history program.
Having said all this and accomplishing the amazing intellectual feat of condensing his ten page speech of September 17 into a mere 30 minutes, Professor Katz then asked for questions for his remaining 30 minutes.
He was rewarded by eight questions from the members present. These ranged from the adequacy of elementary and secondary school education on the Constitution; the doctrine of original intent in interpreting it; the applicability of its provisions outside the U.S.; the status and meaning of the 2nd Amendment on gun control; the separation of powers; the effect of Presidential signing statements; the use of legislative history in interpreting the Constitution and statutes; the appropriateness of Federal and state standards for education; and his view that the Constitution and our democracy require the maintenance of a system of public education.
Professor Katz completed this tour de force at precisely 11:30 AM.
Respectfully submitted,
Nick Wilson
Ruth Miller introduced the speaker, Professor Stanley N. Katz, a colleague of Mrs. Miller at the Woodrow Wilson School, and a distinguished constitutional scholar. Mr. Katz’s CV was so extensive that your reporter was unable to get it all down. Your scribe hopes it will be sufficient to note that Mrs. Miller stated many of our distinguished speaker’s impressive accomplishments on campus and off, including the fascinating bit of inside information that the Professor tied his own bow ties, which appeared to be, from my observation, a skill which he had mastered magnificently.
Professor Katz sought to help the Old Guard explore the question: What, if anything, should schools and colleges be required to teach about the Constitution?
His remarks were largely drawn from a lecture he delivered on September 17, 2007, at the Woodrow Wilson School entitled “Who’s Afraid of Senator Byrd?” The full text is on the Princeton web site: http://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/snkatz/files/snkatzconstitution.pdf (surely of interest to each of you because all Old Guard members are now presumably fluent on the internet after a slow start for many of us). Professor Katz’s full lecture is commended to your attention.
The country got along without a Constitution Day for the first 150 or so years of its existence. This monstrous injustice was corrected in 1940 and such a day has been celebrated ever since.
September 17, the date the Constitution was originally signed in Philadelphia in 1787, has been officially designated “Constitution Day and Citizenship Day” by the Congress and is commemorated annually in a proclamation by the President.
Senator Byrd felt that a mere proclamation wasn’t enough for such an important matter and sponsored legislation requiring ANY educational institution receiving Federal aid to offer an instructional program on the U.S. Constitution on each September 17. Thus, there is already a Federal requirement that a program on the U.S. Constitution be offered on one day each year in virtually all our schools and colleges. Professor Katz does not find this requirement to violate academic freedom or to raise serious constitutional objections.
Mr. Katz is concerned that any required teaching of the sanctification of the constitution qua constitution, that is the veneration of a parchment signed in 1787 and of its signers in and of itself (constitutionism) which overlooks the product of the 225 year political struggle within our society which has produced the constitutional rights we enjoy today (constitutionalism) would be dangerous. Professor Katz is of the view that the Constitution embodies a particular kind of constitutional order. What we should revere and teach is not the document and its signers which embody the ideas of two centuries ago, but rather that greatest of American intellectual and political contributions to the world – the idea of constitutionalism.
Although Professor Katz has grave constitutional misgivings about the effect of federally mandated instruction on academic freedom, he is appreciative of the Federal support for the teaching of history. Senator Byrd, being a man of honor, put our money where his mouth was and sponsored legislation, duly adopted, appropriating 100 million or so annually to foster the teaching of history. Thus, after doing nothing to support the teaching of history for our first 200 years, the Feds now support this teaching at a level of two-thirds of what is appropriated for either the National Endowment for the Arts or Humanities. Many students around the country have benefited from Professor Katz’s views on the teaching of history as a result of his participation in Senator Byrd’s history program.
Having said all this and accomplishing the amazing intellectual feat of condensing his ten page speech of September 17 into a mere 30 minutes, Professor Katz then asked for questions for his remaining 30 minutes.
He was rewarded by eight questions from the members present. These ranged from the adequacy of elementary and secondary school education on the Constitution; the doctrine of original intent in interpreting it; the applicability of its provisions outside the U.S.; the status and meaning of the 2nd Amendment on gun control; the separation of powers; the effect of Presidential signing statements; the use of legislative history in interpreting the Constitution and statutes; the appropriateness of Federal and state standards for education; and his view that the Constitution and our democracy require the maintenance of a system of public education.
Professor Katz completed this tour de force at precisely 11:30 AM.
Respectfully submitted,
Nick Wilson