It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
A new law took effect January 1 requiring public schools to include the contributions of gays, lesbians, and transgendered individuals in its history lessons. That alone is proving unpopular with some. But the real issue is that the law also bans teaching material that reflects "adversely" on gays or religions.
That sounds nice.
However, in effect, what the law is actually doing is quashing free speech. After all, what does it mean for 9/11? Is the fact that the terrorists were radical Islamists off-limits in the classroom? Will the speech police clamp down on any teacher who dares discuss the role religion played in the attacks?
What about HIV? Is it now illegal to teach in health class that it spread quite notably in the gay community? After all, some people might think that that reflects adversely on gays.
link
In addition to the free speech implications, the state is essentially codifying revisionist history. If certain groups don't look good, their history doesn't get taught, at least not in its full context. It'd be like glossing over the attack on Pearl Harbor for fear of offending Japanese-Americans, or leaving out portions of the Civil War because it might make Southerners look bad.
It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty, yet it's now the law of the land in the nation's most populous state. And it's more than political correctness run amok -- it's dangerous.
We used to criticize other countries for doing this sort of thing -- Japan for downplaying the Rape of Nanking, Turkey for denying the Armenian genocide, textbooks in the Arab world for their portrayal of Israel -- yet here we are, doing it in the U.S.
Originally posted by buster2010
Some of the rednecks are just going to have to learn there are gay people in this world and they are part of American history. Oh this person did something important but we can't talk about him because he's gay. Now who is squashing free speech?
Some of the rednecks are just going to have to learn there are gay people in this world and they are part of American history. Oh this person did something important but we can't talk about him because he's gay. Now who is squashing free speech?
What are we teaching our kids when we tell them it's more important to make people feel good than to seek knowledge? No one group is composed entirely of saints. History is full of horrible behavior on everyone's part. To ban teaching anything that reflects "adversely" on a group of people is nothing more than whitewashing history.
Originally posted by DrChuck
Originally posted by buster2010
Some of the rednecks are just going to have to learn there are gay people in this world and they are part of American history. Oh this person did something important but we can't talk about him because he's gay. Now who is squashing free speech?
Why do our children need to know that specific person was gay? Who gives a sh#t about the historical figures sexual orientation? What is so inadequate about discussing and teaching the students about the contributions and accomplishments of the historical figure, that we need to include what sex that person likes to sleep with?edit on 4-1-2012 by DrChuck because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by buster2010
Some of the rednecks are just going to have to learn there are gay people in this world and they are part of American history. Oh this person did something important but we can't talk about him because he's gay. Now who is squashing free speech?
Originally posted by DrChuck
Originally posted by buster2010
Some of the rednecks are just going to have to learn there are gay people in this world and they are part of American history. Oh this person did something important but we can't talk about him because he's gay. Now who is squashing free speech?
Why do our children need to know that specific person was gay? Who gives a sh#t about the historical figures sexual orientation? What is so inadequate about discussing and teaching the students about the contributions and accomplishments of the historical figure, that we need to include what sex that person likes to sleep with?edit on 4-1-2012 by DrChuck because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by seabag
History is History – you can’t re-write it or change the way you report it just to cast certain groups in a more favorable light. There is a word for that….it’s called DISHONESTY.
Originally posted by Daedal
reply to post by seabag
Welcome to UN Resolution 16 / 18
edit on 4-1-2012 by Daedal because: Added source
Originally posted by Gridrebel
I thought Texas controlled the content in the school books. I just looked this up today:
www.nea.org...
California isn’t taking any chances. A bill recently introduced in the state legislature seeks to prevent Texas-approved changes from seeping into textbooks in the Golden State.
Even if their reach is limited to Texas, will the new standards capsize social studies classrooms across the Lone Star state? Probably not, says Kirk White, a middle school social studies teacher in Austin.
Originally posted by seabag
Originally posted by Daedal
reply to post by seabag
Welcome to UN Resolution 16 / 18
edit on 4-1-2012 by Daedal because: Added source
I hadn't seen that yet! Thanks!
Howver, the UN is a friggen joke. When they appoint nations like Iran to the Commission on the Status of Women (and many other ridiculous appointments) they lose all credibility. Iran stones women to death for adultery. Seriously????