Texas Gives the Boot to Liberal Social Studies Bias

[crin63]

This is a very good start. Imagine that, teach actual American history instead of a concocted Liberal skewing of it. I hope it holds up.


After three days of contentious meetings, Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) members gave preliminary approval to revised social studies standards they say are intended to rein in the liberal bias of teachers and academics. "We are adding balance," said Dr. Don McLeroy, leader of the conservative bloc of the board. "History has been skewed. Academia is skewed too far to the left."

Former board chairman McLeroy said the efforts of conservatives were misconstrued and mischaracterized. "I don't see anyone wanting to say this is a Christian nation or anything like that," he said. "The argument is that the principles on which (the nation) has been founded are biblically based."


McLeroy found support for his position in the dean of the College of Humanities at the University of Mary Hardin-Baylor, Derek Davis. "An education without some understanding of the profound role of religion in our nation's history and its contributions to our nation's success is an incomplete education, and our courts have often said as much," said Davis. (Education Week, 1-13-10)


Further examples of the changes the SBOE ultimately approved include restoring references to Independence Day, Thomas Edison, Christopher Columbus, Mother Teresa, Albert Einstein, Neil Armstrong and Daniel Boone that had been deleted. The board added the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms to a lesson on the Bill of Rights, an element conspicuously absent from some curricula.

Teachers and textbooks will be required to accurately describe the U.S. form of government as a constitutional republic rather than as a democracy. Depictions of Joseph McCarthy must include an explanation of "how the later release of the Verona papers confirmed suspicions of Communist infiltration in the U.S. government." The Verona papers are verified transcripts of communications between the Soviet Union and its agents in the U.S.

A section in the U.S. government standards will cover the concept of American exceptionalism and detail how the nation's values are unique from other nations. Alexis de Tocqueville's five values critical to America's success as a republic will also be delineated. In economics, the board added free-market economists Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek to the usual list of John Maynard Keynes, Adam Smith and Karl Marx.

http://eagleforum.org/educate/2010/apr10/tx-liberal-bias.html

[SpidermanTUba]

Teachers and textbooks will be required to accurately describe the U.S. form of government as a constitutional republic rather than as a democracy

Wow, are Texans really this stupid?

I'm actually fine with that. This means Texans won't be going to the polls to elect anyone, not realizing they live in a democratic republic.


Its interesting how so many sons and daughters of Texas have died fighting for democracy in Iraq - yet they refuse to even recognize its existence at home.

[Insein]

Wow, are Texans really this stupid?

I'm actually fine with that. This means Texans won't be going to the polls to elect anyone, not realizing they live in a democratic republic.


Its interesting how so many sons and daughters of Texas have died fighting for democracy in Iraq - yet they refuse to even recognize its existence at home.

Constitutional Republic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_republic


A constitutional republic is a state where the head of state and other officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens.

Democratic Republic or People's Republic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_republic


People's Republic, also especially in other languages Popular Republic, is a title that has often been used by Marxist-Leninist governments to describe their state. The motivation for using this term lies in the claim that Marxist-Leninists govern in accordance with the interests of the vast majority of the people, and, as such, a Marxist-Leninist republic is a people's republic.

[SpidermanTUba]

Constitutional Republic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_republic



Democratic Republic or People's Republic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_republic



Hey try a DICTIONARY



democracy - 1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

Periodically held free elections? SOUND FAMILIAR?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy

Now given the definition for a democracy, please explain how the U.S. is NOT a democracy. Do we not have a government by the people? Do we not have a government in which supreme power is vested in the people? Do we not have a government in which that power is exercised by a indirect system of representatives? Are these representatives not chosen periodically in free elections?

[Insein]

The US is a democracy. A Constitutional Republic is a democracy. A democratic republic can be a democracy but it also may not. Commonly a Democratic Republic is a socialist or communist state. Just thought you should know. Perhaps LA should update their education resources as well.

[SpidermanTUba]

The US is a democracy. A Constitutional Republic is a democracy. A democratic republic can be a democracy but it also may not. Commonly a Democratic Republic is a socialist or communist state. Just thought you should know.


North Korea isn't a Democratic Republic just because Kim Jong Il says it is. For one thing, its not democratic. Do you believe that "#1 China Buffet" is really the best Chinese buffet in the whole world just because they say it is?



Perhaps LA should update their education resources as well.

LOL! Sorry we don't use wikipedia as our textbooks.

[Insein]

True democracy merely means that the majority rules. The majority voted for the leadership they have. The minority has no protections in a true Democratic Republic.

Therefore we are a Constitutional Republic. We have elements of a democracy but the government is limited by a constitution to protect the rights of the minority and the individual. Thus, a republic.

Perhaps the text books you use need to be revised.

The key distinction to consider:

Rule by law vs Rule by the Majority

[SpidermanTUba]

The minority has no protections in a true Democratic Republic.

Why, because you say so?


Therefore we are a Constitutional Republic. We have elements of a democracy but the government is limited by a constitution to protect the rights of the minority and the individual. Thus, a republic.


So in going to Iraq to bring them democracy, our goal is to bring them a government where the rights of the individual and minority are NOT protected?

[Insein]

Why, because you say so?

Because Democracy is a broad definition. If the people of Iraq vote to have a Religious state of elected officials that promote the well being of the majority, how would the minority protect themselves without a constitution?



So in going to Iraq to bring them democracy, our goal is to bring them a government where the rights of the individual and minority are NOT protected?

Again democracy is the term used because its broad but we mean to bring them is a government similar to ours.

[SpidermanTUba]

Because Democracy is a broad definition. If the people of Iraq vote to have a Religious state of elected officials that promote the well being of the majority, how would the minority protect themselves without a constitution?


I see your point, and I agree mostly, but how do you decide which state's are protecting the rights of minorities and which aren't? Couldn't a South African - whose nation has equal rights for gays written into their Constitution - equally as well sit back and say "Well the U.S. doesn't protect the rights of minorities since it has no federal protections for gays, so they are not a Constitutional Republic!" ?



Again democracy is the term used because its broad but we mean to bring them is a government similar to ours.

Its also a more modern thing as well. People often say that the Founders were not for democracy - and that's at least half true. In the original constitution, the Senate is chosen not by the people, but indirectly by state legislatures. In early Presidential elections, most states' legislatures appointed their slate of electors, rather than having the people decide. Not to mention the fact that the only people who DID get to vote in the one election which was chosen by the "people" - for House of Representatives - were not only required to be white AND male, but had to own property!


So I think its accurate to say the Founders did not support democracy, at least not in its present day form. They believed in what was more an oligarchy of the upper middle class and rich - most people didn't actually have the right to vote.

But we've amended our Constitution on numerous occasions since then, in the manner as prescribed by the Founders. We now directly elect Senators. Now, no law abiding person over 18 can be denied suffrage. And although the states could, if they wanted, return to a system of legislatures choosing electors for President - I doubt they would even consider it (though IMO the Florida legislature should have just named the Republican slate in 2000 and be done with it - that would have been 100% Constitutional)

[Insein]

I see your point, and I agree mostly, but how do you decide which state's are protecting the rights of minorities and which aren't? Couldn't a South African - whose nation has equal rights for gays written into their Constitution - equally as well sit back and say "Well the U.S. doesn't protect the rights of minorities since it has no federal protections for gays, so they are not a Constitutional Republic!" ?




Its also a more modern thing as well. People often say that the Founders were not for democracy - and that's at least half true. In the original constitution, the Senate is chosen not by the people, but indirectly by state legislatures. In early Presidential elections, most states' legislatures appointed their slate of electors, rather than having the people decide. Not to mention the fact that the only people who DID get to vote in the one election which was chosen by the "people" - for House of Representatives - were not only required to be white AND male, but had to own property!


So I think its accurate to say the Founders did not support democracy, at least not in its present day form. They believed in what was more an oligarchy of the upper middle class and rich - most people didn't actually have the right to vote.

But we've amended our Constitution on numerous occasions since then, in the manner as prescribed by the Founders. We now directly elect Senators. Now, no law abiding person over 18 can be denied suffrage. And although the states could, if they wanted, return to a system of legislatures choosing electors for President - I doubt they would even consider it (though IMO the Florida legislature should have just named the Republican slate in 2000 and be done with it - that would have been 100% Constitutional)

Which had the provisions to do so. Our constitution can be ammended which was a revolutionary idea at the time. The constitution is what protects the people from the majority and the government. In a Democratic Republic where majority rules, the government gains its power and creates the rules based on the "will of the people." With no constitution to say otherwise, the majority rule is law.

[DragonStryk72]

none of which has anything to do with the OP. To point, It's actually a good thing that TX is doing this. They are not dumping anything really from the curriculum, it's still the history of the US, it is simply being taught in a different way, with less PC culture to it.

[SpidermanTUba]

none of which has anything to do with the OP. To point, It's actually a good thing that TX is doing this. They are not dumping anything really from the curriculum, it's still the history of the US, it is simply being taught in a different way, with less PC culture to it.

What the fuck is "PC culture" ? Does that mean ignoring Columbus's atrocities because they don't make us feel good about ourselves? Or is that what "conservative culture" does?

[HogTrash]

Why, because you say so?


So in going to Iraq to bring them democracy, our goal is to bring them a government where the rights of the individual and minority are NOT protected?You sir, are an idiot.

That's all I have to say.

[DragonStryk72]

What the fuck is "PC culture" ? Does that mean ignoring Columbus's atrocities because they don't make us feel good about ourselves? Or is that what "conservative culture" does?

Well, since his atrocities aren't gone over anyhow, in PC or non-PC classes, your argument is at best, completely moot.

And yes, Columbus' actions, both good and bad should be gone over. We have to stop excluding parts of our history that we don't like. Like I said, they aren't taking anything out, they're just dropping "every country is special" crap. Now if we could just drop the "everyone is special" crap from schools in general, then we'd be doing a lot better.

But let's talk about how the history books paint the south as the bad guys in the Civil War, but the atrocities committed by the north against southern towns seems to be skipped in every single textbook for public school I've ever seen. Either it's all in, or there's no point in the class.