Comments on Vigilance: Re-Defining and Re-Writing History in the Classroo...

National Education AssnSOFT MONEY DONATIONS: 2001-...

2006-07-25T14:30:00.000-04:00

National Education Assn
SOFT MONEY DONATIONS: 2001-2002
(2000 DATA) (1998 DATA) ALSO AVAILABLE
NEA
NOTE: The donations listed may be made by individuals associated with the organization as well as by the organization itself.

To Democrats: $1,134,500 (92%)
To Republicans: $96,000 (8%)
Total: $1,230,500

"When teaching becomes propaganda, we undermine a ...

2006-07-25T10:29:00.000-04:00

"When teaching becomes propaganda, we undermine a free, democratic society."

"Question: what kind of propaganda?"

ANY KIND!

The first thing you need to know about history is that any history is interpretation, yet it is this crucial understanding that the new law is actively trying to suppress.

Jim, I'm usually a silent reader, but I read this post with my mouth open. It makes me want to cry. Knowable, teachable and testable. Factual. The Truth. This is a law to actively prevent history teachers from encouraging critical thinking. No, worse, they actively need to DISCOURAGE critical thinking.

Last, best hope of earth? [C3P0]We're doomed.[/C3P0]

Orin says,"Frankly, I'd take this hyperventilating...

2006-07-24T19:42:00.000-04:00

Orin says,

"Frankly, I'd take this hyperventilating concern more seriously if public school teachers saw themselves more as teachers and less as "agents" of social change."

In my department (math), there's little thought of being agents of social change (of course). I'm not as well informed about the history department, but my impression is that most HS teachers are relatively conservative people, and happily teach the party line presented in text books. Under the "standards", history teaching has become very focused on learning a connection of facts (one of the original questions on the Virginia history SOL was how many barrels of tea were tossed overboard at the Boston Tea Party).

In the special ed department, there is a general notion of levelling the playing field, and advocating for our students.

Public high schools strike me as fairly conservative places (much more so than colleges, or the firms my friends work for). When teachers think of social change, they mostly think of instilling a sense of responsibility in their students.

I'm sure there have been surveys on the party affiliation of HS teachers and administrators. Does anyone know the results?

rrjr

Anonymous said... "On the other hand, since there ...

2006-07-24T18:32:00.000-04:00

Anonymous said...
"On the other hand, since there is no basis for concluding that same sex unions would destabilize any families or hurt anyone at all, it seems to me that laws that deprive same sex couples of the rights and responsibilities of marriage run afoul of Equal Protection principles."

The lack of scientific data or any data at all is erroneous there have been studies, you just ignore them. Your understanding of the Equal Protection act is misguided and inconsistent with the letter of the law
The Equal Protection Clause is a part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, providing that "no state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
You first have to change the marige laws, then you can clame Equal Protection.

H.A. says...."It would cause harm but it would be ...

2006-07-24T08:39:00.000-04:00

H.A. says....

"It would cause harm but it would be a slower process. Homosexuality would become an attractive crutch for those who seem to have particular difficulty with opposite gender relations and, thus, society would produce fewer marriages, a stabilizing force in our society."

H.A.,
Do you have any evidence at all for this speculation? Assuming you are heterosexual, can you imagine "defaulting" to homosexuality if you were too awkward with the opposite sex?

"On the other hand, since there is no basis for co...

2006-07-23T22:28:00.000-04:00

"On the other hand, since there is no basis for concluding that same sex unions would destabilize any families or hurt anyone at all, it seems to me that laws that deprive same sex couples of the rights and responsibilities of marriage run afoul of Equal Protection principles."

It would cause harm but it would be a slower process. Homosexuality would become an attractive crutch for those who seem to have particular difficulty with opposite gender relations and, thus, society would produce fewer marriages, a stabilizing force in our society.

H.A.

Orrin writes:David, you asked what I consider a si...

2006-07-23T21:54:00.000-04:00

Orrin writes:

David, you asked what I consider a sincere question [i.e., would he have made the comment about the Massachusetts plaintiffs about the Lovings, had they split up] so I will try my best to answer you...I don't know. I have never had a close friend of another race, say black or asian, it just never turned out that way...I wish I had developed a friendship in college, but it simply never happened. I will be perfectly honest and admit that had I been born and raised in the South I might have just as likely picked up the regressive racial attitudes of that region, and that thought grieves me. Though my father was not perfect, he was a good man that never uttered a negative word about another racial or ethnic group (though I did see him angry on an infrequent basis, and swear in the course of that anger), and that settled on me as a quiet influence.

While there are superficial similarities between interracial marriage and same-sex marriage, scratch the surface and those similarities vanish. The decision by the US Supreme Court in the Loving case affirmed the most essential aspect of marriage, i.e. that it is the union of ONE man and ONE woman. Any judicial finding supportive of same-sex marriage would deny that essential element and in the process radically redefine the social institution that for a very long time and at present is marriage.

Every State where this issue has been put to a vote, even "Blue" States, has defeated it at the ballot box. That is why groups advocating this change have opted for the judicial route because they know they will lose if the question/controversy is put to a vote. And while some are bullied into silence by advocates attempting to recast this social controversy as a constitutional right (that is only now being discovered by those jurists sensitive enough to detect the "penumbras and emmations" from a "Living Constitution"), still others understand (even if only at a intuitive level) the difference between the genuine article, and a counterfeit.

Now, just to make things clear here...if voters change their mind, and push their legislators to make changes more along the lines of accomodating same-sex marriage, then as much as I don't think it is a good idea, I will be obliged to support it as a legitimate exercise in self government.

Ok, now I have answered your question...how about answering mine?

Question: given the principle of Equal Protection of the Laws, how would a father wanting to marry his adult (hence consenting) daughter do so? On what basis would American law deny such a request. Nothing all that extreme, nor entirely inconceivable.

********************************
Orrin,

My question was not intended to suggest racism on your part, nor was it to address the pros and cons of legalizing same sex marriage through the courts rather than the legislatures. Rather, I was trying to illustrate that the fact that people seek to right what they see is an injustice through the courts should not expose them to inquiries into the ups and downs of their personal lives. Your answer suggests that you would not have done that with respect to the Lovings. I think the same should apply to the lead plaintiffs in the Massachusetts case.

In answer to your question about incest and marriage, I do not see that as an Equal Protection issue. I can see a compelling state interest in prohibiting such marriages (including same sex unions involving incest) because the incest taboo in Western and most other societies is rooted the in legitimate fear that such unions would destabilize families. A father lusting after his daughter (or his son, for that matter) creates all sorts of woes, and the state has an interest in not legitimatizing such behavior. On the other hand, since there is no basis for concluding that same sex unions would destabilize any families or hurt anyone at all, it seems to me that laws that deprive same sex couples of the rights and responsibilities of marriage run afoul of Equal Protection principles.

While I agree with the reasoning of Judge Kay's dissent in the New York case, and find the rationale of the Court of Appeals' principal decision utterly wrongheaded, sending advocates for same sex marriage back to the political process may be a blessing in disguise in the long run. Winning in the political process may create a stronger foundation for these equal rights than simply relying on the courts, notwithstanding how compelling the plaintiffs' arguments are.

David

David writes,At bottom, the teaching of American h...

2006-07-23T16:25:00.000-04:00

David writes,

At bottom, the teaching of American history is a civic necessity.

So true.

But if politicians seek to shoe-horn it into a pre-conceived orthodoxy, even if popular with a signficant portion of the electorate, our society will not be well-served.

Again a sentiment that I would tend to agree with more than less.

When teaching becomes propaganda, we undermine a free, democratic society.

Question: what kind of propaganda? Left or Right...or just Right Wing, as in that nasty convergence of the Neocons with the Theocons? Frankly, I'd take this hyperventilating concern more seriously if public school teachers saw themselves more as teachers and less as "agents" of social change (which, regretably, is where Colorado high school teacher Jay Bennish was coming from, having received his license to teach from a school that promoted just that idea, the idea of teachers as agents of social change).

More on the Bennish controversy can be found here, btw,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Bennish

So the question, H.A., is not whether politicians have the legal right to impose such orthodoxy, but whether it is wise to do so.

Yes, that is a good question, and frankly one that I would prefer that legislators not focus on to any great degree. Guidelines are a better way to approach this issue. Students deserve to know the good, the bad and the ugly in a balanced way that gives events a context and a perspective.

The goal of any teacher worth their salt is not that they turn out students that orthodox or nonorthodox thoughts, but that they have thoughts, thoughts that can be expressed orally and in writing. And were I a teacher, I would fully disclose my biases from the start...
that I believe, like Abraham Lincoln, that this nation remains "the last, best hope of earth," and that over the course of the class I would attempt to support that view, while introducing the students to the view of others that have a contrary viewpoint.

Bottomline? There is no escaping the FACT that the study of history is by its' nature interpretive (a tad ironic if one pauses and considers that idea). Still, it is clear to even some high school students when their teacher tends to view this country in a manner like a Proctologist views his/her work.

Thanks, Jimrrjr

2006-07-23T15:41:00.000-04:00

Thanks, Jim

rrjr

David writes,Orrin writes:"Now, Breslauer said, fo...

2006-07-23T15:12:00.000-04:00

David writes,

Orrin writes:

"Now, Breslauer said, for Annie's sake, the Goodridges want privacy.

"The Goodridges ought to understand that they made the choice to take this fight public, and use the judiciary (rather than the legislature) to radically redefine a bedrock social institution.

"They made their bed; now they must sleep in it."

Orrin,

Would you have said the same thing had the Lovings separated after the Supreme Court declared interracial marriage bans unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia?

David, you asked what I consider a sincere question so I will try my best to answer you...I don't know. I have never had a close friend of another race, say black or asian, it just never turned out that way...I wish I had developed a friendship in college, but it simply never happened. I will be perfectly honest and admit that had I been born and raised in the South I might have just as likely picked up the regressive racial attitudes of that region, and that thought grieves me. Though my father was not perfect, he was a good man that never uttered a negative word about another racial or ethnic group (though I did see him angry on an infrequent basis, and swear in the course of that anger), and that settled on me as a quiet influence.

While there are superficial similarities between interracial marriage and same-sex marriage, scratch the surface and those similarities vanish. The decision by the US Supreme Court in the Loving case affirmed the most essential aspect of marriage, i.e. that it is the union of ONE man and ONE woman. Any judicial finding supportive of same-sex marriage would deny that essential element and in the process radically redefine the social institution that for a very long time and at present is marriage.

Every State where this issue has been put to a vote, even "Blue" States, has defeated it at the ballot box. That is why groups advocating this change have opted for the judicial route because they know they will lose if the question/controversy is put to a vote. And while some are bullied into silence by advocates attempting to recast this social controversy as a constitutional right (that is only now being discovered by those jurists sensitive enough to detect the "penumbras and emmations" from a "Living Constitution"), still others understand (even if only at a intuitive level) the difference between the genuine article, and a counterfeit.

Now, just to make things clear here...if voters change their mind, and push their legislators to make changes more along the lines of accomodating same-sex marriage, then as much as I don't think it is a good idea, I will be obliged to support it as a legitimate exercise in self government.

Ok, now I have answered your question...how about answering mine?

Question: given the principle of Equal Protection of the Laws, how would a father wanting to marry his adult (hence consenting) daughter do so? On what basis would American law deny such a request. Nothing all that extreme, nor entirely inconceivable.

Robert,There's a law in economics that says, basic...

2006-07-23T12:20:00.000-04:00

Robert,

There's a law in economics that says, basically, that "the bad drives out the good." Let's not let that happen here.

JimK

I personally am just too shocked by the lack of ch...

2006-07-22T18:39:00.000-04:00

I personally am just too shocked by the lack of charity today in the anon posts to respond.

rrjr

I think we shut them up. no responces

2006-07-22T12:24:00.000-04:00

I think we shut them up. no responces

“…The child figured prominently in the Goodridges'...

2006-07-22T11:49:00.000-04:00

“…The child figured prominently in the Goodridges' case. When Julie Goodridge gave birth by cesarean section, there were complications. Hillary Goodridge, at the time having no legal relationship with mother or child, said she was barred several times from seeing her daughter and partner. …”

"Even though their number one priority was their daughter," Breslauer said, "marriage makes her also their legal obligation. Their daughter is more protected because they are married."

I wonder if they will use the child as a defense to get a divorce. Exploiting child for there agenda.
Sick people, they should both louse custody

“ You are kidding me. Elected politicians should d...

2006-07-22T11:04:00.000-04:00

“ You are kidding me. Elected politicians should decide what is and what is not history? Elected politicians should decide what's taught in classrooms? You're joking, right?”

Who do you think are deciding what is taught in the classroom now? Elected politicians. How do you think someone gets on the school board? Who decided to hire Waist? This is what we call a republic and that is how a republic works. We elect the people who decide what is taught in the classroom. What country are you from.

Black people wish they were treated as well as hom...

2006-07-22T10:57:00.000-04:00

Black people wish they were treated as well as homosexuals.

David S. Fishback said... “…But if politicians see...

2006-07-22T09:19:00.000-04:00

David S. Fishback said...
“…But if politicians seek to shoe-horn it into a pre-conceived orthodoxy, even if popular with a signficant portion of the electorate, our society will not be well-served. When teaching becomes propaganda, we undermine a free, democratic society. …”

You are such a hypocrite when you are the exact same guy who had a federal judge slap down your sex-education curriculum because of trying to pass of one-sided propaganda for scientific fact. Violating the civil rights of the citizens of Montgomery County. You have no problem with violating someone else’s civil rights when it helps promote your political agenda. Though I would expect that. Typical lawyer argue any side of any issue as long as it serves the interests of their client. Am I supposed to think that you are making some kind of moral or ethical stand? Give me a break.

David S. Fishback said...

“Would you have said the same thing had the Lovings separated after the Supreme Court declared interracial marriage bans unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia?”

Read the letter posted, written by Frances Rice. The Lovings did not separate. Were you born an African American, the two have nothing to do with each other. Your statement is frivolous, no person is born gay. If you have proof that they are, please feel free to post it. Proof is a fact not a belief.

Orrin writes: "Now, Breslauer said, for Annie's sa...

2006-07-22T08:29:00.000-04:00

Orrin writes:

"Now, Breslauer said, for Annie's sake, the Goodridges want privacy.

"The Goodridges ought to understand that they made the choice to take this fight public, and use the judiciary (rather than the legislature) to radically redefine a bedrock social institution.

"They made their bed; now they must sleep in it."

Orrin,

Would you have said the same thing had the Lovings separated after the Supreme Court declared interracial marriage bans unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia?

David

"Bush talk fails to win over NAACP By Richard All...

2006-07-22T08:13:00.000-04:00

"Bush talk fails to win over NAACP

By Richard Allen Greene
BBC News, Washington

. . . Mr Bush addressed the annual conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People - the nation's leading African-American civil rights organisation.

He had turned down their invitations since becoming president, and looked like he could become the first sitting president since the 1920s to refuse to address the NAACP.

But two short days before the event his spokesman had announced that he would do so for the first time since he was a candidate for president back in 2000.

In typical fashion, he confronted the controversy head-on with a joke as he began his speech.

He praised the courtesy of NAACP leader Bruce Gordon, who had introduced him, adding: "I thought what he was going to say was, 'It's about time you showed up'."

The audience laughed, and cheered when he followed up with: "And I'm glad I did."

But Mr Bush got a more difficult ride for the rest of his 30-plus-minute speech, including a murmur of dissent when he said he came from a family that supported civil rights, and outright boos when he talked about charter schools.

He tried to link his support for religious organisations to the groups that fought for civil rights and was met with stony silence.

Courtney Patterson, a convention delegate from North Carolina, said he came to the president's speech with an open mind - and left disappointed.

"There were a lot of things in his speech that indicate he's not abreast of the real problems of the African-American community," Mr Patterson said." "

From the news item:"Lesbian Couple in Marriage Law...

2006-07-22T05:56:00.000-04:00

From the news item:
"Lesbian Couple in Marriage Lawsuit Splits"

this rather strange request,

Now, Breslauer said, for Annie's sake, the Goodridges want privacy.

The Goodridges ought to understand that they made the choice to take this fight public, and use the judiciary (rather than the legislature) to radically redefine a bedrock social institution.

They made their bed; now they must sleep in it.

And with that lets review.Email from the author | ...

2006-07-22T01:07:00.000-04:00

And with that lets review.
Email from the author | 6/3/04 | Frances Rice
By Frances Rice
We, African American citizens of the United States, declare and assert:
Whereas in the early 1600’s 20 African men and women were landed in Virginia from a Dutch ship as slaves and from that tiny seed grew the poisoned fruit of plantation slavery which shaped the course of American development,

Whereas reconciliation and healing always begin with an apology and an effort to repay those who have been wronged,

Whereas the Democratic Party has never apologized for their horrific atrocities and racist practices committed against African Americans during the past two hundred years, nor for the residual impact that those atrocities and practices and current soft bigotry of low expectations are having on us today,

Whereas the Democratic Party fought to expand slavery and, after the Civil War, established Jim Crow Laws, Black Codes and other repressive legislation that were designed to disenfranchise African Americans,

Whereas the Ku Klux Klan was the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party, and their primary goal was to intimidate and terrorize African American voters, Republicans who moved South to protect African Americans and any other whites who supported them,
Whereas, according to leading historians (both black and white), the horrific atrocities committed against African Americans during slavery and Reconstruction were financed, sponsored, and promoted by the Democratic Party and their Ku Klux Klan supporters,

Whereas from 1870 to 1930, in an effort to deny African Americans their civil rights and to keep African Americans from voting Republican, thousands of African Americans were shot, beaten, lynched, mutilated, and burned to death by Ku Klux Klan terrorists from the Democratic Party,

Whereas Democratic Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman rejected anti-lynching laws and efforts to establish a permanent Civil Rights Commission,

Whereas the Democratic party has used racist demagoguery to deceive African Americans about the history of the Republican Party that:
(a) started as the anti-slavery party in 1854,
(b) fought to free African Americans from slavery,
(c) designed Reconstruction, a ten-year period of unprecedented political power for African Americans,
(d) passed the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution granting African Americans freedom, citizenship, and the right to vote,
(e) passed the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1875 granting African Americans protection from the Black Codes and prohibiting racial discrimination in public accommodations,
(f) passed the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965 granting African Americans protection from the Jim Crow laws,
(g) established Affirmative Action programs to help African Americans proper with Republican President Richard Nixon's 1969 Philadelphia Plan that set the first goals and timetables and his 1972 Equal Employment Opportunity Act that made Affirmative Action Programs the law of our nation, and
(h) never sponsored or launched a program, passed laws, or engaged in practices that resulted in the death of millions of African Americans,

Whereas Brown vs. the Board of Education of Topeka (a 1954 decision by Chief Justice Earl Warren who was appointed by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower) was a landmark civil rights case that was designed to overturn the racist practices that were established by the Democratic Party,

Whereas after Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt received the vote of African Americans, he banned African American newspapers from the military shortly after taking office because he was convinced the newspapers were communists,

Whereas Democratic President John F. Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Law, opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and was later criticized by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. for ignoring civil rights issues.

Whereas Democratic President John F. Kennedy authorized the FBI (supervised by his brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy) to investigate Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. on suspicion of being a communist,

Whereas Democratic Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, made a 14-hour filibuster speech in the Senate in June 1964 in an unsuccessful effort to block passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and was heralded in April 2004 by Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd as a senator who would have been a great leader during the Civil War,

Whereas when the 1964 Civil Rights Act came up for vote, Senator Al Gore, Sr. and the rest of the Southern Democrats voted against the bill,

Whereas in the House of Representatives only 61 percent of the Democrats voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act as compared to 80 percent of Republicans, and in the Senate only 69 percent of the Democrats voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, compared to 82 percent of the Republicans,

Whereas Democratic President Bill Clinton sent troops to Europe to protect the citizens of Bosnia and Kosovo while allowing an estimated 800,000 black Rwandans to be massacred in Africa, vetoed the welfare reform law twice before signing it, and refused to comply with a court order to have shipping companies develop an Affirmative Action Plan,

Whereas Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore created harmful racial division when he falsely claimed that the 2000 presidential election was “stolen” from him and that African Americans in Florida were disenfranchised, even though a second recount of Florida votes by the “Miami Herald” and a consortium of major news organizations confirmed that he lost the election, and a ruling by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission declared that African Americans were not denied the right to vote,

Whereas the Democratic Party's soft bigotry of low expectations and social promotions have consigned African Americans to economic bondage and created a culture of dependency on government social programs,

Whereas the Democratic Party's use of deception and fear to block welfare reform, the faith-based initiative and school choice that would help African Americans prosper is consistent with the Democratic Party's heritage of racism that included sanctioning of slavery and kukluxery, a perversion of moral sentiment among leaders of the Democratic Party whose racist legacy bode ill until this generation of African Americans,

Now, therefore, for the above and other documented atrocities and accumulated wrongs inflicted upon African Americans, we demand a formal written apology and other appropriate remuneration from the leadership of the Democratic party.

America Revised by Frances Fitzgerald (1980) is a ...

2006-07-21T18:15:00.000-04:00

America Revised by Frances Fitzgerald (1980) is a very interesting discussion of how the teaching of American hisory developed over the generations.

The goal of any American history class must be to present the pertinent facts of our national story in a way that is coherent and encourages students to assess our story -- both the good and the bad -- in a way that will enable them to become effective members of a democratic society. Of course, it is impossible to present every single fact. Decisions of professional educators as to what facts to include (or what facts to stress) will, from time to time, be incongruent with the choices some parents might make.

The goal should be to provide students with accurate information so that they may draw their own conclusions.

I believe that the story of America is so unique and so important for the development of the human race that if we give them the basic, unvarnished information, most will become informed patriots. But the word "informed" is as important as the word "patriots." If love of country is based on a mythical view of America, then when the myth conflicts with reality, ill-informed patriotism either collapses or becomes mindless jingoism.

There was a time when American history was taught as if the Native Americans sort of disappeared after the first Thanksgiving, as if human slavery was not necessarily an inherent evil, as if the impact of slavery vanished with the end of the Civil War, as if our economic expansion in the Industrial Revolution had no human costs, and as if our forays into world affairs were always pure and disinterested (as if everything we did overseas was just like fighting World War II).

I believe that much of the mindless rejection of America by many American youths in the late 1960s was a result of the myths crashing into realities.

The idea that people should govern themselves rather than being ruled by those who were unaccountable really began in America. And it was refined and fostered in America -- even in the face of terrible truths that also were part of our national formation. I would hope that in learning the story of America, young people will feel committed to keeping what is good and improving what needs to be improved.

At bottom, the teaching of American history is a civic necessity. But if politicians seek to shoe-horn it into a pre-conceived orthodoxy, even if popular with a signficant portion of the electorate, our society will not be well-served. When teaching becomes propaganda, we undermine a free, democratic society. So the question, H.A., is not whether politicians have the legal right to impose such orthodoxy, but whether it is wise to do so.

H.A. said:Here's a big surprise:Lesbian Couple in ...

2006-07-21T15:06:00.000-04:00

H.A. said:
Here's a big surprise:

Lesbian Couple in Marriage Lawsuit Splits

____________

Hmmmm and heterosexual couples don't split?

Anne

Confirm or deny, please.H.A.

2006-07-21T14:27:00.000-04:00

Confirm or deny, please.

H.A.

"TTF, BTW, opposes teaching kids about the history...

2006-07-21T14:04:00.000-04:00

"TTF, BTW, opposes teaching kids about the history of society's attitudes about homosexuality."

Quote or link, please.

PB