Are B.C. and A.D. P.C. enough?

When the going gets tough, the tough get going—and the not-so-tough start making excuses.

In early April, the Kentucky Department of Education issued its new “Program of Studies,” the state’s unofficial curriculum guide, in which the terms B.C. and A.D. were dropped from date references.  B.C. means “Before Christ”; A.D. stands for “Anno Domini,” which means “In the Year of the Lord.” These were to be replaced by the more politically correct B.C.E. and C.E., which mean “Before the Common Era” and “Common Era.”

The uproar soon had education officials scurrying for political cover and the big state media in a dilemma: either support something most people thought was at best silly and at worst anti-religious, or (and this is not for the journalistically faint of heart) having to side with conservatives on a high-profile issue.

Department of Education officials basically threw up their hands and declared that it had never had any intention of dropping B.C. and A.D. from the curriculum guideline and that the version presented to the School Board included both designations: B.C./A.D. and B.C.E./C.E.

But anyone wanting to investigate what the Board was actually presented can look at the document in the Board agenda for its April 10 meeting, a version which completely drops B.C. and A.D.  It is still online for all the world to see.

Besides blatant falsehoods uttered by education bureaucrats, two other things made the Department’s declarations even less convincing.  The first was the fact that the Program of Studies document was held close to the vest until just days before a meeting of the State School Board at which the document was scheduled to be approved.  Why be so secretive unless there is something you know the public will likely not appreciate?

Then, there was the matter of why the Department of Education staff was so determined to have the document approved at the Board’s April meeting.  It just so happened that the April meeting was the last meeting of a School Board dominated by more liberal Patton appointees.  As of June, the Board would be completely peopled with Fletcher appointees—appointees, as it turned out, who would be far less inclined to sign off on policies that try to hide the influence of religion in our history.

Unfortunately for the Department, FOX News reporters were there, which resulted in national attention to the issue the next week.

There was also the response of the major state media—most notably the state’s two largest newspapers: the Louisville Courier-Journal and the Lexington Herald-Leader.  At first, they too had to disassociate themselves from what was perceived by most people to be a silly attempt to secularize history.  But the prospect of being on the same side as conservatives on the issue was apparently too much to bear.

In editorials written after the new School Board reinstituted the traditional calendar, both newspapers blasted The Family Foundation, which had led the opposition to the change, saying that it had been responsible for making a mountain out of a mole hill.  But in editorial responses to both papers, it was pointed out that it was the big newspapers, not The Family Foundation, which had made a big deal out of the issue.

If the controversy was “not a big deal,” (in words of one paper), then why did both papers put it on their front pages—several times?  Their own actions belied the fact that people don’t like it when attempts are made to expunge the importance of religion from history.

            ###

Martin Cothran is the senior policy analyst for The Family Foundation, a Kentucky nonprofit, educational organization that works in the public policy arena to protect families and the values that make families strong.