>
> Dr. Bernal commended Mrs. Berlanga for her stance and for all the research that she had conducted. He said that he could not vote for anyone who said unkind things about Cesar Chavez, given all the things that he did on behalf of other people. He commented that for someone who does not understand Cinco de Mayo and the connection that Texas has with Mexico, there is something missing. Dr. Bernal said that he did not want to lose sight of the fact that the board members are committed to error-free textbooks, but that is not the issue. He commended the Gablers for the job that they have done in locating factual errors, but said that they have done a disservice to this state in becoming philosophical and thinking that certain groups deserve more space in the books than others. He stated that he cannot help but vote against this resolution.
---
### Author:  [@T.Mehr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/T.Mehr)
#### Post date: [September 5, 2003, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-language-police-restrict-what-students-learn/199564/5 "2003-09-05T13:16:28Z")
Reminds me of a wild discussion on the schoolboard whether the to be introduced course on health education should cover sex. Remarkable considering the number of teenage pregnancies.
---
### Author:  [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)
#### Post date: [September 5, 2003, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-language-police-restrict-what-students-learn/199564/6 "2003-09-05T13:48:21Z")
**Bricker** , I’ve heard of this book, and I’m skeptical – but my skepticism may be unfounded. It’s just very difficult for me to believe that Ms. Ravitch’s case is really as strong as she makes it out to be in interviews. Does anyone know any real live classroom teachers that can weigh in on this subject? Are mainstream textbooks generally as irdiculous as she suggests (e.g., no references to being blind, no references to being old, no owls, etc.)? Or has she found many obscure examples, or a bunch of examples from Texas, and wildly exaggerrated her case?
I don’t know nearly enough about the issue to debate it, and I’d think the only real debate here is whether things are as bad as she makes them out to be. If they are, it seems pretty uncontroversial that people need to back the hell off of textbook censorship.
That said, I _do_ think there’s some useful feedback you can get on textbooks from cultural sensitivity. Last time this deiscussion came up, I think someone cited an example from the book of a word problem dealing with a certain kind of sailboat race dcommon in New England. I’m a decently smart guy with a good-sizezd vocabulary, but I didn’t recognize the word for the sailboat race; there’s a pretty strong chance that a poor kid growing up in Oklahoma wouldn’t recognize the word either, and unless you’re testing vocabulary, that’s a good sign that a different word might be more appropriate. SImilarly, math problems occasionally assume knowledge of the rules of sports (e.g., knowing how many points you get for a free throw in basketball); it’s good form for textbooks NOT to assume knowledge like that.
Daniel
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [September 5, 2003, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-language-police-restrict-what-students-learn/199564/7 "2003-09-05T14:09:39Z")
**Lissa** ’s points and cite are dead-on examples of this sort of meddling. **DanielWithrow** , I agree that a math problem that requires the solver to know that a free throw is worth one point is inappropriate, and that, unless you’re testing vocabulary, a word problem whose solution depends on knowing what a regatta is doesn’t fly either.
On the other hand, I don’t have a problem with a word problem that talks about Fulinguts being priced at ten cents, Yuentins at thirty cents, and Tibuwans at a dollar each, and then asking what the maximum number of Fulinguts I can buy with $3.75 if I must have at least one Yuentin and one Tibuwan. While there are many unfamilar words, knowing what they are does not affect the outcome of the problem.
Of course, if it develops that the desired answer is 14 because everyone knows (or should know) that Tibuwans must be bought in pairs or they die, then the problem’s no good.
- Rick
---
### Author:  [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)
#### Post date: [September 5, 2003, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-language-police-restrict-what-students-learn/199564/8 "2003-09-05T14:51:04Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Bricker \*
> \*\*On the other hand, I don’t have a problem with a word problem that talks about Fulinguts being priced at ten cents, Yuentins at thirty cents, and Tibuwans at a dollar each, and then asking what the maximum number of Fulinguts I can buy with $3.75 if I must have at least one Yuentin and one Tibuwan. While there are many unfamilar words, knowing what they are does not affect the outcome of the problem.
>
> Of course, if it develops that the desired answer is 14 because everyone knows (or should know) that Tibuwans must be bought in pairs or they die, then the problem’s no good.
>
> - Rick \*\*
I agree with you completely on this, and remember from my school days enjoying the logical problems involving nonsense characters (“All bloggin are proxical, but no frebelli are bloggin. Are frebelli proxical?”)
So I guess the only question is whether the problem is as bad as she makes it out to be. In any case, it’s unacceptable no matter how often or rarely it happens.
Daniel
---
### Author:  [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)
#### Post date: [September 5, 2003, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-language-police-restrict-what-students-learn/199564/9 "2003-09-05T15:19:10Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by DanielWithrow \*
> **Are mainstream textbooks generally as irdiculous as she suggests (e.g., no references to being blind, no references to being old, no owls, etc.)? Or has she found many obscure examples, or a bunch of examples from Texas, and wildly exaggerrated her case?**
While I generally agree that examples from Texas, which has a rather unique culture, should not be considered universal or weighted too heavily, textbooks are a different story. You see, Texas is the second-largest consumer of textbooks in the nation. Texas also has very active, and influential, groups attempting to influence the textbook industry. Dispproval by these groups could mean the loss of sales in Texas for your book and that could be disastrous. Even if it weren’t disastrous on its own, a great many other states look to Texas for textbook evaluation decisions instead of doing a thorough independent review. Texas has a very large textbook review board and their decisions are generally set the tone for textbook purchasing for the majority of the market. It is a bizzare situation, but it is true. Texas has way more influence in the textbook development and publishing world than most people realize.
[Here is an Education Week article which describes the phenomenon](http://www.edweek.org/ew/newstory.cfm?slug=43textbook.h21). Pretty crazy if you ask me, but that’s the way it is.
Enjoy,
Steven
---
### Author:  [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)
#### Post date: [September 5, 2003, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-language-police-restrict-what-students-learn/199564/10 "2003-09-05T15:38:23Z")
Found [another article](http://www.education-world.com/a_issues/issues229.shtml), this one from Education World, which discusses the issue of Texas and its disproportionate influence on the textbook industry.(Emphasis original)
> [@](#):
>
> Board members cited “factual errors” as the basis for their original objections to the two textbooks. Those errors were not clearly documented, however, and the board’s real concerns appeared to be the books’ _treatment_ of certain topics rather than the factual content. According to board member Mary Helen Berlanga, the board’s actions send a message to all textbook publishers: “If you want your book to be accepted, you have to rewrite it they way they want it written.”
>
> Apparently, that comes as a surprise to Berlanga. It isn’t surprising, however, to anyone who’s ever been involved in textbook publishing. In fact, the only noteworthy aspect of the situation is that this adoption required a _rewrite_. Most publishers are savvy enough to make sure that the very _first_ draft of any new textbook they publish complies with not just the curriculum and educational philosophy but also the politics and cultural climate of Texas – and California and Florida.
> …
> In effect, today’s textbooks represent a national curriculum, one orchestrated by the adoption committees of three states – the members of which are rarely subject-matter experts – and implemented primarily by the four major publishers that control 70 percent of the textbook market.
Enjoy,
Steven
---
### Author:  [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)
#### Post date: [September 5, 2003, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-language-police-restrict-what-students-learn/199564/11 "2003-09-05T16:11:38Z")
I’d just like to say that I wonder what the real impact at the university level actually is.
I’ve been in school on and off for going on six years, and had many different majors, and the only times I’ve had to buy and actual textbook as opposed to just a scholarly work was when I was in math and science courses.
---
### Author:  [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)
#### Post date: [September 5, 2003, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-language-police-restrict-what-students-learn/199564/12 "2003-09-05T16:18:34Z")
Boards ate my post.
Interesting articles, **Steven**. The first one seems to suggest that people in Texas are actively fighting the censorship of textbooks, while the second makes it sound like it’s fait accompli. Hopefully the first is a better depiction of what’s really going on.
Meanwhile, does anyone with actual access to real live textbooks want to chime in? I remember Ms. Ravitch suggesting in interviews and columns that words such as “blind” and “old” were verboten; can anyone check in some textbooks to see if this is accurate?
Daniel
---
### Author:  [@Master\_Wang-Ka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Master_Wang-Ka)
#### Post date: [September 5, 2003, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-language-police-restrict-what-students-learn/199564/13 "2003-09-05T16:59:09Z")
As a real live classroom teacher in Texas, I believe I can say, with some authority, that both sides of the issue are true. Many Texans fight censorship in textbooks with gusto, whereas other Texans fight like utter bastards to keep it in there.
The Alamo, for example, is a sacred subject in the schools, and the idea that its defenders died largely for the right to keep slaves doesn’t sit well with a great many people… whether it’s true or not.
I must take exception to the idea that this is unique to Texas, though. Any textbook manufacturer will tell you that EACH state wants to “approve” the textbooks for use in its schools… which puts the textbook publishers at some disadvantage. For example, if you intend to sell a history textbook in Michigan, you had damn well better make sure that EVERY famous person that Michigan has ever produced is mentioned, and prominently so! Particularly its politicians.
The same is largely true for every other state. Furthermore, I have heard it said that some states have objected to the historical portrait painted of some of their “favored sons” – guys like Warren G. Harding, for example, who was a President Of The United States, and beyond that, was either a villain or a complete doof, depending on who you’re talking with.
And don’t EVEN get me started on George W. Bush. Luckily, he’s a bit too contemporary to get into the history books for a while, yet, but I foresee a considerable shitstorm when those books are ready to be written.
---
### Author:  [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)
#### Post date: [September 5, 2003, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-language-police-restrict-what-students-learn/199564/14 "2003-09-05T20:19:22Z")
**Daniel** , like **Wang-Ka** mentioned, it is both a continuing struggle, and a done deal at the same time. It varies from topic to topic and time to time. As the second article mentioned, it depends on the political climate of the major players at the time. For any given instant, there is a matrix of changes a textbook publisher would make to their basic text depending on the political climate of the customer. This matrix shifts in through time as a result of continuing efforts on the part of both parties. If, for example, there are three issues, evolution, treatment of the handicapped, and racial balance, then the approach the textbook writers will take towards those issues will shift based on the prevailing political climate. If today’s batch of revisionists insist that evolution be emphasized as a theory and not simply accepted as fact, then that is how the books will portray it. Now a groundswell will well up demanding a return to scientific objectivity on the evolution issue and the censors will lose that war, but this time they’ll manage to gain ground on the racial balance issue. So the second batch of books will treat evolution more scientifically, but contain less carefully racially balanced stories and illustrations.
Crazy, all of it. It is a big part of the reason my wife and I homeschool. We set the cirriculum and I trust us to be more objective, within our limits of course, than a state committee who has to pander to special interests.
Enjoy,
Steven
---
### Author:  [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)
#### Post date: [September 5, 2003, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-language-police-restrict-what-students-learn/199564/15 "2003-09-05T20:37:23Z")
**Wang-Ka** , thanks for posting. I agree it’s disheartening the degree to which everyone wants their pet cause espoused in textbooks.
What I’m really curious about, however, are some of the more eyebrow-raising claims made by Ravitch in interviews and columns (and, presumably, in the book). She suggests that words like “old” and “blind” are routinely disallowed.
Am I radically misunderstanding her point? Is she radically overstating her case? Or am I understanding her correctly, and is she stating things correctly?
I can easily imagine that textbooks downplay the slavery aspect of the Alamo. I have a lot more trouble believing that textbooks no longer refer to people as old.
Daniel
---
### Author:  [@Master\_Wang-Ka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Master_Wang-Ka)
#### Post date: [September 5, 2003, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-language-police-restrict-what-students-learn/199564/16 "2003-09-05T20:52:19Z")
Textbooks are adopted by committees.
The committees are appointed by politicians.
Then the publishers have to SELL them. The textbooks, that is, not the politicians.
And the school boards have to clear them.
And only then are they given to the people who are actually going to USE the #%$@&! things … the teachers, and the students.
And this sequence is ALREADY grossly oversimplified. Think about every idiot in that sequence (including the teachers, frankly) who might have an axe to grind or an agenda to promote, all the way down the pike.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [September 5, 2003, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-language-police-restrict-what-students-learn/199564/17 "2003-09-05T20:56:47Z")
She cites specific examples to illustrate her point, **DanielWithrow** ; if you’re merely question the specificity of her cites, I’ll reproduce some here. If you’re questioning her honesty, and looking for alternative sources, I suppose there’s a bit more work in it.
---
### Author:  [@SanibelMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SanibelMan)
#### Post date: [September 5, 2003, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-language-police-restrict-what-students-learn/199564/18 "2003-09-05T21:19:34Z")
Didn’t we discuss this book when it came out and find that she was being facetious to make a point with the examples of “old” and “blind,” or have I lost my mind? I could just swear we had a thread about this months ago.
---
### Author:  [@SanibelMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SanibelMan)
#### Post date: [September 5, 2003, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-language-police-restrict-what-students-learn/199564/19 "2003-09-05T21:22:51Z")
[url=http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=187059&highlight=language+policeThe thread I was thinking of.
---
### Author:  [@SanibelMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SanibelMan)
#### Post date: [September 5, 2003, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-language-police-restrict-what-students-learn/199564/20 "2003-09-05T21:24:22Z")
[The thread I was thinking of.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=187059&highlight=language+police) She wasn’t being facetious; I was thinking of Richliam’s misinterpretation of the book - she thought the author was promoting this sort of change.
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-language-police-restrict-what-students-learn/199564.md?page=2)