Texas Approves Curriculum Revised by Conservatives
Offline *sigh*
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html?hp
AUSTIN, Tex. — After three days of turbulent meetings, the Texas Board of Education on Friday voted to approve a social studies curriculum that will put a conservative stamp on history and economics textbooks, stressing the superiority of American capitalism, questioning the Founding Father’s commitment to a purely secular government and presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light.
The vote was 11 to 4, with 10 Republicans and one Democrat voting for the curriculum, and four Democrats voting against.
The board, whose members are elected, has influence beyond Texas because the state is one of the largest purchasers of textbooks. In the digital age, however, that influence has been diminished as technological advances have made it possible for publishers to tailor books to individual states.
In recent years, board members have been locked in an ideological battle between a bloc of conservatives who question Darwin’s theory of evolution and believe the Founding Fathers were guided by Christian principles and a handful of Democrats and moderate Republicans who have fought to preserve the teaching of Darwinism and the separation of church and state.
Since January, Republicans on the board have passed more than 160 amendments to the 120-page curriculum standards affecting history, sociology and economics courses from elementary to high school. The standards were proposed by a board of teachers.
Efforts by Hispanic board members to include more Latino figures as role models for the state’s large Hispanic population were consistently defeated, prompting one member, Mary Helen Berlanga, to storm out of a meeting late Thursday night, saying, “They can just pretend this is a white America and Hispanics don’t exist.”
“They are going overboard, they are not experts, they are not historians,” she said. “They are rewriting history, not only of Texas but of the United States and the world.”
The curriculum standards will now be published in a state register, opening them up for 30 days of public comment. A final vote will be taken in May, but given the Republican dominance of the board, it is unlikely many changes will be made.
The standards, reviewed every decade, serve as a template for publishers of textbooks, who must come before the board next year with drafts of their books. The board’s makeup will have changed by then because the leader of the conservative faction, Dr. Don McLeroy, lost in a primary to a more moderate Republican, and two others — one Democrat and one conservative Republican — have announced they are not seeking re-election.
There are seven members of the conservative bloc on the board, but they are often joined by one of the other three Republicans on crucial votes. There were no historians, sociologists or economists consulted at the meetings, though some members of the conservative bloc held themselves out as experts on certain topics.
The conservative members maintain that they are trying to correct what they see as a liberal bias among the teachers who proposed the curriculum. To that end, they made dozens of minor changes aimed at calling into question, among other things, concepts like the separation of church and state and the secular nature of the American Revolution.
“I reject the notion by the left of a constitutional separation of church and state,” said David Bradley, a conservative from Beaumont who works in real estate. “I have $1,000 for the charity of your choice if you can find it in the Constitution.”
They also included a plank to ensure that students learn about “the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s, including Phyllis Schalfly, the Contract With America, the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority and the National Rifle Association.”
Dr. McLeroy pushed through a change to the teaching of the civil rights movement to ensure that students study the violent philosophy of the Black Panthers in addition to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s nonviolent approach. He also made sure that textbooks would mention the votes in Congress on civil rights legislation, which Republicans supported.
“Republicans need a little credit for that,” he said. “I think it’s going to surprise some students.”
Mr. Bradley won approval for an amendment saying students should study “the unintended consequences” of the Great Society legislation, affirmative action and Title IX legislation. He also won approval for an amendment stressing that Germans and Italians were interned in the United States as well as the Japanese during World War II, to counter the idea that the internment of Japanese was motivated by racism.
Other changes seem aimed at tamping down criticism of the right. Conservatives passed one amendment, for instance, requiring that the history of McCarthyism include “how the later release of the Venona papers confirmed suspicions of communist infiltration in U.S. government.” The Venona papers were transcripts of some 3,000 communications between the Soviet Union and its agents in the United States.
In economics, the revisions add Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek, two champions of free-market economic theory, among the usual list of economists to be studied, like Adam Smith, Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes. They also replaced the word “capitalism” throughout their texts with the “free-enterprise system.”
“Let’s face it, capitalism does have a negative connotation,” said one conservative member, Terri Leo. “You know, ‘capitalist pig!’ ”
In the field of sociology, another conservative member, Barbara Cargill, won passage of an amendment requiring the teaching of “the importance of personal responsibility for life choices” in a section on teen suicide, dating violence, sexuality, drug use and eating disorders.
“The topic of sociology tends to blame society for everything,” Ms. Cargill said.
Even the course on World History did not escape the board’s scalpel.
Cynthia Dunbar, a lawyer from Richmond who is a strict constitutionalist and thinks the nation was founded on Christian beliefs, managed to cut Thomas Jefferson from a list of figures whose writings inspired revolutions in the late 18th century and 19th century, replacing him with St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and William Blackstone. (Jefferson is not well liked among the conservatives on the board because he coined the term “separation between church and state.&rdquo
“The Enlightenment was not the only philosophy on which these revolutions were based,” Ms. Dunbar said.
Mavis B. Knight, a Democrat from Dallas, introduced an amendment requiring that students study the reasons “the founding fathers protected religious freedom in America by barring the government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion above all others.”
It was defeated on a party-line vote.
- Login to post comments
“I reject the notion by the left of a constitutional separation of church and state,” said David Bradley, a conservative from Beaumont who works in real estate. “I have $1,000 for the charity of your choice if you can find it in the Constitution.”
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This establishes neutrality.
Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs
Yeah, but it doesn't say it exactly!
Seriously, conservatives are the fucking stupidest, most block headed motherfuckers in the world.
"Faith, Faith is an island in the setting sun,
but proof, proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Proof, Paul Simon
Nothing this hard should taste so beefy.
The partisan divide widens.....
So, does this mean the Texas Board of Education will be proudly boasting about a certain other artifact of conservative American History that GOPpers are a little shy of taking responsibility for?
What about Comstock Laws? McCarthyism? Lynch mobs? Why not throw in 10th Amendment 'plantation owner' Federalism just for laughs?
As severe as this set back is in civil liberty, it's not that one can honestly say they are surprised by this, only surprised at the level of hubris and arrogance freely exhibited by a cultural movement that no longer has an adhesive purpose in a free society, and is quite prone to using the victim card whenever it confronts atheism.
Now, for a radical suggestion: let them eat cake. The 'Song' of Evangelical Christianity is one that quite literally unwrites itself... without the help of rationality. Every political act done "but for the grace of God" is an act that leads to an ultimate downfall.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
You miss the woods for one dead, dried up tree.
Take into consideration a second possibility: political conservatism that is also atheist. (I don't feel like elaborating on the concept atm... but think about it nonetheless)
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
You combine that with the Barbary Treaty article 11, A LAW! with Jefferson's own comments more than once in his own personal letters talking about the "wall", and the lack of mention of Christianity or Jesus in the Constitution, and the oath of office, and "NO RELIGIOUS TEST".
It doesn't take a fucking slide rule to connect the dots. Our government is not there for the purpose of promoting Christianity or playing favorites to it.
Our government DOES protect religious freedom, but what Christians want, is not government neutrality, but a hierarchy where others are mere guests who should know their place and never compete for the spotlight. The hypocritically use the "wall" argument when someone outside Christianity tries to use the same venue in the public square.
And to ad an aside. It is bullshit to claim that "God" in the pledge and on the money does not violate the First Amendment. It is a clear endorsement of the Christian god, and all one has to do to see that is to trace the legislation back to the people who originally wrote it and passed those things into law. The intent was not to promote religious freedom, but to maintain a monopoly via government advertising of the Christian god.
The people who put God on the money and in the pledge were not Jews or Muslims or Hindus and had no intent of being neutral. It is merely a gang tag to tell other non-Christian citizens to know their place.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
If you're referring to atheists who consider themselves fiscal conservatives then I stand by my previous statement. Voting for people whose base would like to cram their beliefs down your throat because they promised to cut your taxes is fucking retarded. The article in the OP and the Bush administration are perfect examples of what you get when you go too far down that rabbit hole.
Edit: P.S. Protecting religious freedom is not a dead, dried up tree. It was important enough to be the opening statement of the first amendment. That tree is the foundation of personal freedom in this country.
"Faith, Faith is an island in the setting sun,
but proof, proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Proof, Paul Simon
Nothing this hard should taste so beefy.
you could go further and give jefferson's quote about a "wall of separation"
I know. They are the stupidest most moronic people that I have ever met. The only people who are more stupid than conservatives are the liberals and the progressives.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
well i actually just got done writing this cat an email, tell me what you think:
“I reject the notion by the left of a constitutional separation of church and state,” said David Bradley, a conservative from Beaumont who works in real estate. “I have $1,000 for the charity of your choice if you can find it in the Constitution.”
Response:
The First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....
Thomas Jefferson: In response to a letter written by the Danbury Baptist Association, Jefferson said, "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."
I would enjoy a response and if my response is satisfactory, as it should be, I would love for a donation of $1,000 US Dollars to be donated to the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Science and Reason. Thanks for your time.
Sincerely,
Mr. Al Baker
Don't expect to be paid. Just like a rapist on the witness stand they will say, "When she said no, she really meant yes"
Theists want a hierarchy. They want Jefferson's wall only when non-Christians try to do the same thing they do. "It is ok when I do it, but not when you do it". Non-Christian Americans are merely token house niggers. Christians are fine with having non-Christians as friends, but if they out compete them politically or use the same public venue they do to promote Jesus, then it isn't ok.
Just accept your place at the back of the bus, use your separate bathroom and they wont hurt you.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Did I miss something here? Are these not proud conservatives, expelling the influence of liberalism at the expense of the truth? Do you have an example of liberals trying to whitewash history in the school system? Does it not completely outrage you as a libertarian and an atheist to see this happen?
"Faith, Faith is an island in the setting sun,
but proof, proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Proof, Paul Simon
Nothing this hard should taste so beefy.
I am surprised to see this story picked up so quickly by the forum, no doubt because of the religious content.
But the religious nonsense is just a sidekick to the real change in the educational system. The list is taken from here:
The broad curriculum recommendations and curriculum changes include the following:
1. Referring to the United States as a “Constitutional Republic” rather than as a Democratic” form a government;
2. Stressing the superiority of American capitalism;
3. Questioning the Founding Father’s commitment to a purely secular government;
4. Studying the concept of American exceptionalism;
5. Presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light;
6. Adding references to “laws of nature and nature’s God” in lessons about major political ideas;
7. Rejecting lessons about why the U.S. was founded on the principle of religious freedom;
8. Removing Thomas Jefferson from”World Studies” standard that studies the political philosophers that influenced political revolutions around the world from 1750 to today.
Some of the more specific changes include:
1. Removing references to hip hop music;
2. A plank to ensure that students learn about “the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s, including Contract With America, Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority & NRA;
3. Studying the violent philosophy of the Black Panthers in addition to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s nonviolent approach, as part of the civil rights curriculum;
4. Mentioning the higher support for civil rights legislation of Republicans versus Democrats. ”Republicans need a little credit for that,” said Dr. McLeroy of the Board;
5. Studying “the unintended consequences” of the Great Society legislation, affirmative action and Title IX legislation;
6. Stressing that Germans and Italians were interned in the U.S. during WWII along with the Japanese, to counter the idea that Japanese internment was motivated by racism;
7. Requiring that the history of McCarthyism include study of the Venona papers which confirmed suspicions of communist infiltration in U.S. government by McCarthy and others;
8. Voting down an amendment requiring that students “examine the reasons the Founding Fathers protected religious freedom in America by barring government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion over all others” — in other words, separation of church and state.In Economics, revisions include:
1. Adding Milton Friedman and Frederick von Hayek as economists to be studied;
2. Replacing the words “capitalism” and “capitalist,” which have negative connotations, with ”free-enterprise system” throughout texts;
3. Requiring study of the decline in value of the U.S. dollar, including the abandonment of the gold standard;
4. Requiring the standard, “understand how government taxation and regulations can serve as restrictions to private enterprise.”
In Sociology, revisions include:
1. An amendment requiring teaching “the importance of personal responsibility for life choices” in curriculum on date violence, sexuality, drug use, and eating disorders. ”The topic of sociology tends to blame society for everything,” said Board member Barbara Cargill.
2. Removing references to “sex and gender as social constructs.”
From multiple sources there is consistent information about a revolt from both Hispanic faculty and board members. Quoting: "Efforts by Hispanic board members to include more Latino figures as role models for the state’s large Hispanic population were consistently defeated, prompting one member, Mary Helen Berlanga, to storm out of a meeting late Thursday night, saying, “They can just pretend this is a white America and Hispanics don’t exist.”
“They are going overboard, they are not experts, they are not historians,” she said. “They are rewriting history, not only of Texas but of the United States and the world.” (found here)
While the broad spectrum of changes is akin to fascistoid educational and historic revisionism in early USSR (some here), there really are no conservative ideas in the list as it's presented, other than fringe elements like religion and denial of racism that only serve to radicalise the population and promote segragation. Most of the significant changes are neo-liberal, like having Milton Friedman as mandatory reading and presenting the neo-liberal thrust of 1970-2000 as a "resurgance of conservativism", when in reality it is of course nothing of the sort.
You don't have to look far for evidence either. Removal of Thomas Jefferson, an anti-federalist who was opposed to centralisation of economic power, from philosophical studies is like spiting and kicking a true conservative in the face. Promoting Milton Friedman is the exact opposite of promoting conservative ideas, while Frederick von Hayek is as liberal as liberals get. What the Texas Board of Education is promoting is, in fact, neo-liberalism, camouflaged by the cloud of religious nonsense and racist gestures.
What we really have to start doing seriously is divorcing Republicanism from Conservativism in our daily conversation and thought - to be a Republican is becoming the exact opposite of being a Conservative. The issue with education in Texas is just a symptom of this trend.
Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.
#1 is true
#2 i hate when in history they take moral judgements instead of just stating the facts, though i do think capitalism is the best economic system
#3 ridiculous
#4 see #2
#5 representing any political view in a history book is BS, but unfortunately they wont even be representing the real republican message as it is, but the neo-con message
#6 dunno how that would work, only way i could see is in mention of the declaration which uses that specific phrase, otherwise its BS (and whats funny is that they dont realize its a deistic phrase not a christian one)
#7 weird
#8 blasphemy
---------------------------
#1 not really a big issue to me, dont see hip hop music as a huge world event
#2 advocating is history books is stupid
#3 seems reasonable depending on how they do it
#4 dont see that as an issue if its done correctly
#5 seems appropriate
#6 they should mention it but dont see how it makes it any better, its still bullshit and one of the reasons i hate FDR (see my sig)
#7 okay if done correctly
#8 thats bullshit
----------------------------------
#1 hurray! hayek is my homeboy
#2 semantics
#3 hurray!
#4 hurray!
-------------------------------------
#1 could be okay if done right
#2 huh?
"He also won approval for an amendment stressing that Germans and Italians as well as Japanese were interned in the United States during World War II, to counter the idea that the internment of Japanese was motivated by racism."
110,000 Japanese were rounded up and confined.
No racism at all though. Just throwing one point out as everyone else seemed to cover most other bases.