"To Praise or Disparage?"

I came across a historian the other day who emphasized that his job was "not to praise or disparage" an event or historical figure, but merely to explain.  I'm not sure I agree. 

I know this gets into the slippery slope area of "value judgments," but we make "value judgments" every day.  Many of them affect only us, personally, but some can have impacts on other people, too.

Historians engage in "value judgment" all of the time.  When they teach their courses, they spend more time on say The Jacksonian Period of Democracy than on the John Marshall Court.  Why do they spend more time on one aspect than another?  Isn't that a value judgment, deeming one to be more worthy of study than the other?  And, in fact, don't historians make value judgments in the courses that are taught.  Why, for instance, is there a World History/Studies course that gives equal time to Asia, Africa, and Latin America rather than a Western Civilizations course that focuses on the roots of American society?  I'm not arguing for one or the other, but to suggest that it's as important to study BC China or 12th Africa as the Enlightenment is a value judgment.  Why are there courses on The US Civil War, but not courses on The Gilded Age?  Again, I'm not saying that's appropriate or inappropriate (although I have my views).  I am saying it's a value judgment.  In many ways this is like the media--they influence the news not so much in how they cover it, but in what they choose to cover.

I think historians should "praise or disparage" those who deserve to be praised or disparaged.  Now, we can get carried away and bestow sainthood on some (OK, I admit to that!).  Everyone has warts, at least a few tiny ones.  Well, Mother Teresa might be an exception.  It's important to value good things; it sends a message.  It's equally important to criticize that which needs to be "disparaged." 

I hope this historian wasn't suggesting historians should be neutral, without passion, or even objective.  My guess is that's not at all possible.  But more to the point is attempting to be fair.  (Oops!  There's that slippery slope again.)  Being fair doesn't mean not taking sides, but merely giving each side, no matter how many there are, a hearing. 

When I heard this fellow say "not to praise or disparage" I immediately thought of the trendy diversity courses now being taught in many schools.  The aim is to teach that all people and all cultures are deserving of acceptance and respect.  That strikes me as not only silly, but also dangerous.  Of course there are some matters and people over which historians and students may well disagree.  FDR is an example.  Most historians (and hence most students and people) hold him in high regard.  I do not, but I also explain that I do not, but that most do. 

Some people deserve to be praised and some to be disparaged.  There is a reason we name cities, schools, parks, streets, etc. after some people, but not after others.  How can a teacher not disparage Hitler or Stalin, the KKK or mass murders of the 20th Century communists?  In the same vein, how can a teacher not praise ML King and Rosa Parks for the commitment and courage, Lincoln or Washington?  It doesn't mean we present them as perfect or canonize them; we aren't hagiographers after all.

Yes, we present students with information and ask them to make up their own minds.  They can think and believe what they want.  But I think it's good to give, perhaps, a little nudge in the right direction. And, yes despite the trendy diversity courses, there is a "right" direction.