To the editor:
I had a difficult time following Trinity Lewis’ line of thought in her May 20th letter to the editor.
She praised Education Superintendent Balow for “defying the introduction of the 1619 Project ... in Wyoming schools.” And although she talked about “equipping (our students) with absolute truth” and the importance of students not being “indoctrinated by ... a misinterpretation of our country’s history,” it was unclear to me what exactly she feels that “absolute truth” and “misinterpretation” is.
Ms. Lewis writes, “We shouldn’t burden (teachers) with any more responsibilities than teaching our children subject matter.” But what is history if not a subject?
She writes, “(Wyomingites) don’t toe the line for anyone.” Yet her idea of what should be taught in our schools (her idea of a line that can be toed?) had to have come from someone.
She writes, “We honor our forefathers.” But still, whose forefathers does she have in mind? I have close relatives and friends whose forefathers are Black, Latino, Asian, Indigenous. Are their experience in our shared nation less valid than those of my German and Nordic forebears?
She writes, “In Wyoming, we are clear-thinking individuals and do not need anyone to train us on how to approach social issues.” However, I had always thought that one of the purposes of institutes of learning was to help one acquire the ability to think through social issues.
And, what is this “absolute truth” with which Wyoming educators are supposed to be equipping students (and that, according to her own mandate, without indoctrination), and how do the tenets of Project 1619 deviate from that “truth?”
Perhaps Ms. Lewis could have offered excerpts from the project to illustrate her point with greater clarity.
(s) judith spargur