Kraven what is your opinion on Tancredo's position? This is the important point, not who said what to whom.
I applaud efforts to be topical but think that your timing is a bit self-serving (i.e. post an insult, then when called on it make an "on topic" call).
Regardless, what do you thinK? You have a rather uniqe perspective, since you were essentially "home schooled by the ultra religious?
(BTW, as I stated above, I am not willing to continue the arguement.)
hobitbob wrote:Scrat, I find your poor reading comprehension skills inexplicable. To be fair, I have no desire to engange in dialogue with you (civil or otherwise). Long ago you stated you would never respond to any of my posts, and I wish you would live up to your word. You have contributed nothing to this debate. I doubt you will ever contribute anything of substance to any debate here.
ROFLMAO! If you aren't up to intelligent discussion, just say so!
What you laughably term "poor reading comprehension skills" the rest of us call
attendance to the facts.
But no matter; and if that was
you I swore off, I'd forgotten. I honestly thought it was someone else. (And here I've been ignoring the wrong posts for weeks!)
Thanks for the reminder. If I'd remembered that you were
persona non grata, I assure you I would
non have
grata'd you. Obviously that instinct was a good one, and one I won't forget to hold myself to from this point forward.
Craven de Kere wrote:Perhaps, but in the quoted segment that HB is calling a fallacy this is not an element.
I haven't read this discussion and am not trying to weigh in on anyone's side. I'm just wondering what HB is calling a fallacy. He usues the word a lot and I rarely see it as anything but rhetorical in effect. Perhaps he has a fallacy in mind and I'm asking if that is so.
The post of mine which you quote was a response to Scrat, and had no reference to what you had posted about what is, or is not, a fallacy.
I don't think national pride is the objective of education. Nor do I think the objective should be the opposite.
I also do not think American schools are in any way "anti-American" on average.
I find American education (at least the taste of what I had) to be quite oriented towards patriotism.
So I have no idea what he's complaining about.
Setanta wrote:
The post of mine which you quote was a response to Scrat, and had no reference to what you had posted about what is, or is not, a fallacy.
Ahh, gotcha. I'd asked a "why" and you'd led with a "because" which led to my confusion.
No problem . . . i would have responded much as HB eventually did, that the author of the piece posits a fallacious dichotomy in education--however, i tend to take a rather specialist view of history, although strictly speaking, i'm a generalist (with a concentration on "western culture" no less!). Which is to say, i'm less concerned with survey texts of history than with primary sources, reliable secondary sources (those which rely upon and quote primary sources) and reliable biography (biography which relies upon and quotes primary sources). I've been embarrassed several times by JoeFromTheWindyCity when i've advised someone posting a question here to look for several primary sources and biographies of the personalities involved, and then Joe comes along with one or two titles which condense the issues. My fascination with history tends to make me rather gnomish in my studies.
Setanta wrote: .. JoeFromTheWindyCity ... comes along with one or two titles which condense the issues. My fascination with history tends to make me rather gnomish in my studies.
Why do I think NOW about the
HISTORY OF MEAT'S EXTRACT?
In a way, I see this whole thing as another example of the cultural shift the far right is attempting to produce.
Consider the following:
Confrontation over ABR
Quote:
Tempers boil at hearing on academic bill of rights
Heated exchange cited as proof law is needed
By Dave Curtin
Denver Post Higher Education Writer
A nose-to-nose confrontation between a student and a professor during heated testimony in a wild legislative committee hearing Wednesday on the controversial Students Bill of Rights is the very reason a law is needed to protect students from abuse and proselytizing by their professors, Republican lawmakers said.
The bill, by Rep. Shawn Mitchell R-Broomfield, advanced to the full House after a 6-5 party-line vote in the House Education Committee.
The bill is aimed at protecting conservative students at state colleges from what they claim is harassment and discrimination by left-leaning professors.
It also prohibits faculty from persistently introducing controversial topics unrelated to course content and formalizes a grievance procedure for students - a process college administrators say already exists.
The exchange between University of Colorado student Ian VanBuskirk and Metro State philosophy professor Tim Gould came after 3 1/2 hours of testimony.
"The very reason why this bill is necessary is what we just witnessed," said Rep. Keith King, R-Colorado Springs. "A professor intimidated a student for his comments in a forceful, harassing manner - exactly the reason for this bill to move forward."
"I am representing students who are ostracized and ridiculed daily by their liberal professors," VanBuskirk, the last of two dozen people to testify, said.
"I also represent students who have been told, 'This is my classroom. I've got my Ph.D., therefore I decide what views are appropriate. I do not want your right-wing views in my class.' Clearly we have seen that the grievance process does not work. Why not send a chilling effect to these teachers so other students aren't told this?"
As he left the podium, Gould, who had just testified himself, got face-to-face with the student and said, "I got my Ph.D at Harvard. I'll see your (expletive) in court. Then we'll see a chilling effect," according to VanBuskirk. VanBuskirk was immediately called back before the committee to recount the exchange. Gould was not allowed to explain.
Gould later told The Denver Post that, in the heat of the moment, he doesn't know whether he used foul language. "He said he wanted to send a chilling message, and I reacted to that phrase, because that sounds pretty threatening," Gould said. "Could I have handled it better? Yes. But we spoke afterwards and I think I understand his position better and he seems willing to entertain the danger of legislating academic standards. I think we agree on more than we realized."
VanBuskirk agreed that the two had a civil discussion later.
King also pulled Metro State student Danielle Robinson back to the microphone after testimony was officially closed. She said Gould had berated her in the corridor for not knowing that a grievance procedure exists at Metro.
"I wasn't berating her," Gould told The Post. "I was sympathizing with her. The behavior she was subjected to is outrageous. I told her if she was treated badly, she should file a grievance."
Robinson, a former ROTC student wearing her military uniform to class, said she felt uncomfortable in her introductory philosophy class when the teacher called the military "baby killers" and preached that "innocent people should not die." When queried by legislators, she admitted she didn't file a grievance because she wasn't aware there was a procedure.
Robinson's testimony was typical of 10 students who spoke in support the bill - nearly all members of the campus Republican groups. Thirteen spoke against it.
CU president Betsy Hoffman said CU opposes the bill and is concerned the distrustful "tone" of the bill, in combination with pervasive cuts to state higher education funding, will hurt recruitment and retention of top-flight faculty.
She asked lawmakers to let the universities deal with the problem internally through existing grievance procedures rather than attempt to legislate classroom discussion.
"It's becoming increasingly hard not to say to faculty the legislature does not support you and it doesn't support higher education," Hoffman said.
But Rep. Lynn Hefley, R-Colorado Springs, said liberal indoctrination on state campuses is a long-standing problem and schools have done nothing to solve it on their own. She suggested that students don't file complaints using established procedures because they are afraid to, and she balked at the argument that it would hurt faculty recruitment.
"We need to send a message that liberal professors who would come here to indoctrinate students aren't welcome here," Hefley said.
Democrat Angie Paccione of Fort Collins, a Colorado State University faculty member, argued that the bill is reacting to isolated incidents and does more harm than good.
"You may have a few bad apples in the ranks of the professorate. You don't indict all white people for the actions of the KKK," she said.
"A few bad apples is exactly why we pass laws," Mitchell said. "We pass laws on robbery, sexual assault and discrimination because of a few bad apples."
This is a wonderful example of how the far right is attempting to influence what is taught and how it is taught. Now, has the far left not attempted the same in the past? of course.
The situation in Colorado is especially interesting,and frightening, since the state is developing a reputation as a haven for conservatism. Due to budget problems, funding for state universities has been almost completely eliminated. The University of Northern Colorado, one of the "big three" schools in the state, yesterday announced the elimination of the college of Arts and Sciences and the re-distribution of those departments throughout other colleges. there is real fear here that higher education in Colorado will become a thing of the past. We already have a highschool completion, and college enrollment record for in-state students that rivals some of the cousin marrying states in the south.
I would opine that Meat extract is to be considered on a par with Spam, and only to be eaten when very drunk (as with White Castle sliders) or when extremely hungry.
Craven de Kere wrote:I don't think national pride is the objective of education. Nor do I think the objective should be the opposite.
I also do not think American schools are in any way "anti-American" on average.
I find American education (at least the taste of what I had) to be quite oriented towards patriotism.
So I have no idea what he's complaining about.
I would agree. I first encountered the American educational system in grade six, and (compared to the British model, with which I was familiar) was stunned by the emphasis on patriotism and nationalism (although I hadn't the vocabulary to describe it as such at the time).
The "patriotism" aspect was really bad in the 1950's, what with Tailgunner Joe and his ilk. Our classroom "libraries" were full of red-scare books, and really disgusting patriotic screeds. My grandfather had been reading history to me, and helping me to read history, since before the time when i entered school, and i used to wonder all the time why we were being taught things i considered patently false. At one point, when i was in the first grade, the haunting atmosphere of fear was so pervasive, that when i noticed my grandmother had purchased a magazine called "Redbook," i feared she would be discovered and hauled away to jail. I do suspect, however, that this has always been an aspect of American education--witness the moral homilies embodied in the McGuffey's Eclectic Readers.
The following is an interesting article from a Connecticut paper, the author is a retired school superintendent.
What do school textbooks and tests teach?
By: Armand Fusco, Ed. D. , Columnist
What teachers teach and believe is just one dimension of a serious issue concerning what is taught in America's classrooms. In twenty-one states, school approved textbooks are adopted at the state level. Although Connecticut is not among such states, this practice impacts every state because state approved texts are then used in all other states.
So what's the serious issue?
Keep in mind that school textbook purchases represent big bucks - almost $5 billion - and when a lot of money is involved strange and interesting things happen. For example, large textbook publishers use lobbyists to help influence the selection of their textbooks and, needless to say, there are reports of "hanky-panky" taking place to influence state decision-makers. Although this is a problem, it's not the critical issue.
What is serious is that there are other "lobbyists" who even influence the actual content of textbooks, as well as, the selection of textbooks that meet their personal agendas. In addition, state decision-makers also are in a position to promote their own personal biases. In other words, there are some textbooks used in classrooms everyday that are not designed to teach specific skills and provide balanced and accurate information, but instead are intended to "indoctrinate" and "brainwash" students.
Like it or not, this means that "censorship" takes place to exclude historical and socially important facts and/or minimize events in preference to other equally, if not, more important events.
For example, in a survey of eighth-grade teachers, 77 percent said that all or most of their students would know that Martin Luther King gave the "I have a dream speech," but only 27 percent would know that the New Deal was President Roosevelt's program to cure the Great Depression. In fact, 49 percent said that none of their students would know about the New Deal. Certainly, this was a major event during the 20th Century that impacted every American; but, apparently, it is no longer viewed as being significant.
In California, no textbook can win adoption unless it meets the state's strict demands for gender balance, multicultural representation, and avoids mention of unhealthy foods, drugs or alcohol. Again, does anyone really believe that students will be more "learned" and protected by keeping such topics cleansed from their view and mind? It can be attempted in the classroom, but it certainly cannot be sanitized from the everyday culture in which they live; in fact, the media culture promotes such topics.
Another related issue that is beginning to surface is tests being altered to replace accuracy and truth. It is now common for tests to be censored for "bias and sensitivity review." This process was started in the 1960s and early 1970s to scrutinize questions for any hint of racial or gender bias so as not to upset students and preventing them from showing their true abilities on a test.
A parent of a high school senior who took the New York Regents examination discovered that the excerpts from the writings of many prominent authors were doctored, without their knowledge or permission, to delete references to religion, profanity, sex, alcohol or other potentially troublesome topics. Does any sane person believe that by excluding such references, students will not know or learn about such topics? Isn't the school supposed to be the place to learn, debate, and discuss? How can an antiseptic school be a place of learning?
This revelation proved so embarrassing to the State Education Department that it ordered the practice stopped (they knew it was wrong) and now all literary passages will be corrected except for length. Obviously, these alterations were not publicized or state officials would not have been "embarrassed" when the truth became known. If these changes were done for honest reasons, why weren't they publicized and discussed in advance? Whose bias or agenda was being promoted without being challenged? After this practice was supposedly stopped, it occurred again.
The reality is that censorship of tests and textbooks has been going on for decades and it is now "institutionalized." Every major publisher uses "bias guidelines" which lists hundreds of words and images that are banned or avoided. Words like "brotherhood" and "mankind" have been banished. Older people may not be portrayed walking with canes or sitting in rocking chairs. Why not? Isn't this what happens to many people as they get older? Don't students see such images on the streets, in Malls, on television, and even in their homes?
Even a story about mountain climbing may be excluded because it favors test-takers who live near mountains over those who don't. Therefore, based on the same rationale, no mention can be made of beaches, lakes, farms, deserts, forests, cities, towns, suburbs, traditional families, etc. In fact a test company forbids the use of the term "high priced consumer goods" because some families can't afford them, the mention of religious holidays is prohibited, and references to fossils and dinosaurs cannot be included because it infers "evolution."
To show how really ridiculous it gets: The National Assessment Governing Board, which is directly responsible for reviewing all test questions on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, considered eliminating a reading passage about Mount Rushmore because the monument offends Lakota Indians who consider the Black Hills of South Dakota a sacred site.
During a Texas review process of a history text, a reviewer quibbled with a phrase that said the Senate "cleared" President Clinton after the House impeached him (he is found "not guilty" in the corrected text). In a New York City textbook, the "Jihad" is defined as meaning "to do one's best to resist temptation and overcome evil." Isn't this the word that means "holy war" and wasn't 9/11 a Jihad event?"
Even a rather mundane topic as geography is virtually "bastardized" for political correctness. A text, "Geography: The World and its People" includes the following lessons:
"Eye on the Environment: Danger-Ozone Loss"; United States; "Trash" Canada; "The Disappearing Rain Forest," South America; "Pollution," Europe; "Chernobyl-Nuclear Disaster," Russia; "Desertification," Africa; "Habitat Loss," Asia; and "Water-A Precious Resource," Southwest Asia.
The textbook also includes what to do: "Boycott fast-food restaurants that do not use recycled materials for packaging."
Is this geography? Apparently it is because The National Geographic Society approved the text. Is it any wonder why American students scored so low on a recent international geography test?
Diane Ravitch, a noted professor of education at New York University, sums up the problem: "The bias and sensitivity review process is an embarrassment to the educational publishing industry. It may satisfy the demands of the religious right and the politically correct left, but it robs our children of their cultural heritage and their right to read - free of censorship."
Freedom from censorship (brainwashing) is one of our most basic democratic freedoms - at least it was - and schools should be the last place to censor or condone censorship and alter truth and accuracy.
Editor's note: Armand Fusco, Ed. D retired as superintendent of Branford schools in 1992. He is a member of the Education Writers Association.
Excellent post, Fed, i've read about this, and heard it discussed on NPR at length. It is a truly disturbing aspect of the educational scene . . .
Indeed, as I mentioned above, I consider such behaviour by either group despicable. By the way, are you aware that many of the same out of context quotes in piece you pasted are also in the Tancredo documents?
Oh, and before I forget, Jihad does not traslate as "Holy War," but simply as "struggle," thus fitting both usages mentioned above.
As a still ongoing History Major ( at the rate I can take classes, I should graduate sometime around my retirement.
) I take umbrage to ANY historical distortions in either direction. History should be about facts, dates and actions, not about pushing a political agenda from either side.
Just my 2 cents (pre tax)
Setanta wrote:Excellent post, Fed, i've read about this, and heard it discussed on NPR at length. It is a truly disturbing aspect of the educational scene . . .
I read the original citation as complaining of this kind of thing, yet I thought you argued that it was a fallacy to suggest that such a thing was occurring. Did I miss something? Perhaps you see the two as being different in a way that I do not?
Fedral wrote:As a still ongoing History Major ( at the rate I can take classes, I should graduate sometime around my retirement.
) I take umbrage to ANY historical distortions in either direction. History should be about facts, dates and actions, not about pushing a political agenda from either side.
Just my 2 cents (pre tax)
Is beginning with the assumption that our country and our heritage is something of which our children should be proud "pushing a political agenda"? I'm
not asking to be contentious. I want to understand how you mean this. Thanks.
Fedral wrote: History should be about facts, dates and actions, not about pushing a political agenda from either side.
Well, no. The work of history is synthesis. Drawing conclusions from available evidence. "Facts, dates and actions" by themselves are meainingless. But, every historian should be aware of his (or her, since the majority of historians any mare are female) biases,and attempt to work around them. This stands in direct contrast to the Tancredo Method, which is predicated upon froming a conclusion, then finding data to support it, and discarding that which is "inconvenient." Ideology based history is not history, but propoganda.
