There are at least two good reasons to pay serious attention to the latest skirmish in the social studies wars. First, it is one of the most prominent examples of "movement conservatism" to involve established social studies researchers; and secondly, it provides an opportunity for social educators to scrutinize the fundamental dilemma embedded in the field's commitment to "pluralism." The Fordham report--"Where Did Social Studies Go Wrong? (WDSSW)"--includes contributions from long-time National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS) members (including James Leming, Lucien Ellington, and Mark Schug, among others), and conservative academics such as Diane Ravitch, J. Martin Rochester and Chester E. Finn, Jr. The authors of "WDSSGW" argue, in general, that social studies content should be based on the beliefs that: certain factual information is important to the practice of good citizenship; the nature of this information remains relatively constant over time; this information is best determined by consensus of authorities and experts; and that the most effective means of teaching is direct instruction. On the other hand, the Contrarians and their allies argue that social studies education is in deep trouble primarily because the belief systems of education professors are based upon three premises: (1) American society is morally bankrupt; (2) an elite band of university professors, infused with a passion for social justice, knows best how to reform the flawed society; and (3) classrooms in the nation's public schools are an essential battleground for this societal transformation. As a result of these belief structures, the report argues, most social studies education professors believe in using the school as a site for fomenting radical social change; eschewing substantive content; and subordinating effective practice to so called "political correctness." These professors are hostile to "the kinds of basic knowledge ordinary Americans think important for their children to learn." In short, the authors of the report view the field as skewed toward an "informed social criticism" approach and would prefer social studies to be oriented toward "citizenship transmission." In this article, Ross and Marker examine how "WDSSGW" fits within "movement conservatism" and challenge the fundamental ideal of intellectual pluralism upon which social studies education is based. They argue that it is time for social studies educators to engage in a dialogue that creates a contemporary social studies curriculum that is relevant to students, meets the needs of a rapidly changing society, and prepares citizens to fully participate in democracy. (Contains 3 notes.)