It’s
nothing short of a showdown at the O.K. Corral.
Yet rather than bullets flying, we
are witnessing accusations, allegations and half-truths
being hurled like spitballs in 6th grade English.
One thing rings loud as the end-of-school bell:
textbooks matter.
This
year Texas is adopting biology textbooks; last
year it was Social Studies and economics;
and before that it was science. Each adoption cycle
has brought stakeholders to the debate – taxpayers,
parents, teachers, and various special interests.
Since
the 1960’s, groups have coalesced
to influence the textbooks. Earliest efforts focused
on gender bias in literature books. (Yes, feminists
took time from bra-burning and male bashing to
demand changes in textbooks.) Textbook publishers
dutifully revised their textbooks to meet feminist
and others’ demands.
In subsequent textbook adoption processes, more
conservative voices have attempted to swing the
pendulum back to the center by weighing in on everything
from rainforest algebra to social studies void
of patriotism; and from economics short on free-market
theories to science textbooks espousing junk science.
During
the recent textbook adoption hearings, hundreds
of citizens have come before the elected
State Board of Education (SBOE) to testify on evolution.
The battle is not against those who advocate teaching
evolution and those who support the “intelligent
design” theory or creationism. But the battle
is between those who want ONLY evolution included
in textbooks and those who want – as state
law requires – that the strengths and weaknesses
of the theory be taught.
The debate is not taking place behind closed doors
as some critics have charged. But public comments
and publisher responses are readily available on
the Texas Education Agency website for all to see.
Now
with the liberals and academia elite losing the
textbook battles before the SBOE, they have
turned to the courts to select our children’s
textbooks.
In
2001, the SBOE followed both the letter and spirit
of the law by rejecting a textbook entitled, “Environmental
Science, Creating a Sustainable Future,” authored
by Daniel Chiras. This textbook, written by a self-proclaimed
Greenpeace environmentalist, was short on science
but long on environmental advocacy
The
book espouses concepts like “we must
eventually reduce human numbers through humane,
socially acceptable means,” and elsewhere
the book promotes the concept of a world governance.
This book does not represent the views of mainstream
Texas citizens.
So
what does the author do? He sues, of course.
The author and two students from Dallas Independent
School District charge that rejection of the textbook
by the SBOE was censoring speech. I didn’t
know that free speech provided an author the right
to demand that his textbook be purchased by the
state, but then I went to public school at a time
when the textbooks were not being so closely scrutinized.
The lawsuit demands that the textbook be added
to the list of state-approved books. This author
is charging that his rights were violated because
he lost sales of his textbook.
Yes,
Texas is a lucrative market, but also a discriminating
market. And rejection of his textbook may have
hurt – both his intellectual pride and his
pocketbook – but the SBOE had the authority
to reject the book. And it was the right thing
to do for Texas students.
One of the SBOE members being sued was cited in
the lawsuit for comments he made in the Dallas
Morning News. So much for free speech.
This
lawsuit was filed by Baron and Budd. Prominent
asbestos lawyer Fred Baron has made millions of
dollars off asbestos class action lawsuits. And
this textbook class action lawsuit is filed “on
behalf of all current and future students.” That’s
a lot of students.
The
lawsuit further claims that I, representing Citizens
for a Sound Economy and a “think
tank” representative worked directly with
specific SBOE members to develop a strategy for
rejecting Chiras’ book. Though I appreciate
receiving credit for this laudable act by the SBOE,
the lawsuit gives me more credit than I am due.
Along with throngs of citizens, I reviewed the
textbook, I testified, and the SBOE made their
decision.
The lawsuit appears to claim that a disgruntled
author or publisher can legally challenge the SBOE
for doing their job.
We elect the 15 members of the SBOE (who serve
at no pay), to work with the appointed Commissioner
of Education to oversee the public education system
in Texas in accordance with the Texas Education
Code (TEC).
Under
Chapter 31 of the TEC, SBOE members are given
responsibility for the review and adoption
of state textbooks. But the process doesn’t
end there. The textbooks, once put on the list,
are sent to the school districts for their final
selection. The 1,000-plus districts have various
procedures for their selection process. Some allow
for parent and citizen participation while others
do not. In some instances, the SBOE adoption process
provides citizens and parents with their only opportunity
to voice their concerns.
What
is really on trial here is not this one textbook,
but the process. Some critics of the system haven’t
read the textbooks, but want to challenge the process.
Other critics -- like our textbook author -- are
bemoaning personal financial loss and want to circumvent
the process.
In
the final analysis, is rejection of a textbook
a violation of “free speech” or censorship?
Or is it selection? Not all textbooks are created
equal. And Texas students deserve the best books
our Texas-size billion dollar textbook investment
can buy!
ARTICLE
ARCHIVE
PREVIOUS
ISSUES
HOME
|
