Texas School Board Changes History--at least in the textbooks

[Crystal Shards]

As always, I posted this on my forum and thought you guys might be interested.

Texas Conservatives Win Curriculum Change

You might have heard about this... Basically the Texas School Board decided to make the school books more conservative... Which would be fine in my eyes if they maintained the balance, which they're claiming to add. Balance? Read some of the changes...

• Religious conservatives on the board killed a proposed standard that would have required high school government students to "examine the reasons the Founding Fathers protected religious freedom in America by barring government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion over all others." That means the board rejected teaching students about the most fundamental constitutional protection for religious freedom in America.
• Board conservatives succeeded in censoring the word "capitalism" in the standards, requiring that the term for that economic system be called "free enterprise" throughout all social studies courses. Board members such as Terri Leo and Ken Mercer charged that "capitalism" is a negative term used by "liberal professors in academia."
• The board removed the concepts of "justice" and "responsibility for the common good" from a list of characteristics of good citizenship for Grades 1-3. (The proposal to remove "equality" failed.)
• The board stripped Dolores Huerta, cofounder of United Farm Workers of America, from a Grade 3 list of "historical and contemporary figures who have exemplified good citizenship." Conservative board members said Huerta is not a good role model for third-graders because she's a socialist. But they did not remove Hellen Keller from the same standard even though Keller was a staunch socialist. Don McLeroy, a conservative board member who voted to remove Huerta, had earlier added W.E.B. DuBois so the Grade 2 standards. McLeroy apparently didn't know that DuBois had joined the Communist Party in the year before he died.
• In an absurd attempt to excuse Joseph McCarthy's outrageous witchhunts in the 1950s, far-right board members succeeded in adding a requirement that students learn about "communist infiltration in U.S. government" during the Cold War. (Board member Don McLeroy has even claimed outright that Joseph McCarthy has been "vindicated," a contention not supported by mainstream scholarship.)
• Board members added Friedrich von Hayek to a standard in the high school economics course even though some board members acknowledged that they had no idea who the Austrian-born economist even was.
• The board added a requirement that American history students learn about conservative heroes and icons such as Phyllis Schlafly, the Heritage Foundation and the Moral Majority. The board included no similar standard requiring students to learn about individuals and organizations simply because they are liberal.
• The board's bloc of social conservatives tried to water down instruction on the history of the civil rights movement. One board amendment, for example, would have required students to learn that the civil rights movement created "unreasonable expectations for equal outcomes." That failed to pass. Other amendments passed in January minimized the decades of struggle by women and ethnic minorities to gain equal and civil rights. (Board member Don McLeroy even claimed that women and minorities owed thanks to men and "the majority" for their rights. Earlier in the revision process, a conservative appointed by McLeroy to a curriculum team had complained about an "over-representation of minorities" in the standards.) Under pressure from civil rights groups, the board partially reversed those earlier amendments.
• Religious conservatives stripped from the high school sociology course a standard having students "differentiate between sex and gender as social constructs and determine how gender and socialization interact." Board member Barbara Cargill argued that the standard would lead students to learn about "transsexuals, transvestites and who knows what else." She told board members she had conducted a "Google search" to support her argument. Board member Ken Mercer complained that the amendment was about "sex." The board consulted no sociologists during the debate.
• The board approved a standard requiring students to learn about "any unintended consequences" of the Great Society, affirmative action and Title IX.
• In a high school U.S. history standard on musical genres that have been popular over time, the board's bloc of social conservatives removed "hip hop," equating this broad genre with "gangsta rap."
• The board voted to use "BC" and "AD" rather than "BCE" and "CE" in references to dates in the history classes. That means students going off to college won't be familiar with what has become an increasingly common standard for dates.
• The board's right-wing faction removed a reference to propaganda as a factor in U.S. entry into World War I. (The role of propaganda on behalf of both the Allies and Central Powers in swaying public opinion in the United States is well-documented. Republican Pat Hardy noted that her fellow board members were "rewriting history" with that and similar changes.)
• The board changed "imperialism" to "expansionism" in a U.S. history course standard about American acquisition of overseas territories in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Board conservatives argued that what the United States did at the time was not the same as European imperialism.

-Texas Freedom Network (emphasis by me)

I wouldn't mind putting in other points of view--that's the point of an education. But when you're going to change how people are educated you should at least have educated people make those changes... Not people who use "Google searches" as a legitimate means to defend their position. Many of these changes are just outright wrong. McCarthy was on a witch hunt. This is an undisputed fact, at least by people who know what they're talking about. And women and minorities owe thanks to men and the majority for their rights? Uh, since when?

[grandjackal]

Texas sucks? Holy crap, what a surprise!

Thank fuck I'm leaving this shit stain of a state soon...I would add more to the topic, but I feel I would simply be repeating what's already stated by Crystal. Worst of all, the reasoning as to why is about as shallow as a reason can get.

Edited April 6, 2010 by Cait Sith

[General Spoon]

In an absurd attempt to excuse Joseph McCarthy's outrageous witchhunts in the 1950s, far-right board members succeeded in adding a requirement that students learn about "communist infiltration in U.S. government" during the Cold War. (Board member Don McLeroy has even claimed outright that Joseph McCarthy has been "vindicated," a contention not supported by mainstream scholarship.)

Stopped reading there. I'm sure the rest is just as bullshit.

[Inactive Account]

The stupid, it hurts...

I mean, it's a fact that almost any history course will contain some sort of propaganda. I've seen a whole span of it, from "a few jabs at conservatives when you're not paying attention to the lecture" to "Reagan was the best president EVAR" to "The West is a bunch of tyrants and capitalism runs on the tears of forsaken children" but this is just too much.

Running through the article:

“I have $1,000 for the charity of your choice if you can find it in the Constitution.”

I want somebody to provide him with a quote and an excellent argument and then have him write the check out to one of the charities promoting full religious tolerance (including tolerance of those who don't follow a religion!)

“Let’s face it, capitalism does have a negative connotation,” said one conservative member, Terri Leo. “You know, ‘capitalist pig!’

s/"capital"/"social" and you've got their arguments nearly word-for-word... and despite what they want everyone to believe, socialism is not inherently evil, either... nice hypocrisy, guys.

McCarthy vindicated? All I can think of in response to that is "what is this i don't even"

Religious conservatives stripped from the high school sociology course a standard having students "differentiate between sex and gender as social constructs and determine how gender and socialization interact." Board member Barbara Cargill argued that the standard would lead students to learn about "transsexuals, transvestites and who knows what else." She told board members she had conducted a "Google search" to support her argument. Board member Ken Mercer complained that the amendment was about "sex." The board consulted no sociologists during the debate.

Gaaaaaaah what... so homophobia's not enough, they're also going to pretend non-hetero people just don't exist now? And that the way our minds work is determined entirely by what's between our legs? Argh...

And women and minorities owe thanks to men and the majority for their rights? Uh, since when?

Yeah, I'd go through and give my bit on how much is wrong with that statement too, except I'm having trouble finding all the bits of my mind after the resultant explosion...

I can hardly imagine what the kids who get subjected to this for a several years will experience when they go to college and realize that other people actually have different opinions than the state...

[grandjackal]

You also have to love the bullheaded manner of these people. "Liberal professors in academia", because only Conservative professors in academia are correct.

Next I bet the state of Texas is going to make sure that the trains always arrive on schedule...Hopefully this statement isn't too vague a historical reference.

[Fayt Zelpher]

Wow. I feel like I'm in a liberal state after reading this.

And I'm in Oklahoma.

Thank goodness I'm out of reach of the public school system at this point.

[Fëanen]

Okay, I usually avoid debate, but in my eyes education is one of society's most valuable assets, so here we go...

What in the world is the Texas School Board trying to do other than breed good little Republicans? Now, I don't expect said board to include large amounts of liberal propaganda in their textbooks, and it's true that in such a conservative state there's going to be an inherently right-wing slant to the educational requirements, but there comes a point where a bias becomes outright propaganda. Furthermore, some of this absurdity doesn't even gel with (reasonable) conservative views I've encountered. For example, most of my conservative friends very much value justice, and certainly seem to believe in responsibility to the public good - just not in quite the same way that a social democrat such as myself does.

I believe that all education, from Kindergarten classes to doctoral studies, should be based on facts - the most accurate facts available at the time, even if sometimes we come to the inevitable conclusion that "oops, that wasn't quite right." The presentation of those facts should be age-appropriate - I'm not proposing lectures on gender studies in Kindergarten. On the other hand, whitewash, spin, and propaganda should be wiped out where spotted. Consciously calling for them is just another nail in the fence between primary/secondary education and genuine academia. If we're going to water down the social sciences this much (and don't get me started on what we do to the natural sciences in school, especially biology)then we're doing our children a tremendous disservice. Teach students real history and they'll understand their world - teach them history with this much political agenda and they'll understand the world the right wing (or left wing, I can see this happening in the opposite direction) wants them to see.

[Esau of Isaac]

I saw this when it was first proposed on another forum. I am quite surprised at the pieces that made it through.

[Original Alear]

Full quote on capitalism being "exchanged" for free-enterprise:

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, like Adam Smith, Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes. They also replaced the word "capitalism" throughout their texts with the "free-enterprise system." "Let's face it, capitalism does have a negative connotation," said one conservative member, Terri Leo. "You know, 'capitalist pig!' "

Let it be known that Milton fucking Friedman, not exactly a liberal academic (though certainly a neo liberal academic) wrote a book called Capitolism and Freedom and did not intend the two to be taken as contradictory. Now, these morons can't even keep their own poorly constructed copy of free-market ideology straight.

I actually do believe that Friedman SHOULD be taught in schools if Keynes is (though I wouldn't trust these morons to teach Friedman). Even if you disagree with him as a highly political, misleading figure in some aspects (whose students helped plan Pinochet plan the Chilean economy) he's done critically important work with the Phillips Curve. I actually see him as being a lot like Keynes in terms of taking economic assumptions and turning them on their head - and not necessarily back to the way they were in the classical era. I don't know if it is widely applicable outside of the seventies, but anyone who's going to claim Keynsianism as a solution to modern economic problems should take a look-see at Friedman first.

As for Hayek, well...whatever. I regard the man as highly hypocritical in the Road to Serfdom (he sees any central planning of socialist governments as inherently requiring more power grabs, but doesn't seem to care that much about centralization that's already occurred in capitalist societies, or rather doesn't see it as contradictory. I do believe later libertarians, by focusing on government as a kind of necessary evil - where citizens surrender certain individual rights but then put a halt to things - ). I do think lack of accuracy in calculations about the economy - another aspect of his published work he is known for - is an important element, but I haven't really studied Hayek's input on the issue and he's not the only one who has worked on it.

...But he won a nobel prize. I'll give him, how might you say it, the benefit of the doubt until I read more of him.

I'm not just afraid they are trying to indoctrinate students to be conservative. I am worried that they are indoctrinating their students to be stupid conservatives. Capitalism is a useful term that shouldn't be written out of textbooks on the whim of idiots like these.

Of course, if we really cared about economics we would consider teaching Ricardo and Malthus (not anywhere near useless despite crackpot world starvation theories) before Keynes and Marx, IMO.

Edited April 6, 2010 by SeverIan

[Snowy_One]

The board removed the concepts of "justice" and "responsibility for the common good" from a list of characteristics of good citizenship for Grades 1-3. (The proposal to remove "equality" failed.)

Is it just me, or does this one seem to be a bit... out of place considering the context of the message? I was raised conservative by some very right-wing families (yes, plural. I learned a lot from my friends families) and they all tried to instill me with a sense of justice and responsibility for the common good (doing things for the better other other people) from a early age. While not the worst item on the list, I would like to know their reasoning behind this at least since it seems to be a break away from... well... Civilized society in general.

EDIT: I guess what I'm saying is that this post seems to be less of what a ultra-conservative group did and more of a ultra-liberal fantasizing about what a ultra-conservative might do.

Edited April 6, 2010 by Snowy_One

[Parrhesia]

Heard about this a while ago.

I think they removed a South American (?) activist for the poor (a priest of some kind) from the textbooks because he wasn't famous enough and nobody knew about him.

Think about that for a minute.

[Mikethfc]

McCarthy was on a witch hunt. This is an undisputed fact, at least by people who know what they're talking about. And women and minorities owe thanks to men and the majority for their rights? Uh, since when?

McCarthy wasn't on a witch hunt he had evidence in his brief case just he was too busy to show anyone

And with the other point no doubt next they're going to focus on the white people who attended the March on Washington.

[Original Alear]

And women and minorities owe thanks to men and the majority for their rights? Uh, since when?

Eh. It's a weird matter, I would consider it an arguable point in a very small number of situations. Do slaves owe any thanks to the northerners (white and some black too) who fought and freed them? Even if you don't think the war was fought to end slavery, the fact is that the war ended slavery and was a good consequence for blacks. I'm not saying everything got better after that, but...

Edited April 6, 2010 by SeverIan

[quanta]

Normally, I'm not really into joining the choir of angry rant, but now? Now is a good time.

The utter insanity of many of the members on this committee is appalling, they're not really so much conservatives (in the sense that ought to define the term which would be people like Goldwater or Edmund Burke or Buckley or someone depending on the historical context) as they are simply idiots.

They even make sure to make the occasional semi-legitimate claim they might have as stupid and twisted as possible so as to remove all question of whether or not they're interested in giving a more accurate picture or a more insane Texan one.

And you didn't even list how one of my favorites... they were considering (did?) remove Thomas Jefferson from a list of the founding fathers. This is a more than a bit loony given that he was the third President and provides a rather important counterpoint to the more Federalist founding fathers.

[Snowy_One]

Religious conservatives on the board killed a proposed standard that would have required high school government students to "examine the reasons the Founding Fathers protected religious freedom in America by barring government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion over all others." That means the board rejected teaching students about the most fundamental constitutional protection for religious freedom in America.

So... The board voted to make students ask why the founding fathers chose to bar government from favoring or disfavoring one religion over another? I must be missing something, because this kind of sounds almost exactly like freedom of Religion. What do I know though? I'm just a idiot. Even so, I suspect that there is more here or I'm missing something.

Board conservatives succeeded in censoring the word "capitalism" in the standards, requiring that the term for that economic system be called "free enterprise" throughout all social studies courses. Board members such as Terri Leo and Ken Mercer charged that "capitalism" is a negative term used by "liberal professors in academia."

This doesn't sound like any Conservative I know. Granted, I don't pay attention to inter-state politics and political mannerisms; but almost all of the conservatives I know seem... Well... They see renaming things so as to avoid stigma's as being stupid practices that do nothing other that slap a 'feel good' feeling on something that may have serious problems. I live in a very liberal state, however, so either A) The conservatives here are more liberal than I thought and have adopted lots of liberal mannerisms; or B) They aren't and something is up in this article.

The board removed the concepts of "justice" and "responsibility for the common good" from a list of characteristics of good citizenship for Grades 1-3. (The proposal to remove "equality" failed.)

Mentioned above.

The board stripped Dolores Huerta, cofounder of United Farm Workers of America, from a Grade 3 list of "historical and contemporary figures who have exemplified good citizenship." Conservative board members said Huerta is not a good role model for third-graders because she's a socialist. But they did not remove Hellen Keller from the same standard even though Keller was a staunch socialist. Don McLeroy, a conservative board member who voted to remove Huerta, had earlier added W.E.B. DuBois so the Grade 2 standards. McLeroy apparently didn't know that DuBois had joined the Communist Party in the year before he died.

Who? Who's Dolores Huerta? Seriously. Haven't heard of her before reading this article. Anyways, there are many reasons why they chose to remove one without touching Hellen Keller. Namely, people don't recognize who the former is while Hellen Keller is a historically significant figure. Sides, I would like to know who these 'members' actually are. There should be official minutes of the meeting in which these changes were approved posted somewhere or recorded somewhere. Just because one or two members suggest that this may be the reason doesn't mean all of them did or that they were a majority (that Ms. Huerta is a lesser-know figure may have been the factor that pushed it over, not that she was a socialist); just that when the votes were cast, it ended with a reform being decided.

Sides, this isn't a problem anyways. Either Mr. McLeroy didn't know that DuBois was a socialist, or there were other reasons for DuBois to be mentioned that were not related to his personal governmental philosophy. I would want to see a link between the two conclusions as well as at least the minutes for the meeting before I considered this credible.

In an absurd attempt to excuse Joseph McCarthy's outrageous witchhunts in the 1950s, far-right board members succeeded in adding a requirement that students learn about "communist infiltration in U.S. government" during the Cold War. (Board member Don McLeroy has even claimed outright that Joseph McCarthy has been "vindicated," a contention not supported by mainstream scholarship.)

I won't attempt to side with or against McCarthy. Either he was right and a hero, or wrong and on a witch-hunt. I'll let facts and evidence decide his innocence/guilt in the end. What strikes me is that this seems to be a problem... and we aren't given a context (at least here on this site). For example, if we were talking about the Soviet Russia during the Cold War... well... Wouldn't it seem at least somewhat natural to learn about communist infiltration that happened then? Note: At least here, it doesn't even say it happened. The first part of this point seems to be merely reporter noise (by this I mean, not actually backed up. Plus, absurd is a poor word choice for objectivity since it is not terribly factual. What is absurd? There are people who would claim staying up past midnight is absurd, while others think making DvD's playable on PS2's are absurd).

Either way, this seems to be saying 'Look! Look! Conservatives are trying to change history into something we all KNOW is wrong'! I don't want to get involved in the question of if he was right or not, but I will question the point in bringing this up. It is not impossible for them to be talking about communist infiltration in the U.S. government and not be talking about the McCarthy trials. A entirely possible conclusion was that the idea of talking about such things was brought forwards, at which point someone jabbed, either in jest or accusation, at McLeroy that he was trying to exonerate McCarthy and McLeroy took it the wrong way... and the reporter saw gold.

Board members added Friedrich von Hayek to a standard in the high school economics course even though some board members acknowledged that they had no idea who the Austrian-born economist even was.

Who? Seems unlikely the board would approve of adding someone they didn't know at all; especially if they were so serious before about keeping socialists out of the textbooks. After all, couldn't this be one of them?

The board added a requirement that American history students learn about conservative heroes and icons such as Phyllis Schlafly, the Heritage Foundation and the Moral Majority. The board included no similar standard requiring students to learn about individuals and organizations simply because they are liberal.

May I ask... Why should it be required? Sure, it wouldn't be bipartisan, but it may be completely possible that bi-partisian ship is simply not required in deciding a school ruling like this.

The board's bloc of social conservatives tried to water down instruction on the history of the civil rights movement. One board amendment, for example, would have required students to learn that the civil rights movement created "unreasonable expectations for equal outcomes." That failed to pass. Other amendments passed in January minimized the decades of struggle by women and ethnic minorities to gain equal and civil rights. (Board member Don McLeroy even claimed that women and minorities owed thanks to men and "the majority" for their rights. Earlier in the revision process, a conservative appointed by McLeroy to a curriculum team had complained about an "over-representation of minorities" in the standards.) Under pressure from civil rights groups, the board partially reversed those earlier amendments.

Assuming this McLeroy guy exists and there is no additional context needed, I think it's safe to say he's a nut at this point. Sadly, he still sounds better than some local politicians I can name (won't get into details there). At this point, either the reporter is posting hogwash and using an imaginary McLeroy as a scapegoat for his idea's of what a republican is like; leaving out some context, or reporting on the idiot rulings of one board of education and acting like all conservatives are like that. Either way, the story seems to be losing credibility in my eyes at this point unless there is a fourth option.

Anyways; I find it odd that they would try to water down the civil rights movement when Abraham Lincoln, considered one of the greatest presidents of all time and almost certainly the greatest republican of all time, is widely known for one of the greatest civili rights movements in history; namely the freeing of the slaves. If you are mentioning Lincoln, you are almost certainly mentioning either the war, freeing the slaves, or his assassination. Two of the three are heavily linked in to civil rights positively. Seems odd that the board would try to downplay that.

Religious conservatives stripped from the high school sociology course a standard having students "differentiate between sex and gender as social constructs and determine how gender and socialization interact." Board member Barbara Cargill argued that the standard would lead students to learn about "transsexuals, transvestites and who knows what else." She told board members she had conducted a "Google search" to support her argument. Board member Ken Mercer complained that the amendment was about "sex." The board consulted no sociologists during the debate.

I honestly don't know what to say to this beyond 'if this is real, than this place is officially so whacked that it's not worth talking about anymore'.

The board approved a standard requiring students to learn about "any unintended consequences" of the Great Society, affirmative action and Title IX.[/quote[

Unintended consequences can mean a lot of things; not all of them bad. For example, the G.I. Bill was a unintended consequence of WWII, and was almost certainly not a bad thing.

In a high school U.S. history standard on musical genres that have been popular over time, the board's bloc of social conservatives removed "hip hop," equating this broad genre with "gangsta rap."

*sharp inhale*

I refrain from commenting here because the only thing I can say is 'should have removed both all together'. (has a serious hate of both types of music)

The board voted to use "BC" and "AD" rather than "BCE" and "CE" in references to dates in the history classes. That means students going off to college won't be familiar with what has become an increasingly common standard for dates.

In all fairness, BCE/CE and BC/AD are pretty much the exact same thing. BCE still uses Jesus's birth as the transition from BCE to CE like BC/AD. There is a saying about roses and how they smell... and I personally think both the board and the reporter have broken every thresh-hold for possible fail I thought I could have for this sort of situation.

The board's right-wing faction removed a reference to propaganda as a factor in U.S. entry into World War I. (The role of propaganda on behalf of both the Allies and Central Powers in swaying public opinion in the United States is well-documented. Republican Pat Hardy noted that her fellow board members were "rewriting history" with that and similar changes.)

What reference? Was it important? Yadda yadda... At this point, I'm hoping this is just the TC trying to abbreviate for our convenience and not the actual list. If the actual reporter said this, I would stop reading his articles since he seemed to leave out a key detail. Namely, the reference itself.

The board changed "imperialism" to "expansionism" in a U.S. history course standard about American acquisition of overseas territories in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Board conservatives argued that what the United States did at the time was not the same as European imperialism.

Well? Was it the same? As I understand it, the European Imperialism involved establishing large amounts of colonies to supply the mainland with many resources. Did that happen? What was their argument?

By now I have finished my problems with this post. In my eye, either this story is a hoax, the board (namely one member in particular) is horribly inept, or there are details missing that can change the entire meaning of the outcome. I myself have little experience with educational politics and have no greater knowledge than anyone else here. Some of you have read through my post and found your own objections and problems. Please, understand that my intent is not to validate or demolish this story, only to find the truth of the matter. As I read this story, I look through it not with the eyes of a Republican, but a man interested in seeking the truth. I encourage you to do the same with this news report. Seek out what the truth may be, and follow Reason's guiding light.

And yes, I am aware of the linked article. I gazed it over, but did not find what I was looking for (A link to the minutes).

[Inactive Account]

So... The board voted to make students ask why the founding fathers chose to bar government from favoring or disfavoring one religion over another? I must be missing something, because this kind of sounds almost exactly like freedom of Religion. What do I know though? I'm just a idiot. Even so, I suspect that there is more here or I'm missing something.

Valid statement except they didn't vote to do it, they voted not to do it:

Religious conservatives on the board killed a proposed standard that would have required high school government students to "examine the reasons the Founding Fathers protected religious freedom in America by barring government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion over all others." That means the board rejected teaching students about the most fundamental constitutional protection for religious freedom in America.

They're not really actively denouncing freedom of religion, just de-emphasizing it. Though their quotes did rather suggest that they're wanting to teach that this nation was founded entirely on Christian morals, rather than secularly.

either this story is a hoax

It is most assuredly not a hoax:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/legislature/stories/DN-sboe_11tex.ART0.State.Edition1.4bf3039.html

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/moms/6910429.html

Would get more, but I've got homework x_x Google News has plenty of results on the subject though.

[Divine Hero Nguyen]

If you studied some form of economics, then this video will help you understand F.A. Hayek and Austrian Economics:

For those that do not understand the video, some of the basic tenants are deregulation, smaller government, and emphasis on savings, production, and investment as the main engine that drives the economy rather than consumption. In particular, their most prominent theory of the school (Austrian business cycle theory) explains that most of the booms and busts are caused by the government monopoly on money (i.e. the Federal Reserve) setting interest rates set too artificially low, causing widespread malinvestment (Bank: Hey, money is so plentiful so let's ease on the requirements and background checks on the average Joe when obtaining a loan (Subprime mortgage, anyone?) We make more money off of interest and do not have much to lose~) and thus, call for the abolition of all central banks. Considering the fact F.A. Hayek himself predicted the Great Depression, I am shocked to see Austrian economics so marginalized. The school even predicted our current recession (Go youtube "Peter Schiff.")

As for Hayek, well...whatever. I regard the man as highly hypocritical in the Road to Serfdom (he sees any central planning of socialist governments as inherently requiring more power grabs, but doesn't seem to care that much about centralization that's already occurred in capitalist societies, or rather doesn't see it as contradictory. I do believe later libertarians, by focusing on government as a kind of necessary evil - where citizens surrender certain individual rights but then put a halt to things - ).

The book calls for a general DECREASE in the size of governments, not an outright ELIMINATION of government like what other libertarians preach.

As for the curriculum in general, this is pretty much a good reason for the government to get out of managing (note that I said "managing," not paying for students though) schools. Let the schools compete for the best history class; With freedom of speech and the internet, anyone who knows how to use their brain can discern the truths from the lies.

Edited April 13, 2010 by Divine Hero Nguyen

[Original Alear]

I'm dealing with the specific argument, if you want me to respond to your more general argument about the Austrian school I can do that. (frankly, I'm not that eager too because I'm not excited about trying to untangle my problems with the austrian school - relatively minor - and my problems with your characterization with them, and the points you highlighted - relatively important.

The book calls for a general DECREASE in the size of governments, not an outright ELIMINATION of government like what other libertarians preach.

Wow. I throw out one comment that indicates I see Hayek as potentially less important of being taught than Friedman, and someone goes ahead and formulates an argument without even reading my post. Let me ask you something,

Where did I say Hayek called for an elimination of government?

That's right. I never did.

So why are you calling me on talking about how it calls for a decrease in the size of government, as though I said otherwise? That was, in fact, the very reason I called him a (potential) hypocrite - because he states that some centralized planning will always lead to further centralized planning, but does not call for the removal of centralized planning. The reason I said potential hypocrite is because I see some grounds for a more nuanced argument that would justify this (though I didn't see it when I read the book).

Additionally, libertarians do not call for an "outright ELIMINATION of government", you are spewing the precise contradiction of reality.

Sauces:

http://www.lp.org/: Libertarian Party's homepage: calls for "smaller government.

http://en.wikipedia..../Libertarianism: States that libertarianism calls for a "minimization" (not removal) of the state. [actually this means libertarians might call for a removal of the state or might not depending on the circumstances - some situations might allow the state to be removed, some may require a low but not a removal]

A more nuanced view might be that libertarians will call for the elimination of government or the decrease in government depending on the circumstances; in fact, since libertarians for instance tend to idealize the american government in the days of its founding there are even times when they would call for an increase in government.

However, you're wrong no matter what because you characterized libertarians as calling for "outright elimination" generally, which is so obviously wrong I actually facepalmed myself when I first saw you say it.

I attacked what you said. Learn to write. You attacked the exact inversion of what I actually said. Learn to read.

The one other thing I think is worth trying to explain to you is that Hayek is not, in fact, the only economist in the Austrian school. Simply because I had one tiny problem with Hayek does not mean I am dismissing the entire Austrian school, let alone that I am marginalizing Hayek himself.

As for the curriculum in general, this is pretty much a good reason for the government to get out of managing (note that I said "managing," not paying for students though) schools. Let the schools compete for the best history class; With freedom of speech and the internet, anyone who knows how to use their brain can discern the truths from the lies.

You are case in point that this is not true, as evidenced by the above. Any idiot could use the internet to find out that libertarians frequently advocate for decreased government rather than eliminating government. You did not, and instead invented your own fictional idea of what a libertarian is and espoused it on the internet despite easily available information to the contrary. Thankfully, as I know how to use my brain I was able to discern the truth from your lies.

You should try brushing up on the Austrian School sometime. A real follower of the Austrian school would not conclude that eliminating government control would lead to people inevitably discerning truth from lies; they would instead argue that government action complicates the process with a net negative result. Deregulation does not lead to perfection; rather, regulation always leads to further imperfection.

(don't agree with this, but I would certainly agree that regulation CAN lead to further imperfection and that regulation will never lead to perfection.)

Edited April 14, 2010 by SeverIan

[Divine Hero Nguyen]

I'm dealing with the specific argument, if you want me to respond to your more general argument about the Austrian school I can do that. (frankly, I'm not that eager too because I'm not excited about trying to untangle my problems with the austrian school - relatively minor - and my problems with your characterization with them, and the points you highlighted - relatively important.

I am not confronting you on this; I am just talking generally about the relative importance of Austrian economics since it is relatively unknown to many people here. I know it is rather difficult to summarize the entire Austrian economics to the average person so I laid out the basic points the school supports (especially the ever-so-important Austrian business cycle theory which is one thing that separates it from other schools)

Wow. I throw out one comment that indicates I see Hayek as potentially less important of being taught than Friedman, and someone goes ahead and formulates an argument without even reading my post. Let me ask you something,

Where did I say Hayek called for an elimination of government?

That's right. I never did.

So why are you calling me on talking about how it calls for a decrease in the size of government, as though I said otherwise? That was, in fact, the very reason I called him a (potential) hypocrite - because he states that some centralized planning will always lead to further centralized planning, but does not call for the removal of centralized planning. The reason I said potential hypocrite is because I see some grounds for a more nuanced argument that would justify this (though I didn't see it when I read the book).

I was pointing out that there is nothing contradictory about Hayek's book; the purpose of the book is to inform people about the inherit dangers of central planning (which is pretty much any aspect of government) but since you cannot completely eliminate all government (except those that believe in the anarcho-capitalism), it is best to control or reduce the present state as much as possible enough to counteract inevitable government growth.

Additionally, libertarians do not call for an "outright ELIMINATION of government", you are spewing the precise contradiction of reality.

Sauces:

http://www.lp.org/: Libertarian Party's homepage: calls for "smaller government.

http://en.wikipedia..../Libertarianism: States that libertarianism calls for a "minimization" (not removal) of the state. [actually this means libertarians might call for a removal of the state or might not depending on the circumstances - some situations might allow the state to be removed, some may require a low but not a removal]

A more nuanced view might be that libertarians will call for the elimination of government or the decrease in government depending on the circumstances; in fact, since libertarians for instance tend to idealize the american government in the days of its founding there are even times when they would call for an increase in government.

However, you're wrong no matter what because you characterized libertarians as calling for "outright elimination" generally, which is so obviously wrong I actually facepalmed myself when I first saw you say it.

Just because someone is a member of the Democratic party does not necessarily mean they call for eliminating aspects of the Republic. The Libertarian Party is not truly libertarian in the actual sense of the word but a coalition of people who are sympathetic to libertarian positions but does not necessarily adhere to libertarian reasoning - fiscal conservatives, social liberals, constitutionalists, etc. The Libertarian Party is a political party that moderates the actual philosophy to some likable form and rightly so if it wants to win votes. For example, the libertarian supports education tax credits; True libertarians oppose even that, but they still vote for the Libertarian party because it is a step in the right direction.

I do concede that "outright" was a horrible choice of word but my point still stands: True libertarians are all unified on the view that taxation is theft and government forcing people to behave in some way at the point of the barrel is immoral and thus, government functions should be eliminated rather than reformed whenever possible. To put it simply (and this is one of my biggest problem with the philosophy), libertarians tend to view government in overly black-and-white terms.

The one other thing I think is worth trying to explain to you is that Hayek is not, in fact, the only economist in the Austrian school. Simply because I had one tiny problem with Hayek does not mean I am dismissing the entire Austrian school, let alone that I am marginalizing Hayek himself.

I was not attacking you at all nor was I accusing you of dismissing the entire school.

You are case in point that this is not true, as evidenced by the above. Any idiot could use the internet to find out that libertarians frequently advocate for decreased government rather than eliminating government. You did not, and instead invented your own fictional idea of what a libertarian is and espoused it on the internet despite easily available information to the contrary. Thankfully, as I know how to use my brain I was able to discern the truth from your lies.

You should try brushing up on the Austrian School sometime. A real follower of the Austrian school would not conclude that eliminating government control would lead to people inevitably discerning truth from lies; they would instead argue that government action complicates the process with a net negative result. Deregulation does not lead to perfection; rather, regulation always leads to further imperfection.

(don't agree with this, but I would certainly agree that regulation CAN lead to further imperfection and that regulation will never lead to perfection.)

Did Murray Rothbard, among other anarcho-capitalists, suddenly disappear from the libertarian scene?

Did I say that the elimination of government control would lead to perfect fact-finding? No, nothing is perfect. But competition and freedom of information is a lot better than a central authority indoctrinating students with the curriculum of their choice. Granted, there IS choice (You can move out or go to a private choice) but if imagine the Department of Education working under a conservative administration decides to implement this nationwide.

Edited April 14, 2010 by Divine Hero Nguyen

[Original Alear]

Nguygen, I spoke in haste. I do have disagreements with you, however something about individual words in your post ("marginalized" for example) made me get angry for no good reason. Once I'm angry, I do exactly what I accused you of doing; extrapolating what you said into arguments you didn't actually make.

I actually do feel there were times when you took what I said out of context, but you did it less than I did it to you. More importantly, my post exhibited manners infinitely worse than yours.

On the bright side, my temper fades quickly, especially when I see it was caused by my own misunderstanding of what you said.

I will now stop apologizing in a misguided attempt to "one up" your exceedingly calm response with an even more polite response from myself. The rest of my post consists of minor quibbles rather than anything significant.

I was pointing out that there is nothing contradictory about Hayek's book; the purpose of the book is to inform people about the inherit dangers of central planning (which is pretty much any aspect of government) but since you cannot completely eliminate all government (except those that believe in the anarcho-capitalism), it is best to control or reduce the present state as much as possible enough to counteract inevitable government growth.

However, I think that is still contradictory, because his point is that some planning creates a tendency to do more planning (because the original plans won't perfectly control the situation). But...compromises are not exactly indicative of an "invalid" argument, many libertarins accept the "necessary compromise" of government. Hypocrite (which I will say again, I used conditionally because I wasn't really sure whether it applied) was too strong a word. I do not feel contradictory was too strong, it's just not a bad thing for an argument to have some contradictions.

I do concede that "outright" was a horrible choice of word but my point still stands: True libertarians are all unified on the view that taxation is theft and government forcing people to behave in some way at the point of the barrel is immoral and thus, government functions should be eliminated rather than reformed whenever possible. To put it simply (and this is one of my biggest problem with the philosophy), libertarians tend to view government in overly black-and-white terms.

If I understand you, however, you are still arguing that while the gap between Hayek and libertarians is not quite as wide as you said, but still wide enough for him to stand independent of the ideology of libertarianism.

We are getting into rather nuanced arguments, and it might be best not to continue refining meaning down to the tiniest possible point. However, I'm at a point in my life (hopefully it will end soon as this kind of argument gets repetitive) where this kind of thing appeals to me. I would say something like this...it is not consistent to say that, because Hayek called for less deregulation or libertarians called for more deregulation, Hayek is not a libertarian or libertarians are not Hayek. "Libertarian" is an imperfect label for a group of people. Hayek is does not stop being a libertarian simply because he is different from other libertarians. All libertarians are different from each other.

I concede that further examination of libertarians VS hayek would reveal innumerable points of distinction...however, further examination of Hayek at 3 PM on a Monday in 1955 might reveal innumerable points of distinction from Hayek at 6 PM on the Saturday of that same week. We still call them both Hayek. I would argue that your distinction (which seems to rely on membership in the libertarian party and application of libertarian ideas towards creating specific political aims) isn't very strong, because there seem to be (from personal experience, oh crap) people who are members of other political parties and people of no political party who consider themselves libertarian.

If you seize on that word "significantly" I will have to get quite a bit more weird about this admittedly minor point. I know it may seem that I am harping on extremely minor details, but in this case you seem to be the one arguing for a relatively minor distinction to be made.

Did I say that the elimination of government control would lead to perfect fact-finding? No, nothing is perfect.

Sorry. Because I meet a lot of people who equate "best of all possible" or "most easily achieved" with "perfect", I assumed you meant the same.

Edited April 15, 2010 by SeverIan

[Doom103]

I read an article in the barbershop actually about this topic and I found the article to be quite engaging.

I'D LIKE TO APOLOGIZE to Thomas Jefferson for being demoted.

Poor guy. For so long, Tommy J delivered. He wasn't just the third el jefe. He was our man—the sort of Enlightened, powder-wigged dude you could always go to if you needed to put someone's head on a nickel.

Now look what Texas has done. Working, sadly, out of one of my favorite cities, Austin, the state school board down there, led by a faction of Enlightenment-bashing evangelical Christians, is quite literally about to rewrite history, forcing changes in schoolbooks, and telling teachers and book publishers they have to tell American history one way—God's way, Reagan's way (same diff) —or don't tell it at all. Since big ol' Texas buys the most textbooks, and publishers cater to whatever the school board wants, guess what? History just got a whole lot more Reagany.

The head of this faction does not claim to be an expert historian. He is a dentist, Dr. Don McLeroy, who, between cleanings, rails against the liberal bent of historians and scientists, and does not seem to like "experts." (I'd think twice before scheduling that oral surgery.) He's also no fan of Darwin or evolution. I think it has something to do with monkeys. It always does. Last year, he tried to get his creationist theories put into science books, based on his firm belief that God created the earth in six days, not that long ago—somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 b.r. (Before Reagan). You can argue with this guy if you want, but you will be on the wrong side of history. He'll make sure of that.

So what's American history gonna look like? Whatever Dr. McLeroy and his devout following think it should look like. Which is to say, very Christian. In an interview with the Times, McLeroy summed up his view of history this way: "There are two basic facts about man. He was created in the image of God, and he is fallen."

Any questions?

He wants history books to be a little more cheerleadery, a little more Republican, and a whole lot more Christian. (McLeroy, like Reagan and George W., was also a male cheerleader in school. I'm telling you, those guys are always changing history.) And so teachers will be told to stress the Christian roots of the country and the sacred intentions of the Founding Fathers, and to raise a pom-pom for such neglected movements as "the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s." (How could we forget it? Because I'm pretty sure it's still here and that we're still living it. I don't think the "resurgence" ever…unsurged.) There'll be a lot more boning up on Phyllis Schlafly, the Moral Majority, and the NRA. Other things will recede into oblivion, be tweaked, reinterpreted, or doctored by the doctor. The civil rights movement? Not so civil anymore. McLeroy would like us to know that many African-Americans supported not the peace-loving Martin Luther King Jr. but the more violent Black Panthers—your "adversarial" types. (Subliminal message to future generations: We white folks weren't just being oppressive. Black people were scary.) Even the McCarthy hearings, this country's low point in Cold War fearmongering and witch-huntery, won't sound so bad anymore. Schoolkids will be taught that all that paranoia paid off, and that something called "the Venona papers" proved that Commies really had infiltrated the government. (Again, you've probably forgotten the heavily infiltrated pinko rule of the Eisenhower administration.) Interestingly, the word capitalism, every patriot's favorite word, is now verboten, so please quit using it. In books it will henceforth be referred to as "the free-enterprise system," and in case you were wondering, it is awesome.

And poor Jefferson? The school board doesn't much like him. He loved his country, but apparently he didn't love God enough. Old Commie Jefferson got written out of a study of the great Enlightenment philosophers, because, well, he argued for the separation of church and state, and according to the new dental view of history, that wasn't very American of him. And that's how wacky and through-the-looking-glass surreal this whole episode is. Conservatives always talk about being strict constructionists, getting back to the original documents and virtuous roots of the country. The man wrote the Declaration of fricking Independence. When people talk about "original intent," he's the Original Intender.

What's strange is that this historical putsch stinks of the same thing conservatives, often legitimately, accuse liberals of practicing: elitism, the urge to take one's values and visions and "shove them, jam them, down people's throats" (as the folks at Fox News keep saying, with a bit too much sexual aggression) while not understanding or caring that other people have other values, other visions, other, um, throats. It's what critics accuse Obama of doing with health care: the dreaded "power grab." In the annals of power, this is the sort of thing that goes unchecked, but it's the grabbiest.

Just remember when faced with these things: America is a giant classroom, and the difference in the parties comes down to schooling. Nancy Pelosi is currently our teacher, and she would like the social-studies class to start on time, thank you very much. Barack Obama is the principal—a cool principal, but still, erudite and willfully above it all; he only comes by to check out the classroom. How are you kids getting along? Like many a Republican leader, McLeroy is the football coach (and cheerleader!) who resents the teachers of the world, the "experts," and who thinks his homespun wisdom is truer than anything you find in books. The thing is, America almost always prefers being led by a coach, not a teacher, and you can sorta understand why. Of course, we just found out what it's like being led by a coach for eight years. You follow him too far and you end up fighting the wrong wars and destroying your really cool free-enterprise system. No thanks. I'll stick with the eggheads and Enlighteners of the world. In fact, I wish they'd get more riled up—that the smarty-pants and Darwinian geeks and wise separators of church and state would rise up in Texas and take control of history. Jam it down their throats!

Read More http://www.gq.com/magazine/toc/201005/jim-nelson-may-2010#ixzz0oDqXptcD