Since the latest debacle of the manufactured debt crisis, once again there has been increased “talk” about the role of government in relation to the people.  Increasingly, there have been increased disdain on the part of the extreme right for the involvement of government in the lives of the average person.  Almost a nostalgic desire to return to those days of self sufficiency.  Well, let’s look at those days of self-sufficiency?  And when one looks at this it is important to look at the dates in which one describes.  The right had the incredibly nagging ability to keep changing their criteria.  Hence, I specifically would address that period from the late 1890s to about World War I America.  First let’s talk about governing structure.  Second, the lives of country and then industrial workers.

Government up until the late 1880s remained something aloof from the average person.  The State government was far away and the local city government was run by the local machine.  It does not matter what machine the democrats as well as the republicans had them.  The local machines actually provided some services to their supporters.  It was not all corruption, although a good deal was.  They kept their workers employed.  The Spoils System was in rampant use throughout the country since the Age of Jackson.  However, the system had gotten beyond the control of the people.  This is a time period when there was no such thing as the party primary.  The party bosses controlled the nomination systems and elections.  When one could vote, the ballot was printed by the party.  When one went to vote, they were asked what ballot they wanted, democratic or republican, etc.  In 1888, Massachusetts introduced the Australian Ballot, the secret ballot, from that point the state printed the ballot with all the names listed and the various party divisions.  Progressives also introduced the Presidential Primary, whereby party members could vote in a primary to choose their presidential candidate, later it was extended to local offices.  This Progressive reform diminished in some detail the power of the party bosses.  However, it was not entirely diminished.

Now, the period between 1880-1913, there were a great many politicians who had a great deal of power within their parties, or influence as one might call it today.  The party’s importance may be found in its control of the state legislatures and local politics.  New York City Tammany Hall machine politicians had an inordinate amount of influence in Albany.  This also plays into the choice for federal Senators.  Remember, Senators were chosen by the state legislatures, who voted for a person recommended by their party.  During the period in question, there also remained an increased amount of economic activity that was not regulated by the federal government.  In fact, the federal government did little to get involved in the economic activity of the nation.  This is why one can see the vast growth in monopolies from Railroads to Steel, to Meat Packing.  These same monopolies could also count on support from the Senators they purchased in the states and at the federal level.  In fact, the business of government was to keep government out of business.  Even in the depths of the first Great Depression of 1893, the federal government did nothing to alter the private privilege of the economic dynamics of the day.  Finally, in 1913, the 17th amendment came into effect and now, the people choose their Senators.  The question remains do we want to go back to something like this????

Beginning with Theodore Roosevelt, a Progressive Republican, an oxymoron today, Roosevelt determined that the federal government needed to get involved within the economy so that the government was not held hostage to the demands of private business.  Consequently, up to the early part of the twentieth century, government did not see its primary responsibility to get involved in the economic activities of the nation.  Today this is a bit of a shock.

How did this affect the average person?  We complain about government intervention for many reasons.  However, beginning in the late 1880s and into the early twentieth century, the average person began to demand that the power of government refocus from its penchant for the rich and powerful to the average person.  Farmers in the Midwest and South began early movements to organize for the demand of government attention and regulation.  The whole idea of the Silver Sub-Treasury System was to enable farmers to pay their debts and provide for better lives.  In the cities, organized labor for both women and men worked to get better wages and government reform for safer working and sanitary conditions, lest we forget the tragedies of the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire.

The point here, and there is one, is that government involvement in the lives of the average person began as a demand on the part of the average person to eliminate the privileged practices of business.  Big business held all the cards.  They controlled how much one made for a job, what the conditions were, and when one would be fired.  Business also had the money and influence to allow government to look the other way.  Let the private sector take care of these problems.  The problem is that the private sector NEVER took care of the problem because it is not in its interest to do so.  Conditions and wages only got better when the people decided that the federal government should use its power to end the privileges of the wealthy elite and start to work for the average person.

So where it this going????  The point my friends is that while there may be a good deal of things that, perhaps, the government should not do, the fact remains it DOES protect the average person from the prurient interests of business.  From the amount of lead that is safe to put in your teeth fillings to the requirements that baby cribs should have certain safety standards, it is OUR government.  The question remains do we as a nation want to give this up?  Do we want to give up some of the social safety net standards that have been achieved.  Things like unemployment insurance.  You know that 6% deduction you pay, and your employer better pay, so that in the event you lose your job you do not suffer immediate economic ruin.  And Social Security, a separate post to cover most of this will be necessary, nevertheless, this small sacrifice to allow old people to have some living in their waning years is something that the private sector would never be willing to fund.  In fact, the private sector has no interest nor could it do what the government does regarding many of the social services that the average person obtains from the federal government.  And we have earned them.  The average person pays into all these programs so that their parents are not on the street because they were not fortunate enough to save the requisite money needed for their life threatening disease they caught.

So what should the role of government be????  Should we go back to the days when the privileged and rich controlled the strings?  Or should we become more active and demand that government provide the needs of the people which it serves?  This is the debate.

Only 100 years ago, a major event occurred in New York City that has since been an example of why government needs to continue to regulate the private sector.  Without the aid of government, we have  a situation were labor has no power.  Sure, the individual would be “free” to negotiate his/her labor, but due to a labor surplus and the increase in unskilled jobs, that ability is a non-starter.   However, to their credit the owners of the Triangle Shirtwaist company chose a good modern building for their enterprise.  The Asch Building had been certified as fireproof by 1911 standards.  However, the fire department had noted the distinct absence of fire exits, yet nothing was done to compel the owners of the building or the company to rectify this, nor had anyone listened to the women’s pleas for fire drills.  All this is well documented.  The city ignored conditions inside the factory.  Doors were locked from the outside so that workers could not leave their posts until quitting time, a common practice.  At the same time, the company was worried that the workers might steal some of the materials. There were not real safety standards and forget about sanitation even by early twentieth century standards.  When the fire broke out at the factory on March 28,1911, it burned so quickly because of the scraps of fabric on the floors and the finished clothing that hung on wire wracks dangling over the heads of workers created a fireball.  the workers were locked inside, could not use the one fire escape, and were surrounded by flammable clothing.

The Triangle owners were later acquitted of charges of negligence because it could not be proven that they actually knew that the doors were locked.  A fact later proved false by historians.  The owners settled out of court for $75 per victim.  Not enough to even have a funeral by 1911 standards.  What the Triangle fire illustrates is the violation of the ideal of social responsibility on the part of the corporate elite. This is a concept that is today still disputed.  The concept of a shared social responsibility embedded deeply in American values of individualism, unimpeded economic growth, and property rights above all else.  Mac Blanc and his partner Isaac Harris exemplify the typical business.  They worried about competition but failed to provide any concept of responsibility for their workers.  Workers were cattle and they controlled their workforce.  Speed was the key.  They had the new electric sewing machines that make 3000 stitches a minute.  Volume was the key to their success.

Now this is a typical example of a company in the garment industry during that period.  Since then, the federal government had implemented new safety standards.  As a result of the fire at Triangle, after a 5 year investigation, the state of New York implemented new safety standards, that were promptly ignored by companies who could buy off inspectors who got their jobs because of their relationship to local politicians.  While we all balk at some of the weirdest standards, at least we have standards for safety and sanitation.

This is a day an age where the private sector created the demand for goods and services and an unregulated economy had more weight than government.  For corporations their corporation was private property that they could run however they wanted.  Forget the fact that they would not have been successful if it had not been for the workers who made it possible.  Their wealth and power was a reward for their individual freedom.  Yet, there was not recognition of the individuals who made the goods.

Do we want to go back to this unregulated system where private property and that concept trumps social responsibility.  We have not moved very far from that point.  Industrialists to this day feel that their self made status has been achieved by them alone forget all the people that have made it possible.  If they close the company, so what, workers will have to find other jobs.  We need to renew that sense of social responsibility.  Corporations are NOT private property, they have a social responsibility to the nation, economy, and to the workers they employ.  Hence when a CEO makes $10 million a year and lay’s off workers after 20 years, I know from personal experience, this can cause one to question their practices.  Especially since, over the last 20 years, CEO’s have no responsibility to the company they run.  They negotiate their contracts for a set salary regardless of how well the company performs.  This does not give them a stake in the company.

Consequently, when we talk about returning economic ‘freedom” to the private sector, we are really talking about restoring more power to stockholders and CEO’s who could care less about the city or state and the economic consequences of their decisions.  Their major concern is to make money.  While that is important, we need to have a factor in there for social responsibility.  Case in Point, New London V. Kelo The underlying reason for the seizure of property to redevelop the Fort Trumbul areas was . . . to please Pfizer and their expansion of their New London site, see New London Day for more facts.  In the end, people lost their homes, but were compensated, which is really no compensation when one wants their home.  Then the company who was developing the area went bankrupt and Pfizer closed the site.  This illustrates no social responsibility for the people who lived in the area.  There was no thought of what the impact would be in the end.  As a result, there remains empty buildings and homes.  Social responsibility demands that workers have an equal partnership with the company as they provide the means of wealth for the company.  Would the company profit without them?  While a group of individuals may own stock, there is a social responsibility that comes with that and we need to stress that.

As are result, we cannot count on the private sector to provide the needed safeguards for all people.  The private sector only allows for individuals of wealth, with that comes power, to have a say.  If one does not have wealth they have no power or economic ability to enforce compliance with demands.  Companies that think workers are unreasonable get a tax break from the federal government and move to . . . China.  Do we really want a return to this system.  It may be an extreme example, but the every day worker will tell you that this is not a far cry from the truth.

www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/tonights-vote-made-boehners-job-harder-not-easier/2011/07/11/gIQAEVd3hI_blog.html

Boehner had made a fateful decision. This vote illustrates only one thing. That he is attempting to shore up his waning Republican base. After all, that is the goal of most Representatives. However, there are issues that can be used for political points and then there is grand standing. Boehner has decided not to be a leader who can reach out and compromise. He has become the Newt Gingrich of the 21st century.

First, he has only managed to shore up his political base.   Boehner and the Republicans have show that they represent the selfish upper classes of America and that they really don’t care about the average person during this Great Recession they have promulgated.  I am sorry folks, but real leadership means that you have to compromise, and sometimes you do not always win.  In this case, the Republicans have won political points, and the American people have lost.

First,  As a political scientist, it is completely idiotic that Boehner would waste all this time, 5 days, on passing a bill that he knew would not pass the Senate.  He seems to have forgotten government 101.  In order for a bill to get to the President, it must pass the House and Senate in IDENTICAL form.  Instead, there will be two bills that neither has a snowball’s chance in passing.  It will take a tremendous amount of negotiation to even get close to either position.

Secondly, the issue of a Balanced Budget Amendment.  This will not get anywhere.  A balanced budget will not help America.  Government, folks, as much as we do not want to hear it does not act like a corporation.  Nor does it have to.  That does not mean that the government should not have limits.   However, there are times, like a Recession and War, when the government must be able to spend money beyond its revenues.  However, in that spending, jobs are created and more revenue floats back into the system.  Sorry folks, Keynes was correct. That and the US has had a deficit since the 1850s.  While that is not a justification, it is poor timing to now demand a Balanced budget when the average family in America cannot live within its means.  Yes, we don’t.  If anyone has a car loan or a mortgage, you are living beyond your means.  That includes about 97% of all Americans in some form.  This does not include any credit card debt. So all this preaching that government needs to act like the average family, is bogus.   This amendment will only serve to strangle the American financial system it will do the opposite of what the proponents argue.

Finally, it is time to start having the conversation of what is good debt and what is bad debt.  And there is a difference, and way too much time to explain.  Suffice it to say that bad debt would be giving grants to corporations for “research” while they are making record profits and creating a worse recession by laying off people so they can look good on the books.  This is a waste of money that could be used elsewhere.  Good debt would be creating more jobs, especially in a Great Recession, where people could obtain a job and start paying off their debts and begin to spend some money economically.  This debt is an INVESTMENT, because we will get a greater return when those people begin to pay the taxes.  That money comes back to the government as a multiply effect allowing the government to pay the loans it borrowed to create the jobs in the beginning.

Taxes:

First, we all pay them.  I have no use for the argument that only certain people “pay” taxes.  Sorry folks, I look at my pay check every month and I see the deductions.  As does every other employed person.  Secondly, yes many people get a tax refund.  That is because they have over paid their taxable obligation for the year.  Then there are some deductions that help the economy and help people who are trying to better themselves.   Yes, they get a bit of the money they have invested in a college eduction back.  Not all of it.  but a bit.  Then, there are those who have deductions for children.  It costs money to raise children.  Surprising?   The government has determined that rather than have working poor got to private charities to make ends meet, we will give them a break in helping them feed and cloth their children.

Then, there is the extraordinarily amount of repressive taxes that the poor and middle class pay.  I am talking about sales taxes folks.  As a group these people pay over 80% of all sales taxes in the US.  That is because they are, and be prepared for a shock, a greater number of the population.  That and they purchase more taxable goods and in greater quantity than anyone else.  For example.  The average middle class family will over a 10 year perio purchase 3 automobiles year 1 for,  $20,000, year 5 $25000, and year 10 $30,000.   A 6% sales tax on those total is =$4500 in sales taxes alone.  In that same period an rich person will purchase a $70000 vehicle and pay $4200 in sales taxes.  This is not fair.  And this discrepancy more than makes up for the few people who pay their taxes and get a bit back.  The real issue is to provide a balance to the approach.  We need to have taxes on the level of the misery index.  Those that have more economic misery should pay less.

The Politically Viable

The overall problem presented here is a fundamental argument about the role of government.  In the 19th century, government was an elusive far away factor in the minds of people.  The only contact most people had with the federal government, let alone the state government, was the post office until the 1930s.  After several depressions and recessions, We as a people determined in the 1930s that  government needed to have a greater role in society and the economy, because private charity could not keep up with demand. It still cannot.  And because the government did not feel it needed to get involved in the economy.  Hence, we determined that a social safety net would be needed.  And we pay for this folks.  Unemployment insurance, we pay for this it is not charity folks.  Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, are all needed to prevent the poorest of our population from living on the streets.  Most barely live above that at this point.  Hence, government is a tool.  Like a Hammer.  One can use a Hammer to build with or to destroy.  I prefer to build.  For the last 30 years the political right had been attempting to destroy government in one form or another.  Because if the people continue to have their say they, the right, will lose. Continually, the people of this country, conservatives and liberals, have stated that we need to have a basic intact social safety net.  Now, we are talking about destroying that.  I do not want to go back to the days of no unemployment insurance thank you very much, or workmen’s compensation, child labor, the working conditions of the late 19th or early 20th century.  We can move forward.  And the direction is more government and not less.  The problem is most people have learned not to trust the government.  There is good reason for this. Since the debacles of Watergate, Iran-Contra, and Vietnam, the people have rightly been reluctant to give government a chance.  However, we must remember that WE THE PEOPLE, own the government.  and when it does not due what we want, we have a right to alter the situation through a little think known as elections.  You cannot fix a system that is broken from the outside.

In the end, Boehner has illustrated that his policy of get tough is wrong.  Yes, we need to take care of the deficit, but not in such a radical manner that could further make the financial situation worse.  A balanced budget amendment would do exactly that.  As would no revenue increases.  Didn’t we learn this from the 1980s, you cannot decrease taxes, have less money coming in, and spend more.  We did this in the 1980s and during the GW Bush years. It is time to start investing in America, and the government is the only one that is doing that, everyone else is looking elsewhere.  It is also time to start

This Semester, I began a new experiment in the use of digital technology in the classroom. At the beginning of this class, I decided that students would open a Google Docs account. I stressed the point that if they already had a Gmail account they might consider having a separate account just for class. Why use Google, and not what the university provides. First, I am an adjunct and the systems such as blackboard can be intimidating for students young and old. That and it is not always easy to remotely connect. Secondly, as an adjunct, I felt that it was a way to have a semi-closed community for class. In this manner, an adjunct could share with the class power point presentations, and other assignments without the worry of cross pollution in other classes. Finally,it provided a way for students to present their materials in a timely manner and not worry about losing their assignments.

One of the main reasons I chose to use Google was its simplicity. Google easily integrates all the services for the student and the instructor. At the beginning of the class, I stated that students must have a Google account, and that all materials submitted in writing in class must also be uploaded and shared with me via Google docs. This allows the instructor to offer criticism on writing assignments in a timely manner and keeps the privacy of both student and instructor intact. For some students who may issues with technology, it is important to put students at ease right from the beginning to reassure students that they will be submitting their papers both online and in class. As time progresses, this may not need to be the case. One must also emphasize that students need to write their papers and save them as either a word doc or a pdf file to allow the up load in Google to convert their papers to the Google formant without changing any of the format.

Secondly, as the instructor, one has the control of access to documents that you create. Hence, students need to understand that if they want feed back they will need to share their documents with you and allow the instructor editing privileges. In addition, group assignments can be presented and shared among students. For the history class, students had to write several questions for discussion sessions to be given over specific chapters of the book. Hence, I created a Google Doc that would have the questions written upon and then shared that document with the designated students. This offered the ease of students writing their questions as they read the chapters in question and eliminated the need for a turning in a separate piece of paper. At grading time it was also easier to make sure that students had followed through with assignments. It also allowed students to coordinate their material for their designated discussion. This allows students more time to develop questions and less time they feel they need to meet with other group members. It also allows instructors to gage the amount of work each group member places on the project at hand.

in the end, the instructor has the ease of control under the Google system. It had a friendlier interface for students and appears less complicated that institutional systems. Instructors can share their PowerPoint presentations with students both in class and after. in this manner, students can review the presented materials in class along with their notes. Also, if a student misses a class, the power points can help students catch up quicker. At the same time, instructors can give feedback on materials such as course papers and exams. Indeed, one can share comments with students on their paper and keep those comments private between instructor and student. And, if you have very bad writing, it allows students to read your comments, whether they want to or not.

in the end, I find that the Google system had great potential for class. I highly recommend its use and the use of the new Google plus part of the account. This will have some use in classes the require social interaction and research on current events and historical materials. This is the next test. Nevertheless, the system as it stands presents a good method to provide good material to students, and allow students the ease of turning in assignments with little worry that they will get lost. At the same time, it provides students a good way to interact between student and instructor. Students can chat with the professor online, get feedback on written assignments and offer easier access to the instructor. For adjuncts, I think this is a great way to interact with students and put them at ease with technology.

It had been an ongoing attack on public education since the 1980s, perhaps before I just happen to become attentive at that time, that it is not doing enough to ensure the future of our children. Personally, I never bought that line. Since that time, conservative politicians have tried to sell the American people on the notion that we can have our cake and eat it too. Well folks, it is now more apparent than ever the cake they are serving remains sawdust at best. For over 30 years we have listened to these education hacks that money was not the answer. No!! we need only have more efficiency and better teachers. Frankly, we bought it. Now, Paul Farhi in his article the Five Myths about America’s Schools found here has shown us that all this talk of reform has had mixed results and uncertain foundational arguments. What a surprise!! There has been much that has occurred over the last 30 years to cause the problems in public education but there is much to look at with the obvious fact that the reforms have not worked out any better.

However, before diving into Farhi’s article, I do want to mention that one of the main reasons for the decline in public school funding remains the fundamental method in how schools are financed. Particularly, in most of the 50 states, schools are financed by the property taxes of the community in which they reside. Let’s not mince words. There is a direct correlation to the fact that since the late 1980s there has been a 50% decline in corporate taxes at the local level. This has to do with the great wave of mergers and offshore settlement of many of these companies who feel that their only social responsibility is their well-being. How else can companies make record profits and dividends while laying off workers. This is not a healthy business environment. When the CEO makes $5 million a year and the company makes money and now downsizes to make more money, this is disingenuous to those who make corporate America work, the workers. And who has had to pay for this decline in corporate taxes?? Yes, because there is a decline in taxes for them does not mean that the cost of running the Public School system has gone down either. It means the private property owners and small businesses have to pay more for the charity given to large companies.

Farhi has provided a balanced account of just where the Public School system is in America. He shows that there are no easy answers but many myths. First, the myth that the Public Schools are Failing. Indeed, that is a myth. While one cannot discount the problems of the Public Schools in large metropolitan areas where there remain an large body of poor and non-English speaking groups, Farhi shows that we are forgetting about the most important achievement. Since mid 1980s when I graduated, dropout rates have DECLINED!!!. Yes that is Declined!!!. The Department of Education shows that the percentage of 16 to 24 year olds who were not enrolled in school and had not earned a diploma or a GED has FALLEN to 8% in 2008. When I graduated from high school, that number was over 10% and in some places higher than 20%. That is not to say that there is not room for improvement.

Secondly, the myth that Unions defend bad teachers has come home to roost. It is true that more than a number of teachers 30 years ago were considered safe once they had obtained tenure. However, teacher unions are not like the unions of the manufacturing age. The National Teachers Union and at the higher education level the American Association of University Professors, have shown that they are more than amenable to removing bad teachers for cause. They know that their reputation is on the line as well as their members. Their argument, however, remains that teachers must have due process and the chance to improve. Is that not fair? Also, we Americans have to dispel the notion that Public School Teachers only work 9 months out of the year. That notion had been changing since the 1970s. Teachers now have to return to school in the summer for classes at the university at their own expense.

Third, that charter schools are the answer and will show the way for education, has now been shown in its true light. I will not debate the merits of charter schools. They have provided a good competitive answer for many students. However, the truth is hard to face. Recent tests have shown that charter schools have not performed any better on standardized tests. They have the same problem that the public schools have, funding and the need to show improvement for No Child Left Behind. Indeed, charter schools have pioneered some good methods in teaching. However, there have been many charter schools who have failed their children with broken promises of a premier education. Indeed, the problem is that charter schools take money away from the already strapped public schools. Instead of trying to create “show” schools, why not just try to create better public schools. That would make more sense.

Finally, that better teachers are the answer to the problem for failing schools, no this is not the entire answer. The problem remains that one has to have the funds to pay new teachers. If you want the better teachers, schools have to be able to negotiate the better salaries. Is that not what capitalism is all about? It is no wonder that the richer school districts have better teachers, they can afford them. They can also afford a better learning environment with the best buildings and the best facilities. While the best of everything does not ensure that a student will learn, it certainly offers better pathways and opportunities for students to learn.

As a graduate of the public school, I have watched this debate and saw the struggle for these issues for 30 years and it all boils down to 1 thing. It’s like my father always told me “you get what you pay for”. Americans had bought into that ideology that “we need to fine tune the system rather than raise taxes”. True, there was much that needed to be fine-tuned. That is obvious. However, what our conservative friends did not offer was what to do after all the fine-tuning was done. In the meantime, Americans had to face an increased invisible tax. That’s right INVISIBLE. When our town tax assessors and councils decreased taxes on the corporations by 50% over the last 30 years, the tax payer had to make up the difference along with increased property values. Now that our companies have done the American thing and moved overseas to not have to pay taxes, Americans now have to pay the entire bill. Some companies have not done this, but far too many have. Charter schools have provided a new window into alternative teaching methods. So let’s use those methods and some of the old reliable ones and merge these schools together. That would be great. Farhi’s article has shown that what may have been partly true 30 years ago is not the same now. All the old promises of conservative politicians, and some liberals too, no longer work. No Child Left Behind has left more children in crisis than previously thought. Charter schools have not provided the new path. They have offered limited success and taken more money away from the public schools that need the money. Public schools have improved. Proof? SAT and ACT scores have improved over the last 20 years. And US elementary and middle school students have improved steadily since 1995. We still have much to improve upon. But with an every shrinking pot of money, the time has come to consider several things at the local level for our public schools. Namely, merging the charter schools with the public and merging several public school districts together. It is also time to start demanding tax relief by demanding corporations pay their share of the burden to the communities in which they service.

as college professors begin composing their standard syllabus for the coming semester, I decided to use one of my classes as an experiment. One of the biggest problems is to get students to participate as apart of in class discussions.

Hence, I have decided to set up a designated Twitter account for one of my introductory classes. Students will have to tweet questions each week and one of them will be chosen at random to be the centerpiece for a 10-15 minute discussion. To alleviate fears, I have told students that they do not have to use their twitter accounts that are attached to their phones. I have stated that there are many other ways of using twitter without having to pay extra for phone use. For those that are outside of North America, most phone companies charge extra for “tweeting”. Hence, the point is to feed discussion not to increase phone charges. If students want to use their phone accounts it is up to them.

I will keep everyone posted on how it goes. Suggestions are welcome

ABC News Clip about the Controversy

Well the beat continues, as the Texas State Board of Education continues to rewrite the school curriculum for the nation. Again, as I have stated in the past, academics need to watch this continuing saga and be prepared to boycott the publisher(s) of these standards.  In the name of education TSBOE is making children stupid.  It is an education stopper.  And it is not doing a favor for school children.  They will graduate from high school and go to college to find out that their version of history is sadly lacking.  Those who don’t go on to a higher education will continue to facilitate falsehoods the rest of their lives.

If this were just Texas, I would be up in arms.  Because this issue will affect many students who don’t go to Texas Schools, I am outraged.  I am suppose to just stand and listen to small breaches of historical fact?  The oddest thing is that the TSBOE and its conservative members are doing the very things they claim that the left is guilty of.  So 2 wrongs make a right?  In an era where more education needs to be provided to prepare people for after school life, they are certainly lowering the standards of the intelligence of their students.  Will these students be able to compete with other students from different states on an equal basis.  No. So now we ill further place people in a straight jacket until they graduate and then when the straight jacket is taken off, we will find that students will need remedial classes.  This is not fair.

Again, I will keep people abreast of this situation as much as I can.  I do believe that the TSBOE has not finalized the standards as of yet, but they are due to be finalized at the end of May and will not be scheduled to be revisited until 2020.  God save us all.

Current List of Texas Approved Publishers

This link will take people to the current list of social study publishers for Texas. These publishers are NOT as of yet part of the new standards but one can imaging the implications here. What a surprise????

For Grades 1-12 the Social Studies and History Texts are from the largest publishing companies, any wonders here???

Harcourt, MacMillan, Pearson; Holt, Rinehart and Winston; McGraw-Hill. One has to scroll down to find the actual textbook approved but these are the publishers approved as of now. However, these are NOT the ones approved for the new standards. As the standards are now yet to be approved in their final form later in the year. I will keep track of this

Also a new issue has arisen about this issue that publishers are trying to stay neutral. No surprise there. I have a quote below from a New York Times Article concerning the Texas issue. “”We now have the ability to deliver completely customized content” to different states, said Joseph Blumenfeld, spokesman for Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, one of three major publishers that supply Texas with most of its social studies textbooks.”

This could be both a blessing and a danger. Publishers for years have been able to provide “customized” textbooks. As one who has been an adjunct in the State of New York, I found that many Community Colleges in that state have customized texts. However, as long as the underlying structure of the content remains factually correct, this is not a problem. The issue at this point is merely what chatper(s) to include. For those who teach introductory courses this is an issue of time and of what to include and what to leave for higher level classes. If publishers start to use customization to “exclude” content that is objectionable, but not factually incorrect, then the issue becomes one of content. This is a problem. If a publisher states that they can just publish a book just for Texas and then a different one for others states for their “customized content,” then issue is not solved. It becomes an issue of, dare I say it, censorship and exclusion.

If I, as a college teacher, taught US History I, an introductory class covering everything from 1492 to the War of the Rebellion and did not include slavery and its presence on the North American continent because I might be “uncomfortable” about the issue, I am withholding relevant information from students that they have a right to know. In the Texas case, withholding the knowledge that Thomas Jefferson was influenced by Enlightenment Thinkers like John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, is not a choice of convenience. It is altering the historical record. Jefferson got his phrase “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” from John Locke’s notion of “Life, Liberty, and Property.”

All this tells me is that Texas Board of Education members should start reading history before they start rewriting and censoring it.

Calling all college history professors and instructors. It is time to use our clout as history professors to make a statement. According to the New York Times article the Texas Board of Education is making significant changes to the history curriculum for high schools students. We need to come to the aid of Mary Helen Berlanga and use our clout as academics to boycott the rewriting of history for political purposes. If it were just Texas, I may not suggest such a boycott. However, because publishers have become so economical in the past years, the book published according to the Texas guidelines will be used by other states for their classes. It is time to say ENOUGH to this blatant attempt at censorship and academic political correctness. Censorship on the part of the publisher and censorship on the part of the Texas School Board of Education who did not even have, according to the CBC news broadcast on March, 23, 2010, The Current, an academic historian suggesting changes. We need to show our support for Mary Helen Berlanga by emailing her our support at this email address here.I am proposing to spread the word to all historians who teach at the college and public school level. If they we have the power to choose our textbooks, we need to boycott the publisher, and their subsidiaries, of the textbook for Texas public schools. Show them that we will not accept the rewriting of history. These are not just changes to a curriculum these are calculated extractions of American history. The claim by many is that history is some leftist tool to twist facts. I am sorry but both VanRanke and Droysen would argue with that. What qualification does a dentist and a preacher have to determine historical standards? I will need your help here academics and graduate students. Boycott the publisher of this book and their subsidiaries. Let’s illustrate that historians can use their clout to stop the abuse of history by agenda seeking loons who think that history is merely interpretation. It is not just interpretation. It is an informed analysis determined by factual evidence. I shutter to think what they will want to exclude next, the holocaust? That will be the next step if we do not take a stand now. All those who support this issue can make a comment below and I will respond. Let me know what more we as historians can do to prevent this gross malfeasance of history on the part of the Texas Board of Education.

It must be stated that censorship is NOT academic freedom. Academic freedom means that one should be able to choose resources for inclusion within an academic setting. What the Texas School Board is doing is excluding, that is censorship.

Hello world!

In an effort to be more inclusive and in touch with my western colleagues, I am starting this academic post to discuss history in the modern world.  The goal is to act as an exchange of information on how to present history in the digital format and to discuss issues that historians confront about putting history on the Internet.  I will attempt to post new materials every months.  All contributions are welcome.  It is going to be a slow start, but I think this will be an interesting conversation.  I know that as an North American Historian, I am not often cognisant of the efforts by my European colleagues, but this blog is an attempt to learn and offer explanations about history in the new medium.