Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I was interviewed by the Huffington Post the other day for a story about the Texas Board of Education and their attempts to revise history while writing the new social studies standards for the state. You can see the article that resulted from that interview here. One thing that I said in that interview that did not make it into the article was that I think the wingnuts may have overplayed their hand.
What do I mean by that? I mean that they may have gone too far with their revisions and demands for changes in textbooks and their actions may result in a backlash against those demands rather than compliance with them. I think the textbook companies may have a very difficult time convincing the authors of their textbooks, most of which are genuine historians, to say some of the things the Texas BOE is demanding that they say. It will be interesting to see how that battle will turn out.
Politics
Comments
I do hope this makes the majority of Texans (at least I hope it is a majority!) realise what is being done in their names. From here in the UK this ability of a hardcore of nutters to affect the teaching of children is unthinkable.
If this isn't stopped having a Texas education on your CV is going to be a serious hindrance.
Posted by: symball | March 15, 2010 12:23 PM
symball @ 1:
The majority will celebrate these changes as a victory. The people they voted to the State Board were transparent in their platform planks.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 15, 2010 12:36 PM
It will be more than one backlash. This will also spawn lawsuits that will drain Texas Schools of badly needed funds for starters. Marshal--a Homeschool Textbook Publisher is also going to incite a backlash against homeschoolers. Its one thing for this sort of thing to be promoted inside a private residence. Its another to attempt to use federal funding, and the lucky coincidence of captive child audiences, to attempt to indoctrinate children in public schools.
And I hope what you point out is true. I hope that historians will draw the line. Marshall and Barton are probably hoping for that too, so that Texas might be "forced" to order books from Marshall Ministries, rather than authentic textbook publishers who are most likely not fans of revisionist history. Having him Marshall involved to me appears to create a conflict of interest.
Posted by: Seeing Eye Chick | March 15, 2010 12:39 PM
they may have gone too far with their revisions and demands for changes in textbooks and their actions may result in a backlash against those demands rather than compliance with them.
There's also the external-to-Texas argument: up until this point publishers haven't had to choose between Texas and the rest of the nation; they could make textbooks that would hypothetically sell everywhere. But with demands like removing Jefferson from the history curriculum, this may no longer be the case. Texas may be the single biggest market, but its not anywhere near the size of all the other markets combined, and if they get too far away from the mainstream, publishers are likely to choose to publish textbooks that will sell everywhere but Texas over textbooks that will sell only in Texas.
Posted by: eric | March 15, 2010 12:42 PM
To me, it looks like they just removed some particularly blatant examples of Leftist indoctrination from the curriculum. Way to go, Texas!
Posted by: VRWC | March 15, 2010 12:44 PM
I hope the "backlash" consists of other states coming together to counterbalance Texass' dominance of the textbook market. Seriously, can't NY amd MA, at the very least, come together to form a bigger buyers' block?
And where's Canada in all this? They speak the same language, so why aren't they influential in the English-language textbook market?
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 15, 2010 12:50 PM
Raging Bee:
SRSLY. With a population of over 33 million, Canada is the second largest state, behind California but ahead of Texas.
Posted by: carlsonjok | March 15, 2010 12:56 PM
Not that I know anything about Canada's situation Raging Bee, but do you really think they'd use the same textbooks as Americans? I bet their science books don't even have stickers on them decrying evolution for Jebus' sake! And they probably don't even discuss John Calvin's super-duper-important contributions to . . . uh, well, I dunno what he contributed to, other than a really Jesusy "college" where I had to take my SATs.
Posted by: Rob Monkey | March 15, 2010 12:58 PM
#2
If that is true then you really are up the creek. What's next Pi=3? replace medicine with prayer?
Its the kids I feel sorry for. I can't see many good universities accepting a Texas High school student in the near future.
Posted by: symball | March 15, 2010 1:00 PM
Jeremy Binckes (reporting for Huff Po):
Sometimes, it seems conservatives see the Rocky Horror Picture Show everywhere they look.
Posted by: llewelly | March 15, 2010 1:12 PM
I'm not sure, but I don't think Canadian history books make too much fuss over the history of the United States. How many Canadian Prime Ministers did you read about in high school?
Posted by: Drekab | March 15, 2010 1:13 PM
You may be right about overplaying their hand. If other states balk at the business-as-usual of adopting whatever Texas does, then some other state will become the front runner. I hope it's California.
Posted by: CRM-114 | March 15, 2010 1:14 PM
In Texas, all that will be left of Jefferson is his hat . . .
Posted by: Robin | March 15, 2010 1:29 PM
I'm no expert on the Canadian school textbook situation (despite being a Canadian and having studied from such textbooks in the previous millennium), but my understanding is that most if not all K-12 books are published by companies located in Canada (often, of course, subsidiaries of U.S. companies). Canadian history and social studies are such emphatically different subjects from their U.S. counterparts that entirely different materials are used (in ours, for example, the U.S. lost the War of 1812).
Canadian K-12 curricula are approved by the Ministries of Education of the provinces, which essentially means a combination of bureaucrats and teachers, with a few parents and others (I was on one of those committees about 10 years ago, as a post-secondary rep). Hence there's essentially zero chance of this Texas BOE crap making it into Canadian schools.
Posted by: Vincent Manis | March 15, 2010 1:49 PM
Plus, if you used Canadian history textbooks, you'd have to finally acknowledge that WE WON THE WAR OF 1812!*
Our math and science texts are mostly OK, though. Help yourselves!
*Yeah, I know it was sort of a tie. But at least when I was in elementary school in the early 90s we were taught that Canada/Britain won. Go team!
Posted by: KristinMH | March 15, 2010 1:54 PM
Dammit, Vince beat me. And his contribution was much more intelligent than mine. No fair!
Posted by: KristinMH | March 15, 2010 1:56 PM
In a way the War of 1812 was both a loss and a tie for the US. In the first phase of the war, which was when the US tried to invade Canada while the British were distracted by Napoleon, the US lost badly. On the other hand, the US beat back British attempts to invade the US in 1814 so in that phase you could say the US fought the British to a draw.
Posted by: Ericb | March 15, 2010 2:04 PM
Canada won the War of 1812? Bullshit, we invaded your ass! Only your British masters, whom you were too lily-livered to rebel against, like us true patriots, saved you.
OK, more seriously, I was surprised to find out that none of either the U.S. or Canadian students in my U.S. Gov't class knew that the U.S. ever invaded Canada.
Posted by: James Hanley | March 15, 2010 2:06 PM
@5:
That damn Marxist Thomas Jefferson!
{/snark}
Posted by: NJ | March 15, 2010 2:12 PM
"I was interviewed by the Huffington Post the other day"
Great, you're the new Jenny McCarthy.
Posted by: Rob Jase | March 15, 2010 2:18 PM
Well, if they are going to venerate the likes of say Newt Gingrich I say they should include EVERYTHING about Gingrich, including divorcing a wife that was on her sickbed. Warts and all.
And while we're at it, when they venerate other Repugs lets make sure they included things like DeLay's nickname, Hot Tub Tommy.
Posted by: Tony P | March 15, 2010 2:23 PM
If the authors will not write to the standards, then they can be replaced. There is no shortage of hacks who will write anything for a paycheque - or wingnuts who agree with the new standards and would jump at the chance to have a major publisher endorse their unconventional views.
Posted by: Suricou Raven | March 15, 2010 2:30 PM
Glancing at it...
...I might suggest a conceptual refinement. Five of the seven appear to show some vestiges sanity; the departing Dunbar and now-booted McLeroy are whacko even compared to the rest of the wingnuts; and at least one Democrat has occasionally leaned significantly in that direction.
I would suggest "Silly Party", "Very Silly Party", and "Slightly Silly Party", opposed by the "Sensible Party". (The one or two Republicans opposing the whackos might be classed "Slightly Sensible Party".)
Also:
Actually, like a stopped clock McLeroy has momentarily gotten close to correct here. Specifically, James Madison was one of the most influential authors to both the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Madison's religious upbringing, and specifically the Anglican persecution of Baptists in Virginia during his youth, was a major influence on his political thought. While Christian, Madison was hardly a fan of Churches' involvement with politics.
I believe I've heard a mainstream Madison scholar reference the particular concept of "man as sinner" influencing checks and balances (on local NPR radio program on JM, within the past year) as a Madisonian conceit. My own limited Google-fu merely turns up Federalist 51, with "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." However, I suspect there's more in Madison's personal letters.
You might want to ask a historian specializing in Madison for a book recommendation, or at least an expert opinion on this point. I'm not a Madison expert, so my understanding may be wrong.
Posted by: abb3w | March 15, 2010 2:31 PM
To me, it looks like they just removed some particularly blatant examples of Leftist indoctrination from the curriculum.
Yep, that Thomas Jefferson was a hardcore Leftist. All that rubbish about democracy and freedom! And that hateful Declaration of Independence he wrote! We shoulda stayed loyal to the King.
Posted by: Erasmussimo | March 15, 2010 2:31 PM
Maybe I'm just pessimistic, but I'm doubtful that there will be any meaningful backlash. Politically, half of Democrats are so afraid of seeming partisan that they'll do whatever conservatives want, and the other half of the Democrats just don't care. In this bad economy, I doubt that many textbook authors will risk losing a job by refusing to write this crap, and textbook publishers won't risk losing business. Other states might care, but California is the only liberal state big enough to have power, and their budget isn't looking very good right now. And the general public is just completely unaware that this is going on.
Posted by: catgirl | March 15, 2010 2:33 PM
One interesting note that the NYTimes mentioned when they covered the announcement was that some circumstances have changed for some publishers.
With digital publishing and "on-demand" mass production, akin to sites like "blurb" that can put out a hundred copies of a 300 page book in a week, it is possible for the publishers to be able to have the edited full-of-crap version available for sale to Texas, while not having to have the same exact version be the one they sell to other states.
In fact, most publishing houses are increasingly moving to this technology because it means that for a little of up-front costs in upgrading their software, they can save a bundle from printing up books that never get bought and sit in a warehouse awaiting recycling.
Posted by: Joe Shelby | March 15, 2010 2:41 PM
The backlash has already started. Every wingnut who was up for re-election lost in the primary. These are lame duck votes.
Posted by: Vahid Friedrich | March 15, 2010 2:41 PM
Joe Shelby: With digital publishing and "on-demand" mass production, akin to sites like "blurb" that can put out a hundred copies of a 300 page book in a week, it is possible for the publishers to be able to have the edited full-of-crap version available for sale to Texas, while not having to have the same exact version be the one they sell to other states.
Interesting. This would greatly dissociate standards from sales. In the short term this would be good for students in other states and bad for Texas students. In the long run, though, I'm not sure whether its a good thing or a bad thing that digital technology is going to make it much easier for each state to teach increasingly different versions of history.
Posted by: eric | March 15, 2010 2:57 PM
Well, I think the debate is now over, as The Black Belted One, otherwise known as Chuck Norris, has weighed in on the Texas Situation with the following:
And in what surely must be a textbook example of irony -- if not of "Why the hell is anyone listening to man who regularly gets punched in the head for money" -- Norris cites Thomas Jefferson three times in his essay to justify why Thomas Jefferson was excluded from the standards.Posted by: Jody | March 15, 2010 3:12 PM
Sorry to get all pessimisty on you, but I'm sure if they pay enough they'll find somebody to write "history" the way they want it. Historian or not, some people will do/say anything for a buck.
Posted by: DavidK | March 15, 2010 3:22 PM
Is it just me, or was this article really badly written? Just look at the last sentence:
Not only are they lying... but what? Where's the end of that sentence? The rest of the article is littered with little things like that.
Posted by: Tacroy | March 15, 2010 3:22 PM
Curriculum changes:
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=3643
Straight to the source, not cherry picked by outraged Leftist activists. I agree with the absolute majority of the proposed changes.
Posted by: VRWC | March 15, 2010 3:36 PM
VRWC @ 32:
VRWC,
Why should this forum care what you think? Are you a historian?
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 15, 2010 3:50 PM
Chucky (Asskicker) Norris says,
And that explains why Texas is 49th (table 228 in the link) in percentage of adults who are high school graduates.
Great job, Texas.
Posted by: James Hanley | March 15, 2010 3:51 PM
Of course most of the changes are fine and uninteresting. Most of the changes are minor wording adjuments, tiny emphasis shifts, and so on. Nobody cares about that! What matters are the actual cirriculum changes. Can you identify any good such changes, VRWC? Or are you just admitting that most of the changes don't matter?
Posted by: Michael Ralston | March 15, 2010 3:58 PM
In just a quick scan of the first 4 pages of this section of the revised document, I noticed that the positive black and minority contributions on several fronts were removed and replaced by more controversial figures (see Benjamin Davis for the former and Marcus Garvey for the latter) and American missionaries were included as one of the factors for increasing America's global power.
I'm not a historian, but then I doubt VRWC is either. With that level playing field in mind, I call "shenanigans" on these changes. I think I'll do the same on the whole venture.
Posted by: Jody | March 15, 2010 4:06 PM
@Michael Heath
You mean "an historian".
/nitpick
Posted by: WMDKitty | March 15, 2010 4:11 PM
Is it just me, or was this article really badly written? Just look at the last sentence:
When conservatives and Fox claim that there are radical leftists who hate Christians and are removing the founding fathers from the standards, not only are they lying."
Not only are they lying... but what? Where's the end of that sentence? The rest of the article is littered with little things like that.
----
I wrote the piece in question. In editing, the quote was snipped (as was the y in May... I checked my draft to the print version), leaving a dependent clause. It has since been fixed. Thank you for pointing that out.
Posted by: Jeremy | March 15, 2010 4:36 PM
Jody, #36. Benjamin Davis perfectly illustrates the spirit of the changes. An excellent example! Originally, the relevant section read:
"explain the roles played by significant military leaders during World War II, including Omar Bradley, Dwight Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur, Oveta Culp Hobby, Benjamin O. Davis"
Benjamin Davis or Oveta Culp Hobby being "significant military leaders"? Come on! With all due respect to them, they are a complete misfit when bundled together with Bradley, Eisenhower, McArthur (or Nimitz, later added by the Board). They had been included in the curriculum for the sole reason of being presented as minority (or gender) role models, not due to the comparative significance of their contribution. The Board challenged the spirit of "identity politics" in this and other cases, and I applaud this.
Posted by: VRWC | March 15, 2010 4:39 PM
In a related story;
The manufacturers of Charmin and Scott tissue are engaged in a bitter bidding war for the lucrative Texas high school diploma contract.
Details at eleven...
Posted by: Big Boppa | March 15, 2010 4:55 PM
Please VRWC, you're focusing on the boring changes. The two real gems are adding "the flawed monetary policy of..." to the discussion of the Federal Reserve System, and requiring students to study "the philanthropy of industrialists."
I also liked how the requirement to study E Pluribus Unum and In God We Trust was put in the section on "...how people from various groups contribute to our national identity." Do you think that the placement was a mistake, or do you think the SBOE thought the 'old white men" group was previously underrepresented in the curriculum?
Posted by: eric | March 15, 2010 4:58 PM
@WMDKitty
Nitpick right back at ya:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue/a-an.html
Posted by: V. infernalis | March 15, 2010 5:04 PM
Eric, #41.
(1) Another great example. You guys just keep giving me real gems! In the HuffPost article linked by Mr. Brayton, there is the following allegation against the Board:
"In a discussion over economics standards, one board member said that he had never heard of Milton Friedman, the famous economist and Nobel Prize winner.
So, it would also be nice to know that the "famous economist" devoted entire chapter ("Anatomy of Crisis") of his "Free to Choose" book to discussing the role of the Federal Reserve in creating (and aggravating) the Great Depression. So, guys, I bet you had a good laugh about these dumb Texas rednecks, who have not heard about Milton Friedman. But look who's talking! :)
(2) To avoid the discussion who is over- and who is underrepresented, the Board focused on the significance of the contribution, regardless of the identity of the contributor (see my post #39). Any problems with that?
Posted by: VRWC | March 15, 2010 5:18 PM
In a dark rubbish strewn alley somewhere on the seed side of town a hunched shuffling figure in a dirty raincoat was heard to mutter into his unkempt facial hair.
He staggered out onto a main road opened the coat to reveal a pair of yellow y-fronts and a tattoo of Chuck Norris and screamed.
Posted by: Matty | March 15, 2010 5:38 PM
In addition to what has already been said about how curricula are determined here in Canada, another factor is that the Christian right, especially in its loonier versions, has much less influence here. Note, for example, that even though our current Prime Minister is a conservative Christian criticized for being too close to George Bush, he came right out and said that his party had no intention of re-opening the abortion controversy (abortion is legal here), and in fact his party and his government have made no effort to restrict abortion.
Posted by: Bill Poser | March 15, 2010 5:55 PM
How about an interview about prosecutorial inanity?
More teenagers getting their lives ruined over sexting.
http://gazetteonline.com/breaking-news/2010/03/15/two-teenagers-arrested-for-pornography-crimes
Posted by: Owen | March 15, 2010 6:17 PM
@ Bill Poser #45:
I vaguely recall some rumblings a few years back about reopening the gay marriage issue. The public response was basically, "No, we're good. Can you guys go do some real work now, please?"
Plus Kinder Eggs are legal here. I love this country.
Posted by: Adrian W. | March 15, 2010 6:20 PM
Raging Bee "And where's Canada in all this? They speak the same language, so why aren't they influential in the English-language textbook market?"
1. Everything's metric (also, base nine, as most Canadians have lost a digit due to frostbite, hockey brawl or moose-attack)
2. History isn't US-centric (limited to perhaps the Declaration, American Civil War and the civil rights movement)
3. "O", in prouper Canadian english, is coummounly foullouwed by the letter "U"
4. The last half of every textbook is the Quebecer translation of the english first half. The english "...et cetera...", for example, is translated into Quebecer as "...and type like that, okay?"
5. Most Canadian history textbooks are on major Canadian historical figures (like Bon Homme)
carlsonjok "SRSLY. With a population of over 33 million, Canada is the second largest state..."
...about a third of whom either don't speak, or don't like, english.
abb3w "I believe I've heard a mainstream Madison scholar reference the particular concept of "man as sinner" influencing checks and balances (on local NPR radio program on JM, within the past year) as a Madisonian conceit."
Except that, if all Man is fallen, checks and balances wouldn't work.
Michael Heath "Why should this forum care what you think? Are you a historian?"
Michael, Michael, Michael...if recent history has taught you nothing it's that reality is what you want it to be. This means that everyone is now a historian. Absolutist philosophy, remarkably, appears to lead to the crassest relativism.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | March 15, 2010 6:32 PM
@CRM-114 #12
California has traditionally offset the effects of the Texas cirriculum on schoolbooks being the second largest buyer in the country.
Unfortunately, that isn't going to happen with the new standards Texas is putting out because California has put a hold on buying new books until at least 2014 because of their budget issues.
Posted by: Alareth | March 15, 2010 6:32 PM
To which examples of "lefist indoctrination" are you referring?
How do you measure contributions? How are Bradley and MacArthur (or Patton for that matter) major figures during the war, but O. Davis isn't? All were senior officers during the war, but only one was truly unique. Fourth African American to graduate from West Point, one of only two commissioned officers serving in the army at the time of his commissioning (1936), his father was the other commissioned officer at the time. While his father was the first African American Brigadier general, he was the first African American to solo and one of the first five to qualify as pilots in the Army Air Corps (1942), first African American to command a fighter squadron, then fighter group, and then bomber group. He was the first African American Brigadier General, Major General, and then Lieutenant General in the Air Force and played an instrumental role in the integration of the Air Force following Truman's desegregation order in 1948.
O. Davis was a frontier breaker. The Navy didn't have African American pilots for 6 years after O. Davis, the Marine Corps 10 years. He played an instrumental role in making the Air Force the first of the branches of the armed forces to desegregate following Truman's order. He flew more than 60 combat missions in WWII and Korea, flying in both prop and jet aircraft. Earned a Silver Star and DSF.
Comparative contribution? They added Glenn Curtis at the same time they removed Eugene V. Debs??? Their 8th grade standards include Crispus Attucks, for what? Getting shot? They've got Stonewall Jackson as a great military leader of the 19th century but don't have Lee, Grant, or Sherman? They turn the Civil Rights movement into "great leaders who supported or opposed the Civil Rights Movement," and added George Wallace??? They don't even mention Brown v. until government, apparently it isn't an important part of the Civil Rights movement, but George Wallace is. They elevated Bill Clinton's impeachment to the level of Teapot Dome and Watergate? *chuckle*
Posted by: dogmeatib | March 15, 2010 6:57 PM
Modusoperandi @ 48:
Will you marry me?
Posted by: Kyorosuke | March 15, 2010 6:58 PM
dogmeatib: This perfectly illustrates the ideological rift between us. Gen. Davis may be extremely important from the narrow African, ethnocentric point of view, but to me (and generally, in the context of the whole WWII history), he is little more than a footnote. Clearly not comparable with the commanders of the caliber of Nimitz, Bradley or Eisenhower.
Both you and I know the reason why Gen. Davis was added to the previous curriculum. You agree with this, I don't. You want the curriculum to be based on identity politics, I don't. You believe in group interests (ethnicities, classes), I believe in the American "melting pot". You believe the Board was wrong, I applaud their courage to challenge certain taboos, dear to the Left's hearts.
Posted by: VRWC | March 15, 2010 7:26 PM
If O.Davis isn't important, than why are Nimitz or Bradley? In effect you are saying that a battle front commander is irrelevant. Fine, I can agree with you. Eisenhower (with Marshall) established policy, negotiated between allies, met with world leaders, etc. Bradley and Nimitz implemented policy established by others. I would argue that Nimitz doesn't quite qualify on this point because he didn't really have to do many of the things Eisenhower and Marshall had to do.
So you disagree with the board for including Crispus Attucks, Glenn Curtis, and Stonewall Jackson, right? Their contributions to history range from nonexistent to very minor at best. How about Brown? Leaving that out of the 50s and out of the Civil Rights movement seems rather silly, doesn't it? What about elevating George Wallace to the same level as Martin Luther King? I mean if O.Davis is a minor figure representing a minority point of view, so is Wallace.
Posted by: dogmeatib | March 15, 2010 7:55 PM
dogmeatib "To which examples of 'lefist indoctrination' are you referring?"
Jacques LeFist, leader of ze Fronch undairgoround?
Kyorosuke "Modusoperandi @ 48: Will you marry me?"
Sorry, can't. I'm too much man for one woman. Heck, I can barely keep my hands off myself. I have to wear sunglasses all the time. If I don't, every time I pass a reflective surface I get lost in my own eyes. It's like Hell, but with less fire and more handsome.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | March 15, 2010 7:59 PM
What is a "battle front commander"? According to Wikipedia (challenge it, if you wish):
"During the war, the airmen commanded by Davis had compiled an outstanding record in combat against the Luftwaffe. They flew more than 15,000 sorties, shot down 111 enemy planes,"
This, with all respect to Gen. Davis' bravery and dedication, is comparable to the achievements of single fighter squadrons... Definitely he was not one of the "significant military leaders", although for sure he could be significant to the Americans of African descent. But we are not discussing an Afrocentric curriculum, I hope.
Posted by: VRWC | March 15, 2010 8:23 PM
You seem to have forgotten to address this part of my question...
You missed all but the WWII portion of the question the first time as well, I'm sure it was just an oversight, right?
Posted by: dogmeatib | March 15, 2010 8:33 PM
Comment #1 from symball: If this isn't stopped having a Texas education on your CV is going to be a serious hindrance.
and
I can't see many good universities accepting a Texas High school student in the near future.
The word "good" in that last comment is key here. In the US, there is a network of right-wing universities that will gladly accept the deeply indoctrinated Texas student. After leaving university, such students will be able to find employment in any of a number of US right-wing religious organizations, political organizations (aka "think tanks"), and media organizations like Fox News. Unfortunately, having an intellectually deficient background is no hindrance to employment in the US, at least as long as it's a right-wing background. And right-wing organizations tend to have a lot of money, since they make a fetish of capitalism.
Posted by: deang | March 15, 2010 8:36 PM
dogmeatib: "What about elevating George Wallace to the same level as Martin Luther King?"
I particularly hate ad personam arguments, but this time I am sorely tempted to refer to the progressive education and its outcome, with particular emphasis on reading with understanding of the subject and the context. Here is the entire relevant paragraph:
"identify the roles of significant leaders who supported or opposed of the civil rights movement, including Martin Luther King, Jr., Cesar Chavez, Betty Friedan, George Wallace, and others;"
Wallace is not elevated to the level of King. He is the one who opposed the civil rights movement, and the general American consensus about civil rights as a positive thing prevents elevating him to the same level. Quite elementary, I would say.
Posted by: VRWC | March 15, 2010 8:50 PM
Eric @41 wrote:
To which VRWC @43 responded:
Really, VRCW? You expect me to believe that "in god we trust," is a significant contribution to national identity? You risk doing yourself a shoulder injury when you're reaching like that.
Posted by: James Hanley | March 15, 2010 8:50 PM
@WMDkitty: You mean "an historian".
I know you were just nitpicking, but this is a pet peeve of mine, the insistence that "an" always be in front of h, even if h is pronounced. In recent years, it's become a plague. Unless one speaks a dialect of English in which initial h's are not pronounced, "a" should be used in front of historian. It's based on how it's pronounced, not on how it's spelled.
Posted by: deang | March 15, 2010 8:55 PM
dogmeatib @50 wrote:
Yeah, yeah, you lefty liberal identity-politics luvin' commie. And I suppose you think studying about Jackie Robinson is important, just because he broke the color barrier in baseball.
Posted by: VRWC's alter ego (aka James Hanley) | March 15, 2010 8:59 PM
If you break down VRCW's argument, it is that the progressive integration of American society isn't worth studying.
I don't think he's necessarily racist--just ignorant.
Posted by: James Hanley | March 15, 2010 9:01 PM
Also, your opinion here is really rather silly. You assume you know my objectives, establish a strawman objective for me, and then dismiss it. Nice trick, unfortunately it has nothing to do with my actual objectives.
See, it's really quite simple, unlike many of the people discussing this issue, commenting, questioning, etc., I happen to be both an historian and an educator. Any given year I happen to teach US History, World History, European History at the high school, high school-honors, or college (AP) level. The reality is that, with history, getting the kids interested is more than half the battle. Your "melting pot" history is generally code for "wealthy white men" history. Generally people who advocate your position will throw in a "darkie" or "chick" here and there, Crispus Attucks, Frederick Douglas, Harriet Tubman, Geronimo, Susan B. Anthony, Martin Luther King, Caesar Chavez, Obama, you know, a couple of token mentions of minorities and women to placate those silly liberals, and will then focus 95% of their time on the "important" history, rich white men. The amusing thing is that not only will these individuals be tokens, quite often people who had very minor contributions to history, Attucks for example, or Geronimo, are held up as major figures.
Even the kids go "so Attucks was in the wrong place at the wrong time and got shot, right?" To which you pretty much have to say "yup." To which they often reply, "how is that different from Tupac?"
What makes this even more amusing is that neocon idiots (who you support apparently) have now taken to removing actual role models from history and, at the same time, prop up rather minor figures in opposition to major minority role models.
What O.Davis means to you, someone who apparently doesn't understand history or is too blinded by your own ideology to recognize the importance of race in our history, is really irrelevant. O.Davis represents one of the most critical issues of American history. We fought our civil war over race relations, we had the rise of the Ku Klux Klan, Jim Crow, segregation, suppression of constitutional rights, voting rights, property rights, criminal rights. We had the Civil Rights movement, major, dramatic changes in the law, in society, in politics. O.Davis represents a significant part of the forefront of that movement. Veterans like O.Davis played key roles in the Civil Rights movement. The fact that they fought so well during the war shattered many of the myths that segregationists used to keep African Americans second class citizens. The actions of O.Davis, King, Medgar Evers, Rosa Parks, James Meredith, and the others of the African American civil rights movement played a major role in shattering the barriers for blacks, Asians, Hispanics, Native Americans, and women. Rather than representing a minor element of a minority race, he represents a major element of the push for equality for the majority of our population.
White men, the normal focal point of "melting pot" history, actually make up about 25% of the population. So really, what you are advocating is an emphasis on identity history, specifically white European male history. I assume, based on your arguments, that you happen to be of European descent? What that means is that rather than emphasizing "important" history, you are emphasizing identity history that just happens to match your identity.
Ironic.
Posted by: dogmeatib | March 15, 2010 9:02 PM
I believe VRWC is saying that he just wants our history books to be as "fair and balanced" as Fox News is.
VRWC, do your initials stand for "Veteran of Right Wing Crusades?" You seem to have an axe to grind here. Are you a/an historian by trade, or just a pesky gadfly?
Posted by: wheatdogg | March 15, 2010 9:19 PM
I don't think you can properly tell the story of the Civil Rights movement without George Wallace. A staunch segregationist who later renounced his views serves as a great example.
The current standards are still a load of bollocks, though.
Posted by: Captain Mike | March 15, 2010 9:35 PM
No. It stands for the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Booo! :)
Silly (in your eyes) or not, this is how quite many Americans think, and this includes also new immigrants (that's me!), who are free of the slavery guilt syndrome.
Posted by: VRWC | March 15, 2010 9:38 PM
Really, history is decided by democratic vote, now? I guess evolution isn't real either; A majority of Americans don't believe in that.
Posted by: Kyorosuke | March 15, 2010 9:48 PM
History is settled. How it is taught depends on democratic vote, and I do not have any problems with what democracy came up with in Texas. Someone made an excellent comparison with Fox, which gives me an opportunity to state the following: totalitarianism, regardless of its hue, tolerates no dissent. To the Left, a sufficient proof of being rabidly right wing is to present SOME conservative argumentation. "Balance", in the newspeak, means CNN, right? Or, better yet, The Nation?
Finally, on a personal note, I had a great honor of being banned on Free Republic for disputing the 'creation science' cretinism. So, you are not alone in your outrage against my trolling. Thank you all for the interesting discussion.
Posted by: VRWC | March 15, 2010 10:06 PM
@66
You are confusing what is significant in your own history with what is significant in American history. It is abundantly clear that you have absolutely no appreciation for the significance that racism played in the history of this country. The fact that you're new to this country and didn't see it, doesn't oblige the rest of us to pretend that none of it happened. And the fact that some white Americans from former confederate states still wish deny it, comes as no surprise to those of us who aren't in denial about America's racist history.
Posted by: Dr X | March 15, 2010 11:22 PM
VRWC @ 66 states:
Well, you still have gads to learn prior to spouting off with such certainty and demonstrated ignorance as you do in this thread. It's collectively accepted that a conundrum continues to thrive in both the public square and constitutional jurisprudence regarding the Constitution, its principles, and its application because slavery survived the ratification of U.S. Constitution.
The roots of this conundrum predates the Constitution, a proto-version is found in Jefferson's 1st draft of the Declaration of Independence, is further developed during the Constitutional Convention, and is in full bloom upon ratification of the Constitution. It is the survival of slavery post-ratification, with slaves even indirectly referenced as "other persons" in spite of a Constitution which ratified certain limitations on powers while obligating the government to defend rights based on a specific set of principles. The reality of slavery surviving the Constitution's ratification is due to both the ambiguity of the language, including the 10th Amendment, to avoidance of those numerated principles, ideals, and government obligations to defend rights which were ratified and that were perfectly contra to the very concept of slavery.
The objective of creating this paradox by way of using ambiguous meanings, originally ignoring certain provisions by all three branches of government and the states, and even current and fierce avoidance of current Amendments (the 9th, the equal protection clause, "people" in the 10th amendment, the 14th Amendment) that provides the opportunity for certain modern day political affiliations and political ideologies to continue to muddy the already dirty waters of constitutional jurisprudence on rights to deny others the full and equal exercise of their rights. Without slavery we'd have had a more coherent Constitution and far better set of precedents given it was the only factor that created a context where ambiguity regarding a superior set of powers and rights contained within the Constitution was favored to supplant the previous failed confederation.
I suggest studying a little harder, at some point you might realize you don't even know what you don't know. In fact, your laying judgment on the SBOE changes in spite of your demonstrated ignorance illustrates the very point most of us make on these matters. I've encountered no one arguing would that creationist politicians should develop and rule over the curriculum of a medical school for obvious reasons - they're ignorant and most of us want competent caregivers. The same can be said of the Texas SBOE conservatives who have demonstrated their historical ignorance as well as they overturn what Texas' actual experts, historians developed. E.g., one can not understand the Enlightenment without understanding the role Thomas Jefferson* played bringing those ideals into fruition when it came to not merely abstract ideals, but realized political liberty - which was and ultimately is the primary point, i.e., moving from the abstract to the applied.
*And many other founders along with English and other European predecessors who co-developed the dogma contained within the DofI, e.g., the English Declaration of Rights in 1688 and the English Bill of Rights of 1689 as merely two examples.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 15, 2010 11:48 PM
Wow, what a (not) subtle attack. Given that you know virtually nothing about me, you may wish to hold off the intellectual dick comparisons until you figure out if your equipment measures up, I'm afraid your argument here suggests that you are equipped with an "innie".
You might want to look at the text and highlight specifically the modifications before you get too snide and snotty about things. Oh, too late. If you took the time to read the editing of that portion of the standard, you will see that they changed the text from a standard about the leaders of the Civil Rights movement to one in which they talk about the "leaders who supported and opposed the civil rights movement (green text)."
That is a dramatic change to "atmosphere" of the standard. Normally teaching the civil rights movement you would talk about the leadership of the movement, its methods, successes, failures, and at the same time talk about their opponents. In this case they have changed the entire dynamic of the coverage of that unit. They have taken a subject that legitimately has a right side and a wrong side into one that is presented as a compare and contrast. Again, as someone who has spent years as an historian and an educator, including serving on a number of committees writing standards, establishing scope and sequence, writing curriculum, I can tell you that this wording was chosen for a very specific reason, one which changes the entire intent of the coverage of the Civil Rights movement. Add to that, Wallace was added, specifically, above and beyond the added "significant leaders who supported or opposed..."
Again, this is quite obviously an effort to change the dynamic of the entire unit, very similar to the idiotic usage of the phrase "discuss the strengths and weaknesses of evolution" language is intended to undermine science education.
Posted by: dogmeatib | March 15, 2010 11:55 PM
Captain Mike,
I agree completely, but if you look at the changes in the text, it goes from covering the leadership of the Civil Rights Movement to covering the leading supporters and opponents. In the same changes they drop Betty Friedan (so apparently womens' rights aren't important anymore), and add Wallace. As I said in my reply to VRWC, this language has a rather clear intent for anyone familiar with standards and curriculum.
Posted by: dogmeatib | March 16, 2010 12:03 AM
Actually history is dynamic. This is a perfect example of one of the dangers of elected boards of education and their impact on education. The overall waxing and waining of history can be seen most clearly in the history of the Civil War and Antebellum period. In the fifty years or so following the war it was mostly a history of slavery, personal rights, etc. By the 1920s attitudes had shifted and the history of the period began to look like Gone With the Wind. Namely, complete and utter bullshit. Following the Second World War, with the advent of the Civil Rights movement, there was a divergent coverage of the period. In the South it became rather strongly entrenched as the "war of northern aggression," slavery wasn't an issue, slaves enjoyed being slaves, etc. etc. etc., in other words, an entrenching of the bullshit. In the north and the west historians began looking at the period through new methodology, adding quantitative history, reexamining old documents, and returned, again, to a more representative history of the period.
If some of these elected idiots that you so admire, got their way, the history of our country would become a racist portrayal of conservative ideologues arguing against equality, against non-white rights, in favor of reduced roles for women, etc. Much like their efforts to dumb down science, to eliminate challenges to their faith based beliefs about the age of the earth, universe, climate, etc., they have shown over and over again a desire to turn back the clock and rewrite history to "restore" an Ozzie and Harriet/Leave it to Beaver United States that never existed.
Well first Faux hasn't even pretended to be a news organization in quite some time. Second, anyone who blindly accepts the mass media and their presentation of any issue is woefully ignorant of the issues that face our country. I wont address the idiocy of a "liberal media bias," I consider it a general media incompetency rather than bias.
There is a major difference between presenting differences of opinion, and rewriting history to eliminate those you find politically objectionable. This committee isn't replying to "liberal bias" in its activities, it is rewriting history to eliminate those they disagree with. It is interesting that you attempt to project totalitarianism on the left when those guilty of Orwellian changes to history are firmly on the right in this case.
I find it surprising that you would accept evidence for science, but are at the same time willing to accept ideologically driven rewriting of history. These are ideologically the same people who would ban you for disputing their creationist beliefs, how can you honestly believe that people who would rewrite science to better fit their faith based view of the world despite the evidence, people who would lie and misrepresent the issue to gain even the smallest of advantages, would suddenly become altruistic, honest advocates of learning when it came to history? That is counterintuitive, counterfactual, and utterly illogical.
Posted by: dogmeatib | March 16, 2010 12:43 AM
@6 "And where's Canada in all this? They speak the same language, so why aren't they influential in the English-language textbook market?"
LOL. I doubt that Canada uses the USA's bowdlerised and propagandised version of history at all. For a start, the USA history textbooks probably paint those treasonous upstarts whose junta seized all of New England from it's rightful, God-given sovereign as some kind of heroes.
Posted by: Paul Murray | March 16, 2010 1:23 AM
I'm speaking here as someone who will have a bachelor's degree in US history in a few months. There are a few common non-historian mistakes being made here. One is trying to boil history down to leaders or governments instead of broad social issues. Heavily related is attempts to pigeonhole history. The history of the civil rights movement (and important gains like Davis's) isn't narrow ethnocentric history; it is the history of the US. The change in public attitudes fomented (which affected white people more than anyone) is one on the most significant things to happen. There's also a fundamental misunderstanding of racism in the subtext here.
Posted by: Ace of Sevens | March 16, 2010 1:50 AM
Do you have statistics to support that assertion? Whether "many Americans" share your viewpoint is a debatable point. As for being a new immigrant, congratulations. You did what three of my grandparents did about 100 years ago. Somehow they managed to raise children who were not as blinkered as you when it comes to history.
They came to the US because they wanted freedom in all its senses. Slavery is not freedom, nor were the Jim Crow laws. Both institutions were absolutely "un-American," but as dogmeatib eloquently points out, the antislavery Founders had to compromise in order to construct a working Constitution that the slave-owning Founders (and states) would accept. The ambiguity contained therein, and the latent economic and political friction between North and South eventually resulted in the Civil War.
To suggest that whites whose American roots predate the Civil War somehow are "guilty" about slavery and are now trying to absolve themselves of that guilt by playing, in your term, "identity politics," is both utterly insulting and woefully ignorant. It is a typical right-wing cheap shot, an oversimplification of a legitimate concern to make the study of history more representational. It's not about guilt; it's about historical accuracy.
Imagine, VRWC (or Mr Conspiracy, if you prefer), if some BOE somewhere in the USA decided that history books should only focus on the "True Founders" of the USA, those Europeans who arrived, say, before 1800, and their accomplishments. In such a scenario, the contributions of all non-Europeans (Africans, Asians, native Americans, etc.) and anyone who arrived after 1800 would be excised from the curriculum. As a new immigrant, I suspect you might be incensed if the influence of "your people" -- meaning new immigrants -- were totally ignored.
In fact, American history used to be taught exactly in that fashion. Now the Texas BOE wants to return that state's history curriculum to one current about 100 years ago. I can hardly see how anyone with half a brain could see this as advantageous or laudable.
Finally, I concur with dogmeatib@71 in his observation that the Texas BOE clearly intends to imprint its own ultra-conservative bias on the state's education system. Once a Scope & Sequence document is published, every public school in the state has to follow it. Teachers at their option may introduce other viewpoints and/or materials, but most will just follow the state S&S to keep their supervisors and students' parents happy. The Texas BOE has undertaken a major social engineering project, and have succeeded where the Intelligent Design camp (see the Wedge Statement) has failed.
Arguing whether Crispus Attucks or O. Davis belongs in a history text misses the point. You are just seeing the trees, not the forest. The Texas BOE has damaged the teaching of history in the Lone Star State in ways far beyond the omission of some historical figures and the inclusion of others. It has basically rewritten the history curriculum to reflect the beliefs of a political faction who just happens temporarily to be in power.
Rewriting history also happened in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Communist China and other totalitarian states. Since you are a recent immigrant, I would have expected you would be more sensitive to such abuse of political power. Apparently I was wrong.
Posted by: wheatdogg | March 16, 2010 1:51 AM
VRWC: So you are saying O. Davis' role during the war as a trail-blazer of integration was of no importance to our society? How exactly can you discuss the integration of our military without discussing him, and how can you discuss his role in that while ignoring his major role in the early Air Force command structure? Just by being a front line commander during the first four years of the Air Force's existence as an independent branch of the military, he had a tremendous effect on tactical development, strategic focus, and command structure, and the fact that his doing these things was also in the vanguard of a larger societal shift away from segregation makes those contributions even more important regarding the history of our society. We learn about Doolittle in history class not for his significant role in defining strategic bombing, but for a single raid on Tokyo; how can you justify his inclusion in the curricula and support O. Davis' removal? For that matter, we include Spaatz for his role as a front line bombing commander; how can you justify that inclusion along side O. Davis' exclusion for "just" being the same thing?
Your argument boils down to "We all KNOW he was only included because he's a black man", well I suggest there's a reasonable argument to be had there, but what none can argue with is that, for most of the last century, he was excluded for precisely that reason. If you are truly for a non-biased, non-identity influenced curriculum (which I doubt considering you've said nothing about the absurd inclusion of Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin as Enlightenment thinkers [particularly when they're already included in their own centuries' and their own intellectual movements' standards]), then shouldn't you champion the inclusion of a black American in a standard that already includes purely front line commanders like Patton, Spaatz, Nimitz, and Bradley, despite his race? Isn't that the act of a truly color-blind society that recognizes equal achievement equally?
wheatdogg: Exactly. A proper teaching of history seeks to expand, not contract, the discussion. The entire premise behind history is that, with more information about our ancestors, we can better understand how our present society was created, and thus, better operate in the world we live in. When you start cutting people out of such discussions for the stated reason that you disagree with their viewpoints (regarding Jefferson), or because you think their contributions are unimportant (regarding Davis), the consequence is to restrict that discussion and give a skewed vision of society to entire generations that leads to confusion and conflict. If a student is not introduced to Jefferson as a philosopher, how can they understand his intellectual influence on the Bill of Rights, or the role of his thought, through his protege Madison, in the Federalist debate? How can they understand the hypocrisy of his stance on slaves and slavery if they do not understand that he was not only a politician, but an important international proponent of natural law and natural rights; and how can they understand the underlying contradiction which led to the Civil War without understanding that hypocrisy? Indeed, how can they understand the French Revolution, which many see as the bookend of the Enlightenment, if they don't understand Jefferson's direct philosophical influence on many of its initiators?
By twisting history into a tool of their own ideology, these fools not only create legal and administrative problems; nor do they only create a stubborn ignorance that university professors will have to spent scant time correcting. They also create social conflict and confusion about the state of the world, both of which will lead to poor policy making, and most irresponsibly, by reducing history to a legitimate field of popular political conflict, yet another political chit, like reproductive rights, to be fought over and propagandized, they are guaranteeing that such meddling, and its hazards, will become the norm in our society.
Posted by: Julian | March 16, 2010 7:46 AM
Viciously Racist White Clown?
Posted by: democommie | March 16, 2010 8:49 AM
My sister was bit by a moose once.
Posted by: Chilidog | March 16, 2010 9:21 AM
VRWC: (2) To avoid the discussion who is over- and who is underrepresented, the Board focused on the significance of the contribution, regardless of the identity of the contributor (see my post #39). Any problems with that?
Yes. They also added a requirement to discuss the Black Panthers along with MLK. The Black Panthers were nowhere near as significant to the civil rights movement as MLK. So your defense fails; at best they're applying their own criteria inconsistently/incompetently. The other possibility is that they're using 'significance' merely as a cover to make ideologically-driven curriculum changes, adopting 'significance' when it suits their ideological goals but abandoning it when it doesn't.
This is just one instance of inconsistency; every additional instance makes them look either more incompetent or more malicious, take your pick.
Posted by: eric | March 16, 2010 9:25 AM
chilidog @ 79,
That's møøse. /nitpick
Posted by: wheatdogg | March 16, 2010 9:52 AM
chilidog @ 79,
That's møøse. /nitpick
Posted by: wheatdogg | March 16, 2010 10:20 AM
Godwin's law:
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."
Chapman's law (?)
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a commenter working in a Monty Python reference approaches 1."
Posted by: NJ | March 16, 2010 10:30 AM
@57
"And right-wing organizations tend to have a lot of money, since they make a fetish of capitalism."
Hold on there. We're replacing "capitalism" with "free market". We all know "isms" are bad and we don't want to confuse the kids.
Posted by: scripto | March 16, 2010 11:06 AM
The people responsible for making this comment have been sacked, please relax and enjoy the comments made by their replacements.
Posted by: dogmeatib | March 16, 2010 1:53 PM
Suggestive poses for the Møøse suggested by VIC ROTTER
Posted by: dogmeatib | March 16, 2010 3:56 PM
I am a high school teacher in Texas, and while I don't teach social studies or science (the two big targets of the Texas Wingnuts) I will say that teachers will take the books and still teach the topic the way they wish.
This means that some teachers will teach exactly as the textbooks have been written but many (most I believe) will still teach history the way it happened.
Posted by: Duane | March 16, 2010 5:00 PM
"But with demands like removing Jefferson from the history curriculum, this may no longer be the case"
This has been distorted and overplayed itself. He was removed from the World History standards not American History. HUGE difference.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 17, 2010 7:34 AM
No, not really. The fact that Jefferson played a significant role in the two major revolutions of the 18th century as a major enlightenment figure means that he remains a major part of that movement. The fact that he synthesized European enlightenment ideas (with his American compatriots) into a new interpretation of them and that new interpretation went back to Europe and influenced their thoughts and actions means that he remains a major part of the enlightenment.
On top of the stupidity of removing Jefferson, replacing him with Aquinas and Calvin as enlightenment figures is, at best, idiotic lunacy.
Posted by: dogmeatib | March 17, 2010 11:04 AM
Pity VWRC ran off. He reduced himself to the level of common garden variety troll by not providing any responses with substance.
Posted by: dogmeatib | March 17, 2010 6:18 PM
Despite not being a fan, I think Chuck Norris’s double-length exclusive column at World Net Daily ("Don't mess with Texas...textbooks") on the issue actually has some very valid points, especially in pointing out America’s Founders’ intent for religion in education.
Here's a sample from his column at
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=127935
“…conservatives argue that most American history in textbooks basically avoids religion – and thus changes and misrepresents history – and prominent religious scholars are apt to agree with them on that point. Martin Marty, emeritus professor at the University of Chicago, former president of the American Academy of Religion and the American Society of Church History and recognized as one of the country's foremost American religious historians, explained, ‘In American history, religion is all over the place, and wherever it appears, you should tell the story and do it appropriately.’
“The founders' educational philosophy even included teaching the Bible. As Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, wrote, "To the citizens of Philadelphia: A Plan for Free Schools," on March 28, 1787: ‘Let the children who are sent to those schools be taught to read and write and above all, let both sexes be carefully instructed in the principles and obligations of the Christian religion. This is the most essential part of education.’
“Noah Webster, the ‘Father of American Scholarship and Education,’ stated, ‘In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government, ought to be instructed. … No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.’
In 1789, during the same time when the First Amendment was written, then-President George Washington signed into law the Northwest Ordinance, which states, ‘Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.’ Does anyone not know what the term ‘forever’ means? Can any member of the SBOE or any other state board of education be penalized for agreeing with the founders of America?
“Even Thomas Jefferson, while protecting the University of Virginia (chartered in 1819) from the single sectarianism typically connected to other higher academic institutions of his day, wrote about his vision for the university on Dec. 27, 1820: ‘This institution will be based on the illimitable freedom of the human mind. For here we are not afraid to follow the truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error as long as reason is left free to combat it.’"
Posted by: C. Taylor | March 18, 2010 8:45 AM
C. Taylor --
There is no question that Jefferson, Washington, Rush and Webster believed that religion in the general sense was important. But their statements are not law, and the NW Ordinance, which specified that land be set aside for schools, did not mandate the teaching of religion in those schools. The wording encouraged the teaching of "religion, morality and knowledge." (I would suggest the Texas BOE has done a pretty good job of lacerating that last one.) The NW Ordinance was not the 18th century version of No Child Left Behind.
Arguing what the "intent" of the Founders was in creating our government is largely a waste of time. These men may have been religious in different senses (not Chuck Norris' or Don McLeroy's sense, I might add), but ultimately what determines the role of religion in public education is the Constitution and all subsequent legislation and SCOTUS decisions since its ratification.
Because religion is such a hot button for many people, it is nearly impossible for any school, other than a church school, to teach religion in such a way that does not end up offending our group or another. So schools just don't do it (well, except for schools that employ people like John Freshwater and others like him). Likewise, textbook publishers steer clear of the issue, just so they can sell their books. It is much easier to avoid mentioning religion entirely than navigating the roiling waters of sectarian differences.
Does this give students a less-than-ideal vision of American history? Maybe. Is it necessary for them to know, for example, that Jefferson and Washington were Deists, and would therefore be unwelcome in most modern Pentecostal churches, except as possible converts? I would say no, it is not. Primary and secondary students have a lot of stuff to learn, most of which they will forget after their examinations. They need to know the basics: names, dates, facts, and civics. A minority will go on to take history classes in college (I did) and perhaps major in American history (I didn't). Then, they will delve into the religious patchwork that was the early United States. Unless their school is a Religious Right sectarian university, they will probably learn that the Founders' religious beliefs and understanding of the relationship between government and religion were diametrically opposed to those held by many in the Religious Right today.
You quote Jefferson: "'This institution will be based on the illimitable freedom of the human mind. For here we are not afraid to follow the truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error as long as reason is left free to combat it.’" That is a tenet of Enlightenment thinking, not a statement encouraging the teaching of religion. The Texas BOE has so far done everything in its power to negate the ideals contained in that quote.
Posted by: wheatdogg | March 18, 2010 9:44 AM