Red Commissar
11th February 2010, 20:09
The Texas State Board of Education was meeting over of what kind of material they would like to see in their next shipment of textbooks the past month. There has been a long drive by certain groups in the state, particularly those among the "religious right", who are seeking to re-write history to further their political views.
The first shot fired by these groups was the sacking of the head of the science branch of the Texas Education Agency, Christine Comer, in 2007, for mentioning in an email a presentation that (rightfully) criticized Intelligent Design as being a front for creationist propaganda. The state at the time said the firing was for "repeated" misconduct.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/us/30resign.html?_r=1
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/education/stories/121307dnmetevolution.2af0951.html
Comer, and many others, argued that her firing was politically motivated. Many newspapers from across the country blasted the move, and Comer received the support of almost 100 Biology professors from the major universities in Texas. Comer also says that she received many emails from teachers who have been bullied into not teaching the evolution theory in biology classes in secondary schools.
Governor Perry also appointed Don McLeroy, a dentist with no teaching experience, to head the State Board of Education the same year. McLeroy, unsurprisingly, is a young earth creationist. His reappointment was blocked by the legislature, but he was replaced by another creationist, Gail Lowe. (Perry also had the choice of a much worse Cynthia Dunbar, an unabashedly anti-intellectual).
The groups then advanced their agenda the following months during the heated battle in the 81st session of the Texas legislature, held on Jan. 11 - June 1. (Texas legislature meets every other year), arguing for the inclusion of intelligent design in school science textbooks.
The only bill that got to the top was a measure that would force biology classes in Texas to point out the weaknesses of evolution and natural selection, and raise other concepts, mainly intelligent design. This move was defeated, but an amendment that was worded slightly differently did pass- to discuss the weaknesses of evolution, which critics charged was a 'foot in the door' to eventually introduce intelligent design in science courses.
With the state legislature closed until 2011, the efforts of this group then joined with TEA Party members and went to the social sciences. Texas's standing Board of Education, which is formed by the governor, has the power to decide what are in school textbooks. The social studies discussion started at a small committee specifically for social studies. Once this committee comes up with a draft of what they want in their social studies textbooks, it'll be advanced to the state board of education for a vote.
It is important to note that two of the six members of the social studies committee are not full-time teachers, rather members of special interest groups seeking historical revisionism- Wallbuilders (a group seeking to remove criticism of American practices and highlight the religious roots of America as well as modern conservative politicians) and Peter Marshall Ministries (as one can tell by the name, a group seeking to highlight religious moral values in history).
They are focused on these goals
-Emphasis of the Judeo-Christian principles in the US's founding
-White-washing the US's problems to encourage "American exceptionalism"
-Uphold "conservative" ideals
Some measures being advocated by the committee include (and not limited to) these. I am currently taking these from some selections of this site, which blogged from the past hearing of the social studies debate at the Texas State Board of Education
http://tfninsider.org/2010/01/13/live-blogging-the-social-studies-hearing/
http://tfninsider.org/2010/01/13/live-blogging-the-social-studies-hearing-ii/
http://tfninsider.org/2010/01/14/live-blogging-social-studies-standards-debate/
http://tfninsider.org/2010/01/14/live-blogging-the-social-studies-debate-ii/
http://tfninsider.org/2010/01/15/live-blogging-the-social-studies-debate-iii/
Here are selections of things they were debating over to include in the textbook standard. There is simply too much lunacy going on here.
-Remove criticism of Columbus
-Downplay the negative aspects of American history in textbooks for all ages
-Removal of "liberal" and "socialistic" influences in the current textbooks. The site points out their reporter at the hearing said that the "experts" pushing for this did not give any examples as to where they saw this.
-Attempts to emphasize the role of religion (and not enlightenment ideals) in the US's founding.
-Again emphasize the Judeo-Christian influences on the US's founding. Removal of things encouraging multiculturalism. Man points out that “The name of our country is the United States of America, not the Diverse States of America.”
-Experts giving examples of how groups like Latinos and African-Americans have contributed to the US's history are ignored.
-Racial discrimination leading up to the 1960s to be downplayed. "Expert" argues the problems under "godless communism" were even worse
-Removal of figures like Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta for being "socialist"
-Addition of four military chaplains to a list of "heroes" on a third-grade textbook. They join an increasingly long list of "heroes" being suggested from the religious right groups.
-Religious groups attempt to remove the current texts which state that European colonization of the Americas had economic motivations.
-Removal of Margaret Sanger (early birth control advocate) from history books
-A suggestion to remove sections covering the Red Scare
-Removal of suggestions that propaganda aided US's decision into WW I
-References to Clarence Darrow and Marcus Garvey removed
-One board member suggests that McCarthy was in fact innocent and was doing good things for the country. Argues the history book shouldn't talk about the bad aspects of McCarthyism, and say it was perfectly justified and not motivated by any personal opportunism from McCarthy. Board accepts
-The textbook should learn even more about Reagan's successes in office and the benefits of Reaganomics. Unsurprisingly no mention is made of the deficit during Reagan's time.
-Changing of American "imperialism" to "expansionism"
-TEA expert offers addition that government regulation and taxation is bad for the economy.
-One member says the Klondike Gold Rush should have more mention. When asked by another member if he knew when this happened, he didn't know. Motion is defeated (This took place in Alaska, home of Sarah Palin, so TEA wants it in)
-Board passes a suggestion to emphasize even more the "conservative resurgence" of the 1980s and 1990s, and add figures like Phyllis Schlafly, the Contract with America, the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority, and the National Rifle Association, to the current text. This is because of the "leftist propaganda" that permeates those eras currently.
-Discussion of how the government has infringed on fifth amendment property rights through the EPA.
-Addition of a standard: “Evaluate Constitutional ‘change’ in terms of strict constructionalism versus judicial interpretation.”
-Further addition of notable figures such as Newt Gingrich, William F. Buckley, and Jeane Kirkpatrick. One member argues that if those are going to be included, the Kennedy family should have something in there to. Unsurprisingly the board doesn't take that. Again, ideological influence.
-Member suggests the section on cultural discussion to remove hip-hop and replace it with country. Another member supports this arguing that hip-hop is "gangsta-rap". An argument that similar objections was raised about Rock in earlier days is ignored.
Yea, all that was happening for real.
A line from one of the "experts" stating his views earlier
"The secular humanists may argue that we are a secular nation. But we are a Christian nation founded on Christian principles. The way I evaluate history textbooks is first I see how they cover Christianity and Israel. Then I see how they treat Ronald Reagan--he needs to get credit for saving the world from communism and for the good economy over the last twenty years because he lowered taxes."
Some measures weren't passed because of how blatantly biased they were, leading some of the religious right and TEA activists to have the chair of the board to skirt regulations and vote (according to the law, she can't).
Others have pointed out that there was a clear ideological bias on behalf of the religious right groups and TEA activists, who had not read any of the proposed drafts and instead came in with their own proposals. Many times no evidence was offered in the cases where it involved modifying existing passages.
The debate over this blatant revisionism was met by criticism by some members and caused the final vote to be delayed until May. However, the disturbing amount of amendments to the draft show there would be some willingness to put all that onto the final draft.
Now how does this affect the rest of the United States? In the actual teaching components, not much, but in the textbooks, a lot. The state of Texas is the largest customer for textbook publishers, right behind California. This means that many of the textbooks out there are catered to what the Texas State Board of Education approves of, so these new textbooks could find their way to any classroom in the country.
The US could potentially land right up there for notorious historical revisionism, with Russia's ongoing white-washing of Stalin, Japan's downplaying of its imperialist era and WW II, and China's reworking of its early history to favor the Chinese Communist Party.
Edit: If you are curious about the make up of the Board. Recall that the board is popularly elected, and among them a chair is appointed by the governor.
Democrats- Will inevitably vote opposite of the religious right/TEA bloc. Voting power: 5
Rene Nuñez
Mary Helen Berlanga
Rick Agosto
Lawrence A. Allen, Jr.
Mavis B. Knight
Republicans- Aligned with TEA Party groups and Religious Right. Voting power: 7
Gail Lowe - Chair (Can't vote)
Ken Mercer - Vice Chair
Terri Leo
Don McLeroy
David Bradley
Barbara Cargill
Cynthia Noland Dunbar
Ken Mercer
Republicans- Not aligned with TEA or religious right. Will get targeted by TEA extremists for being "RINO" in the next elections. Voting Power: 3
Patricia Hardy
Geraldine Miller
Bob Craig
Other relevant articles
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/right_wing_ideologue_experts_weigh_in_on_texas_sta ndards_hearing_tomorrow.php
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/the_rehabilitation_of_joseph_mccarthy_texas_textbo .php
http://www.star-telegram.com/news/story/1893524.html
I know this is a bit old, but I think it's necessary that this mess be brought to the attention of more people.
The first shot fired by these groups was the sacking of the head of the science branch of the Texas Education Agency, Christine Comer, in 2007, for mentioning in an email a presentation that (rightfully) criticized Intelligent Design as being a front for creationist propaganda. The state at the time said the firing was for "repeated" misconduct.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/us/30resign.html?_r=1
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/education/stories/121307dnmetevolution.2af0951.html
Comer, and many others, argued that her firing was politically motivated. Many newspapers from across the country blasted the move, and Comer received the support of almost 100 Biology professors from the major universities in Texas. Comer also says that she received many emails from teachers who have been bullied into not teaching the evolution theory in biology classes in secondary schools.
Governor Perry also appointed Don McLeroy, a dentist with no teaching experience, to head the State Board of Education the same year. McLeroy, unsurprisingly, is a young earth creationist. His reappointment was blocked by the legislature, but he was replaced by another creationist, Gail Lowe. (Perry also had the choice of a much worse Cynthia Dunbar, an unabashedly anti-intellectual).
The groups then advanced their agenda the following months during the heated battle in the 81st session of the Texas legislature, held on Jan. 11 - June 1. (Texas legislature meets every other year), arguing for the inclusion of intelligent design in school science textbooks.
The only bill that got to the top was a measure that would force biology classes in Texas to point out the weaknesses of evolution and natural selection, and raise other concepts, mainly intelligent design. This move was defeated, but an amendment that was worded slightly differently did pass- to discuss the weaknesses of evolution, which critics charged was a 'foot in the door' to eventually introduce intelligent design in science courses.
With the state legislature closed until 2011, the efforts of this group then joined with TEA Party members and went to the social sciences. Texas's standing Board of Education, which is formed by the governor, has the power to decide what are in school textbooks. The social studies discussion started at a small committee specifically for social studies. Once this committee comes up with a draft of what they want in their social studies textbooks, it'll be advanced to the state board of education for a vote.
It is important to note that two of the six members of the social studies committee are not full-time teachers, rather members of special interest groups seeking historical revisionism- Wallbuilders (a group seeking to remove criticism of American practices and highlight the religious roots of America as well as modern conservative politicians) and Peter Marshall Ministries (as one can tell by the name, a group seeking to highlight religious moral values in history).
They are focused on these goals
-Emphasis of the Judeo-Christian principles in the US's founding
-White-washing the US's problems to encourage "American exceptionalism"
-Uphold "conservative" ideals
Some measures being advocated by the committee include (and not limited to) these. I am currently taking these from some selections of this site, which blogged from the past hearing of the social studies debate at the Texas State Board of Education
http://tfninsider.org/2010/01/13/live-blogging-the-social-studies-hearing/
http://tfninsider.org/2010/01/13/live-blogging-the-social-studies-hearing-ii/
http://tfninsider.org/2010/01/14/live-blogging-social-studies-standards-debate/
http://tfninsider.org/2010/01/14/live-blogging-the-social-studies-debate-ii/
http://tfninsider.org/2010/01/15/live-blogging-the-social-studies-debate-iii/
Here are selections of things they were debating over to include in the textbook standard. There is simply too much lunacy going on here.
-Remove criticism of Columbus
-Downplay the negative aspects of American history in textbooks for all ages
-Removal of "liberal" and "socialistic" influences in the current textbooks. The site points out their reporter at the hearing said that the "experts" pushing for this did not give any examples as to where they saw this.
-Attempts to emphasize the role of religion (and not enlightenment ideals) in the US's founding.
-Again emphasize the Judeo-Christian influences on the US's founding. Removal of things encouraging multiculturalism. Man points out that “The name of our country is the United States of America, not the Diverse States of America.”
-Experts giving examples of how groups like Latinos and African-Americans have contributed to the US's history are ignored.
-Racial discrimination leading up to the 1960s to be downplayed. "Expert" argues the problems under "godless communism" were even worse
-Removal of figures like Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta for being "socialist"
-Addition of four military chaplains to a list of "heroes" on a third-grade textbook. They join an increasingly long list of "heroes" being suggested from the religious right groups.
-Religious groups attempt to remove the current texts which state that European colonization of the Americas had economic motivations.
-Removal of Margaret Sanger (early birth control advocate) from history books
-A suggestion to remove sections covering the Red Scare
-Removal of suggestions that propaganda aided US's decision into WW I
-References to Clarence Darrow and Marcus Garvey removed
-One board member suggests that McCarthy was in fact innocent and was doing good things for the country. Argues the history book shouldn't talk about the bad aspects of McCarthyism, and say it was perfectly justified and not motivated by any personal opportunism from McCarthy. Board accepts
-The textbook should learn even more about Reagan's successes in office and the benefits of Reaganomics. Unsurprisingly no mention is made of the deficit during Reagan's time.
-Changing of American "imperialism" to "expansionism"
-TEA expert offers addition that government regulation and taxation is bad for the economy.
-One member says the Klondike Gold Rush should have more mention. When asked by another member if he knew when this happened, he didn't know. Motion is defeated (This took place in Alaska, home of Sarah Palin, so TEA wants it in)
-Board passes a suggestion to emphasize even more the "conservative resurgence" of the 1980s and 1990s, and add figures like Phyllis Schlafly, the Contract with America, the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority, and the National Rifle Association, to the current text. This is because of the "leftist propaganda" that permeates those eras currently.
-Discussion of how the government has infringed on fifth amendment property rights through the EPA.
-Addition of a standard: “Evaluate Constitutional ‘change’ in terms of strict constructionalism versus judicial interpretation.”
-Further addition of notable figures such as Newt Gingrich, William F. Buckley, and Jeane Kirkpatrick. One member argues that if those are going to be included, the Kennedy family should have something in there to. Unsurprisingly the board doesn't take that. Again, ideological influence.
-Member suggests the section on cultural discussion to remove hip-hop and replace it with country. Another member supports this arguing that hip-hop is "gangsta-rap". An argument that similar objections was raised about Rock in earlier days is ignored.
Yea, all that was happening for real.
A line from one of the "experts" stating his views earlier
"The secular humanists may argue that we are a secular nation. But we are a Christian nation founded on Christian principles. The way I evaluate history textbooks is first I see how they cover Christianity and Israel. Then I see how they treat Ronald Reagan--he needs to get credit for saving the world from communism and for the good economy over the last twenty years because he lowered taxes."
Some measures weren't passed because of how blatantly biased they were, leading some of the religious right and TEA activists to have the chair of the board to skirt regulations and vote (according to the law, she can't).
Others have pointed out that there was a clear ideological bias on behalf of the religious right groups and TEA activists, who had not read any of the proposed drafts and instead came in with their own proposals. Many times no evidence was offered in the cases where it involved modifying existing passages.
The debate over this blatant revisionism was met by criticism by some members and caused the final vote to be delayed until May. However, the disturbing amount of amendments to the draft show there would be some willingness to put all that onto the final draft.
Now how does this affect the rest of the United States? In the actual teaching components, not much, but in the textbooks, a lot. The state of Texas is the largest customer for textbook publishers, right behind California. This means that many of the textbooks out there are catered to what the Texas State Board of Education approves of, so these new textbooks could find their way to any classroom in the country.
The US could potentially land right up there for notorious historical revisionism, with Russia's ongoing white-washing of Stalin, Japan's downplaying of its imperialist era and WW II, and China's reworking of its early history to favor the Chinese Communist Party.
Edit: If you are curious about the make up of the Board. Recall that the board is popularly elected, and among them a chair is appointed by the governor.
Democrats- Will inevitably vote opposite of the religious right/TEA bloc. Voting power: 5
Rene Nuñez
Mary Helen Berlanga
Rick Agosto
Lawrence A. Allen, Jr.
Mavis B. Knight
Republicans- Aligned with TEA Party groups and Religious Right. Voting power: 7
Gail Lowe - Chair (Can't vote)
Ken Mercer - Vice Chair
Terri Leo
Don McLeroy
David Bradley
Barbara Cargill
Cynthia Noland Dunbar
Ken Mercer
Republicans- Not aligned with TEA or religious right. Will get targeted by TEA extremists for being "RINO" in the next elections. Voting Power: 3
Patricia Hardy
Geraldine Miller
Bob Craig
Other relevant articles
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/right_wing_ideologue_experts_weigh_in_on_texas_sta ndards_hearing_tomorrow.php
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/the_rehabilitation_of_joseph_mccarthy_texas_textbo .php
http://www.star-telegram.com/news/story/1893524.html
I know this is a bit old, but I think it's necessary that this mess be brought to the attention of more people.