Between 'Too Much & Not Enough,' A Meta Analysis of the 1619 Project

When the "New York Times" released the 1619 Project in August 2019 it was met with enthusiasm and critical review. The outcome of the public debate, as of now, is mixed. Research is also mixed. Education findings suggests the project has the power to heal. Case study evidence indicates culturally centered approaches positively impact academic outcomes and mental health of historically oppressed peoples. By emphasizing and affirming African American experiences 1619 has potential to narrow the achievement gap and disrupt rising suicide rates. However, philosophy and psychology warn against overemphasizing culture. Excessive affirmation can cause groupthink. Continual praise aggrandizes the in-group to the detriment of individuality. Members are stripped of autonomy and the ability to function outside in-group norms and expectations. Experimental case studies show the power of in-group allegiance to become divisive and even predatory when interfaced with an out-group. The cultural (mis) attribution bias offers a window into the balance between the opportunity costs of too much culture and not enough culture. Too much culture strips away individual identity whereas not enough culture strips away group identity. Both are damaging. The project's embrace and criticism are expressive of the juxtaposition.