No accuracy, not even balance. Future American children will be told that the extreme capitalism is a virtue and the best system around, racism does not exist, and the U.S. is not a democratic republic.
I can’t wait for the next TEA curriculum meeting, where Medicare and water fluoridation will be called “socialist plots,” and the final chapter devoted to birthers and an excerpt from The Turner Diaries.
Shoot. Can one of the mods move this to the Pit?
Well we are a constitutional republic not a democracy, and I don’t see any harm in adding modern day economics to the study.
Apparently “whitewash” means “explain correctly.”
We are a constitutional republic, not a democracy.
The U.S. free enterprise system does flourish best without excessive government interference.
There should not be a mandate forcing students to “explain how institutional racism exists in society.”
Yes, but more to the point we are a democratic republic. Power ultimately lies in the people, who elect their representatives to make laws. It’s minor quibble though, compared to the other things.
Economics (and capitalism specifically) were already part of the curriculum. And no one wanted those things to be removed. The conservatives, however, made the pernicious injection that the free market is best, that the U.S. is exceptional, and that government intervention stymies economic growth. All of these ideas are extremely contentious to, say the least. Including them in this manner, with no balancing views, is sheer propaganda.
Reported.
Never said we were (although it depends on what definition of *democracy *one is using). I said “democratic republic.”
[/quote]
If conservatives wish to include their ideas of unfettered free markets in textbooks, I have no problem with that. My problem is that they are being presented as facts, rather than competing theories.
The exercise is obviously there to highlight the importance of racism in society. Now, again, if conservatives want to push for the inclusion of their ideas, that’s fine–just so long as they are presented alongside opposing views.
You don’t seriously expect us to buy that these decisions were the result of an objective and impartial decision to improve the accuracy of the educational system, do you?
They don’t care that we’re not a theoretical democracy. They just don’t want people associating the society they live in with the term “democrat”.
Thomas Aquinas instead of Thomas Jefferson?
That dude was dead for 500 years before the revolution.
If they’re going to history mine like that, they should’ve picked Jesus.
Or Nergal.
I don’t care if they consulted a Ouiji board to come up with the directive. It’s correct. If you’re going to inveigh against these pernicious changes, perhaps it would be wise to pick changes that actually teach inaccurate things.
Maybe this is just sloppy reporting, but the only squelching of views I see are in the ideas that have been removed. If you tell students they must explain how institutional racism exists in society, there’s no debate there. Your assignment presupposes it exists, and asks students to describe and explain it.
Yeah, I was wondering if that was sloppy reporting, too. I’d much rather that students be asked to describe whether or not institutional racism still exists in the US and why. I would also hope that textbooks made it clear that institutional racism was very much a part of our history.
It’s worth noting that going by data tracking campaign donors, 85.3% of teachers are liberal. Unless you contend that more than 85.3% of the curriculum is pointedly whitewashed, conservative waste, the libs are still going to win the war.
So. Did they really dump Jefferson??
Your link just goes to some generic page, and I can’t see what you’re referring to. Is that teachers in all the US, or just Texas? And how do they define “liberal”?
"$9,787,446 was given by people who identified their occupation as “teacher”.
$1,744,361 from 2,359 people to Republicans
$8,043,085 from 13,692 people to Democrats "
While I’m sure the robber barons of the late 19th and early 20th century would agree with you, cite?
I assume you think the financial system worked great over the past decade or so?
All sorts of general reasons why it might be different, but I would have said that “explain how institutional racism is evident in society” could well include the debate about whether or not it does. As a declarative statement, sure, it leaves it out, but I was taught that debating a leading question in an exam was perfectly acceptable.
School boards are elected positions so I’m assuming that Texan citizens want their children to have a blindly conservative view of American history. I don’t see the problem with this as long as their curriculum meets minimum federal standards.