The article has been out for nearly a month, but I just caught up to “Revisionaries,” Mariah Blake’s exceptional piece on the curriculum battles in Texas in the current issue of Washington Monthly. It’s conventional wisdom that Texas wields outsize influence on textbooks nationwide because of its statewide adoption policies. With California, the other textbook behemoth, putting off buying new books until 2014, Texas now has “unparalleled power to shape the textbooks that children around the country read for years to come,” Blake writes. That power largely rests, she says, with Don McLeroy.
The jovial creationist sits on the Texas State Board of Education, where he is one of the leaders of an activist bloc that holds enormous sway over the body’s decisions. As the state goes through the once-in-a-decade process of rewriting the standards for its textbooks, the faction is using its clout to infuse them with ultraconservative ideals. Among other things, they aim to rehabilitate Joseph McCarthy, bring global-warming denial into science class, and downplay the contributions of the civil rights movement.
Blake’s article is a fascinating trip through the last 50 years or so of Texas politics and conservative activism, most notably the discovery in the 1960s by Norma and Mel Gabler, a housewife and an oil-company clerk, that Texas had “a little-known citizen-review process that allowed the public to weigh in on textbook content.”
When textbook adoptions rolled around, the Gablers would descend on school board meetings with long lists of proposed changes—at one point their aggregate “scroll of shame” was fifty-four feet long. They also began stirring up other social conservatives, and eventually came to wield breathtaking influence. By the 1980s, the board was demanding that publishers make hundreds of the Gablers’ changes each cycle. These ranged from rewriting entire passages to simple fixes, such as pulling the New Deal from a timeline of significant historical events (the Gablers thought it smacked of socialism) and describing the Reagan administration’s 1983 military intervention in Grenada as a “rescue” rather than an “invasion.”
To avoid running afoul of the Gablers and other activists, “many publishers started self-censoring or allowing the couple to weigh in on textbooks in advance,” Blake notes.
McLeroy describes his current efforts, apparently in earnest, as a never-ending battle for truth, justice, and the American way. “There are people out there who want to replace truth with political correctness. Instead of the American way they want multiculturalism. We plan to fight back—and, when it comes to textbooks, we have the power to do it,” he tells Blake, concluding with stunning candor: “Sometimes it boggles my mind the kind of power we have.”
“…a never ending battle for truth, justice, and the Texas way” is more like it.
Texas is a joke, an embarrassment. They should be allowed to secede from the US. They clearly would not be missed. They would then be allowed to live out their true destiny as perhaps the most backward thinking lobbies of the twenty-first century. Heck, these people make Pat Robinson look like a born-again liberal.
Is there no voice of reason emanating from this din of ignorance?
Forgive them Lord, for they know not what they do. They’re just too stupid for words.
Comment by Paul Hoss — February 1, 2010 @ 9:10 am
“There are people out there who want to replace truth with political correctness.”
How right McLeroy is. All one has to ask is, “Whose politcal correctness?”
Comment by Jason Becker — February 1, 2010 @ 10:45 am
Thank goodness someone is willing to stand up against the ‘machine’ and teach our children the truth rather than revisionist American history. Political correctness has erased the fact that Hitler, Mao, Che, and others are mass murderers. These leaders just wanted what was best for their people right?! Don’t you find something wrong with Che being idolized by children these days?
Our children do not learn about what amazing people our Founding Fathers were or the liberty our Constitution actually provides us(rather than being ‘interpreted’ to suit someone’s fancy). It’s convenient these truths are left out of American history, as it becomes much easier to lead the sheep to the slaughter.
I’m tired of American history being replaced by the progressive agenda, which rots our children’s minds and turns them into robots. This has been happening for way too long and it is about time someone stands up. Don’t mess with Texas!!
Comment by KC — February 1, 2010 @ 12:39 pm
Thanks, we’ve been complaining about the power of the Gablers since I was in school. Their power doesn’t stop at the Red River. One nice thing about urban schools, they are about the only place where its safe to teach Evolution. Few of my students accept Evolution or the idea that homosexuality is not a choice, but they and their parents just pray for teachers’ souls. In the suburbs and small towns of Oklahoma, we’re closer to the 19th century. Those reformers who want to break unions by turning the clock back to the Taylorism of the early 20th century and who have made alliances with the Far Right do not realize they are playing with fire. Without unions, tenure, collective bargaining, and due process, we’ll be lucky to make the leap into the early 1900s. If we want to prosper in the 21st century, we need to restore the professional autonomy of teachers.
Comment by john thompson — February 1, 2010 @ 12:50 pm
@Jason Becker: Not McLeroy’s editor manipulated textbook brand of political correctness! It is relevant only to that neo-conservative ideology, and does not reflect the sum total of reality either.
America is moving toward becoming a politically correct nation. We won’t know historically what that means until later. Whether one is tired of it or not, to stop it now, it would be doing students a disservice to deny that it matters.
The textbook needs to strike a balance: kids must be able to switch gears while reading. They need not agree, or disagree, rather develop the capacity to understand and sympathize. If not, I fear they will never get an actual life taste of the delicious body of knowlege that has lasted for so long because there are people out there who can’t demonstrate what the great ideas are. Also they do not want to let children think critically about the great ideas, and the not-so great ideas, that all helped to make Americans who we are today. If the bells are to ring and the lights to pop, then we have to supply the students with all the necessary backgroung knowlegde. Only then can they engage with the human community in meaningful, intelligent work and relationships.
Instead, they feel it is better to force feed them the meaning of the situation of being an American as one creationist and his croonies see it. We can reject all that.
Comment by Jeff Hawkins — February 1, 2010 @ 12:55 pm
As someone who leans conservative, I can say that the picture is not so simple. Not all conservatives want to eliminate opinions differing from their own. A good number of us want children to learn about both (or all) sides of issues and to apply the lessons of history, logic and reason to the debate. I often need to balance any book we read with an account of the other side.
Comment by Homeschooling Granny — February 1, 2010 @ 1:24 pm
Also, I’m not sure how many of you have researched the origins of political correctness nor the desired outcome of it. So for Mr. Hawkins to say, “America is moving toward becoming a politically correct nation.” terrifies me.
And to continue with what Mr. Hawkins wrote, “We won’t know historically what that means until later. Whether one is tired of it or not, to stop it now, it would be doing students a disservice to deny that it matters.” I believe we are doing our students a disservice by NOT stopping political correctness. Are people so sensitive now that they are incapable of dealing with differing opinions? Some people disagree, but we can still be civil. Some people are just plain mean, so don’t hang around them. If someone does physical harm to another or destroys another’s property, then we have laws.
As far as what it means historically, we do know and I urge everyone here to please do your research!
Comment by KC — February 1, 2010 @ 2:28 pm
Robert,
This piece seems to have stirred up a bit of a hornet’s nest, hasn’t it?
Comment by Paul Hoss — February 1, 2010 @ 2:31 pm
@Paul Hoss
“Forgive them Lord, for they know not what they do. They’re just too stupid for words.”
Very tolerant of you.
Did you make a habit of modeling true tolerance with your students or were you only tolerant of views that aligned with your own?
Comment by AJGuzzaldo — February 1, 2010 @ 3:06 pm
Not sure what happened to my previous response…so I’ll try again.
@ Homeschooling Granny- I completely agree. It is just becoming increasingly difficult to find differing sides to the debate in books across this nation. Fortunately for your children, you are able to provide them with both sides of the issues and teach them how to apply logic and think critically. Unfortunately, children in many American classrooms do not get that same opportunity of differing viewpoints (say, on global warming).
@ Mr. Thompson- You have no right to make assumptions about my values or beliefs (on evolution, homosexuality, etc.) just because I believe in teaching our children the truth about our Founding Fathers, the Constitution, and mass murders. We may not all fit into the same little box you put us in.
As for the unions, I say let’s give capitalism a try. Per our Constitution, the federal government has no business running our educational system-the states do. (Shocking information to many, I know!) If schools were privatized in each state, these private school businesses would be willing to pay more (due to competition) to employ the best teachers. An added benefit of this is that the teachers would get the autonomy they desire- obviously if you are one of the best teachers then you can be trusted you’re doing things right. Unions are the problem, not the solution!
Comment by KC — February 1, 2010 @ 3:21 pm
KC:
You want us to teach about the Founding Fathers. Would it be OK for me to teach that Ben Franklin did not believe the Bible was God’s word? Or that Thomas Jefferson rewrote the Bible excluding all the parts that he thought were lies (including all of the “miracles”)? Or that many intellectuals of the late 1700′s were utterly sick of and disillusioned by religion and the wretched conflicts it spawned (e.g. the Thirty Years’ War)? And then, to make the lesson timely, point to last week’s sectarian slaughter in Nigeria where Christians and Muslims killed each other en masse?
Comment by Ben — February 1, 2010 @ 4:49 pm
Yes, I am fully aware that the Founding Fathers held various religious beliefs (and some say Thomas Paine was an atheist). My point with the Founding Fathers is that they were capable of putting religion aside to create the miraculous document called the Constitution. The beauty of this collective effort was freedom…such as freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
We do not all have to agree, even on the point that the Founding Fathers deserve our respect. I believe they do because of this Great Nation they created, and while we have our faults, America has been the beacon of freedom for the rest of the world. It is in political correctness that conversation is stifled. It is in lack of understanding that we do not have peace. Religion has been a point of contention for People, and likely always will be. I just believe peace will be delivered through liberty, rather than through forced compliance known as tyranny (e.g. Socialism, Marxism, Fascism, Communism, etc.)
For some reason these days, many people seem willing to sacrifice liberty for some notion that socialism will create the peaceful loving world they desire. I will always resist socialism as it is about control, and defies the free will we were given at birth. Likely though, it is a point on which many of us will disagree. Thank goodness for the Constitution, which (at least for now) allows us this pleasure.
Comment by Anonymous — February 1, 2010 @ 5:27 pm
I am quite conservative as to religion as well as politics. The complexity of the founding fathers’ attitudes and doubts about religion delights me. Teaching it is a fabulous way to give young people perspective on today’s debates.
If I want my grandchildren to share my faith, they need to understand the sources of doubt about it. An unexamined faith gives them few resources with which to face the challenges life is likely to mount.
As for evolution, I wonder why some are so opposed to examining that topic. I believed in evolution as long as I understood the contents of a single cell to be simple. Since I have been disabused of that notion, I cannot understand how evolution occurred before the complex interactive system necessary for evolution had evolved. If I raise that question in some quarters, I am belittled.
If you are an advocate for openness in education, then be open to debating evolution and global warming. If you only want one side of an issue presented, then refrain from criticizing others who only want one side presented. They are only the other side of your coin.
Comment by Homeschooling Granny — February 1, 2010 @ 6:11 pm
Sorry…that ‘Anonymous’ comment above was me. I thought it had saved my name.
Comment by KC — February 1, 2010 @ 6:56 pm
AJ,
My concern in Texas is with the over four million public school students who are at the mercy of the adults in control of their education. The interests/beliefs of these controlling adults should not limit the purported opportunity these kids should be afforded.
My entry above may have been over the top and for that I apologize. I simply have zero tolerance for these kinds of individuals. Their religious beliefs should in no way interfere with, never mind impair and/or inhibit, the education of four million plus young people. I believe this is not of question of intolerance of people who disagree with me, it’s a question of right and wrong.
The Texas BOE is abusing their position of authority. There are other states who have had this debate and traveled down this misguided path for the sole purpose of imposing the religious beliefs of a few adults on the students of an entire state. It’s wrong.
State sovereignty has been used as an excuse in the past to impose certain policies on its citizens. Whether it was Mississippi, Arkansas, Alabama, it made no difference. These decision makers were dead wrong; wrong to deny people of a certain skin color entry into their public schools, a seat at a public restaurant, or equal access to a seat on a public conveyor.
Texas, with its apparent acceptance of creationism or intelligent design (what’s intelligent about it?) to be taught alongside evolution may appear different on the surface from the Jim Crow offenses of years gone by but they are merely distant cousins. Their common breeder? Ignorance. The major problem I have with their ignorance is their position in the community. These ‘adults’ have the ability to promulgate their beliefs on the unsuspecting minds of youngsters statewide. There is simply no place for this kind of politics in twenty first century America.
Comment by Paul Hoss — February 1, 2010 @ 6:58 pm
KC:
We’re getting off the topic a bit here, but, I just don’t get how you could call Denmark and the other democratic-socialist countries tyrannies. Have you been to Europe? Do the citizens groan under the burden of tyranny? Seems to me that the capitalist/socialist hybrid they’ve got there works very well. Polls say Danes are the happiest people on Earth. I love all-American socialist programs like Social Security, socialized military. socialized libraries, socialized national parks…what’s so nefarious about these things? And, um, isn’t working for some huge corporations (e.g. Walmart, Tyson Foods) a wee bit like serfdom?
Comment by Ben — February 1, 2010 @ 7:28 pm
Could we retire the term “politically correct”? It’s so trashed now that no one claims it or advocates it, while it becomes a vague and clichéd epithet to hurl about when one wishes to promote something more or less traditional instead. If it means “moral relativity” then let’s say so. If it means “multicultural” then say that. Or is “Marxist”? I just don’t know anymore.
Comment by David B. Cohen — February 2, 2010 @ 1:41 am
The term Politically correct” is being used by neo-conservative/Libertarain reformers in their reform propganda; do they even know what it means when they say they are tired of political correctness? When I see ads in reform publications with the tagline “tired of political correctness” I think it means multicultural, Marxist, and moral relativists, yeah. Apparently the founding fathers didn’t mean to include them in the constituion? That is an extraordinary claim. They are using a bunch of patriotic rhetoric to say that American students will actually learn better within a system politically ordered as a democracy. Which is tantamount to political correctness. That’s the only reason I would even utter the words “politically correct”. David wrote: “It’s so trashed now that no one claims it or advocates it, while it becomes a vague and clichéd epithet to hurl about when one wishes to promote something more or less traditional instead.” Tell them.
Comment by Jeff Hawkins — February 2, 2010 @ 10:51 am
@ Paul: You said, “Their common breeder? Ignorance. The major problem I have with their ignorance is their position in the community. These ‘adults’ have the ability to promulgate their beliefs on the unsuspecting minds of youngsters statewide. There is simply no place for this kind of politics in twenty first century America.”
Interestingly enough, the same could be said about you and the beliefs you push. You are doing the same thing you accuse others of, but somehow your beliefs are more righteous?
@ Ben: Per the Constitution, the federal government’s purpose is to provide security and emergency services to benefit the people…such as military, police, and fire services. The reason the government was given this role is because it makes more sense to pay someone (police) to ‘watch’ our property. Otherwise each person would be confined to his home to protect his property. By the public giving someone this responsibility, it allows us to be more free to go about our daily business and be more productive citizens.
‘Services’ such as Social Security, libraries, parks, etc. really have no business being run by our government according to the Constitution. Why could these not be privatized? People think public libraries and parks are free, but we pay plenty in taxes to keep these services going by inefficient government bureaucracies. I would rather be taxed much less and pay a bit of money to borrow a book or use a park owned by a private entity. That way, if it is a commodity I use, I pay for it but if it is not, then I don’t! If many of the responsibilities the government has taken upon itself were allowed to be run by private individuals, it not only would create jobs (I think we’re missing a few million of these recently) but you’d only have to pay for these services if use them.
Now I’m sure you are thinking…what about all the poor people who cannot afford these things?!! I’m not a heartless person believe it or not. Ultimately it comes down to people taking the responsibility for their lives and productivity. Right now there is no motivation for people to get off of welfare or other governmental programs. These create DEPENDENCY (which I think is pretty convenient if you ask me). How about letting people keep more of their money? How about the government getting out of the way so businesses can flourish and hire more people? If there were enough jobs, and an incentive to get off the couch rather than collect welfare, I believe most self respecting people would do it.
Now another benefit of allowing people to keep the fruits of their labor (money) is that we are able to decide how we want to spend it. I believe most people are good and generous and would actually give more to charities if we didn’t feel the government was taking it all from us. People who own property may very well decide to donate part of their land for public use as a park. People who specialize in rehabilitative services may donate their time or money to help those in need.
See, the difference between freedom (where we keep the fruits of our labor and have the ability to decide what we want to do with it) and socialism (where the government takes some/most of the fruits of our labor and THEY decide how it will be spent) is the difference between an ability to choose and being controlled. For example, doesn’t it feel better when you give someone flowers because you choose to, rather than being told to do so? One could claim the outcome is the same, but the motivation behind the act is very different. One is to simply do good for another, whereas the other is done out of forced compliance and ultimately creates resentment.
I know people are good and trust they will do good. Right now our entire system is set up by the government to create resentment between different groups (based upon socioeconomic status, race, religion, etc.). The government takes money from those who are productive and gives it to those who aren’t. It takes money from those who are responsible and gives it to those who deserve to fail (such as all those large banks). The real question you must ask yourself is…what does the government have to gain by creating this tension and resentment? I believe ultimately it is to keep us divided…to create people who are dependent on the government so those who are dependent vote to keep the same people in power (basically a form of slavery)…to keep their control…increase their power. I guarantee it is not out of the goodness of the government’s heart. I will always trust the goodness of people over the government any day of the week.
As far as serfdom, big companies are not the enemy. I look at our government and all of the taxes they take and I have NO SAY in how it is spent, if even benefiting me at all. If I don’t pay I go to jail! Now with big companies, if you don’t like their business practices (say they don’t treat their people right) or their products are poor quality or too expensive…then you have the ability to DECIDE FOR YOURSELF that you do not want to work there or purchase their products. And guess what else happens? This company ultimately fails, as it should!
Take any of the socialist, Marxist, Communist regimes…what happens if you disagree? What happens if you don’t like how things are being run, that you don’t have freedom of religion, or only have one public TV station run by the government? Are you allowed to decide to choose differently? Usually you are told to shut up or you will go to jail. Or if you protest you run the risk of getting shot. On the flip side, if you don’t like a particular company then you have the option of not working or doing business with them. No jail, no getting shot. Just go elsewhere.
I hope this answers your questions.
Comment by KC — February 2, 2010 @ 11:43 am
You’ve caught me on something I am very passionate about, so here’s one more thing for you to think about per the Constitution and the beliefs of the Founding Fathers…
From the book “The 5,000 Year Leap” by Cleon Skousen:
THE PROPER ROLE OF THE GOVERNMENT IS TO PROVIDE EQUAL RIGHTS, NOT EQUAL THINGS.
When Benjamin Franklin went to England, he noticed the Crown was giving to the underprivileged and how it created idleness. From his own writings he observed (Ibid):
Compassion which gives a drunk the means to increase his drunkenness is counter-productive.
Compassion which breeds debilitating dependency and weakness is counter-productive.
Compassion which blunts the desire or necessity to work for a living is counter-productive.
Compassion which smothers the instinct to strive and excel is counter-productive.
Samuel Adams said a welfare state was made unconstitutional:
“The utopian schemes of leveling (redistribution of the wealth), and a community of goods (central ownership of all the means of production and distribution), are as visionary and impracticable as those which vest all property in the Crown. [These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and in our government, unconstitutional. (Wells, Life of Samuel Adams, 1:154.)
The Founders believed that it is each person’s duty to help another who is poor or underprivileged, but that compassion should be given in a calculated manner (by a person, not the government).
So what are we to do? They believed…
Do not help the needy completely. Merely help them help themselves.
Give the poor the satisfaction of “earned achievement” instead of rewarding them without achievement.
Allow the poor to climb the “appreciation ladder”- from tents to cabins, cabins to cottages, cottages to comfortable houses.
Where emergency help is provided, do not prolong it to the point where it becomes habitual.
Strictly enforce the scale of “fixed responsibility”- meaning responsibility first to yourself, then family, then church, then community, then country.
They believed if the government became involved in public welfare it would corrupt the government and also the poor. Interesting to me is that they knew this so long ago…and how far we’ve distanced ourselves from the original intent of the Constitution.
Is this not the very situation we find ourselves in today? Who is benefiting from this public welfare scheme? The poor…NO. The government…YES!
Comment by KC — February 2, 2010 @ 1:02 pm
@Paul
“The Texas BOE is abusing their position of authority. There are other states who have had this debate and traveled down this misguided path for the sole purpose of imposing the religious beliefs of a few adults on the students of an entire state.”
Your argument would be strong only if the members of the Texas BOE were not elected officials. The reality is that they ARE elected officials and if the people of Texas feel they are abusing their position and imposing their religious beliefs on the students of the whole state, they are welcome to elect someone else to the Board.
By your logic, President Obama is abusing his position because he is imposing his beliefs on the entire country. In reality, Obama was elected by the people and if the people don’t like what he is doing they are free to vote against him in the next election. The same can be said for the Congress and the same is true for the Texas BOE.
Furthermore, treating evolution and global warming as irrefutable topics promotes the exact kind of imposition of beliefs that you claim to oppose. Comparing the teaching of these topics to desegration is an absurd argument. You are comparing apples to oranges.
What you are saying isn’t just intolerant; it’s undemocratic. The fact of the matter is that you have no way of knowing what the people of the state want. How do you know the Board’s positions aren’t representative of the state? If they are, that is hardly an example of a religious fringe group imposing their beliefs on others.
Comment by AJGuzzaldo — February 2, 2010 @ 3:04 pm
AJ,
You point to one of the pitfalls of democracy. Just because the majority say something is so, doesn’t mean it is. Had we allowed majorities in the South to dictate racial policies, there would still be segregation there. Should the ignorant seize control of the education machine, ignorance will be perpetuated. It seems to me that schools must in some cases defy the prejudices and inclinations of the people.
Comment by Ben — February 2, 2010 @ 3:22 pm
KC,
Interesting answers. May I ask if you’ve been to Europe? If so, what did you think? Terrible?
Comment by Ben — February 2, 2010 @ 3:26 pm
Ben,
As Churchill said (more or less), democracy is the worst type of government, except all those other governments that have been tried.
The “majorities in the South” argument you point to is the usual argument people submit in response to the idea that the majority should rule. Would you rather live in a place in which the minority rules? If so, which minority?
What I pointed to, in fact, is not a pitfall of democracy, but one of its most important principles. That is, the majority might not always get it right, but they’ll get it right more often than they’ll get it wrong. The problem with allowing the minority to rule over the majority in certain cases is the question of WHO gets to decide when the majority should be overruled.
It’s easy to point to instances of the minority getting it right, as they did in the South. But if you allow that, you open the door to exactly the kind of minority viewpoint impositions that most of us would reject. If the majority doesn’t rule, which minority should?
Comment by AJGuzzaldo — February 2, 2010 @ 3:55 pm
AJ,
We don’t put NASA safety policies or National Institute of Health experimental design protocols up for national referendum. The people are not competent to make sound judgements on these matters. Certain decisions need to be several steps removed from the voting booth. I think this includes education policy.
Comment by Ben — February 2, 2010 @ 4:47 pm
Ben,
You’re right. We don’t have a direct democracy, so we don’t vote on every little thing because the people aren’t experts in everything.
But, you’re missing the point. Texas citizens aren’t voting by referendum on what should be taught in schools. They have elected representatives to make those decisions for them. So, those decisions ARE removed from the voting booth.
Furthermore, you’re comparing apples to oranges. NASA safety policies and NIH design protocols are absurd comparisons. What I’m talking about is parents having the right to have a say in what their children are taught in areas they can certainly understand.
To assume and suggest that parents are not competent enought to make sound judgments on whether evolution and global warming should be taught as debated topics is elitist and represents exactly the type of intolerance I’m highlighting here.
If parents aren’t “competent” to make these decisions, who is? Are you? Are colleges of education? Are political parties? Is government? If education policy should be removed from the voting booth, then WHO should dictate what we teach in public schools? I’m not saying parents should have the final say, just a voice in the process.
We’re not talking about high tech issues like NASA regulations. We’re talking about topics that are worthy of academic debate that aren’t treated as such in many classrooms. Parents having those views represented by the Board and the Board acting on them is hardly a scenario that is analogous to your NASA example.
Comment by AJGuzzaldo — February 2, 2010 @ 5:23 pm
@ AJ: I disagree. I believe there is an intrinsic value in any intellectual pursuit, be it who to elect, high tech issues, or making sound judgements about a curriculum. That’s also how I know that McLeroy and croonie’s views are not representative of the people of Texas.
In short, it’s because there is no intrinsic value in teaching American students this (say, creation) and NOT that (say, evolution) right now! “That is why schools must in some cases defy the prejudices and inclinations of the people” as Ben put it so nicely.
Comment by Jeff Hawkins — February 2, 2010 @ 6:28 pm
Jeff,
If there is an intrinsic value in any intellectual pursuit (I agree), then introducing students of evolution to an alternative viewpoint that millions of Americans share has value. If for no other reason, it can help students become more culturally literate and practice evaluating arguments.
Furthermore, I didn’t say McLeroy’s views are shared by Texans. I said Paul Hoss has no way of knowing. If McLeroy offends Texans, they shouldn’t vote for him.
Lastly, I find Ben’s statement about schools defying the prejudices and inclinations of the people to be offensive. You still haven’t answered the question of what exactly gives schools and teachers the right to defy parents.
I’m a teacher. If I teach something that a parent doesn’t want their student to learn, the parent has the right to keep their child from learning it. I’ve had students complete alternative units because their parents didn’t want them to learn what I was teaching. What right do I have to override the wishes of the parent?
All I’m saying is that parents should have a say and it is absurd to argue that the autonomy of schools somehow supercedes the rights of parents.
I don’t want creationism alone taught in schools and I generally find McLeroy’s ideas to be obnoxious. But, I also don’t want to live in a country where the autonomy of schools supercedes the rights of parents.
Comment by AJGuzzaldo — February 2, 2010 @ 6:46 pm
We actually live in a Constitutional Republic…or at least we did, not a democracy.
@AJ: I completely agree… You said, “All I’m saying is that parents should have a say and it is absurd to argue that the autonomy of schools somehow supercedes the rights of parents.”
@Ben: No I have not been to Europe, though I would like to go. I’m not saying these are horrible places to live. I’m just saying I prefer our Constitutional Republic over socialism. Interestingly enough, many countries who were more socialistic are leaning towards capitalism these days. Take a look at China! Poland is cutting their spending and deficits…and recovering more quickly from the recession than countries like America and England. Putin warned Obama not to continue in the direction we are headed, as it doesn’t work. Can you believe it! (I don’t have the quote on hand but will try to get it up here tomorrow.)
So, you mean to tell me the principles instituted in our Constitution such as fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets actually WORKS?!! Why are other countries around the world realizing this, yet we are determined to head in the opposite direction?
Comment by KC — February 3, 2010 @ 12:01 am
Other countries can not boast the wonderful diversity that America, the republic can. That’s what makes us unique, and I hope this republic becomes more, not less committed to becoming as Jefferson wanted it, a country where all men(sic)are created equal no matter who their fathers are.
The free market is not fair. Limited government breeds elitism. Fiscal responsibility is a presumtous in this economy where millions are without jobs. I’d like to live in your utopia…but it needs to be stitched together with the fabric of reality, or else it is just wishful thinking.
Comment by Jeff Hawkins — February 3, 2010 @ 10:38 am
I guess what I’m thinking is that if people like the socialistic system in Europe, then please feel free to move there. Why do they feel the need to change America? If the socialistic health care programs are so great, why do leaders of other countries travel to America to get the best surgery in the world? If you are a man with prostate cancer, you have a 90% chance of survival in America and only a 56% chance of survival in Britain. People from Canada not only have to wait to get a doctor per the lottery system (since there aren’t enough doctors to go around), once diagnosed with cancer they may have to wait 6 months before getting the surgery to remove the deadly tumor due to the waiting list. Do you know how many people die waiting?! This is why many, at their own full expense, travel to America to get the surgery they need to survive. So as great as socialism sounds in theory, time and time again it has proven to decrease the standard of health and living for all citizens of that country.
And actually, the truth of the matter is, our governmental system right now in America is Fascist. It may be surprising to some, but it is true…and shows how far we’ve diverted from our original government.
Many people think Fascism is right wing on the political system. But if you think of the political spectrum as the Founding Fathers did, it’s like a ruler where it moves from 0% (anarchy) to 100% (tyranny). Therefore, types of government such as socialism, Fascism, Marxism, and Communism are all on the same end of the spectrum. It’s not a right or a left thing, as they are all varying degrees of tyranny. The Founding Father’s goal with writing the Constitution was to chain our government between too little government (anarchy- like the Articles of Confederation) and too much government (tyranny- like the British Crown).
You may ask, how can America be Fascist? Well, do you really own your own property? Even if you have paid for your property and house in full, if you do not pay the taxes the government can take your property away from you. This doesn’t even take into account what they are doing through the use of imminent domain. Who owns your business if you are a business owner? Who tells you what color you are able to paint the exterior, the number of sockets in the wall, the wages you must pay your workers, how much paid time you must allow them off…any the thousands of other regulations that must be followed? The government. And of course, it can all be easily taken from you by the government. Oh, and now add the desire of our current Congress to force small businesses into purchasing health care for all employees or paying a penalty to the government. And it will be passed whether we like it or not because I assume they believe like the first person who replied…
“Forgive them Lord, for they know not what they do. They’re just too stupid for words.”
I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m tired of being told I am stupid and don’t know what is best for myself and my family. I am tired of being controlled and taxed by an ever growing government who thinks they are my parent and know best. I’m tired of the government telling me how my children must be educated. I am tired of wasteful spending and devaluation of the dollar. I’m tired of the government blaming everyone but themselves for this mess we are in. Don’t get me wrong, it didn’t just start with the current Administration though it is working much more quickly than those before it. Our liberties have been slowly eroded by our government for the past 90 years.
WHEN IS ENOUGH GOING TO BE ENOUGH?
Comment by KC — February 3, 2010 @ 11:18 am
@Jeff: The free market is not fair because the government is involved! Let those big banks or car companies fail for goodness sake! Government is creating the elitism that we see, not capitalism. Limited government puts control of the government back into the hands of the people, where it rightfully belongs in America. Problems were intended to be handled at the lowest level of government possible. This is not the government we currently have, therefore We the People have very little say left. The elitists are up in Washington D. C., as well as those who believe government is the answer and the rest of us are just well… “stupid”. If that is not elitism at it’s best, I don’t know what is!
As far as Jefferson wanting all men to be created equal…well, in fact we are. It is the elitists who believe people come into this world differently, and they must level the playing field based upon THEIR notion of what is right or wrong, fair or unfair. Who are these people who think they get to decide this?! It is pretty presumptuous to me for a person or group of people to think they know better than any other person (or God, if you believe in that sort of thing).
Comment by KC — February 3, 2010 @ 3:55 pm
Those who decide should be those whose doctrinal field is education, and people generally in that orbit. What evidence do you have to support the idea that they think they “know better than God”? That’s another extraordinary claim!
Your Neville Chamberlain-like hand wringing over who decides what can and can not be taught in American schools is unreasonable. Students must be taught to critically think about the facts, and they must have all the facts to make sound judgements. I’d rather that than they be limited to a civics education, laeving students high and dry intellectually.
Comment by Jeff Hawkins — February 4, 2010 @ 9:25 pm
So we’ve come full circle now…
Those in the field of education generally hold the same views, as most have attended liberally oriented educational colleges. Unfortunately, I believe this is what is limiting our children’s education as (generally speaking) a particular agenda is being put forth by many teachers. Just because everyone in a particular circle is saying their way is correct or the best way, doesn’t make it so. A great example would be of Nazism, correct?
I appreciate the CK curriculum because it is a balanced, systematic approach with high standards. Even with a great system in place you must agree that each teacher has their own beliefs that shape how they teach, what they teach, and even more specifically what they don’t teach. Back to the global warming example, many kids only hear one side of the story. I would agree with you that “Students must be taught to critically think about the facts, and they must have all the facts to make sound judgments.” My issue is that this is not what is happening in many schools across America today. We should not be teaching students WHAT to think, but HOW to think!
Apparently you linked those in the field of education with elitists, though I never made that claim. If a person is an elitist he believes he is superior and therefore knows better than others by virtue of his intellect, for example. My whole point is that there are many well educated parents who should have an input in their child’s education, but don’t. Parents are dismissed and get the “Those who decide should be those whose doctrinal field is education, and people generally in that orbit.” or the attitude of “Is there no voice of reason emanating from this din of ignorance?
Forgive them Lord, for they know not what they do. They’re just too stupid for words.”
I believe these words speak for themselves.
Comment by KC — February 4, 2010 @ 11:17 pm
I’ve been on holiday for the past week and come back to discover this lengthy back and forth still in progress?
Secede already will ya and give the rest of the county a break.
Comment by Paul Hoss — February 6, 2010 @ 12:23 am
“A great example would be of Nazism, correct?” If teachers tought ideas like Arendt’s idea of the banality of evil using the example of the Nazi’s or read, say Eichmann, and coupled that with critical thinking and informed responsible actions, I think the need to worry about a nazi takeover happeneing is infinitesimal. In short, because students learn about nazis they will be able to discover whether a country is in the throes of it or a similar scheme or not, just like you did with the rampant “fascism” of America, correct? Look, I’m a parent of three. The best parents means work; parents are computer programmers, pipe fitters, and yes, some are teachers.The thing is that captialsim kind of prevents parents from sitting down at the dinner table and discussing books and ideas with their kids at appreciable length because one or both of them has to be working the night shift, and, unless they have a nanny, someone has to cook the dinner, do the dishes, help with the homework, bathe the kids, and put them to bed. Therefore we have teachers whose job it is to educate our children. Let them do their job. They are constrained just as much as anyone when it comes to their jobs in certain circumstances, as in when a parent objects to the material. But those parents can send their kid to another school or move to Europe if they don’t like it, right?
Comment by Jeff Hawkins — February 6, 2010 @ 12:31 am
Will do Paul.
Comment by Jeff Hawkins — February 6, 2010 @ 12:58 am
I don’t think that there is reason to worry too much over all of this. Many teachers in Texas are so busy trying to keep their classes under control behavior-wise, with very little, if any, assistance from administration, that they really don’t have time to actually teach anyone’s political agenda.
Comment by shill — February 6, 2010 @ 8:27 am
I heard that they made it illegal to teach the alphabet over there. Apparently, Texas researchers discovered that kids could combine the letters to make dirty words.
Comment by Blair Stone — February 16, 2010 @ 6:34 pm
For additional information, the NY Times Magazine’s recent cover story, “How Christian Were the Founders?,” further details the influence of one state (Texas) and a handful of individuals upon the content of the majority of textbooks in schools across our nation. Some may applaud and some may be appalled by what is going on. We all should be aware and make ourselves informed.
For those interested in reading the article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/magazine/14texbooks-t.html?ref=magazine
This link will direct you to the article for a short time since it is a weekly publication (supplement to the Sunday NY Times newspaper). Once the next issue is out, you can search for the article in the website archives.
Comment by Bon Stewart — February 19, 2010 @ 1:52 pm
[...] should be given so much control over the entire nation’s education system. And McLeroy agrees. He once boasted “Sometimes it boggles my mind the kind of power we have.” Indeed it is mind boggling, [...]
Pingback by Death + Taxes Magazine — March 15, 2010 @ 9:33 pm
Not every Texan in a crazy right wing creationist wanting to censor the history books. Unfortunately, they are the ones who make the news. There are too many of us who go unheard.
Comment by alli — January 26, 2011 @ 7:31 pm