[wordup] Rewriting Texas Texts

[Adam Shand]

From: Simondo <simondo at paradise.net.nz>

Hi Adam,

This is scary.  Again it's not the religious angle per se that disturbs
so much as the disproportionate power of a relatively small group to
override science (such as CO2 being a pollutant or population explosion)
purely because of their own preset and non-negotiable beliefs about how
the rest of the world should live.  And they're doing it through
children.

Link: http://www.motherjones.com/magazine/JA02/texas_texts.html

Rewriting Texas Texts
by Dan Oko July/August 2002

Texas conservatives are aiming to revise their state's schoolbooks -- and
teach a lesson to publishers nationwide.

You can still teach Charles Darwin's theory of evolution in Texas public
schools, but if you're a teacher trying to warn students about the dangers
of pollution and global warming, take care. After decades of focusing on
hot-button topics like evolution, right-wing activists in the state are
taking on a broader set of issues-challenging curriculum materials that
warn of an "environmental crisis" or promote such "un-American" concepts
as restricting urban sprawl to protect wildlife. Over the past year,
conservative groups have challenged dozens of science textbooks, winning
the rejection of one widely used text and forcing revisions to several
others. This year, with the state board of education slated to consider
more than 100 social-science texts, several publishers have invited
conservative groups to review their texts in advance -- a step that
critics say could have ramifications well beyond the Lone Star State. "If
Texas continues to make these sorts of decisions, we're going to see the
publishers stop printing these sorts of books," says Emily Heath of the
Center for Commercial-Free Public Education, a California-based nonprofit.

With an annual budget for textbooks of $570 million, Texas "is clearly one
of the most dominant states in setting textbook adoption standards," says
Stephen Driesler, executive director of the American Association of
Publishers' school division. "Along with California, it has the biggest
in?uence on what gets published."

At the center of the latest controversy was Massachusetts-based publisher
Jones and Bartlett, whose title Environmental Science: Creating a
Sustainable Future came under fire from conservative groups such as the
Texas Public Policy Foundation, a think tank chaired by Wendy Gramm, the
wife of Republican Senator Phil Gramm. Among other things, conservatives
objected to a passage according to which "too many people reproducing too
quickly" could endanger the planet's health. In November, the
Republican-dominated state board of education voted to reject the
textbook; publishers withdrew a dozen other books that had been
challenged, and revised several more. In one text, a passage on the
lifestyles of Native Americans and European settlers was modified after
conservatives criticized its "anti-settler" tone. In another, a reference
to carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, as a "pollutant" was removed.

As the state board begins another selection round-151 social-science texts
are due to be reviewed by November -- observers expect controversy over
topics such as civil rights and the role of women. (Six years ago, when
social-science texts were last reviewed, conservatives objected to books
that depicted women as professionals, but not as homemakers.) Neither
publishers nor conservative activists would comment on the details of this
year's textbook review; Chris Patterson, education research director of
the Texas Public Policy Foundation, says the organization was asked by
publishers, including industry giants such as Harcourt and Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, to submit comments and agreed to do so, "so that they can
have first crack to address some of our concerns."

One company that won't be asking the foundation for input is Jones and
Bartlett, the publisher of Environmental Science. Associate managing
editor Dean DeChambeau says Jones and Bartlett won't bother to submit
science texts in Texas anymore. "There just isn't the time and resources
for us to go through such a process," he says.