CASE STUDY – TEXAS TEA AND TEXTBOOKS
Inaccuracies in conservative propaganda reach back to the biblical period and through the present regarding climate change and other issues. Within the scope of this paper and my project, I have chosen to address the misinformation that concerns our nation’s “Founding Fathers” of the Revolutionary War period, as it is so central to our national identity.
The state of Texas provides a recent example of this politically motivated indoctrination process. On November twenty-first of 2014, the Texas Department of Education approved new public school textbooks. A list detailing some of the inaccuracies found in these texts, broken into sections by specific book and publisher, as compiled by The Texas Freedom Network, is included below:
McGraw-Hill School Education – United States Government
“The biblical idea of a covenant, an ancient Jewish term meaning a special kind of agreement between the people and God, influenced the formation of colonial governments and contributed to our constitutional structure.”
The American Founders did believe in a social contract, but their version of that contract was derived primarily from modern British political thought, and John Locke’s thought in particular. Since Locke’s version of the social contract was in many ways a repudiation of the biblical covenant view referenced in this passage, this passage provides the student with almost the opposite of the historical truth.[25]
Contrast the above quote about the idea of a “biblical covenant” influencing our constitutional structure with what Jefferson wrote on the subject, in this excerpt of his letter to Samuel Kercheval:
Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, [emphasis mine] too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it, and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present, but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead. I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors [emphasis mine].[26]
Jefferson contrasts the container bearing our secular laws (the Constitution) with the container that bore the religious laws of the Old Testament. The Arc of the Covenant was said to contain the two Tablets of Law, which were inscribed with the Ten Commandments. Jefferson argues that unlike the idea of biblical covenants, the secular laws of the United States were designed to “be touched,” and evolve with changing times and circumstances.
Where Did the Founders get their Ideas, quill and bullshit ink on tea and coffee stained paper, Bryan Anthony Moore, 2014. Illustration of Perfection Learning Text “Where Did the Founders Get Their Ideas? . . . ” for Basic Principles of American Government.
Perfection Learning – Basic Principles of American Government
Text has a table entitled “Where did the Founders get their ideas?” The introductory section to the table states: “When the Framers set out to write the Constitution, they drew upon the wisdom of philosophers, historians and economists. Here are a few of the people whose words influenced the content of that remarkable document.” Moses is listed first on this list, followed by John Locke, Charles de Montesquieu, and William Blackstone. The “concept” Moses is alleged to have contributed is that “A nation needs a written code of behavior.” The description of Moses includes the following sentences: “During their years of wandering in the desert of the Sinai, Moses handed down God’s Ten Commandments to the Hebrews. These commandments now form the bedrock on which the Jewish, Muslim, and Christian codes of behavior are based. The full account of Moses’ life can be found in the Bible’s book of Exodus.”
Unlike the contributions of the three other figures mentioned in the table, the contribution of Moses is highly nebulous and contestable. The passage neglects to mention which types of codified behaviors influenced the Framers, and thus makes it difficult to evaluate this claim. The Framers, for instance, were not influenced by the first four Commandments, which deal with matters of religious belief and practice. In fact, notable framers such as James Madison led the battle against government punishment for unorthodox religious belief. Further, stating that “Moses handed down God’s Ten Commandments” is very close to endorsing a religious claim. Stating, for instance, that “Jews and Christians believe that Moses handed down God’s Ten Commandments” would have been more acceptable. Without this qualification, the text seems to endorse the truth of these biblical claims [emphasis mine].[27]
This statement, “Moses handed down God’s Ten Commandments”, in a public school textbook is a complete violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution. Not only is it stating that Moses was a real historical figure, which is no small leap, but it’s also stating that there is a God and he is the G-d of the Judeo-Christian traditions. In this instance, the assertion that Moses as a law-giver, was highly influential to the Framers of our Constitution, is the least of the transgressions. The text continues; “During their years of wandering in the desert of the Sinai, Moses handed down God’s Ten Commandments to the Hebrews. These commandments now form the bedrock on which the Jewish, Muslim, and Christian codes of behavior are based. The full account of Moses’ life can be found in the Bible’s book of Exodus.” thereby endorsing the biblical book of Exodus as an authentic historical narrative. Notice only the “Bible’s book of Exodus” is recommended, if the publishers weren’t unconstitutionally endorsing a specific religion, along with the factual existence of both the Christian God and Moses, then why couldn’t a student look at the book of Exodus in a Torah as well as a Bible?
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt claims Judeo-Christian beliefs were the origin of the Founders’ thoughts on freedom of worship, self-government, and individual responsibility:
Judeo-Christian Influences, quill and bullshit ink on tea stained paper, Bryan Anthony Moore, 2014. Illustration of Houghton Mifflin Harcourt text ““The Framers’ political thinking was influenced by a Judeo-Christian religious heritage, which includes traditions common to both Judaism and Christianity. . . .” for United States Government: Principles in Practice
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt – United States Government: Principles in Practice
Text has a section on “Judeo-Christian Influences” that reads: “The Framers’ political thinking was influenced by a Judeo-Christian religious heritage, which includes traditions common to both Judaism and Christianity. These religions see the law and individual rights as being of divine origin. Moreover, the Framers benefited from the Protestant Reformation, a sixteenth-century Christian reform movement whose leaders developed ideas about individual responsibility, the freedom to worship as one chooses, and self-government.”
This passage gives no example of a law or set of laws in the Bible that influenced the Founders and no example of a Founder or a founding document that was influenced by the “Judeo-Christian” concept of law. The text’s claim that the Reformation was a source of the Founders’ views on individual responsibility omits several important pieces of information. Major figures in the Protestant Reformation such as Martin Luther and John Calvin may have supported freedom of worship for their own views, but they often did not support freedom of worship for many competing religious views. Similarly, the views of major Reformation figures, including Luther and Calvin, about self-government were far more limited than, and had little in common with, the views of the American Founders about self-government.
Finally, the paragraph could leave students with a misleading impression about the Founders’ religious views. The passage’s claim that Judaism and Christianity stresses that individual rights are of “divine origin” and that these views influenced all of the Founders suggests that all of the Founders believed that this biblical God was the source of natural rights. Many Founders did, of course, believe in the biblical God. Other Founders, though, were influenced by Deism, and their conception of God departed in significant ways from the biblical God.[28]
Some of the Founders may have had strong religious convictions that informed their political beliefs. However, others strongly believed that the inspiration for individual rights and freedoms had come from English laws that had origins in continental Europe, and that were inherited from Pagan Anglo-Saxon migrants, or from the Greek and Pre-Christian Roman democracies. Some of the Founders even implied that it was the Christian Norman invaders that first wrested these liberties from their ancient English forebears. In a letter to Major John Cartwright, dated June 5th, 1824, Jefferson wrote:
A perpetual claim was kept up by the nation [England] by their perpetual demand of a restoration of their Saxon laws; which shews they were never relinquished by the will of the nation. In the pullings and haulings for these antient rights between the nation and it’s kings of the races of Plantagenets, Tudors & Stuarts, there was sometimes gain, and sometimes loss, until the final reconquest of their rights from the Stuarts [emphasis mine]. The destitution and expulsion of this race broke the thread of pretended inheritance, extinguished all regal usurpations, and the nation re-entered into all it’s rights; and altho’ in their bill of rights they specifically reclaimed some only, yet the omission of the others was no renunciation of the right to assume their exercise also, whenever occasions should occur the new king received no rights or powers but those expressly granted to him. It has ever appeared to me that the difference between the whig and tory of England is, that the whig deduces his rights from the A-Saxon source, and the tory from the Norman. . . . I was glad to find in your book a formal contradiction, at length, of the judiciary usurpation of legislative powers; for such the judges have usurped in their repeated decisions, that Christianity is a part of the common law. The proof of the contrary, which you have adduced, is incontrovertible; to wit, that the common law existed while the Anglo-Saxons were yet Pagans, at a time when they had never yet heard the name of Christ pronounced, or knew that such a character had ever existed [emphasis mine].[29]
Jefferson clearly thought that the Bill of Rights had Anglo-Saxon precedents from England’s own myth-story; precedents that had merely re-surfaced in 1215, when Englishmen achieved, as Jefferson states in the letter above, “the final reconquest of their rights from the Stuarts.” This “reconquest” refers to the signing of the Magna Charta, an incredibly important document in the development of Western democracies. But Pearson Education’s textbook, quoted below, emphasizes the influence of the Ten Commandments, a short list of religious do’s and don’ts, rather than that of the Magna Carta, which provided for church rights, protection from unlawful imprisonment, a speedy trial by a jury of one’s peers, reasonable punishment for trivial crimes, protection of property, limited taxes, and other rights and protections to citizens.[30]
Pearson Education – Magruder’s American Government
Text includes a “Biography of Moses,” which states: “Moses was a lawgiver and a great leader. Like the founders of the United States, he helped establish a legal system to govern his people. The Ten Commandments have been a guide and basis for many legal and moral systems throughout the world [emphasis mine].” The annotation to the biography states: “Moses helped establish a legal system, including the Ten Commandments, to govern his people. Similarly, the founders of the United States wrote the Constitution and established a system of laws to govern Americans. They were also part of a tradition that was familiar with the Ten Commandments as a guide for moral behavior.”
The passage gives an exaggerated impression to students about the influence of and relationship between Moses and the Founders. The legal system that Moses founded had theocratic elements, which made it very different from the republican system of law the Founders established. Similarly, the text neglects to mention that the Founders were reacting against several of the crucial elements of the moral, legal, and political tradition associated with Moses and the Ten Commandments.[31]
John Adams wrote his opinions on the origins of American and English political thought in A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America. Contrast these opinions in the excerpt below, with Pearson Education’s claim (above) of a biblical basis:
The Teutonic institutions, described by Cæsar and Tacitus, are the most memorable experiment merely political, ever yet made in human affairs. They have spread all over Europe, and have lasted eighteen hundred years. They afford the strongest argument that can be imagined in support of the point aimed at in these letters. Nothing ought to have more weight with America, to determine her judgment against mixing the authority of the one, the few, and the many, confusedly in one assembly, than the wide-spread miseries and final slavery of almost all mankind, in consequence of such an ignorant policy in the ancient Germans. What is the ingredient which in England has preserved the democratical authority? The balance, and that only. The English have, in reality, blended together the feudal institutions with those of the Greeks and Romans; and out of all have made that noble composition, which avoids the inconveniences, and retains the advantages, of both. The institutions now made in America will never wear wholly out for thousands of years: it is of the last importance then that they should begin right; if they set out wrong, they will never be able to return, unless it be by accident, to the right path. After having known the history of Europe, and of England in particular, it would be the height of folly to go back to the institutions of Woden and of Thor, as they are advised to do: if they had been counselled to adopt a simple monarchy at once, it would have been less mysterious. Robertson, Hume, and Gibbon have given such admirable accounts of the feudal institutions, and their consequences, that it would have been more discreet to have referred to them, perhaps, without saying any thing more upon the subject. To collect together the legislation of the Indians, would take up much room, but would be well worth the pains. The sovereignty is in the nation, it is true, but the three powers are strong in every tribe; and their royal and aristocratical dignities are much more generally hereditary, from the popular partiality to particular families, and the superstitious opinion that such are favourites of the God of War, than the late writers upon this subject have allowed.[32]
In the above quote, Adams cites Teutonic (Germanic), Roman, and Greek institutions of governance as the fonts from which the best of English political ideas (and by extension Anglo-American ideas) had sprang. He goes on to infer that American Indians (probably referring to the Iroquois Confederacy), had made some important contributions to American political thought. His reference to the three powers probably refers to a judicial, legislative and executive branch, but may be in reference to their formation of a bicameral legislature with a third “house” (the Onondaga tribe) acting much like an executive branch in breaking ties and possessing the power of veto.[33] Of course, Adams, ever the aristocrat, made sure to mention how valuable the hereditary component of the Iroquois polity was (though that was a misrepresentation). The Ten Commandments are conspicuously absent in both the liberal Jefferson’s, and conservative Adams’ descriptions of our political roots.
This textbook then goes on to claim that the roots of our democracy can be found in the Old Testament monarchy of Solomon in addition to the theocratic leadership of Moses:
The Roots of Democracy, ink on tea stained paper, Bryan Anthony Moore, 2015. Illustration for Pearson Education’s – Magruder’s American Government text: “The roots of democratic government in today’s world – including government in the United States – lie deep in human history. They reach back most particularly to ancient Greece and Rome, and include elements related to Judeo-Christian philosophy, dating back thousands of years to Old Testament texts and Biblical figures such as Moses and Solomon.”
Pearson Education – Magruder’s American Government
The text states: “The roots of democratic government in today’s world – including government in the United States – lie deep in human history. They reach back most particularly to ancient Greece and Rome, and include elements related to Judeo-Christian philosophy, dating back thousands of years to Old Testament texts and Biblical figures such as Moses and Solomon.”
The forms of government mentioned in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) are theocracy and monarchy. Prominent figures in the Hebrew Bible are occasionally critical of monarchy including the prophets Samuel and Gideon, or of the behavior of particular kings as in the case of the prophet Nathan’s criticism of King David. The Israelites also sometimes placed limits on their kings’ sovereignty (see, for instance, 1 Kings 12). Still, those critical of monarchy or monarchs did not advocate democracy as an alternative, and the limited monarchy occasionally practiced in ancient Israel seems to bear little resemblance to American democracy. Even if it is accurate that government in the Hebrew Bible had democratic features, the text never tells us how these democratic features directly influenced the Founders. It is similarly difficult to make sense of the text’s claim that Moses or Solomon governed in a democratic way.[34]
Texas’ new history books also cite Jesus as the inspiration for the idea of equality before the law; stating that it developed from his teachings that all were equal in the eyes of God. The biblical Jesus spoke very little about civil law, but the Magna Charta proclaims: “TO ALL FREE MEN OF OUR KINGDOM we have also granted, for us and our heirs for ever, all the liberties written out below, to have and to keep for them and their heirs, of us and our heirs:”[35] This is stated immediately before a long list of rights and protections that were to be afforded to freemen, mostly of land holding status, with a select few rights included for women and children. Our Founders’ initial extension of rights only to free, land-owning, white males, follows much more logically from this document, than from anything that Jesus said.
One of the stipulations contained within the Magna Charta states: “To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice,” [36] this is truly a statement of “equality before the law.”
Equality Before the Law, terra-cotta tea caddy, Bryan Anthony Moore, 2015. Created to depict Houghton Mifflin Harcourt – World History text: “Because one of Jesus’s basic principles was the equality of all people in the eyes of God, equality before the law became a central belief within the Judeo-Christian tradition.”
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt – World History
The text states: “Because one of Jesus’s basic principles was the equality of all people in the eyes of God, equality before the law became a central belief within the Judeo-Christian tradition.”
There are two problems with this claim. The first concerns the presentation: the authors’ wording suggests that belief in equality of all people before God originated with Jesus. In fact, it arguably dates back to Jewish teachings such as the belief that all people have a single progenitor (Gen. 1-2), and the assertion in Leviticus that there is one law for citizen and stranger alike (Lev. 24:22). Second, the “Because…” language suggests that there is a straightforward chain of causation between, on the one hand, the Jewish and Christian belief in equality before God’s law and, on the other, the belief in equality before human law. If there is such causation, it is by no means straightforward. While the ancient Israelite teaching of equality of all people before God’s law may well have influenced our legal tradition, such influence remains tenuous and far from clear, and this text does not offer the necessary clarification or explanation.[37]
In the schoolbooks quoted above, we repeatedly see unsubstantiated references to the Judeo-Christian “origins” of our Founding documents, but the story does not end there. Some of the books take the “Christian nation” argument to another level, implying that our founding documents never expressly forbade the mingling of religion with government.
The Myth of Separation of Church and State, terra-cotta teapot, Bryan Anthony Moore, 2015. Illustration for McGraw-Hill School Education’s United States Government text: “Thomas Jefferson once referred to the establishment clause as a ‘wall of separation between church and state.’ That phrase is not used in the Constitution, however.”
McGraw-Hill School Education – United States Government
The text states: “Thomas Jefferson once referred to the establishment clause as a ‘wall of separation between church and state.’ That phrase is not used in the Constitution, however.”
The statement is factually correct, but it could give students the inaccurate impression that Jefferson’s view was personal and lacked significant connection to the First Amendment. The text neglects to mention, for instance, the significant support for the separationist position shared by both Jefferson and James Madison, the Founder with the greatest influence on the drafting of the First Amendment’s religion clauses [emphasis mine]. The text also neglects to mention reference to Jefferson’s “wall” metaphor in important Supreme Court establishment clause cases, such as Justice Hugo Black’s decision in Everson v. Board of Education, the first Supreme Court case to apply the establishment clause to the states and local government.[38]
In the Detatched Memoranda, James Madison, the principal author of The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, wrote: “Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States [emphasis mine].”[39] McGraw Hill’s brazen manipulation of history, achieved through glaring omissions, amounts to a publically funded brainwashing of our youth. These schoolbooks have been “cooked” to such an extent that they often imply the exact opposite of verifiable facts. Perfection Learning’s “church and state” offerings are similar:
Perfection Learning – Basic Principles of American Government
This product does not mention Thomas Jefferson’s use of the phrase “wall of separation between church and state” at all. The text also includes an unbalanced discussion of the background to the Supreme Court’s seminal ruling against school prayer in Engel v. Vitale. The discussion has four paragraphs that are devoted primarily to examining the logic of the rulings of lower, state courts in favor of school prayer. These paragraphs mention that a state court decision notes that “neither the Constitution nor its writers discussed the use of prayer in public schools” and that the judges in these cases “noted that the prayer did not fall into the same category as Bible readings or religious instruction in public schools.”
The four-paragraph discussion of lower courts’ logic in favor of school prayer is followed by only a single paragraph about the Supreme Court’s majority opinion striking down school prayer, which contains little discussion of the logic of that opinion.[40]
These newly approved (as of November, 2014) Texas schoolbooks are particularly problematic. Due to the large number of students in the nation’s second most populous state, Texas’ textbooks have a large impact on how manufacturers write their texts, and these texts are often used in states outside of Texas. “Because Texas’ market is so large, textbooks published to meet its standards can affect those sold in other states,” said Will Weisert, of the Huffington Post.[41]
According to Professor Keith Erekson, director of the Center for History Teaching and Learning at the University of Texas at El Paso “he’s seen estimates that the proportion of social studies textbooks sold containing the basic Texas-approved narrative range from about half to 80 percent [emphasis mine].”[42]
Although propaganda about our Founders (and those of other nations) has long been a tool of political ideologies, this latest instance of textbook manipulation is so fantastic in its assertions and so wide ranging in its reach that it is particularly disturbing.
As can be clearly seen in the gross inaccuracies of the new Texas public school texts, American history, as it is being taught in many schools, is a propaganda laden, mythological construct, comprised of half-truths, omissions, and outright falsehoods. Rather than providing a framework of ideas with which students can critically engage, taxpayer-funded textbooks are being used as ideological weapons[43] in a culture war that seeks to characterize the American experiment as a fundamentally Christian, politically conservative narrative; created with ideas derived from Protestantism, Jesus Christ, Solomon, and Moses.
This propaganda is meant to further a meek, “follow the leader” mindset rather than fostering critical thought and the questioning of authority; characteristics that were so crucial to the empowering Enlightenment ideals that informed the American Revolution.
As Maria Blake noted in a Mother Jones article on September 17, 2014:
The current crop of textbooks were written to comply with a set of standards that the Texas State Board of Education, then controlled by a group of ultra-conservatives, crafted in 2010 with input from a cadre of hand-picked “experts.” Among them were conservative culture warriors such as David Barton, a self-styled historian with deep ties to the Republican Party who argues that the principle of church-state separation is a myth. As a result, the books are required to glorify free-market capitalism, promote America’s Christian heritage, and pay tribute to conservative icons, such as Newt Gingrich and Phyllis Schlafly.[44]
According to a chart[45] on the Texas Freedom Network website, thirty three states select their Board of Education members through appointment, five have a combination of elected and appointed members, six elect their members through non-partisan elections, and two have no boards, electing a non-partisan superintendent of public instruction instead. The remaining ten states, including Texas, select their board members through partisan elections.
This has left these states more vulnerable to partisan political ideology invading the educational process with the unlimited financial backing of special interest groups going to the candidates that best serve those interests.
In an article for the New York Review of Books, writer Gail Collins describes the results of these systemic problems, i.e., the 2010 textbook curriculum standards that resulted in the current crop of fictional history books:
When it comes to meddling with school textbooks, Texas is both similar to other states and totally different. It’s hardly the only one that likes to fiddle around with the material its kids study in class [emphasis mine]. The difference is due to size — 4.8 million textbook-reading schoolchildren as of 2011 — and the peculiarities of its system of government, in which the State Board of Education is selected in elections that are practically devoid of voters, and wealthy donors can chip in unlimited amounts of money to help their favorites win [emphasis mine].
The Texas State Board of Education, which approves textbooks, curriculum standards, and supplemental materials for the public schools, has fifteen members from fifteen districts whose boundaries don’t conform to congressional districts, or really anything whatsoever. They run in staggered elections that are frequently held in off years, when always-low Texas turnout is particularly abysmal. The advantage tends to go to candidates with passionate, if narrow, bands of supporters, particularly if those bands have rich backers.[46]
As Collins states above, “wealthy donors can chip in unlimited amounts of money to help their favorites win.” In this way, an institution ostensibly set up to provide a service for the benefit of the public, or what the Constitution calls “the general welfare”, is violated by the private interests of corporations and wealthy individuals. Althusser describes this situation (as originally conceived by Gramsci) thusly:
The distinction between the public and the private is a distinction internal to bourgeois law, and valid in the (subordinate) domains in which bourgeois law exercises its “authority”. The domain of the State escapes it because the latter is “above the law”: the State, which is the State of the ruling class, is neither public nor private; on the contrary, it is the precondition for any distinction between public and private.[47]
Collins continues:
Some extremely rich Texans have gotten into the board of education election game, putting their money at the disposal of conservative populists. . . . In 2010, the board launched itself into the . . . contentious sea of the social studies curriculum, and the teacher-dominated team tasked with writing the standards was advised by a panel of “experts,” one of whom was a member of the Minutemen militia. Another had argued that only white people were responsible for advancing civil rights for minorities in America, since “only majorities can expand political rights in America’s constitutional society.” “The way I evaluate history textbooks is first I see how they cover Christianity and Israel,” McLeroy told Washington Monthly. “Then I see how they treat Ronald Reagan—he needs to get credit for saving the world from communism and for the good economy over the last twenty years because he lowered taxes [emphasis mine].”
The social studies curriculum was perhaps the last hurrah for the extreme agenda that Don McLeroy, the anti-evolution dentist, had championed. When the discussions began, he could frequently rally a majority on the fifteen-member panel [the Texas State Board of Education], with the consistent support of people like Cynthia Dunbar, who once wrote that sending children to public schools was like “throwing them into the enemy’s flames, even as the children of Israel threw their children to Moloch.” (She also once called Barack Obama a terrorist sympathizer.) In 2011, Dunbar announced her retirement; she had been commuting between Texas and Virginia, where she taught at Jerry Falwell’s [emphasis mine] Liberty University School of Law. After McLeroy himself lost a Republican primary to a candidate who believes in evolution, Barbara Cargill, his successor as board chair, expressed concern that she was left with only “six true conservative Christians on the board [emphasis mine].”[48]
At a minimum, academic qualifications in an appropriate field should be set for the level of education of a person seeking a position on any state board of education. Expert level credentials should also be required of anyone acting as an advisor in constructing educational standards.
State education board memberships should be nonpartisan positions, elected in nonpartisan elections. A high level of education and past work experience in the appropriate field should be the determining qualifications rather than ideological allegiances.
This culture war manipulation of our children’s education also points to the need for campaign finance reform at the state level as well as the federal.
Rather than having curriculum standards decided by boards sponsored by wealthy individuals and corporate donors, perhaps the public should have a say in their children’s education. Maybe the citizens of Texas have a better idea of how to improve curriculum standards and textbook requirements. In a 2010 statewide poll conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner research it was found that statewide:
Texas voters believe the public school curriculum should be set by teachers and scholars, not politicians. Nearly three-quarters of Texas voters say that teachers and academic scholars should be responsible for writing curriculum standards and textbook requirements for Texas’ public schools. Only 19 percent prefer that an elected state board make curriculum decisions.[49]
Giving power to the schoolteachers who interact with our children and to the scholars that have demonstrated expertise through their education and experience is what the public wants and what the impartial education of our children requires. Devolving these responsibilities to more people in more schools is after all, the democratic thing to do.
As stated by historian Ray Raphael:
Now more than ever reshaping the public record is consciously conceived and politically motivated . . . Contrived stories, self serving interpretations of public events are not just quaint or incidental—they are anathema to the functioning of democracy, which depends on the free flow of accurate and often complex information . . . If and when we do decide to tell more honest stories, we must do so in ways that invite discussion and critique. Contentious debate is more appropriate to the functioning of a democratic society than rote recitation. In Revolutionary times, common folk deliberated the crucial questions of the day in every tavern and meetinghouse in the land. Today, the way we tell history should reflect this rich, rambunctious heritage.
Whoever controls the narrative controls history. This is a powerful message. Those who ignore it will remain blind to the manipulation of others, but those who get it, like the people of the American Revolution, will be able to challenge abusive authority and take control of their destinies.[50]
Notes
[25] Dr. Edward Countryman. “Writing to the Standards: Reviews of Proposed Social Studies Textbooks for Texas Public Schools.” Www.tfn.org, n.d. http://www.tfn.org/site/DocServer/FINAL_executivesummary.pdf?docID=4625.
[26] “Jefferson to Kercheval, Jul. 12, 1816.” Accessed April 4, 2015. http://www.constitution.org/tj/ltr/1816/ltr_18160712_kercheval.html.
[27] Dr. Edward Countryman. “Writing to the Standards: Reviews of Proposed Social Studies Textbooks for Texas Public Schools.” Www.tfn.org, n.d. http://www.tfn.org/site/DocServer/FINAL_executivesummary.pdf?docID=4625.
[28] Dr. Edward Countryman. “Writing to the Standards: Reviews of Proposed Social Studies Textbooks for Texas Public Schools.” Www.tfn.org, n.d. http://www.tfn.org/site/DocServer/FINAL_executivesummary.pdf?docID=4625.
[29] “Founders Online: From Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824.” Accessed April 5, 2015. http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/98-01-02-4313.
[30] “English Translation of Magna Carta.” The British Library. Accessed April 5, 2015. http://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/magna-carta-english-translation.
[31] Dr. Edward Countryman. “Writing to the Standards: Reviews of Proposed Social Studies Textbooks for Texas Public Schools.” Www.tfn.org, n.d. http://www.tfn.org/site/DocServer/FINAL_executivesummary.pdf?docID=4625.
[32] Adams, John. The Political Writings of John Adams. (Regnery Publishing, 2001), 124-125.
[33] “The Iroquois Tribes.” American History From Pre-Columbian to the New Millennium. Acessed April 26th, 2015.
http://www.ushistory.org/us/1d.asp
[34] Dr. Edward Countryman. “Writing to the Standards: Reviews of Proposed Social Studies Textbooks for Texas Public Schools.” Www.tfn.org, n.d. http://www.tfn.org/site/DocServer/FINAL_executivesummary.pdf?docID=4625.
[35] “English Translation of Magna Carta.” The British Library. Accessed April 5, 2015. http://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/magna-carta-english-translation.
[36] “English Translation of Magna Carta.” The British Library. Accessed April 5, 2015. http://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/magna-carta-english-translation.
[37] Dr. Edward Countryman. “Writing to the Standards: Reviews of Proposed Social Studies Textbooks for Texas Public Schools.” Www.tfn.org, n.d. http://www.tfn.org/site/DocServer/FINAL_executivesummary.pdf?docID=4625.
[38] Dr. Edward Countryman. “Writing to the Standards: Reviews of Proposed Social Studies Textbooks for Texas Public Schools.” Www.tfn.org, n.d. http://www.tfn.org/site/DocServer/FINAL_executivesummary.pdf?docID=4625.
[39] Founders Online: Detatched Memoranda, Ca. 31 January 1820.” Accessed January 10, 2015. http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/04-01-02-0549. Full quote follows: Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt. in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precidents [sic] already furnished in their short history.
[40] Dr. Edward Countryman. “Writing to the Standards: Reviews of Proposed Social Studies Textbooks for Texas Public Schools.” Www.tfn.org, n.d. http://www.tfn.org/site/DocServer/FINAL_executivesummary.pdf?docID=4625.
[41] Texas Textbooks Approved Amid Controversy.” Huffington Post, 11–21, 2014. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/21/texas-textbooks-approved_n_6200968.html.
[42] Collins, Gail. “How Texas Inflicts Bad Textbooks on Us.” The New York Review of Books, June 21, 2012. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/jun/21/how-texas-inflicts-bad-textbooks-on-us/.
[43] These are what Althusser calls “Ideological State Apparatuses or ISA’s.” Althusser, Louis. On Ideology. Translated by Ben Brewster. London ; New York: Verso, 2008.
[44] “Texas’ New Public School Textbooks Promote Climate Change Denial and Downplay Segregation.” Mother Jones. Accessed February 23, 2015. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/09/texas-textbooks-promote-climate-change-denial-downplay-segregation.
[45] “RRReport2008web.pdf.” Accessed January 13, 2015. http://www.tfn.org/site/DocServer/RRReport2008web.pdf?docID=501.
[46] Collins, Gail. “How Texas Inflicts Bad Textbooks on Us.” The New York Review of Books, June 21, 2012. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/jun/21/how-texas-inflicts-bad-textbooks-on-us/.
[47] Althusser, Louis. On Ideology. Translated by Ben Brewster. London ; New York: Verso, 2008.
[48] Collins, Gail. “How Texas Inflicts Bad Textbooks on Us.” The New York Review of Books, June 21, 2012. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/jun/21/how-texas-inflicts-bad-textbooks-on-us/.
[49] “Culture Wars in the Classroom: Texas Voters Call for a Ceasefire.” Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research. Accessed January 13, 2015. http://www.gqrr.com/articles/2010/07/13/culture-wars-in-the-classroom-texas-voters-call-for-a-ceasefire.
[50] Raphael, Ray. Founding Myths: Stories That Hide Our Patriotic Past. Tenth Anniversary Edition. New Press, The, 2014), 276-77.