The 1619 Project Has Failed. Why Do Academics Still Take It Seriously?

Its scholarly claims have faltered, yet its reputation has thrived in the universities because academic elites set aside their own expertise to promote its political narrative.

Share this story

A stack of The 1619 Project: A New Origin Story by Nikole Hannah-Jones on display at a New York City bookstore in 2021.

Spencer Platt/Getty Images

In many respects, the 1619 Project exemplifies why Americans have come to distrust elite institutions. Six years ago, when the New York Times launched this self-described “reframing” of America’s founding, distinguished scholars from across the political spectrum identified egregious errors of historical fact and interpretation in this work.

The problems were numerous and noticed immediately. By misrepresenting evidence, the 1619 Project’s lead organizer Nikole Hannah-Jones falsely depicted the American Revolution as a pro-slavery cause. A second 1619 Project essay by Matthew Desmond misinterpreted the economic dimensions of slavery as part of an attempt to indict American capitalism for the author’s own ideological reasons. In the process, he flubbed basic math and inadvertently tried to resuscitate the discredited “King Cotton” thesis of economic development that the Confederacy enlisted to its cause in 1861.

Phillip W. Magness

About the Author

Phillip W. Magness

Phillip W. Magness is a senior fellow and the David J. Theroux Chair in Political Economy at the Independent Institute.

Comments

Advertisement

Advertisement