Is Texas Reshaping American Education with Conservative Textbooks?

[Pinu7]

Evo is right, all of the things conservatives want to change, according to the article, is stupid.

However, elementary school history textbooks are crappy. Native Americans are portrayed as an innocent victim of the evil white man's colonization of the Americas. Nixon was evil because of watergate. And, yes, Jefferson is overrepresented in textbooks, not in the sense that he was not an intellectual, but that he was a hypocrite.

 

[Nebula815]

This is how it starts, a change here, a change there, and before long the truth is obliterated.

Give it some time, and the pendulum will swing back. The last time, it was the Left that were winning this. Now it is the Right.

In high school I was taught with the idea of the "noble savage," i.e. Native Americans good and kind-hearted versus evil imperialist white men (obviously a change from what turbo-1 was taught!), the New Deal fixed the Great Depression, Richard Nixon was evil, Jimmy Carter was awesome, etc...

 

[DanP]

Give it some time, and the pendulum will swing back. The last time, it was the Left that were winning this. Now it is the Right.

In high school I was taught with the idea of the "noble savage," i.e. Native Americans good and kind-hearted versus evil imperialist white men (obviously a change from what turbo-1 was taught!), the New Deal fixed the Great Depression, Richard Nixon was evil, Jimmy Carter was awesome, etc...

This happens when you are taught history in terms of "good and evil". History should the ultimate neutral witness. No interpretation of morals, ethics, of good and evil. Just cold facts.

 

[calculusrocks]

A favorite refrain of the neo-cons, because they can count on getting votes from the segment of the religious right that is intent on continuing segregation. I don't want my tax money flowing to all-white "Christian academies" in the deep south while their public school systems languish and fail to educate students.

I'd just like to point out before being bated into a race debate that everything in this post relies on deep prejudices.

 

[mheslep]

I object to basically every proposed change.

To include mentioning that Great Society programs of the 60s have had "“unintended consequences”? The McCarthy changes are probably overdue to correct a wrong, I suspect conveyed by current textbooks. Though McCarthy contributed, most of the evils of that period were carried out in the House via the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Un-American_Activities_Committee" , not in the Senate by McCarthy, a widespread mistaken belief.

Doesn't mean that I know or approve of the content of all current social study, history and econmic books, I can only state my opposition to these changes.

By "a greater emphasis" I am assuming that opposing views are downplayed or not there. I would have to see what the final text is.

I would object to removal of opposing views as well, but the article doesn't state such except for the case of Jefferson, I believe.

This is outrageous.

I agree, if the paragraph on Jefferson is verbatim accurate it is a crackpot change. I'm calling BS on the news article there.

This is how it starts, a change here, a change there, and before long the truth is obliterated.

If 'it' is textbook distortion, my take is the textbooks are already distorted and 'it' started a long time ago. This correction in Texas may be imperfect, but it overall it improves accuracy over the reviews of what I've seen.

 

[DanP]

To include mentioning that Great Society programs of the 60s have had "“unintended consequences”?

What are the unintended consequences to be listed ?

The McCarthy changes are probably overdue to correct a wrong, I suspect conveyed by current textbooks. Though McCarthy contributed, most of the evils of that period were carried out in the House via the ...

Ok, if he contributed, why do you need to him to make him look better ?

The guy was vocal as a hellhound in accusing politicians, government members and other persons he didn't liked of being communists or lacking patriotism. He made all the claims without having the slightest proof or even circumstantial evidences. He was also an alcoholic.

 

[BobG]

How could this even get in there:

Thomas Jefferson no longer included among writers influencing the nation’s intellectual origins. Jefferson, a deist who helped pioneer the legal theory of the separation of church and state, is not a model founder in the board’s judgment. Among the intellectual forerunners to be highlighted in Jefferson’s place: medieval Catholic philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas, Puritan theologian John Calvin and conservative British law scholar William Blackstone. Heavy emphasis is also to be placed on the founding fathers having been guided by strict Christian beliefs.

What exactly does this mean?

It doesn't say Jefferson is being deleted from American History books. In fact, it sounds like you'll no longer have excerpts from Jefferson's writings in sidebars or on pages at the end of each chapter, nor quotes from him on the title page, etc. Instead, they want to include excerpts and quotes from conservative or religious philosophers.

St Thomas Acquinas might be kind of interesting, but the interesting parts probably aren't the stuff they intend to put into the history books. John Calvin belongs in a history book, but I wouldn't be excited enough about him to be quoting him.

I think Jefferson excerpts and quotes are overdone and we could do with some writings from other founding fathers, but a lot of that is because Jefferson just put out so much more written material than the others. I wouldn't dilute the Jefferson material with choices they chose, however. They could have picked Madison, Hamilton, and Adams.

Except Adams might violate the "strict Christian beliefs" criteria, since the Unitarian religion isn't very Christian anymore. At least he wasn't one to sugar coat things in a rosy hue:

I have accepted a seat in the [Massachusetts] House of Representatives, and thereby have consented to my own ruin, to your ruin, and the ruin of our children. I give you this warning, that you may prepare your mind for your fate.

John Adams, to Abigail Adams, May 1770

 

[DanP]

I'd just like to point out before being bated into a race debate that everything in this post relies on deep prejudices.

What are the prejudices you accuse Turbo of committing ? Can you enumerate them ?

 

[mheslep]

What are the unintended consequences to be listed ?

They don't specify, but surely many are visible. I hesitate to mention, because I fear this might degenerate into "Texas is denying any credit of the Great Society..." which they article does not say; it says they're 'including' unintended consequences. Anyway, here's a couple: 1. Out of wedlock births and deadbeat dads due to the Welfare program (well documented - the rate collapsed after welfare reform in the 90s). 2. Exploding cost of entitlement programs (SS, Medicare, Medicaid).

Ok, if he contributed, why do you need to him to make him look better ?

The guy was vocal as a hellhound in accusing politicians, government members and other persons he didn't liked of being communists or lacking patriotism. He made all the claims without having the slightest proof or even circumstantial evidences. He was also an alcoholic.

I didn't say I want him to 'look better'. It is not the job of history texts to make someone 'look' anything. I want an accurate portrayal of the times. By far most of the career and lifestyle destruction came at the hands of HUAC. Because of this fact, if a textbook allocated limited space of, say, four pages to the red scare in the Eisenhower era, then I might have, say, two pages on HUAC, one on McCarthy, and not the other way around, and maybe even one on the numerous communists like Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs.

As it is now, most people have heard of McCarthy-ism. I expect it is equally fair to say that a majority have never heard of HUAC, and that warrants correction. It reflects a historical shortcoming of the education process.

 

[DanP]

I didn't say I want him to 'look better'. It is not the job of history texts to make someone 'look' anything. I want an accurate portrayal of the times. By far most of the career and lifestyle destruction came at the hands of HUAC. Because of this fact, if a textbook allocated limited space of, say, four pages to the red scare in the Eisenhower era, then I might have, say, two pages on HUAC, one on McCarthy, and not the other way around, and maybe even one on the numerous communists like Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs.

As it is now, most people have heard of McCarthy-ism. I expect it is equally fair to say that a majority have never heard of HUAC, and that warrants correction. It reflects a historical shortcoming of the education process.

This is fair. I do agree that history's job is to record cold events.

 

[mheslep]

What exactly does this mean?

It doesn't say Jefferson is being deleted from American History books. ...

The first sentence "Thomas Jefferson no longer included among writers influencing the nation’s intellectual origins.", if accurate, does them in. If they want to say, perhaps, that Jefferson was derivative of some more fundamental thinkers from the enlightenment period prior to him, fine, probably to the good. As I recall my grade school history it read a little bit like Jefferson et al invented everything from scratch, so that it came as a slight surprise to later see how many of them referred to Locke, Hobbes, the Pericles period in ancient Greece and the Romans. That said, it is nuts to claim Jefferson no longer gets credit for intellectual influence, given the visibility of the Declaration and much else. It is so far out from the rest of the changes that I suspect the article has it wrong.

 

[mheslep]

I think Jefferson excerpts and quotes are overdone and we could do with some writings from other founding fathers, but a lot of that is because Jefferson just put out so much more written material than the others.

I suspect that is closer to the truth of what's going on with the Tx school board.

I wouldn't dilute the Jefferson material with choices they chose, however. They could have picked Madison, Hamilton, and Adams.

Personally I can't ever get enough of Jefferson, and I despise the preening Hamilton, genius though he was, but generally I agree with you that Jefferson could share more of a textbook page with them. That said, there's a good argument that current textbooks have a bit too much of an American bent to the intellectual ancestry, to the exclusion earlier philosophers and societies. If that's where Texas is going, I'd say it is an improvement in accuracy.

 

[Al68]

That was not my intent. If you support vouchers, but ONLY for schools that accept students of all races and faiths, I have no quarrel with that. That is NOT the GOP way, though.

Any evidence of such a hateful claim? Especially considering that you just claimed to have no problem with any GOP voucher plan, apparently without realizing it.

Can you even reference a single school that doesn't accept students of all races or faiths?

 

[turbo]

As it is now, most people have heard of McCarthy-ism. I expect it is equally fair to say that a majority have never heard of HUAC, and that warrants correction. It reflects a historical shortcoming of the education process.

Being from Maine, I probably was exposed more to information about HUAC and McCarthy than most US students, in large part because of Margaret Chase Smith (R, ME). It wasn't in the textbooks, but our teachers seemed to be anxious to drive home civics lessons about our Congress, and about how one person can stand up and make a difference. They had to come up with their own ways to bring the materials into the classroom.

Even by the time I got to study history in HS, Smith's rebuke of McCarthy wasn't mentioned in our texts. Luckily, our history teacher generously bought subscriptions to Time for every student in her class, and she made it a point to tie current affairs to history.

 

[DanP]

The first sentence: "Thomas Jefferson no longer included among writers influencing the nation’s intellectual origins."

This is somehow ironic. You would say that influential writers for intellectual origins of a nation would be members of the nation itself.

It's kinda ironic to go back in time to 13th century and claim a catholic philosopher is a influential factor for the birth of American nation. Ditto for Calvin. (Note, both deeply religious figures)

Yes, there was once a great Republic in the Mediterranean but 17 centuries later somebody in America **had** to support the Republican ideals, fight to gain political support for it, and have the vision of the Republic fighting against the British Empire ideals. He (and others) fought for it , and in their wake the great American nation was formed.

My personal opinion is that they want Jefferson minimized because he introduced something which is one of the pillars of a democracy, the separation of church from state. They want the church meddling with the sate, they move inch with inch towards a religious corruption of the public school systems.

 

[calculusrocks]

A favorite refrain of the neo-cons, because they can count on getting votes from the segment of the religious right that is intent on continuing segregation. I don't want my tax money flowing to all-white "Christian academies" in the deep south while their public school systems languish and fail to educate students.

I'd just like to point out before being bated into a race debate that everything in this post relies on deep prejudices.

What are the prejudices you accuse Turbo of committing ? Can you enumerate them ?

K.

1) What in blazes is a neocon in this context?
2) Um, "the religious right that is intent on continuing segregation"
3) Reliance on white southerners, deep south

He accuses white people of being racist/segregationist because they live in the south and happen to be white, and may go to church on Sundays. The arrogance and condescension is palpable, and makes assumptions that are skin deep.

 

[techmologist]

My personal opinion is that they want Jefferson minimized because he introduced something which is one of the pillars of a democracy, the separation of church from state. They want the church meddling with the sate, they move inch with inch towards a religious corruption of the public school systems.

You are forgetting that America is officially "One Nation Under God". Has been since 1954. All over my town, you see little placards in people's front yards reminding you of this important national fact. So, Jefferson and the secularists can suck it.

 

[DanP]

You are forgetting that America is officially "One Nation Under God". Has been since 1954. All over my town, you see little placards in people's front yards reminding you of this important national fact.

May very well be, but it doesn't exclude that fact that the most probable explanation from minimizing Jefferson is separation of church from state. If the church gets access to power structures in government, the democracy will be in great danger.

What city are you living in ?

 

[Al68]

Because today's society is still deeply prejudiced. We cannot pretend that we don't see it. Some will *choose* to close their eyes and sleep pacefully, others will do everything they can to maintain the status quo, while others will fight against a prejudiced society.

Race, gender & ethnicity are still some of the biggest issues our society has to face. The situation improves slowly, but we must not become oblivious to their existence.

Absurd and hateful statements, like those of turbo, hurt the cause instead of help it. Claims like those are the biggest reason that many cases of discrimination get lost in the noise.

Ever read "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"?

What if millions of men in the U.S. were accused of rape every day? Would that help or hurt the cause of reducing the incidence of rape?

 

[turbo]

Any evidence of such a hateful claim? Especially considering that you just claimed to have no problem with any GOP voucher plan, apparently without realizing it.

Can you even reference a single school that doesn't accept students of all races or faiths?

Google on Segregation Academies. When I worked in Alabama in the 90's the Seg Academies had become affiliated with churches, which have freedom of association rights. Keep the church all-white (legal) and restrict academy acceptance to church members only (also legal) and you have a legal, segregated school. I'm not making this up, as I'm pretty sure you know. We've gone 'way OT on this (sorry, Evo).

We're never going to get the religious right to quit using our educational system to leverage their political and religious biases. The Texas history-book example is just one example, and the only reason that it hit the news is that it will impact a LOT of students.

 

[BobG]

You are forgetting that America is officially "One Nation Under God". Has been since 1954. All over my town, you see little placards in people's front yards reminding you of this important national fact. So, Jefferson and the secularists can suck it.

I think you might be overestimating the impact of the legislation that changed the pledge. Using the same logic, I assume that America became the official continent of the United States in 1924? And the United States finally became the official country of our flag in 1923? You're talking about the wording designed to be recited by school children.

Here's the official Bellamy Salute to be used during recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Pledge_salue.jpg

It was changed to placing the hand over the heart during World War II to make it clearly different from Germany's salute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance

 

[BobG]

Interestingly, the Pledge of Allegiance is one of the instances where the US Supreme Court violated the idea of stare decisis, reversing it's ruling only 3 years later.

In 1940 the Supreme Court, in Minersville School District v. Gobitis, ruled that students in public schools could be compelled to swear the Pledge, even Jehovah's Witnesses like the defendants in that case who considered the flag salute to be idolatry. A rash of mob violence and intimidation against Jehovah's Witnesses followed the ruling. In 1943 the Supreme Court reversed its decision, ruling in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette that "compulsory unification of opinion" violated the First Amendment.

They reversed this in the middle of a war, no less.

 

[DanP]

Absurd and hateful statements, like those of turbo, hurt the cause instead of help it. Claims like those are the biggest reason that many cases of discrimination get lost in the noise.

So the cause for discrimination is the fact some humans say discrimination do exist, and that many humans choose to turn a blind eye ? It doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Then you go on claiming that my statements on the fact that prejudice exists are absurd & hateful, and in the same paragraph you claim that discrimination gets ignored ?

Make up your mind.

 

[Al68]

Any evidence of such a hateful claim? Especially considering that you just claimed to have no problem with any GOP voucher plan, apparently without realizing it.

Can you even reference a single school that doesn't accept students of all races or faiths?

Google on Segregation Academies. When I worked in Alabama in the 90's the Seg Academies had become affiliated with churches, which have freedom of association rights. Keep the church all-white (legal) and restrict academy acceptance to church members only (also legal) and you have a legal, segregated school. I'm not making this up, as I'm pretty sure you know. We've gone 'way OT on this (sorry, Evo).

We're never going to get the religious right to quit using our educational system to leverage their political and religious biases. The Texas history-book example is just one example, and the only reason that it hit the news is that it will impact a LOT of students.

I'll take this as a no.

I notice you seem to also be repeating the absurd claim about churches in the south not allowing non-whites.

Forum rules can be found here: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=113181 .

 

[Al68]

Absurd and hateful statements, like those of turbo, hurt the cause instead of help it. Claims like those are the biggest reason that many cases of discrimination get lost in the noise.

So the cause for discrimination is the fact some humans say discrimination do exist, and that many humans choose to turn a blind eye ?

No, that's not even remotely close to what I said.

Then you go on claiming that my statements on the fact that prejudice exists are absurd & hateful

You must have misread my post. I never called your statements absurd or hateful. I apologize if that wasn't clear.

 

[turbo]

http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/24418662/THE-RISE-AND-FALL-OF-SCHOOL-VOUCHERS-A-STORY-OF-RELIGION-RACE-AND-POLITICS

Scroll down to 561. It's a UCLA Law Review Article on school vouchers. Apparently the author of this article is a hateful person, just like me, because he dares to acknowledge that racism and segregation still exist.

Take special note of the Ralph Reed quotes. If you don't trust my veracity, perhaps you'll trust his.

 

[DanP]

No, that's not even remotely close to what I said.You must have misread my post. I never called your statements absurd or hateful.

Ok, I agree I misread if your intention was not to call my statements absurd.

I have deep reasons to consider the society prejudiced.

In group favoritism, social identity theory, the correlations between self-esteem increase and prejudice, modern racism studies, legal studies regarding impartiality of trials, all speak towards existence of prejudice in today's society. And it's here to stay. Unfortunately, the progress is slow.

The best way to get over prejudice seems to be a increased social contact among the members of different groups.

 

[calculusrocks]

Reading turbo's link to the UCLA study.

While voucher defenders have vastly overstated the racial-justice claim, there is some prospect that vouchers might improve educational outcomes for low-income African American children. I argue that vouchers should be permitted at least until they can be more thoroughly evaluated to determine their impact on a group so in need of better educational opportunities.

Thoughts?

ADD: This quote is taken right before the introduction.

 

[Al68]

http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/24418662/THE-RISE-AND-FALL-OF-SCHOOL-VOUCHERS-A-STORY-OF-RELIGION-RACE-AND-POLITICS

Scroll down to 561. It's a UCLA Law Review Article on school vouchers. Apparently the author of this article is a hateful person, just like me, because he dares to acknowledge that racism and segregation still exist.

Take special note of the Ralph Reed quotes. If you don't trust my veracity, perhaps you'll trust his.

Well, I didn't realize you were using the word "neocon" to refer to Democrats from decades ago. My bad.

Seriously, you know full well I never referred to acknowledging the existence of racism as hateful.

And you know full well that evidence that racists existed, or exist now, is a far cry from the outrageous, much more general sweeping claims you were making.

Are you backpedaling now to only claim that you agree with me that racism exists?

 

[Dembadon]

California is too busy trying not to fall into the ocean to care about textbooks.

I believe Texas has more clout than California when it comes to decision making.

In Texas there are most likely more people who are reading the textbook than compared to California.

Many of the finest universities/institutions in the nation (Stanford, Cal Tech, Berkeley, UCLA etc.) are located in California. I'd say they're reading quite a bit!

 

[techmologist]

I notice you seem to also be repeating the absurd claim about churches in the south not allowing non-whites.

Seriously. Most of them stopped that years ago. Can't we let bygones be bygones?

 

[calculusrocks]

Many of the finest universities/institutions in the nation (Stanford, Cal Tech, Berkeley, UCLA etc.) are located in California. I'd say they're reading quite a bit!

I believe MotoH is referring to the sad state of California's economy, which is one of the largest in the world.

 

[mheslep]

This is somehow ironic. You would say that influential writers for intellectual origins of a nation would be members of the nation itself.

It's kinda ironic to go back in time to 13th century and claim a catholic philosopher is a influential factor for the birth of American nation. Ditto for Calvin. (Note, both deeply religious figures)

Yes, there was once a great Republic in the Mediterranean but 17 centuries later somebody in America **had** to support the Republican ideals, fight to gain political support for it, and have the vision of the Republic fighting against the British Empire ideals. He (and others) fought for it , and in their wake the great American nation was formed.

That's all true. As it happens, I'm in the camp of American exceptionalism especially when it comes to the country's founding. But the above pertains more to the courage of convictions (which also deserves room in the textbook), and not the intellectual domain per se.

My personal opinion is that they want Jefferson minimized because he introduced something which is one of the pillars of a democracy, the separation of church from state.

Even if that is now the interpretation of US law, crediting him with any thing like 'separation' terms in the law as written is a mistake. Jefferson's rule as it was written (either time) does not use any separation wording. Instead it's clear that he wanted to prohibit another 'Church of England' popping up in America, or the clergy becoming a protected class of the state. In his Virginia Bill of Rights, the wording is "all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion", and in the US 1st amendment this became the establishment clause "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Period. There is no separation wording hiding somewhere in the fine print.

They want the church meddling with the sate, they move inch with inch towards a religious corruption of the public school systems.

We can speculate about many things, but we have no evidence of this in the thread so far.

 

[Al68]

Ok, I agree I misread if your intention was not to call my statements absurd.

I have deep reasons to consider the society prejudiced.

In group favoritism, social identity theory, the correlations between self-esteem increase and prejudice, modern racism studies, legal studies regarding impartiality of trials, all speak towards existence of prejudice in today's society.

I don't think anyone disagrees with that.

The best way to get over prejudice seems to be a increased social contact among the members of different groups.

I think history shows that to be true.

But that's exactly why it only makes things worse for people to be accused wholesale of being part of a racist conspiracy because they favor school vouchers.

It's hard on friendships when politicians convince people for no reason that their friends hate them. I, and many others, know this firsthand.

 

[techmologist]

I think you might be overestimating the impact of the legislation that changed the pledge. Using the same logic, I assume that America became the official continent of the United States in 1924? And the United States finally became the official country of our flag in 1923? You're talking about the wording designed to be recited by school children.

Yes, you are right to point out that because something has only lately come into legislation, it doesn't mean that it doesn't have a much more solid de facto history. I just think it's funny that that seems to be the only part of the Pledge that these folks care about. Some of these same people probably aren't so keen on the idea that the nation is "Indivisible."

Here's the official Bellamy Salute to be used during recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Pledge_salue.jpg

It was changed to placing the hand over the heart during World War II to make it clearly different from Germany's salute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance

I was looking at that wikipedia article just a couple weeks ago and had to clean off my monitor after I saw the Bellamy salute. Hahahahaha.