Ultra-conservatives rewrite Texas texts

62t

62t

CAGiversary!
Feedback
76 (100%)
AUSTIN, Texas – The Texas State Board of Education agreed to new social studies standards on Friday after the far-right faction wielded its power to shape the lessons that will be taught to millions of students on American history, the U.S. free enterprise system, religion and other topics.

In a vote of 11-4, the board preliminarily adopted the new curriculum after days of charged debate marked by race and politics. In dozens of smaller votes passed over the three days, the ultra-conservatives who dominate the board nixed all but a few efforts to recognize the diversity of race and religion in Texas.

Decisions by the board — long led by the social conservatives who have advocated ideas such as teaching more about the weaknesses of evolutionary theory — affects textbook content nationwide because Texas is one of publishers' biggest clients.

As part of the new curriculum, the elected board — made up of lawyers, a dentist and a weekly newspaper publisher among others — rejected an attempt to ensure that children learn why the U.S. was founded on the principle of religious freedom.

But, it agreed to strengthen nods to Christianity by adding references to "laws of nature and nature's God" to a section in U.S. history that requires students to explain major political ideas.

They also agreed to strike the word "democratic" in references to the form of U.S. government, opting instead to call it a "constitutional republic."

In addition to learning the Bill of Rights, the board specified a reference to the Second Amendment right to bear arms in a section about citizenship in a U.S. government class and agreed to require economics students to "analyze the decline of the U.S. dollar including abandonment of the gold standard."

Conservatives beat back multiple attempts to include hip-hop as an example of a significant cultural movement that already includes country music.

"We have been about conservatism versus liberalism," said Democrat Mavis Knight of Dallas, explaining her vote against the standards. "We have manipulated strands to insert what we want it to be in the document, regardless as to whether or not it's appropriate."

Republican Terri Leo, a member of the powerful Christian conservative voting bloc, called the standards "world class" and "exceptional."

Over the past three days, the board also argued over how historic periods should be classified (still B.C. and A.D., rather than B.C.E. and C.E.); whether or not students should be required to explain the origins of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its impact on global politics (they will); and whether former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir should be required learning (she will).

Numerous attempts to add the names or references to important Hispanics throughout history also were denied, inducing one amendment that would specify that Tejanos died at the Alamo alongside Davy Crockett and Jim Bowie.

A day earlier, longtime board member Mary Helen Berlanga accused her colleagues of "whitewashing" the standards and walked out of the panel's meeting in frustration. Berlanga voted against the standards on Friday.

Berlanga also bristled when the board approved an amendment that deletes a requirement that sociology students "explain how institutional racism is evident in American society."

The three-day meeting that began Wednesday was the first since voters in last week's Republican primary handed defeats to two veteran conservatives, including former board chairman Don McLeroy, who lost to a moderate GOP lobbyist. Two other conservatives — a Republican and a Democrat — did not seek re-election. All four terms end in January.

McLeroy, a 10-year board veteran, has been one of the most prolific and polarizing members. The devout Christian conservative has been adamant on several issues, including that the Christian influences of the nation's Founding Fathers are important to studying American history.

In Texas alone, the board's decisions will set guideposts for teaching history and social studies to some 4.8 million K-12 students during the next 10 years. In almost six hours of public testimony on Wednesday, the board heard repeated pleas that the Christian heritage of the U.S. be reflected in the new standards as well as other requests that students learn more Hispanic examples of prominent historic figures.
Click to expand...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100312/ap_on_re_us/us_texas_schools_social_studies
 
Conservatives beat back multiple attempts to include hip-hop as an example of a significant cultural movement that already includes country music.
Click to expand...
Well it is Texas, guess it makes sense they'd favor Garth Brooks over P Diddy.:roll:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Teachers often squeeze more into the curriculum than just standards (or least try to). I am sure that the ones that disagree will speak about the alternatives.

A lot of texts leave out a ton of viewpoints and information (not just in Texas). Any solid history class will bring in other secondary and primary sources and allow the students to come to their own opinions. It is just a shame that Texas is only requiring limited viewpoints.

This really bothers new teachers the most in the sense that they are not tenured and have less freedom in the classroom. This is not a good trend to set.
 
i'm not blaming all of texas or all of the far right or anything, so dont get me wrong when i say..

They also agreed to strike the word "democratic" in references to the form of U.S. government, opting instead to call it a "constitutional republic."
Click to expand...

what the fuck

i mean the other stuff potentially has nonpartisan justification, but what the fuck is up with this, i really wanna know how they even expressed this, how could they justify other than "democratic gets confused with the party i dont like. so we're gonna use republic to confuse them with the other party." seriously what other explanation could they have possibly come up with

i hear of politically-motivated curriculum changes all the time but rarely (never, as far as i can recall) so blatant
 
A list of the bigger changes.

- 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.
Click to expand...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1253
 
So, rewriting national history, the bible, torture laws...

Maybe we could fuck up some other texts while we're at it. I hear Shakespeare make a lot of dick and vagina jokes. We could excise those perhaps?

On another note, this is just more reason for me to get out of Texas before I start asexually spawning minions. I don't need them learning this fucked up retard nonsense bullshit. And I don't know if I have the patience to home school. I actually have an older sister who does that, and she does it for religious reasons, because "the schools don't teach kids about God." Because yeah, that makes sense.

I don't have a great relationship with her.
 
[quote name='Strell']Maybe we could fuck up some other texts while we're at it. I hear Shakespeare make a lot of dick and vagina jokes. We could excise those perhaps?
[/QUOTE]
First reaction:
Reminds me of the time I picked up a censored version of "For Whom the Bell Tolls". You unmentionable son of a gypsy obscenity!

Second reaction:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noAW8AP9dC4#t=4m28s

EDIT: Aw, the embedded video doesn't jump to the right point. It's supposed to go to 4:28...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't trust CATO any further than I can throw them.

I bet dollars to donuts they embellished the "hidden cost" by spreading, for instance, the entire cost of building a school over one year. They have an overt agenda and they don't elaborate on their analysis, so I can't help but expect the worst out of them.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I don't trust CATO any further than I can throw them.

I bet dollars to donuts they embellished the "hidden cost" by spreading, for instance, the entire cost of building a school over one year. They have an overt agenda and they don't elaborate on their analysis, so I can't help but expect the worst out of them.[/QUOTE]

We're not getting the most educational bang for our buck. In many areas of the country the overpowerful teacher's union is blocking needed reform. I say if school vouchers are part of what's needed to negotiate them down, bring it on.

At the same time, the teachers’ unions have become more and more powerful. In most states, after two or three years, teachers are given lifetime tenure. It is almost impossible to fire them. In New York City in 2008, three out of 30,000 tenured teachers were dismissed for cause. The statistics are just as eye-popping in other cities. The percentage of teachers dismissed for poor performance in Chicago between 2005 and 2008 (the most recent figures available) was 0.1 percent. In Akron, Ohio, zero percent. In Toledo, 0.01 percent. In Denver, zero percent. In no other socially significant profession are the workers so insulated from accountability. The responsibility does not just fall on the unions. Many principals don’t even try to weed out the poor performers (or they transfer them to other schools in what’s been dubbed the “dance of the lemons”). Year after year, about 99 percent of all teachers in the United States are rated “satisfactory” by their school systems; firing a teacher invites a costly court battle with the local union.
Click to expand...

http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/?p=63591
 
1.) Problems can really arise with school committee's and having these "elected officials" attempt to dictate reform and curriculum with very little teacher input. This is a huge problem. What I have learned is that, in general, people that are elected do not know that much. I have seen some crazy battles between teachers and school committees. The union is how the teachers can stand up to those committee's and ask for the funds they need and curriculum they would like to teach. Weakening the union is really weakening the people that know the curriculum the best.

2.) Camoor? How can you gauge performance? Exam scores? Drop-out rates? Number of A's? Student complaints? One thing is that teachers are often blamed for every single short-coming of the student, Regardless of differentiated instruction and attempts to engage students. Teachers are even blamed for the lack of parental support. Weakening unions and making teachers afraid to teach for fear of "poor performance" would only create teaching to tests and inflated grades. Absolutely worthless.

Furthermore, it takes time to get tenured. It is not something automatic. A lot of teachers quit within the first 5 years because of the general lack of pay, respect and the long hours that are involved.

I am not sure if school voucher's would do anything. It would just move money around and the teachers would move around to where the jobs are. It is not like it would create new amazing teachers. The only difference between traditional private and traditional public is that private can be more selective on who they admit thus having higher "success rates". The only advantage I see for vouchers are that these creative schools (e.g. schools that have no grades, and there are many different types that are very cool) might get a little more money. However, most people are afraid of these types and would not send their kids there anyway. Throwing support away from public school teachers is not a solution.



It really is the job of the principal to be on those teachers and to weed out the bad ones. You cannot have a decent school without a very strong administration. I'll say it again, weakening the teacher's opinion and fear is not an effective way to weed out bad apples.

I'll admit that I am biased. I left engineering because I enjoyed teaching (and voluntarily took the paycut) and hearing people say that teachers are paid too much (Between lesson prep, grading and teaching it is a more like a 12 hour/day job) and their opinions should be weakened (by weakening unions) is really a slap in the face.

EDIT: Just as the case in Texas, it is the school committee or those elected that cause these problems. You think any history teacher would like being forced to teach this stuff?

Another EDIT: I agree with Myke here. CATO definitely has a serious agenda. There are tons of ways to manipulate numbers. I wouldn't trust any of it (on either end). If you really want to know how much public school costs, add up your taxes and divide by the number of kids you have. Approximate some percent of that would go to a pay for schools. That's as good as a number as any.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='mykevermin']I don't trust CATO any further than I can throw them.

I bet dollars to donuts they embellished the "hidden cost" by spreading, for instance, the entire cost of building a school over one year. They have an overt agenda and they don't elaborate on their analysis, so I can't help but expect the worst out of them.[/QUOTE]

I'm sure they did do something like that. You should always check methodology before drawing conclusions.

But I am curious: do you feel that capital costs (building/renovating schools, for example, or buying buses, etc.) aren't part of the cost of education? If so, why not?
 
man...i don't know how anyone can defend this, especially when they take Jefferson out of books.

waiting for glenn beck to ragequit on the board of education.
 
The bad part is that 90% of the school districts in America follow Texas' lead (when it comes to purchasing text books) for whatever reason.
 
Come on CALIFORNIA. STRIKE THEM DOWN LIKE YOU STRUCK DOWN STRAIGHT TELEVISION PROGRAMMING!
 
Those who control the present control the future. Those who control the future control the past.
-Orwell

Scary stuff. Science and education should not be motivated by political or other agendas. It should be a pure search for the truth. Unfortunately, because of human nature, it rarely is. People all too often get caught up in moralistic or naturalistic fallacies while analyzing the past and drawing conclusions...


Oh, and love the Guybrush reference... haven't played COMI in ages!
 
[quote name='ToadallyAwesome']1.) Problems can really arise with school committee's and having these "elected officials" attempt to dictate reform and curriculum with very little teacher input. This is a huge problem. What I have learned is that, in general, people that are elected do not know that much. I have seen some crazy battles between teachers and school committees. The union is how the teachers can stand up to those committee's and ask for the funds they need and curriculum they would like to teach. Weakening the union is really weakening the people that know the curriculum the best.

2.) Camoor? How can you gauge performance? Exam scores? Drop-out rates? Number of A's? Student complaints? One thing is that teachers are often blamed for every single short-coming of the student, Regardless of differentiated instruction and attempts to engage students. Teachers are even blamed for the lack of parental support. Weakening unions and making teachers afraid to teach for fear of "poor performance" would only create teaching to tests and inflated grades. Absolutely worthless.

Furthermore, it takes time to get tenured. It is not something automatic. A lot of teachers quit within the first 5 years because of the general lack of pay, respect and the long hours that are involved.

I am not sure if school voucher's would do anything. It would just move money around and the teachers would move around to where the jobs are. It is not like it would create new amazing teachers. The only difference between traditional private and traditional public is that private can be more selective on who they admit thus having higher "success rates". The only advantage I see for vouchers are that these creative schools (e.g. schools that have no grades, and there are many different types that are very cool) might get a little more money. However, most people are afraid of these types and would not send their kids there anyway. Throwing support away from public school teachers is not a solution.



It really is the job of the principal to be on those teachers and to weed out the bad ones. You cannot have a decent school without a very strong administration. I'll say it again, weakening the teacher's opinion and fear is not an effective way to weed out bad apples.

I'll admit that I am biased. I left engineering because I enjoyed teaching (and voluntarily took the paycut) and hearing people say that teachers are paid too much (Between lesson prep, grading and teaching it is a more like a 12 hour/day job) and their opinions should be weakened (by weakening unions) is really a slap in the face.

EDIT: Just as the case in Texas, it is the school committee or those elected that cause these problems. You think any history teacher would like being forced to teach this stuff?

Another EDIT: I agree with Myke here. CATO definitely has a serious agenda. There are tons of ways to manipulate numbers. I wouldn't trust any of it (on either end). If you really want to know how much public school costs, add up your taxes and divide by the number of kids you have. Approximate some percent of that would go to a pay for schools. That's as good as a number as any.[/QUOTE]

That's why I quoted the article.

Even if every teacher was brilliant, 0-0.1 percent firings is not realistic from a shifting demographics standpoint. Principals can't do their jobs because they must practically weigh the cost of duking it out with the local union. It's just easier and fiscally advantageous to pass the bad teacher off on another district, Catholic church style.

I'm not saying that teachers shouldn't have a union. At some level the union probably does provide a good. However you can't just let a union act with complete impunity - they will discredit your profession and more importantly underserve the educational needs of the children.

I wish we lived in a world where the teacher's union cared more about what's going into the minds of children (like this fray over the historical account) and less about going to bat for the pay and benefits of every single teacher regardless of performance. I have no doubt many teachers, such as yourself, care about the kids, but the only things the teacher's union care about are money and power.
 
Superintendent Frances Gallo combed the classrooms of embattled Central Falls High School. Teachers and students were gone for the day. Gallo was hunting for a particular item: an effigy of President Obama.
She hoped the rumor of its existence weren't true.
Gallo had fired all the high school teachers just a month earlier, igniting an educational maelstrom in Rhode Island's smallest and poorest community while winning praise from the president.
The teachers union lampooned her; hate mail flooded her inbox. For weeks, she'd prayed every morning for the soul of the man who wrote: "I wish cancer on your children and their children and that you live long enough to see them die."
It was one thing to take barbs from opponents -- another thing altogether if the division was infecting classrooms. Teachers assured the superintendent that the school battle wasn't seeping into lesson plans. So, when CNN asked her about the rumor of the effigy, Gallo took it upon herself to get to the bottom of it.
She entered the school in the dark of night Monday. She started her room-to-room sweep on the first floor. The first was clean, then the next and the next.
Yet newspaper headlines about the controversy, Gallo says, were plastered nearly everywhere. What are the teachers doing? she thought.
Most were local papers with banner headlines: "Teachers fired." Others highlighted Obama's support of Gallo, an endorsement that turned an already tense situation into a firestorm.
In this Democratic stronghold, teachers wondered: How could the president they supported turn his back on them? Some peeled Obama bumper stickers off their cars.
Gallo knew Obama's endorsement would create further uproar. She just didn't know how bad it would get.
She continued making her way through the school, clearing the first two floors. She was disheartened by the newspaper postings but relieved she hadn't found the offensive item.
One floor to go.
She climbed the steps and entered a classroom.
There it was.
"You couldn't miss it."
An Obama doll, about a foot tall, hung by its feet from the white board; the doll held a sign that said, "Fire Central Falls teachers," she says.
Recounting her discovery later, Gallo broke down in tears. A flood of emotions poured out, the raw toll of all that has transpired in recent weeks.
When she confronted the teacher responsible, she says he responded that it was "a joke to him."
The teachers, she says, have "no idea the harm they're doing." She thought of Obama's words: Students get only one shot at an education.
"I've tried to explain this over and over again: The children here are very disturbed by the actions of their teachers, and they're torn apart because they also love them."
It's lonely being a voice for change.
Click to expand...

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/03/17/rhode.island.school.reform/

This is why I don't buy it when the heads of teacher unions try and paint their efforts as reasonable. If a student committed half the transgressions of these teachers they would be expelled on the spot. Why should teachers, who are adults and should know better, expect immunity?
 
Public education is a mess indeed.

There's some reasonable level of something, somewhere between the low levels of firing/replacement you cited above on one hand, and wholesale elimination of teaching staff on the other, where reasonable people wish to be.

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like there's a lot of room for reasonable people between the unions and the legislators.

I agree with unions, and agree with teacher's unions. Yet they do nothing but harm themselves by protecting the people who shouldn't be protected by it. If they gave out some sacrificial lambs, so to speak, of people who should not have their jobs protected by unions, then I suspect we'd have a lot more faith, by and large, in unions themselves.

Well, perhaps I'm that naive to think that the public would respond positively to an ideally functioning union.
 
It really is amazing how many people in this part of the country can't let go of the Civil War. I can't tell you how many times I've heard "Those yankee sons of bitches..."
 
lmao "great war of yankee aggression" :rofl:

I don't think VA was south enough. Sure it had the capital of the confederacy, and there were plenty of racists and confederate flags around, but never a "great war of yankee aggression" :rofl:
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I agree with unions, and agree with teacher's unions. Yet they do nothing but harm themselves by protecting the people who shouldn't be protected by it. If they gave out some sacrificial lambs, so to speak, of people who should not have their jobs protected by unions, then I suspect we'd have a lot more faith, by and large, in unions themselves.

Well, perhaps I'm that naive to think that the public would respond positively to an ideally functioning union.[/QUOTE]

I agree with this post and I agree with voluntary unions, I just think they need to be regulated. Every group needs checks and balances.
 
I suppose since only one other person classified themselves as extremely conservative I shouldn't be surprised that there appears to be no counter-argument in this thread.

That being the case, let me ask a simple question...Which changes that were made are factually incorrect?

And I'll give you a hint...the US is NOT a democracy.

Endaar
 
it's actually more accurate to call it a constitutional republic as opposed to a democratic government. look at the electoral college and the fact a president can lose the popular vote, yet still win office.

hard to defend most of the other stuff, but it's Texas lol
 
A republic can be a representative democracy or not. So saying it's a democratic republic is simply more specific, you could say the US is a "constitutional republic" or a "representative democracy" or a "democratic republic" or probably a number of other things, none of them would be incorrect.

They don't necessarily have to put things in that are factually incorrect, they need only to include and exclude based on their own political opinions to make it a disgrace. You could write a history that entirely excludes black people, it wouldn't necessarily be incorrect, but it would obviously be incomplete and idiotic.
 
We're a plutocracy. Get over it.

Oh, you think your vote counts? It does. You get to choose between a horseshit sandwich and a bullshit sandwich at a machine. Then, said machine is told by its owners which shit sandwich won.

Oh, you think your vote counts towards the final decision? No, sorry, not for some time now.
 
[quote name='SpazX']A republic can be a representative democracy or not. So saying it's a democratic republic is simply more specific, you could say the US is a "constitutional republic" or a "representative democracy" or a "democratic republic" or probably a number of other things, none of them would be incorrect.

They don't necessarily have to put things in that are factually incorrect, they need only to include and exclude based on their own political opinions to make it a disgrace. You could write a history that entirely excludes black people, it wouldn't necessarily be incorrect, but it would obviously be incomplete and idiotic.[/QUOTE]

"Democratic Republic" is fine. "Democracy" is wrong.

Obviously, the selective inclusion or exclusion of facts can tilt a textbook, but are you arguing that doesn't already happen? Are liberal-leaning books, taught by teachers that are overwhelmingly liberal, OK simply because they lean in a direction that matches your own views?

That's why I asked for facts.

We've already touched on the "democracy" item.

The words "the laws of Nature and of Nature's God" come from the Declaration of Independance. Is referencing that a problem?

The second ammendment...yeah, including information about an ammendment to the Constitution is clearly inappropriate.

Hmmn, the gold standard versus fiat money...there's no possible reason to cover that, well except for inflationary money policies and the boom and bust cycles fiat money causes.

AD/BC...really? This is a problem?

The Israeli/Palestinian conflict...might be helpful to know given the volitility of the middle east and the U.S.'s support for Isreal.

"deletes a requirement that sociology students "explain how institutional racism is evident in American society." - That requirement presupposes there IS institutional racism, implicitly biasing the discussion.

"Christian influences of the nation's Founding Fathers are important to studying American history." They are...you may not be religious (I'm not), but to ignore the impact that God had on the founders and the beginnings of this country is just plain naive. Read almost any speech George Washington made.

So which of the above is a problem?

Endaar
 
Well for one there is fair amount of debate about the extent that many founding fathers were religious. Might explain why Jefferson was removed, since he's usually cited as one of the least religious.
 
[quote name='Endaar']"Democratic Republic" is fine. "Democracy" is wrong.[/quote]

Exactly, leaving it with no explanation is wrong, taking democracy out is also wrong. It's incomplete.

[quote name='Endaar']Obviously, the selective inclusion or exclusion of facts can tilt a textbook, but are you arguing that doesn't already happen? Are liberal-leaning books, taught by teachers that are overwhelmingly liberal, OK simply because they lean in a direction that matches your own views?[/quote]

Public school textbooks are rarely (if ever?) liberal-leaning. At least in my opinion. What do you think is "liberal-leaning"?. If the chapter on Columbus isn't titled: "Christopher Columbus: What an asshole" then it's already on shaky ground historically. Would it make it "liberal-leaning" to discuss Columbus in that way?

[quote name='Endaar']That's why I asked for facts.[/quote]

Which are obviously only part of the problem. Factual and misleading are not mutually exclusive.

[quote name='Endaar']We've already touched on the "democracy" item.

The words "the laws of Nature and of Nature's God" come from the Declaration of Independance. Is referencing that a problem?[/quote]

If it's a section on the declaration of independence and is relevant. Picking it out to quote for no reason would be suspect.

[quote name='Endaar']The second ammendment...yeah, including information about an ammendment to the Constitution is clearly inappropriate.[/quote]

One "m". Again, it would be suspect to single it out, if it was a list of things in the bill of rights or some shit, then it's obviously appropriate.

[quote name='Endaar']Hmmn, the gold standard versus fiat money...there's no possible reason to cover that, well except for inflationary money policies and the boom and bust cycles fiat money causes.[/quote]

Probably something that isn't important enough to spend a day on in class, but I don't care unless it's slanted. Go ahead and present points or something, if it's relevant.

[quote name='Endaar']AD/BC...really? This is a problem?[/quote]

CE and BCE have been around for quite a while and obviously don't have the religious connotation, but I personally don't think it's that big of a deal unless they put "in the year of our lord and savior jesus christ" after every date.

[quote name='Endaar']The Israeli/Palestinian conflict...might be helpful to know given the volitility of the middle east and the U.S.'s support for Isreal.[/quote]

Might be relevant, sure, but if you want to use it to further a particular political agenda then again it's suspect. Saying one or the other is 100% at fault would be stupid, so presenting it that way would be misleading.

[quote name='Endaar']"deletes a requirement that sociology students "explain how institutional racism is evident in American society." - That requirement presupposes there IS institutional racism, implicitly biasing the discussion.[/quote]

Well there is, and it's sociology so it's relevant, but you could rephrase the question to be neutral for all it matters.

[quote name='Endaar']"Christian influences of the nation's Founding Fathers are important to studying American history." They are...you may not be religious (I'm not), but to ignore the impact that God had on the founders and the beginnings of this country is just plain naive. Read almost any speech George Washington made.[/QUOTE]

They weren't religious like many of the people are now who want to talk about how religious they were (like people on the school board). If they were there'd be a whole lot of god up in the constitution. Some were more religious than others, but at that point in time educated elites like many of the founders wouldn't be interpreting things as literally as many do today.

Jefferson of course famously cut out everything from the bible besides jesus' words because he didn't believe the rest of it was relevant - just superstition. They weren't atheists, but many were deists or very loose christians compared to evangelistic christians today.

Again, many of these things would be appropriate to discuss, but they're more complicated subjects than they intend to portray them in many instances.
 
Here SpazX, let me make it simple for you:

LOL@someone saying there's nothing wrong with all of this, but then implying there are lots of librul left wing books with librul left wing teachers brainwashing kids in our schools, which are all librul left wing places of demonicratic evil.
 
Strell, are you trying to bait me by repeatedly misquoting and mischaracterizing what I said? I'm assuming so since you're not otherwise adding anything to the discussion.

SpazX, I agree with most of what you posted. The thing is a number of people on this thread are assuming the revisions in Texas are being presented solely in a simple, black and white fashion. There isn't enough information in the article (or the many others I've read) to make that judgment, and unless anyone here has read the changes in detail, it's presumptuous to do so.

Polls consistently show that Democrats/liberals significantly outnumber Republicans/conservatives in the educational field. I think for the most part textbook authors try to be balanced in the material they present, but the sheer number of liberals writing these books makes it far more likely any leanings would be to the left, not the right.

mykevermin - There is a difference between "discuss institutional racism in the US" and "explain how institutional racism is present in the US." I didn't make a personal comment on it one way or another.

Endaar
 
Institutional racism *is* a part of our past, present, and future.

You don't even need to revisit the classics: slavely, jim crow laws, brown v board, civil rights act, etc.

consider racial differences in hiring, wages, wealth, promotion in the workplace. They exist and they're plentiful. Devah Pager's research discovering that the social penalty for being a convicted felon (i.e., that having a felony history makes one a less desirable job candidate - we can agree on that, right?) is *smaller* than the social penalty for being black (i.e., we can agree that racial discrimination still happens on some level, right?) - Pager's finding is one of the more damning indictments of racism in the modern era.

That's not even getting into issues in housing - getting access to rental property, being denied the opportunity to rent, home loans, redlining policies.

And that's not getting into racial disparities in sentencing, arrests, convictions, and disproportionate representation on death row. Don't forget the only recently overturned disparity in cocaine/crack cocaine penalties.

We are not an equal society, and we need to not pay homage to the false idol of "color blindness" because it's as achievable and noble a goal as "gender blindness."

Of course, if you feel privy, you can look at "black things" and criticize those as institutionally racist - scholarships, tv channels, college funds, political coalitions, hair products, and affirmative action policies. Those are examples of institutional racism insomuch as they're racially differential treatment, right?

We could look at the policy solutions in the Moynihan report that's nearly a half century old, and how the thoughts in that are more racially advanced than most of us still are today.

We could look at racial segregation in the modern US, and why it is that blacks are concentrated in impoverished inner-city areas, reading the works of jon yinger, doug massey and nancy denton, william julius wilson, et al.

I don't believe the phrase "explain how institutional racism is present in the US" is offensive at all. What is offensive is having to spend time pretending its existence or nonexistence is debatable at all. Debate what is or is not racist using scientific evidence and terminology to your hearts' content, but there's no need to treat racism like something that doesn't exist.
 
[quote name='Endaar']Strell, are you trying to bait me by repeatedly misquoting and mischaracterizing what I said? [/QUOTE]

Can you prove I am mischaracterizing and misquoting you?

Because that's an equivalent statement to "is anything in these books not factually correct."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top