by Adam Kirsch in The Atlantic (July 27) and by James Traub in The New York Times (August 3)
With the approval of the “Bluebonnet Learning” materials, Texas is well positioned to lead the nation in educational reform through the adoption of a holistic design that pervades the state’s system of standards, instructional materials, and teacher training. But what caught the attention of the national press was the hubbub over teaching portions of the Bible…
Adam Kirsch argues that Texas is justified in including Bible excerpts on its new required public-school reading list because biblical stories, language, and ideas are deeply embedded in American history and literature. He maintains that students who do not recognize references such as the Exodus, Jonah and the whale, or the Sermon on the Mount will be less able to understand figures like Harriet Tubman and Abraham Lincoln, as well as major works including Moby-Dick, East of Eden, and Leaves of Grass.
Kirsch recognizes that Texas’s policy is politically charged and may make non-Christian students feel excluded, particularly because it does not similarly include scriptures from other faiths. Still, he distinguishes teaching the Bible as literature and historical context from treating it as sacred doctrine. In his view, studying it reflects the reality that the Bible has had an outsized influence on American culture, just as learning English reflects the country’s particular history rather than a claim of superiority over other languages.
He also argues that the Bible is more intellectually and morally complicated than either supporters or critics may assume. While some conservatives may hope it reinforces traditional values, passages such as the Sermon on the Mount and the Book of Job challenge wealth, status, self-righteousness, and easy moral certainty. Kirsch concludes that the Bible’s enduring, often subversive questions make it a valuable text for students—provided teachers can address it thoughtfully without promoting religious belief.
James Traub agrees that the debate over Bible readings has overshadowed the more significant feature of Texas’s plan: its commitment to a statewide, content-rich reading curriculum. He argues that American schools have too often emphasized transferable “critical-thinking skills” while neglecting the historical knowledge, vocabulary, and cultural references students need to understand difficult texts. Traub supports Texas’s use of classic literature, chronological history, grammar, and memorization as a way to build cultural literacy, though he criticizes some ideologically conservative selections and limited Hispanic representation. He ultimately encourages blue states to adopt their own rigorous and more inclusive reading lists rather than dismissing academic rigor as a conservative project.
