We have all heard of the golden rule; those with the gold make the rules. It appears that the tradition continues and has become standardized in the National History Standards. Apparently, recent surveys indicate our youth is not as well-versed as they sh ould be in American history. (It seems to me that in every generation, someone is pointing out how "out of touch" the young people are with either their past or present). Anyway, in 1992, President Bush responded by awarding a contract to the National Cen ter for History in the Schools at UCLA to develop national history standards for what American students should know about American and world history. The standards were to be compiled on a strictly voluntary basis. Two years later, when the standards were released by the center, the animosity and malice with which the standards were met led the U.S. Senate to censure the standards by a vote of 99-1. The bulk of the criticism came from the chairperson of the National Endowment for the Humanities, Lynne Che ney, who approved the grant for the standards. She lashed out, saying the standards were excessively multicultural and too politically correct. She said the standards highlighted many of America's dark moments, such as Senator Joseph McCarthy's anti-commu nist campaign and the Ku Klux Klan, while ignoring many of the nation's heroes, scientific achievements and freedoms. The center reasoned that America is a nation of many cultures and ethnic groups, each distinctive and significant. More importantly, we a s a nation of many should not forget, and strive to recognize that these distinctions are inherent, even though we live under one roof. This in borne out in the center's use of the phrase, "the American peoples." Well, as you can imagine, the conservativ e right had a field day.

Well, what is this all about? Earlier this month, the "new and improved" history standards were released. Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and Diane Ravitch found it important enough to comment on them in the Wall Street Journal (April 3). Frankly, I had never hear d of the national history standards. But I began to look into them, prompted mostly by the commentary of Schlesinger and Ravitch. Their comments support the new standards because most of the "problems" mentioned above are now revised. However, what enrage d me was not their criticisms of the old standards, nor their new found support for the revised ones, but the pious tone with which they decided that the new standards better reflect what Americans need to know. Like those before them, they question the " attention... directed to our nation's troubled history of racial, ethnic and religious tension," but are pleased that "these issues are now placed within the context of the nation's continuing quest to make our practices conform to our ideals." They share in the disapproval that from the old standards, one might "regard Europeans as the only people who ever engaged in the slave trade," but pleasantly note that the revised standards "refer to the varieties of slavery practiced by Africans and their role in delivering slaves to the Atlantic passage."

And listen to this, the old standards previously charged the Westward movement in America was fashioned after the "greed and rapacity of 'restless white Americans.'" Ravitch and Schlesinger are content with the revised version stating that the land-hungry Americans were driven not only by the "ideology of Manifest Destiny," but by "the optimism that anything was possible with imagination, hard work, and the maximum freedom of the individual." What!!

Am I missing something, or should I, as an African American, be consoled by the idea that Africans participated in the enslavement of my forefathers in America? Hey, Native Americans, although your ancestors were raped, robbed and murdered by the Westward movement, it was all within the spirit of an "optimism that anything was possible with imagination, hard work, and the maximum freedom of the individual." What the..! Who in the....! How insulting!!!

The ultimate questions are, what "history" are they adopting, who is telling the story, what are the standards measured against and who is listening at the other end. Face it, African American history is not Native American history, and neither are the hi story of those Europeans who decided that revolution was the order of the day and declared independence. Historical perspectives vary. The old standards were criticized for mentioning Harriet Tubman more often than George Washington. To whom would that ma tter? The "troubled history of racial, ethnic, and religious tension" in American history are lessons to be learned in the African American, Hispanic and Native American communities. Who are they to decide what is appropriate; what is necessary and unnece ssary? This reminds me of another saying: History is written by the winners. The new National History Standards appear to reflect that fact.

David H. Benton is a second-year law student and president of the Black Law Students Association