History Is Texas Reshaping American Education with Conservative Textbooks?

[BobG]

You are forgetting that America is officially "One Nation Under God". Has been since 1954. All over my town, you see little placards in people's front yards reminding you of this important national fact. So, Jefferson and the secularists can suck it.

I think you might be overestimating the impact of the legislation that changed the pledge. Using the same logic, I assume that America became the official continent of the United States in 1924? And the United States finally became the official country of our flag in 1923? You're talking about the wording designed to be recited by school children.

Here's the official Bellamy Salute to be used during recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Pledge_salue.jpg

It was changed to placing the hand over the heart during World War II to make it clearly different from Germany's salute.

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

 

[BobG]

Interestingly, the Pledge of Allegiance is one of the instances where the US Supreme Court violated the idea of stare decisis, reversing it's ruling only 3 years later.

In 1940 the Supreme Court, in Minersville School District v. Gobitis, ruled that students in public schools could be compelled to swear the Pledge, even Jehovah's Witnesses like the defendants in that case who considered the flag salute to be idolatry. A rash of mob violence and intimidation against Jehovah's Witnesses followed the ruling. In 1943 the Supreme Court reversed its decision, ruling in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette that "compulsory unification of opinion" violated the First Amendment.

They reversed this in the middle of a war, no less.

 

[DanP]

Absurd and hateful statements, like those of turbo, hurt the cause instead of help it. Claims like those are the biggest reason that many cases of discrimination get lost in the noise.

So the cause for discrimination is the fact some humans say discrimination do exist, and that many humans choose to turn a blind eye ? It doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Then you go on claiming that my statements on the fact that prejudice exists are absurd & hateful, and in the same paragraph you claim that discrimination gets ignored ?

Make up your mind.

 

[Al68]

Any evidence of such a hateful claim? Especially considering that you just claimed to have no problem with any GOP voucher plan, apparently without realizing it.

Can you even reference a single school that doesn't accept students of all races or faiths?

Google on Segregation Academies. When I worked in Alabama in the 90's the Seg Academies had become affiliated with churches, which have freedom of association rights. Keep the church all-white (legal) and restrict academy acceptance to church members only (also legal) and you have a legal, segregated school. I'm not making this up, as I'm pretty sure you know. We've gone 'way OT on this (sorry, Evo).

We're never going to get the religious right to quit using our educational system to leverage their political and religious biases. The Texas history-book example is just one example, and the only reason that it hit the news is that it will impact a LOT of students.

I'll take this as a no.

I notice you seem to also be repeating the absurd claim about churches in the south not allowing non-whites.

Forum rules can be found here: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=113181 .

 

[Al68]

Absurd and hateful statements, like those of turbo, hurt the cause instead of help it. Claims like those are the biggest reason that many cases of discrimination get lost in the noise.

So the cause for discrimination is the fact some humans say discrimination do exist, and that many humans choose to turn a blind eye ?

No, that's not even remotely close to what I said.

Then you go on claiming that my statements on the fact that prejudice exists are absurd & hateful

You must have misread my post. I never called your statements absurd or hateful. I apologize if that wasn't clear.

 

[turbo]

http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/24418662/THE-RISE-AND-FALL-OF-SCHOOL-VOUCHERS-A-STORY-OF-RELIGION-RACE-AND-POLITICS

Scroll down to 561. It's a UCLA Law Review Article on school vouchers. Apparently the author of this article is a hateful person, just like me, because he dares to acknowledge that racism and segregation still exist.

Take special note of the Ralph Reed quotes. If you don't trust my veracity, perhaps you'll trust his.

 

[DanP]

No, that's not even remotely close to what I said.You must have misread my post. I never called your statements absurd or hateful.

Ok, I agree I misread if your intention was not to call my statements absurd.

I have deep reasons to consider the society prejudiced.

In group favoritism, social identity theory, the correlations between self-esteem increase and prejudice, modern racism studies, legal studies regarding impartiality of trials, all speak towards existence of prejudice in today's society. And it's here to stay. Unfortunately, the progress is slow.

The best way to get over prejudice seems to be a increased social contact among the members of different groups.

 

[calculusrocks]

Reading turbo's link to the UCLA study.

While voucher defenders have vastly overstated the racial-justice claim, there is some prospect that vouchers might improve educational outcomes for low-income African American children. I argue that vouchers should be permitted at least until they can be more thoroughly evaluated to determine their impact on a group so in need of better educational opportunities.

Thoughts?

ADD: This quote is taken right before the introduction.

 

[Al68]

http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/24418662/THE-RISE-AND-FALL-OF-SCHOOL-VOUCHERS-A-STORY-OF-RELIGION-RACE-AND-POLITICS

Scroll down to 561. It's a UCLA Law Review Article on school vouchers. Apparently the author of this article is a hateful person, just like me, because he dares to acknowledge that racism and segregation still exist.

Take special note of the Ralph Reed quotes. If you don't trust my veracity, perhaps you'll trust his.

Well, I didn't realize you were using the word "neocon" to refer to Democrats from decades ago. My bad.

Seriously, you know full well I never referred to acknowledging the existence of racism as hateful.

And you know full well that evidence that racists existed, or exist now, is a far cry from the outrageous, much more general sweeping claims you were making.

Are you backpedaling now to only claim that you agree with me that racism exists?

 

[Dembadon]

California is too busy trying not to fall into the ocean to care about textbooks.

I believe Texas has more clout than California when it comes to decision making.

In Texas there are most likely more people who are reading the textbook than compared to California.

Many of the finest universities/institutions in the nation (Stanford, Cal Tech, Berkeley, UCLA etc.) are located in California. I'd say they're reading quite a bit!

 

[techmologist]

I notice you seem to also be repeating the absurd claim about churches in the south not allowing non-whites.

Seriously. Most of them stopped that years ago. Can't we let bygones be bygones?

 

[calculusrocks]

Many of the finest universities/institutions in the nation (Stanford, Cal Tech, Berkeley, UCLA etc.) are located in California. I'd say they're reading quite a bit!

I believe MotoH is referring to the sad state of California's economy, which is one of the largest in the world.

 

[mheslep]

This is somehow ironic. You would say that influential writers for intellectual origins of a nation would be members of the nation itself.

It's kinda ironic to go back in time to 13th century and claim a catholic philosopher is a influential factor for the birth of American nation. Ditto for Calvin. (Note, both deeply religious figures)

Yes, there was once a great Republic in the Mediterranean but 17 centuries later somebody in America **had** to support the Republican ideals, fight to gain political support for it, and have the vision of the Republic fighting against the British Empire ideals. He (and others) fought for it , and in their wake the great American nation was formed.

That's all true. As it happens, I'm in the camp of American exceptionalism especially when it comes to the country's founding. But the above pertains more to the courage of convictions (which also deserves room in the textbook), and not the intellectual domain per se.

My personal opinion is that they want Jefferson minimized because he introduced something which is one of the pillars of a democracy, the separation of church from state.

Even if that is now the interpretation of US law, crediting him with any thing like 'separation' terms in the law as written is a mistake. Jefferson's rule as it was written (either time) does not use any separation wording. Instead it's clear that he wanted to prohibit another 'Church of England' popping up in America, or the clergy becoming a protected class of the state. In his Virginia Bill of Rights, the wording is "all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion", and in the US 1st amendment this became the establishment clause "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Period. There is no separation wording hiding somewhere in the fine print.

They want the church meddling with the sate, they move inch with inch towards a religious corruption of the public school systems.

We can speculate about many things, but we have no evidence of this in the thread so far.

 

[Al68]

Ok, I agree I misread if your intention was not to call my statements absurd.

I have deep reasons to consider the society prejudiced.

In group favoritism, social identity theory, the correlations between self-esteem increase and prejudice, modern racism studies, legal studies regarding impartiality of trials, all speak towards existence of prejudice in today's society.

I don't think anyone disagrees with that.

The best way to get over prejudice seems to be a increased social contact among the members of different groups.

I think history shows that to be true.

But that's exactly why it only makes things worse for people to be accused wholesale of being part of a racist conspiracy because they favor school vouchers.

It's hard on friendships when politicians convince people for no reason that their friends hate them. I, and many others, know this firsthand.

 

[techmologist]

I think you might be overestimating the impact of the legislation that changed the pledge. Using the same logic, I assume that America became the official continent of the United States in 1924? And the United States finally became the official country of our flag in 1923? You're talking about the wording designed to be recited by school children.

Yes, you are right to point out that because something has only lately come into legislation, it doesn't mean that it doesn't have a much more solid de facto history. I just think it's funny that that seems to be the only part of the Pledge that these folks care about. Some of these same people probably aren't so keen on the idea that the nation is "Indivisible."

Here's the official Bellamy Salute to be used during recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Pledge_salue.jpg

It was changed to placing the hand over the heart during World War II to make it clearly different from Germany's salute.

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

I was looking at that wikipedia article just a couple weeks ago and had to clean off my monitor after I saw the Bellamy salute. Hahahahaha.

 

[mheslep]

You are forgetting that America is officially "One Nation Under God". Has been since 1954. All over my town, you see little placards in people's front yards reminding you of this important national fact. So, Jefferson and the secularists can suck it.

Jefferson would not have objected to any of the facts about your town, suggesting we do in deed need better textbooks.

 

[turbo]

Reading turbo's link to the UCLA study.
Thoughts?

ADD: This quote is taken right before the introduction.

W repeatedly trotted out the poor inner-city school children as an example of who would be helped. The problem is that most of the schools are over-crowded and under-staffed, and there is no excess capacity to allow the movement of students from one school to another. No existing infrastructure to allow for the movement, and no proposal to fund and build such infrastructure. Helping "inner city" kids with vouchers was a very cynical sham. Give the parents of inner city kids vouchers, and they would have to direct them to the same failing schools or come up with a way to pay for commutes to other schools, IF the other schools had the capacity to accept them.

 

[calculusrocks]

W repeatedly trotted out the poor inner-city school children as an example of who would be helped. The problem is that most of the schools are over-crowded and under-staffed, and there is no excess capacity to allow the movement of students from one school to another. No existing infrastructure to allow for the movement, and no proposal to fund and build such infrastructure. Helping "inner city" kids with vouchers was a very cynical sham. Give the parents of inner city kids vouchers, and they would have to direct them to the same failing schools or come up with a way to pay for commutes to other schools, IF the other schools had the capacity to accept them.

The author of the UCLA study that you linked to makes the "cynical" claim that vouchers would help inner city African Americans.

While voucher defenders have vastly overstated the racial-justice claim, there is some prospect that vouchers might improve educational outcomes for low-income African American children. I argue that vouchers should be permitted at least until they can be more thoroughly evaluated to determine their impact on a group so in need of better educational opportunities.

ADD: This quote is directly above the introduction.

 

[DanP]

That's all true. As it happens, I'm in the camp of American exceptionalism especially when it comes to the country's founding. But the above pertains more to the courage of convictions (which also deserves room in the textbook), and not the intellectual domain per se.

I do agree with this point of view, however, I can't help myself to feel this situation similar like crediting relativity to Newton. Of course is a forced comparison, but it describes my feelings well.

There is no doubt that an educated thinker cannot claim that he rediscovered the whole civilization and endless centuries of social progress. But at the same time we should not minimize some of the greatest of us because they where smart enough to educate themselves, and critically look at history and social systems.

 

[turbo]

The author of the UCLA study that you linked to makes the "cynical" claim that vouchers would help inner city African Americans.
ADD: This quote is directly above the introduction.

Did he say "inner-city" anywhere there? It would be possible to improve outcomes for African American students in rural or small-town environments if the conditions were right, but inner-city schools that W cited so often have special problems that cannot be addressed by pulling public funding and substituting parent-directed vouchers. That much should be evident.

The immediate beneficiaries would be parents who already send their kids to non-public (often religious) schools. You don't have to be an economist so appreciate that.

 

[Al68]

W repeatedly trotted out the poor inner-city school children as an example of who would be helped. The problem is that most of the schools are over-crowded and under-staffed, and there is no excess capacity to allow the movement of students from one school to another. No existing infrastructure to allow for the movement, and no proposal to fund and build such infrastructure.

Are you under the impression that the vouchers were for schools planned, built, or created by government? Seriously?

 

[calculusrocks]

Did he say "inner-city" anywhere there? It would be possible to improve outcomes for African American students in rural or small-town environments if the conditions were right, but inner-city schools that W cited so often have special problems than cannot be addressed by pulling public funding and substituting parent-directed vouchers. That much should be evident.

Forgive me, it said "low-income", not "inner city". I would imagine that there are many people with low incomes reside in the inner city. So, it appears to me that the author of the study undermines your characterization of school vouchers as a "cynical sham". Now you are apparently backpedaling and saying the way President Bush proposed vouchers was a "cynical sham", when nobody was talking about President Bush's proposal to begin with.

If we were to go the voucher route, I'd think that you could have vouchers for school transportation for people who couldn't afford it.

 

[BobG]

Even if that is now the interpretation of US law, crediting him with any thing like 'separation' terms in the law as written is a mistake. Jefferson's rule as it was written (either time) does not use any separation wording. Instead it's clear that he wanted to prohibit another 'Church of England' popping up in America, or the clergy becoming a protected class of the state. In his Virginia Bill of Rights, the wording is "all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion", and in the US 1st amendment this became the establishment clause "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Period. There is no separation wording hiding somewhere in the fine print.

We've had this same discussion in other threads about Jefferson.

1) Jefferson would prefer ANY government, whether city, county, state, or federal, be completely separate from religion.

2) Jefferson's personal views probably weren't overly important in the wording of the First Amendment since James Madison wrote it, based on George Mason's Virginia Bill or Rights (even if we dilute history books with people other than Jefferson, it won't matter, since we'll just give Jefferson credit, anyway). Not actually being the person to write it isn't the same as saying he had no influence on it. In fact, both Madison and Jefferson provided some inputs to the Virginia Bill of Rights, even if George Mason had the responsibility for actually writing it.

3) Madison's personal views probably weren't nearly as important as the fact that different states had different state religions and some states had laws dictating strict separation of church and state. We were a union of individual states, not a single country; and each state handled this issue differently. The First Amendment prohibited establishment of a national religion because not doing so would automatically bust the union since it would have been impossible for the states to agree on a national religion. Madison was very pragmatic and tried to only accept recommendations that most of the states proposed since he did not want a proposed bill of rights to turn into a new constitutional convention so soon after getting the Constitution ratified.

4) The First Amendment did not ban state religions. Each state was free to handle the issue on their own until the US Supreme Court decided the 14th Amendment made the establishment clause applicable to the states, as well. This application of the 14th Amendment to the 1st Amendment essentially becomes separation of church and state (with state meaning government, in general).

 

[CRGreathouse]

This application of the 14th Amendment to the 1st Amendment essentially becomes separation of church and state (with state meaning government, in general).

I've never heard this interpretation before. Can you explain?

 

[Char. Limit]

Taken verbatim from William Safire's "Safire's Political Dictionary", published 2008:

"Another use of the wall as a symbol - in this case, a 'good' one - was by Thomas Jefferson in a time when the Founders frequently identified freedom and emocracy with the will of the Creator. In an 1802 letter to Connecticut's Danbury Baptist Association, Jefferson wrote approvingly about 'a wall of separation between Church & State.'"

So, he did say it.

 

[CRGreathouse]

So, he did say it.

Did anyone doubt that?

 

[BobG]

4) The First Amendment did not ban state religions. Each state was free to handle the issue on their own until the US Supreme Court decided the 14th Amendment made the establishment clause applicable to the states, as well. This application of the 14th Amendment to the 1st Amendment essentially becomes separation of church and state (with state meaning government, in general).

I've never heard this interpretation before. Can you explain?

EVERSON v BOARD OF EDUCATION OF EWING TP in 1947.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=330&invol=1

The only contention here is that the State statute and the resolution, in so far as they authorized reimbursement to parents of children attending parochial schools, violate the Federal Constitution in these two respects, which to some extent, overlap. First. They authorize the State to take by taxation the private property of some and bestow it upon others, to be used for their own private purposes. This, it is alleged violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Second. The statute and the resolution forced inhabitants to pay taxes to help support and maintain schools which are dedicated to, and which regularly teach, the Catholic Faith. This is alleged to be a use of State power to support church schools contrary to the prohibition of the First Amendment which the Fourteenth Amendment made applicable to the states.

This Court has previously recognized that the provisions of the First Amendment, in the drafting and adoption of which Madison and Jefferson played such leading roles, had the same objective and were intended to provide the same protection against governmental intrusion on religious liberty as the Virginia statute. ... Prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the First Amendment did not apply as a restraint against the states. Most of them did soon provide similar constitutional protections for religious liberty. But some states persisted for about half a century in imposing restraints upon the free exercise of religion and in discriminating against particular religious groups.

The court relied on the precedent set in MURDOCK v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA in saying the 14th made the 1st applicable to the states (except Murdock v. Pennsylvania was focused on freedom of religion vs. establishment or support of a religion).

By the way, the Supreme Court upheld New Jersey's right to provide public transportation to Catholic schools in that case. While confirming the logic of the argument was valid, the assistance provided didn't meet the standard of establishing or supporting a state religion.

New Jersey cannot consistently with the 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment contribute tax-raised funds to the support of an institution which teaches the tenets and faith of any church. On the other hand, other language of the amendment commands that New Jersey cannot hamper its citizens in the free exercise of their own religion. Consequently, it cannot exclude individual Catholics, Lutherans, Mohammedans, Baptists, Jews, Methodists, Non-believers, Presbyterians, or the members of any other faith, because of their faith, or lack of it, from receiving the benefits of public welfare legislation.

That's not the same as saying New Jersey had to provide public transportation to parochial or private schools. They could have made the bus transportation part of the public school service. By separating the bus service from the schools, the transportation was a public service for all as opposed to a service provided by the schools.

I guess that leaves the question open about whether a state could quit providing public schools completely and just send people vouchers to choose their own private schools. Or to decide to quit providing public shools completely and not bothering to provide any educational assistance to the public.

 

[mheslep]

We've had this same discussion in other threads about Jefferson.

1) Jefferson would prefer ANY government, whether city, county, state, or federal, be completely separate from religion.

I'll grant that from the Danbury Baptists letter we might infer his personal preferences, but none of his public declarations or their derivatives contain ANY notion of complete separation. Also, the public commons was full of religious artifacts in his day, but there are no tales of Jefferson calling for an 18th century ACLU equivalent to tear them all down, ban prayer, etc.

2) Jefferson's personal views probably weren't overly important in the wording of the First Amendment since James Madison wrote it, based on George Mason's Virginia Bill or Rights (even if we dilute history books with people other than Jefferson, it won't matter, since we'll just give Jefferson credit, anyway). Not actually being the person to write it isn't the same as saying he had no influence on it. In fact, both Madison and Jefferson provided some inputs to the Virginia Bill of Rights, even if George Mason had the responsibility for actually writing it.

Well recall that the US Bill of Rights was heavily influenced by the VBR, please excuse the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights" for now:

The Bill was influenced by George Mason's 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights, the 1689 English Bill of Rights, works of the Age of Enlightenment pertaining to natural rights, and earlier English political documents such as Magna Carta (1215).

Regarding the content of the VBR, I maybe wrong. It turns out that I was thinking of Jefferson's 'Stature for Religious Freedom', but that was 1779 when he was Governor and after Mason's 1776 VBR. Still, I thought the 'free exercise' wording in the VBR came to Mason from Jefferson, which means the Madison used it in constructing the US 1st. But can't find a reference so maybe I am wrong.

3) Madison's personal views probably weren't nearly as important as the fact that different states had different state religions and some states had laws dictating strict separation of church and state. We were a union of individual states, not a single country; and each state handled this issue differently. The First Amendment prohibited establishment of a national religion because not doing so would automatically bust the union since it would have been impossible for the states to agree on a national religion. Madison was very pragmatic and tried to only accept recommendations that most of the states proposed since he did not want a proposed bill of rights to turn into a new constitutional convention so soon after getting the Constitution ratified.

I believe Madison's position before hand was that the Constitution didn't need a 1st amend. - that the Articles as written didn't grant the power to create a national religion.
His view didn't carry the day.

4) The First Amendment did not ban state religions. Each state was free to handle the issue on their own until the US Supreme Court decided the 14th Amendment made the establishment clause applicable to the states, as well. This application of the 14th Amendment to the 1st Amendment essentially becomes separation of church and state (with state meaning government, in general).

Edit: Agreed for all the 14th A. implications, except that you seem to be using 'establishment clause' and 'separation of church and state' interchangeably here, as if they amount to the same thing. I assert they are not.

 

[BobG]

Regarding the content of the VBR, I maybe wrong. It turns out that I was thinking of Jefferson's 'Stature for Religious Freedom', but that was 1779 when he was Governor and after Mason's 1776 VBR. Still, I thought the 'free exercise' wording in the VBR came to Mason from Jefferson, which means the Madison used it in constructing the US 1st. But can't find a reference so maybe I am wrong.

Or maybe not. Like I mentioned, both Madison and Jefferson were involved in the VBR, even if George Mason was the one that actually wrote it.

I believe Madison's position before hand was that the Constitution didn't need a 1st amend. - that the Articles as written didn't grant the power to create a national religion.
His view didn't carry the day.

Madison didn't think the Constitution needed a Bill of Rights at all. Just as you mentioned how Jefferson's public declarations, etc didn't support the idea that he favored complete separation, there are some people who will accept the fact that performance of a public job requires adhering to the public's point of view vs your own personal views. You make your arguments, then you do what the majority wants.

Edit: Agreed for all the 14th A. implications, except that you seem to be using 'establishment clause' and 'separation of church and state' interchangeably here, as if they amount to the same thing. I assert they are not.

The establishment clause and freedom of religion create a separation for functional purposes. However, just as the Everson case illustrated, not every mere contact with religion constitutes establishing a state religion. In other words, separation of church and state isn't the same as quarantining religion.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Thanks for the reference, BobG. But the opinion seems to specifically deny the relevance of the 14th Amendment -- that the only objections that could be raised would be on 1st Amendment grounds:

It is much too late to argue that legislation intended to facilitate the opportunity of children to get a secular education serves no public purpose. Cochran v. Louisiana State Board of Education, 281 U.S. 370 , 50 S. Ct. 335; Holmes, J., in Interstate Consolidated Street Ry. Co. v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 207 U.S. 79, 87 , 28 S.Ct. 26, 27, 12 Ann.Cas. 555. See opinion of Cooley, J., in Stuart v. School District No. 1 of Village of Kalamazoo, 1878, 30 Mich. 69. The same thing is no less true of legislation to reimburse needy parents, or all parents, for payment of the fares of their children so that they can ride in public busses to and from schools rather than run the risk of traffic and other hazards incident to walking or 'hitchhiking.' See Barbier v. Connolly, supra, 113 U.S. at page 31, 5 S.Ct. at page 359. See also cases collected 63 A.L.R. 413; 118 A.L.R. 806. Nor does it follow that a law has a private rather than a public purpose because it provides that tax-raised funds will be paid to reimburse i dividuals on account of money spent by them in a way which furthers a public program. See Carmichael v. Southern Coal & Coke Co., 301 U.S. 495, 518 , 57 S.Ct. 868, 876, 109 A.L.R. 1327. Subsidies and loans to individuals such as farmers and home owners, and to privately owned transportation systems, as well as many other kinds of businesses, have been commonplace practices in our state and national history.

Insofar as the second phase of the due process argument may differ from the first, it is by suggesting that taxation for transportation of children to church schools constitutes support of a religion by the State. But if the law is invalid for this reason, it is because it violates the First Amendment's prohibition against the establishment of religion [330 U.S. 1, 8] by law. This is the exact question raised by appellant's second contention, to consideration of which we now turn.

Am I misreading this?