I don’t think Ms. Ravtich has claimed that these words have been banned in blanket fashion. My understanding of her work (gleaned exclusively from that Daily Show interview) is that there are many committees, each with their own particular hangups, which makes life difficult for texbook publishers. Most publishers cede to the demands of these various committees to preserve sales and prevent controversy.
At any rate, I hardly think you can call Ms. Ravitch a “liar” without at least reading the book she wrote. Have you?
Yeah – I find her case to be too sensational to be accepted uncritically. Are there any teachers around here who can pop open a textbook and give us some insider’s perspective?
Whoa. A bit touchy there, aren’t we? I said “if” you’re defending this insanity. No need to bust out with the personal insults. Yet.
Well considering it’s a, you know, school maybe they could consider teaching the youngins what a “sea” is? Just because it’s not in your back yard doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have to know what the hell it is. Sheesh.
See my comments above. That’s the most ridiculous argument for removing a word I’ve ever heard. They don’t know what it means? Teach them what it means! I feel like I’ve just walked into the twilight zone.
You’re damn right it does
There are a lot of words that are irrelevant in literature and in textbooks. Doesn’t mean we should take them all out. I’m really glad you agree with that.
I sure as hell hope so. I do however, politely request some proof of your assertation that Ms. Ravitch is LYING. Mightly bold claim to make with nothing to back it up. :dubious:
Daniel-- I can only speak for my own district, but we’re just happy to get anybook, we don’t care about any particular words. The one time I heard about teachers modifying text in existing books, it was because of typos (absolutely rampant) and vocab that was above the students’ reading levels. So for the most part, we take what they give us and explain, add to, or skip whatever isn’t working. I have noticed a lot of teachers regard texts as big, blunt machetes they have to use, when it’s a scalpel they need.
What I meant was, if you get a chance, I’d love to hear whether the textbooks are really as offense-free as Ravitch claims they are. I saw her interviewed, but I haven’t read the book; what she said in the interview came across as so outrageous and sensationalistic that I had a hard time believing her.
I kind of suspect that (for example), a math textbook had a problem saying, “Which is generally largest: an ocean, a lake, or a sea?” and a textbook committee said, “Not all students will know what a sea is: rather than wander from the point of this lesson about sizes, change the question.”
If something like that were said, it’s a perfectly legitimate critique of a question, not an example of political correctness at all.
It’s telling that “elderly” is now among the banned words listed by Ravitch, showing how the fashions of political correctness change, with as little validity as clothing fashions. Stan Freberg would have to redo his routine. I’m sure it would be even funnier, and he’d enjoy it immensely, too.
I’m having to go with Daniel’s opinion. I do have textbooks, lots of them–admittedly, they are college level textbooks, but they certainly do not seem censored to the degree that the article seems to say is going on. I suspect that Ms. Ravitch is indeed fighting the good fight, but that the media is sensationalizing and twisting the true situation a great deal. The outrage in this thread seems to be directed towards the media’s misrepresentation rather than the reality that we should (to make a meaningful change) be concentrating on.
This is also a touchy subject in many ways–I read another article on this book which mentioned “God” is supposedly being censored because it’s too religious. Now, there may be certain situations where the word has been eliminated because it was inappropriate for that situation, but what many people are going to take out of these articles–whether the implication is intended or not–is that it’s some sort of conspiracy by the Evil Atheists (or Evil Commies, or Evil Liberals, or Evil Conservatives, or whatever) to keep the good [insert appropriate bias here] down. I don’t think that’s the case at all and by screaming over that issue some people (not in this thread) are missing the true problem.
I think it’s undeniable there are some serious problems in the textbook publishing business (and not only with censorship issues), but to imply there are some sort of rules in place that would change the title of a classic book in order to be PC is utter bullshit.
For those insisting that the book makes claims that are too broad, note that Loewen, in his Lies My Teacher Told Me devotes an entire section to the successful efforts of one married couple in Texas to influence the Board of Education’s buying practices.
And regarding the title of The Old Man and the Sea, Ms. Ravitch did not claim that anyone had successfully bowdlerized the title; she specifically noted the humor that various anti-censorship folks have had polking fun at the fact that some group(s) in some places had complained (not necessarily successfully) against each of the words.
Daniel-- Ah, I see said the vision-impaired humanoid. Nope, our books are not really any different from what you might remember from your years in school. In grade schools I’ve noticed more books featuring girls as the lead character, minorities are referred to with respect the few times they are mentioned (Native American not Indian for example). The PC-speak is sort of slippery to catch sometimes, I’ve noticed. Hard to say whether a word is used because it’s more PC or it’s been dumbed-down. I can say for certain I’ve seen nothing approaching the examples given above. I would rate the books as more sensitive, more aware, but nobody’s going nuts. Now, what’s going on in more liberal communities, I can’t say.
