American history is Black history, and Black history is American history.
In a time where diversity, equity and inclusion policies are under threat across the country, another troubling trend is occurring at museums and in classrooms. Revisionist history is the reinterpretation of established historical events using new evidence, context, and analysis to tweak, or in some cases, outright change the narrative.
Scholarly revisionism is a credible and necessary practice, which usually includes qualified personnel, ample research, the peer review process and the general goal of presenting the facts and telling the most accurate narrative. But there is a far less credible and more dangerous version of revisionist history that is taking shape across the United States.
A recent wave of new laws in multiple states aimed at neutralizing, or some cases erasing, Black history in state curriculums and removing DEI polices from classrooms and workplaces are extremely dangerous because they are subtle examples of systemic racism. Any student, faculty member or administrator who attends or works for a Catholic university that revolves around the critical concerns of the Sisters of Mercy should be alarmed.
Florida House Bill 7, also known as the “Stop Woke Act,” was signed in 2022 and restricts instruction that that has the potential of causing “guilt” or “psychological distress” for students because of previous actions committed by members of their own race or sex. This severely limits material related to slavery, Jim Crow laws, and conversations pertaining to systemic racism. Certain portions of the law regarding workplace training have been blocked by federal courts, and the portions about education are still undergoing legal battles.
Florida even went as far as stating positives of slavery in its 2023 Social Studies Academic Standards, which includes the following statement: “Instruction includes how slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit.”
Similar to Florida House Bill 7, Texas House Bill 3979, signed in 2021, prohibits any implication that “an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex.” The law also prohibits instruction that has the potential to result in “any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex.”
Oklahoma, South Carolina, and other states have adopted similar laws. The precursor to, and the blueprint for, these laws is Executive Order 13950 “Executive Order on Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping,” which was signed by President Trump during his first term in Sept. 2020.
Although these laws claim to accomplish equality by eliminating the “guilt” and “anguish” associated with belonging to an historically oppressive race, one of the main issues with these laws, and why they have received plenty of negative reactions, is how vague the language is and how it casts an umbrella large enough to exclude important historical events.
As a white student growing up in Montgomery County, MD, a school system that embraced teaching topics relating to the Black experience, my education included exposure to the ugly truths of slavery, Jim Crow, the resistance to the Civil Rights Movement and important Black voices like Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcom X. In lesson plans, plenty of extremely disturbing examples of oppression and violence against Black Americans were covered, which caused me to feel both guilt and discomfort as a white student.
If I were a white middle school student in Florida in 2026, all of those topics would be off limits based on the feelings I experienced. Just because the facts are uncomfortable or disturbing doesn’t mean curriculums should avoid them. Yes, I felt uncomfortable as an 11-year-old student learning about the horrific actions of my own race, but I would have been far more uncomfortable and confused if my teacher said, “It was kind of bad, but on the bright side, at least slaves were able to learn skills which benefited them in their lives.”
Jennifer Black, associate professor and department chair of history, believes it would be impossible for her to teach an accurate American history course without the experiences of all different types of Americans.
“I don’t see how I could teach U.S. History without talking about the experiences of African Americans (but also immigrants, women, other people of color, etc.)…We wouldn’t be painting a full picture if we didn’t include discussions of slavery, African American activism, etc.,” Black said.
Systemic racism pertains to how certain societal structures, public policies and institutional practices lead to racial inequality. Systemic racism is far less obvious than blatant in-your-face racism, but it also far more dangerous. As egregious as President Trump’s social media post of an AI generated video depicting Barack and Michele Obama as monkeys is, it is far less impactful on a macro level than policies threatening to exclude or rewrite the black experience in America, which is exactly what these recent laws risk doing.
While trying to avoid feelings of guilt or discomfort among white students, these laws that result in excluding or whitewashing the facts have the dangerous potential to disenfranchise Black students. If Black students are made aware of their ancestors’ historical oppression by their parents or other sources outside of the classroom, avoiding these issues in the classroom may make them feel like they are less important than white students.
The danger in avoiding uncomfortable topics relating to the oppression of Black people in classrooms also lies in perpetuating the ignorance of white students. Ignorance can be approached in two ways, with either curiosity or fear. When ignorance is approached with curiosity, it breeds acceptance, but when it is approached with fear, it breeds hate.
Unfortunately, the difference between the two has recently been on full display in American culture. Few examples paint a clearer picture of this than the uproar from a large number of white Americans, including white politicians, about Bad Bunny’s Super Bowl halftime show. Bad Bunny is Puerto Rican, and English is his second language. To pay homage to his roots and to Latino culture in general, he decided to perform the entire set in Spanish. Based on my observations, I also didn’t see a single white person in the performance, it was all people of color.
These two things combined to create a firestorm on social media, and the issue has even made its way to the legislative branch, with certain members of congress calling for a Federal Communications Commission investigation on whether the show was appropriate. For the first time in super bowl history, the backlash was so strong, that an “alternative” halftime show was offered in protest by Turning Point USA, which featured Kid Rock, Brantley Gilbert, Lee Brice and Gabby Barrett, all of whom are white and are vocal about their patriotism and Christian faith. The All-American Halftime Show was branded as the halftime show for “real Americans.”
People like me who approached their ignorance with curiosity, saw the show as a learning opportunity about Puerto Rican culture. I searched the internet for the meaning behind the symbolism in the show that was unfamiliar to me, and I learned a lot of interesting things about Puerto Rico. People who approached their ignorance with fear, posted their anger about an immigrant performing in Spanish at the super bowl on social media and tuned into watch Kid Rock, who infamously has a song about liking underage girls. I guess these people felt that made him more American than Bad Bunny.
The irony was lost on many. Bad Bunny is an American. Puerto Rico is a United States territory, which means Bad Bunny is an American citizen. The only thing that makes Bad Bunny less American than George Washington is that he isn’t allowed to vote. Even though Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens, they are not allowed to vote. The United States also refuses to grant them their independence, but that’s a different story.
This idea that “real Americans” are white Christians seems to have spread across social media and certain celebrity circles, often times given credibility by the relaying of that message by politicians and government employees.
U.S. Senator Eric Schmitt of Missouri gave a speech called “What is an American?” at the National Conservatism Conference in Washington, DC on Sept. 2, 2025. In the speech, Schmitt made numerous implications that Americans have been brainwashed into thinking the country is about welcoming immigrants and diverse cultures. He implied that is a false narrative and that America is actually the proud heritage of its “Western European founders.” He also said, “America belongs to us.” He doesn’t directly say “us” means white Christians, but the following excerpt pretty clearly implies it.
“We Americans are the sons and daughters of the Christian pilgrims that poured out from Europe’s shores to baptize a new world in their ancient faith. Our ancestors were driven here by destiny, possessed by urgent and fiery conviction, by burning belief, devoted to their cause and their God.”
This is a perfect example of how dangerous the exclusion of uncomfortable historical facts and the cherry picking of historical narratives to fit an agenda can be. This speech has circulated around social media, often times shared by people who have been duped into believing this is what Americans really are.
Schmitt conveniently left out the fact that a large number of Americans are the sons and daughters of enslaved Africans, whose ancestors were not driven here by destiny, but rather by a boat while being held captive in shackles and chains against their will. American citizens who are not ancestors of Christian European pilgrims are just as American as the ones who are.
The land the United States calls its own was not “founded” by Western Europeans. It was stolen from Native Americans, and the nation’s economy and infrastructure were built on the backs of slaves and immigrants. The mistreatment of these individuals, their important contributions to the nation, and their experiences are just as important chapters in American history as the pilgrims and the founding fathers.
The answer isn’t excluding Black history; it’s incorporating more of it. Celebrating Black history 28 days a year isn’t enough. The fact that there is even a designated month for Black history speaks to how the country views it. It sends a message that Black history is separate from American history. In a perfect world, we should be incorporating enough Black history in American history lessons that we wouldn’t need a designated month. We should be incorporating it 365 days a year.
Racism is one of the critical concerns of the Sisters of Mercy and combating it and raising awareness are core pillars of what we build our identity around as a university, which is why this issue deserves attention from Cougar students, faculty and administration. Students can educate themselves, even if their primary and secondary education didn’t. Faculty can continue to incorporate more Black history topics into generic history classes, and administration can stand firm against President’s Trump’s 2025 executive order targeting DEI polices at universities.
We can continue to be the inclusive and diverse university we strive to be. We can continue to advocate for accurate historical narratives, even if they are uncomfortable. Instead of approaching our ignorance with fear, let’s continue to approach it with curiosity.