Slashdot Mirror
Texas Narrowly Rejects Allowing Academics To Fact-Check Public School Textbooks (csmonitor.com)
jriding writes with news that in a 8-7 vote the Texas State Board of Education rejected a plan to create a group of state university professors to fact-check textbooks approved for the state's 5.2 million public-school students. The CS Monitor reports: "The Board of Education approves textbooks in the nation's second-largest state and stood by its vetting process — despite a Houston-area mother recently complaining that a world geography book used by her son's ninth grade class referred to African slaves as 'workers.' The publisher, McGraw-Hill Education, apologized and moved to make immediate edits."
Slashdot ownership overwhelmingly rejects having article summaries proofread.
"Texa"...Give me a break.
"Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."
Oh, I don't know ... because worker seems to imply they had some choice in this instead of being property. Tell you what, we could subject you to the same things as the slaves were, and you could tell us your thoughts on the difference.
This isn't about being PC, this is about pretending people who think that saying "well, it wasn't that bad" aren't morons.
"Workers" aren't chained up, brought thousands of miles, bought and sold, killed or maimed at will.
You simply can't talk about slavery and try claim you're being "PC" by referring to them as "workers" instead of what they really were. At that point you're just saying stupid shit like "well, slavery was a matter of historical perspective, and if you were a landowner these were valuable employees". This is literally whitewashing history to gloss over the details and downplay what actually happened.
That's not PC. That's fully intellectually dishonest, and re-casting slavery to pretend it wasn't that bad. This is fully revisionist history and dishonesty so a bunch of white folks can pretend like it was all a big misunderstanding ... and I say this as a pasty white guy.
Essentially Texas has said their education is no longer about facts, which means who knows what kind of crap will creep into textbooks.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Is it me or are do others here think the next 20 years in the US is going to be an extremely rough ride? In less than 10 years we will have to deal with kids who grew up with these textbooks in our college system. In another 10 years they will start to become our "leaders". in 40 years they will be in the Senate and House making even worse informed decisions than the morons currently there.
In his subjectively honest autobiography "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!", Richard Feynman devotes a chapter (Judging Books by Their Covers) to this and related issues in textbooks. The truth of the matter is the books go mostly un-reviewed. Sure, they hire teams of committees to review them, but more likely than not, nobody on any committee so much as opens them up, much less fact-checks them. They are however lavished with free dinners, vacations, and other graf. The book deals are worth millions, after all.
He recounts when he was on such a committee and was unable to get a criticism in edgewise.
Now, add some religion, politics and general bureaucratic incompetence to that and what you end up with is an all but worthless textbook and a keen hope for a teacher that can teach around it.
Meh. My kids are grown and gone. I wish them luck.
"making even worse informed decisions than the morons currently there."
I doubt it. Thats a pretty high hurdle.
This is what your parents said.
So ... er... your example of a "controversial" issue is one about which no scientific controversy whatsoever exist ?
The only *controversy* is between science and fossil fuel companies and is about as legitimate as the one that used to exist between science and tobacco sellers and between science and lead sellers. In fact - we have physical proof now that the fossil fuel companies don't even doubt AGW themselves ! They say they do in public, but internally they trust it so absolutely that they based their schedules for arctic drilling on when ice melt would make it most profitable !
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Having no personal experience in choosing textbooks (just buying many of the assigned texts in college - not much choice there), my view on the process is heavily influenced by Richard Feynmann's recounting the time he served on the California Curriculum Commission in Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynmann. For those who haven't read it before, here's his chapter on Judging Books by Their Covers.
Judging from the current activities on Campus today, in 20 years there will no longer be any Higher Education. Just indoctrination camps where people are sent to learn their place.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
But it's also clear and un-ambiguous from the actual wording that they are referring slaves.
I can't see how anyone could read it and not know that the 'workers' are slaves.
That's Antarctic sea ice - other end of the world. And the increase is only 1/3 the area of the ice lost in the Arctic. And note that's *area*, not *volume*. Old sea ice tends to get very thick over the decades, young sea ice, not so much. And I would guess that the increase in Antarctic sea ice is related to the ongoing melting of the continental ice sheet - as fresh water flows out to sea the surface water is becoming much less salty and thus freezes at warmer temperatures. (fresh water floats on salt water, and salt lowers the freezing point - that's why they salt roads to remove ice,).
Nobody claims that global warming will be uniform, in fact it's expected that some areas will get colder as weather patterns change. As will transient cold spells such as the polar vortex related freezes we've been having lately.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
You have to realize how politicized and religiously bent the texas government is. Any vetting group would be made up of specifically hand-picked individuals who would meet certain religious and political views. It would be about as academic as the Westboro Baptist Church.
It's disingenuous to call a slave a 'worker' because it intentionally leaves out important context. The fact that they were slaves instead of free men is an important thing to understand in a history book.
And it would be disingenuous if it was intentional and there was no mention of slaves elsewhere. The fact that the "offending" sentence already used the word slave once in the sentence shows that they weren't trying to hide the fact that they were slaves.
A few more way to write it would be:
The African Slave Trade between the 1500s and 1800s brought millions of men, women, and children from Africa to the southern United States to work on agricultural plantations.
The African Slave Trade between the 1500s and 1800s brought millions of people from Africa to the southern United States to work on agricultural plantations.
The African Slave Trade between the 1500s and 1800s brought millions of them from Africa to the southern United States to work on agricultural plantations.
The African Slave Trade between the 1500s and 1800s brought millions from Africa to the southern United States to work on agricultural plantations.
Are these all offensive too because they fail to use the word slave a second time?
Sure, they could have picked one of these other sentences which might have been better but don't assume the author was being disingenuous and trying to imply something when most likely the word selected was done haphazardly with very little intentional thought.
But if you want it to be the most factual and truthful, how about this one:
The African Slave Trade between the 1500s and 1800s brought millions of african natives captured and sold primarily by their native country men and rival tribes from Africa to the southern United States to work on agricultural plantations.
And with the Charter schools it becomes a vicious cycle.
1. Charter school takes public school money.
2. Charter school only takes in "good" students (e.g. not kids with low grades or with difficulties that would require extra assistance).
3. Students with "difficulties" are left in the public schools who have less money to help them.
4. Charter schools get better test scores than public schools. (Since they get to pick and choose not only what students they take but what test results they publish.)
5. Businesses that run charter schools profit and donate money to politicians.
6. Politicians call for more charter schools and to close public schools.
7. Repeat 1 - 6.
Unfortunately, we're seeing this in action in NY and it's not pretty.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
But it's also clear and un-ambiguous from the actual wording that they are referring slaves.
I can't see how anyone could read it and not know that the 'workers' are slaves.
It's clear and unambiguous to an adult, who already knows about slavery and the slave trade. If you're a child, learning about it in school, you don't already know those things. You might wonder what portion of those workers were slaves, or why it was called the slave trade if it was just a migration of workers.
Actually capitalism comes out really badly in many sectors when looked at from an economics point of view. Particularly natural monopolies (eg: utilities), or where there is no real competition (eg: emergency heath services).
Actually there is - pretty much every major climate shift has been accompanied by large extinction events. Just because the regional climate is becoming more hospitable to some life, doesn't mean the existing life isn't dying off, or that the new life it's becoming more conductive to can get there right away.
Sure, the tropics may eventually extend to the poles, but tropical vegetation can only spread by so many yards per year, and in the mean time the existing vegetation is dying off. The effect is even more pronounced for relatively isolated ecosystems such as high mountains. The plants and animals that call them home generally aren't well suited to crossing plains, so as their ecosystem warms they die off, without the ability to move to more polar latitudes. Similarly the low-altitude Amazon Rainforest ecosystem is unlikely to be able to traverse the mountainous chokepoints of Central America - the organisms simply aren't evolved for mountainous living or high altitudes. Some plants will make the leap it in migratory bird droppings, but whether they can survive without the supporting ecosystem they evolved for is an open question.
As for the speed of climate change, yes it IS much faster than anything mankind has experience in thousands of years. At least on a large scale - you can't honestly compare small high-speed changes with large changes that require ecosystems to move thousands of miles to adapt. And if you're comparing the climate adaptability of migratory hunter-gatherers to that of an industrialized society, then perhaps you need to check your assumptions.
And where deserts are concerned, yes, if rainfall increases immediately they should benefit. But you need vegetation, especially trees, immediately upwind to make that a safe assumption - otherwise the increased heat will tend to kill off the borderline vegetation, while the moisture simply passes overhead until it does encounter enough organic volatiles to trigger cloud formation (this is actually a major issue in southern India, where large-scale deforestation has resulted in increasing desertification of the downwind coasts. Meanwhile man-made ecological reserves within the dead zone have led to much increased rainfall downwind.)
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.