Raleigh

There's certainly nothing wrong with advocates for the poor invoking the phrase "social justice."

Then again, I'm not quite sure what the words mean.

OK, I get that those who speak of social justice generally are talking about equal opportunity, be it economic or something broader. And again, nothing wrong with that for those out there in the fray, pushing the public debate regarding how individual opportunity should be expanded, how policy and law can create level playing fields.

But where does opportunity for some people damage opportunity for others? These kinds of questions are often at the core of public policy debates.

Look at the health-care debate going on right now. Some families, through no fault of their own, face personal bankruptcy because of catastrophic health problems. Others who are largely satisfied with health care and health insurance don't want benefits taxed or to otherwise see their economic opportunities diminish as a part of a national response. Meanwhile, the rising cost of medical care and its effect on government-subsidized Medicaid and Medicare may mean diminished opportunities for our children and grandchildren.

So someone might speak of social justice regarding health-care reform. That doesn't mean that you or I are going to interpret the meaning the same way.

Why all the waxing philosophical about invocations of social justice?

The phrase shows up three times in a proposal to reconfigure the U.S. history curriculum in North Carolina public schools.

The idea has conservatives up in arms because, as it exists right now, the plan would have 11th-graders study the nation's history from after the Reconstruction Era to the present day, from 1877 forward. In other words, no Founding Fathers, no Monroe Doctrine, no Louisiana Purchase, no Civil War.

Currently, 11th-graders take a survey course that covers the country's entire history.

The plan would have seventh-graders take a comprehensive U.S. history course. Right now, middle-grade students study world and North Carolina history.

Public school officials say the end result would actually be more U.S. history instruction, not less. The intent, they say, isn't to focus less on the Founding Fathers and the ideals that led to America's founding, but to provide more in-depth study of larger themes.

Perhaps. But using squishy terms filled with political connotations - rather than meaningful phrases such as "civil rights" and "equal protection under the law" - doesn't instill much confidence.

I don't doubt that high school students would benefit from in-depth study of the civil rights movement. Many student never learn of significant events that happened in their own communities.

But wouldn't students also profit from examining the ideas of the founders, and the origins of the ideas that led to our country's founding? Given today's political polarization, there's plenty of value in understanding that we are all creatures of Locke and Rousseau, that how we see ourselves in the world, our freedom from place, is a product of their ideas.

There is no larger theme in our country's history.

Scott Mooneyham writes for Capitol Press Association in Raleigh. Contact him at smooneyh@ncinsider.com.