AntiChri5 wrote...
As an Atheist i totally support the Billboard and smile at the choice of location.
As an Atheist, i will punch the first person to try to create an Atheist church.
Well that's a positive solution.
This same topic came up on another forum I frequent. This was my response:
I re-read this article to see just what was being proposed.
They also included a plank to ensure that students learn about “the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s, including Phyllis Schlafly, the Contract With America, the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority and the National Rifle Association.”
Well, Reagan and Bush 1 were conservatives--that's historical fact and should be acknowledged. If it's not, I have a problem with that textbook. The Moral Majority and the Contract with American had definite effects on our political and economic history, and that can't be swept under the rug.
Dr. McLeroy, a dentist by training, pushed through a change to the teaching of the civil rights movement to ensure that students study the violent philosophy of the Black Panthers in addition to the nonviolent approach of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He also made sure that textbooks would mention the votes in Congress on civil rights legislation, which Republicans supported.
Malcolm X is a huge figure in civil rights history, and should be acknowledged as well. His violent methods did have an impact on the movement, like it or not. I have no problems with Republicans being mentioned as supporting the civil rights legislation. If they had not, non-whites would still be disenfranchised--LBJ needed every single vote he could get to get the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts passed. Why the NYTimes thinks this is a negative thing is beyond me.
Mr. Bradley won approval for an amendment saying students should study “the unintended consequences” of the Great Society legislation, affirmative action and Title IX legislation. He also won approval for an amendment stressing that Germans and Italians as well as Japanese were interned in the United States during World War II, to counter the idea that the internment of Japanese was motivated by racism.
If by 'unintended consequences' they refer to welfare fraud, sure. I've seen enough fraud in the welfare and Medicaid system to be severely ticked off about people driving up in new cars, professionally manicured nails, and expensive jewelry and then whipping out their Medicaid cards to pay for their exams. As for Germans and Italians being interned--sure. It shows what war did to us. We don't lock up Americans of Iraqi descent just because of their nationality precisely because of what we learned in WWII. I'm not sure why NYTimes thinks this is 'bad'.
In economics, the revisions add Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek, two champions of free-market economic theory, among the usual list of economists to be studied
Why in the world would anyone find it objectionable to include Friedman, who won a Nobel prize in economics and who was one of the biggest influences on economic theory in the US for
decades? Is there some compelling reason why students should NOT be learning about these men?
In the field of sociology, another conservative member, Barbara Cargill, won passage of an amendment requiring the teaching of “the importance of personal responsibility for life choices” in a section on teenage suicide, dating violence, sexuality, drug use and eating disorders.
Well, God forbid we actually teach about personal responsibility for things like drug use and dating violence, because we all know that society forces the pills into our mouths, the needles into our arms, and people to beat the snot out of each other. Nope, learning to control your own behavior and be responsible for your own actions must be just awful. I believe I'll exercise my personal responsibility in calling the writer of this article biased in the extreme, and idiotic on top of it.
As for cutting Jefferson from the curriculum--the writer is very careful here to say Dunbar cut it from her list, but didn't specify if the entire panel agreed to this or not. However, he writes it in a way that makes the reader think that at first blush the panel passed this as an amendment. I believe that particular paragraph, and the parenthetical judgment by the writer, was put there simply to be inflammatory.
This is not a news article, it's an op-ed essay pretending to be a news article. I would recommend looking at the original meeting minutes instead of McKinley's very opinionated review of the meeting. I'm sure it'll be far more enlightening.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
