http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQIqyLv8K3I

Apparently the interviewer is 26. I’m pretty sure that this is supposed to be legitimate…

I don’t understand how a statement like that could have gotten past everyone all these years.

It’s not the job of history books to teach kids which path to take on political issues; it’s to present the facts. It’s absolutely possible to do this in an entertaining and interesting way without endorsing particular political opinions.

Possible, perhaps, but is it easy? Is it being done successfully? Is it really representative of historical scholarship?

How do we know that the errors in this one are greater than average, much less that they are the product of intentional political bias?

Well, it’s kind of beside the point whether or not this book has more errors than the average history textbook. Errors in textbooks are generally just bad, and the fewer errors the better.

As for these particular errors being the product of political bias, that seems pretty clear to me. Looking through the PDF linked in the original post, the topics the book is under criticism for are:

1) Implying scientific controversy about global warming where there is essentially none.

2) Creating the impression that prayer in schools is forbidden by law.

3) Making factually incorrect statements about court cases related to same-sex marriage, and stating that one of the “costs” of the overturning of an anti-sodomy law would be that “The Court, and not Congress or the state legislatures, might decide whether same-sex marriages were legal.”

4) Stating that the Constitution was designed expressly to handle human nature as informed by the religious concept of “original sin”, when the historical information does not indicate this to be true.

5) Implying that the general separation of church and state was a minority opinion integrated into the Constitution at the last minute, again contradicting the historical evidence.

6) Stating that the Supreme Court approved the use of “In God We Trust” on currency, when in fact this has never been a Supreme Court case. The laws regarding the meaning of the Supreme Court refusing to take on a case specifically state that such rejections are not to be interpreted as the Supreme Court expressing an opinion about the case.

These are not errors along the lines of messing up the date of some battle or accidentally misattributing a quote. All of the errors mentioned in the PDF have a common thread: direct endorsement of a conservative position on a controversial political topic.

Maybe there are other errors in the textbooks where liberal positions are endorsed. Such errors, as far as I’m concerned, would only make the book worse, rather than evening it out. “Two wrongs” and all that.

But because of hypersensitive parents, textbooks have been diluted of anything as remotely objectionable as an opinion.

It’s not the job of history books to teach kids which path to take on political issues; it’s to present the facts. It’s absolutely possible to do this in an entertaining and interesting way without endorsing particular political opinions.

“Falsely suggests”? The picture shows kids praying outside of school. The caption reads: “The Supreme Court will not let this happen inside a public school.” Nothing false about that.

Wilson peeves me off too, but in this case, he made a perfectly correct statement about LaClair’s statement that the photo and caption were false.

Well. perfectly correct except for how Wilson’s use of “suggests” distracts from how the photo and caption are unquestionably outright saying that prayer is forbidden in schools. But that’s a separate issue.

From my experience, high school history textbooks are desperately in need of political topics. Most are so dry and factual that they turn everyone off from history. Even history teachers find them boring. Of course, textbooks should get the facts right, but should also advance opinions, labeling them as such. But because of hypersensitive parents, textbooks have been diluted of anything as remotely objectionable as an opinion.

I have some problems with our Health textbook at the school where I teach. It doesn’t say anything about birth control at all and only teaches abstinence. And apparently, one of the consequences of having sex out of wedlock is “low self esteem.” (Try selling that one to a 17-year-old.) Considering I teach in one of the roughest areas of LA, where many of the kids are already pregnant or fathers, this is totally ridiculous, of course.

But have I ever done anything about it? Nope! Too busy living my life. Some other teachers and I considered making a supplemental lesson plan about birth control options, and then we didn’t. So there you have it. Matthew LaClair rocks, and he’s inspiring me to maybe get off my butt and speak out. Maybe.

Why can’t conservatives be honest?

Because to be honest with others, they have to be honest with themselves first.