Tidings from Texas

The state board of education in Texas is tackling the social studies curriculum under the jurisdiction of six panel members described as follows:

"Much of the groundwork for the debate was laid by a panel of six experts who were appointed by the board to help guide drafting of the standards by writing teams of social studies teachers and college professors.

Three of the experts were appointed by Republicans aligned with social conservatives, while the other three were appointed by Democrats and other Republicans considered more moderate." excerpted from The Dallas Morning News, Sept. 17, 2009

The members of the expert panel who will make curriculum recommendations includes: a fundamentalist evangelist; a former vice-chairman of the Texas Republican party; the leader of a group who challenges ‘separation between church and state’; balanced by three members who are moderate Republicans or Democrats.

This Oregon girl questions the notion of this representing balance; to me it looks like a textbook example (pun intended) of a ‘stacked panel’. Maybe moderation will rule, but I think it more likely to be a bloody battle. (Of course, I think a board comprised of only moderate members would be much more efficacious in creating a balanced curriculum.) :)

Mavis Knight, one of the two Democratic members of the panel, commented,

“Some board members and some groups have indicated there will be a fight over many of these standards, and I believe there will be a fight, much as I would like to avoid it."

The other Democratic member said, “My main concern is to make sure we don’t try to rewrite history.” It is a significant concern.

For example, there is a proposal to delete the name of US Representative Henry Gonzalez of San Antonio from the curriculum, substituting instead the name of John Wayne or Jimmy Stewart, who were Republicans. Gonzalez was a Democratic politician who represented Texas in the US legislature for thirty-eight years. He chaired the committee that investigated the deaths of president John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. As a member of the Texas legislature, he set a record by filibustering a set of 10 bills on segregation for 22 hours. Eight of the 10 bills were abandoned.

He was undoubtedly a voice for the liberal left, but since he was re-elected over and over, most Texans obviously felt he was able to represent them. Does it serve the education of school children to remove a long-standing politician who significantly influenced the history of Texas and the nation and to substitute instead a movie star?

On the other hand, another challenge facing this panel is a question of verbiage. A language change has been requested in the 4th grade curriculum. Rather than calling our system of government ‘democratic’, it has been suggested that it be called ‘republican’. Of course, in reality we are neither – and both. Our system of government can be most accurately described as either a representative democracy or a constitutional republic. The point is that our government protects against the tyranny of the majority by protecting the rights and the voice of minority opinions. The textbook should be rewritten to accurately describe our form of government, which is neither purely democratic nor republican.

Another issue includes historical figures. It has been requested that talk show host Rush Limbaugh, the National Rifle Association, and former US House Speaker Newt Gingrich be included. Former Speaker Gingrich is a significant figure in our political history, and probably should be added. But a radio talk show host? A gun club? We may as well include Conan O'Brien & the National Garden Club. (No offense to either.)

In the fifth grade curriculum, it is proposed that ‘the individual right to keep and bear arms; and an individual’s protection of private property from government takings’ be added to the list of important individual rights. Do we not teach the entire constitution and amendments in our schools anymore?

Perhaps not, as evidenced by the police arresting Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. for entering his own home. They certainly did take his private property – I consider my own person to be private indeed. How would it have played out in court if he had shot the trespassing, person/property-grabbing governmental representatives and claimed the second amendment as justification? Proponents of strong second amendment rights would surely have supported his right to do so, and no doubt would have strenuously defended him in public and in court.

Wouldn’t they? :)