I'm so friggin sick of political correctness

[JeeberD]

How are kids supposed to learn if everything around them is being censored? Regional bias? WTF is that? Can't talk about dinosaurs? Can't talk about owls? This crap has gone way too far...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Study reveals textbook self-censorship

Adrian Humphreys
National Post

Monday, May 05, 2003

The classic children's story The Little Engine That Could has been banned in some U.S. jurisdictions because the train is male and The Friendly Dolphin rejected because it discriminates against students not living near the sea, according to a major study on education policy.

The study found officials who approve classroom materials want references to dinosaurs removed, because they prompt questions about evolution, and owls stricken as they are taboo for Navajo Indians.

Ketchup and french fries, bacon and eggs and ice cream and cake are also on the outs because of concerns over healthy eating habits.

Even birthday parties have been forbidden because they could upset children who do not get invited to them, says Dr. Diane Ravitch, author of The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn.

Dr. Ravitch studied education policy in the United States for three years, tracking policies of state authorities and local school boards, test-writing companies, review committee decisions, as well as in-house correspondence and style guides of publishing houses -- much of which was deemed secret and came to light only through court action.

She documents "an elaborate, well-established protocol of beneficent censorship, quietly endorsed and broadly implemented by textbook publishers, testing agencies, states, and the federal government."

"Educational materials are now governed by an intricate set of rules to screen out language and topics that might be considered controversial or offensive," she writes. "Some of this censorship is trivia, some is ludicrous, and some is breathtaking in its power to dumb down what children learn in school."

Censorship has become so entrenched that reworked titles are making their way into Canadian classrooms, Dr. Ravitch said yesterday.

"You will be encountering this if you are using the textbooks developed by any of the major publishers, and yes, Canada would be largely using the same books. The trend is spreading," she said.

Publishers are so fearful of their titles being blacklisted by major education authorities they voluntarily remove anything that could conceivably cause offence -- making classrooms an "empire of boredom" for young readers, who are forced to read nothing but "pap," Dr. Ravitch said.

Changes made to books and test questions, as documented by Dr. Ravitch, include:

- Women are not portrayed as caregivers or as doing housework and men cannot be professionals such as lawyers, doctors or plumbers;

- Elderly people must be active and not feeble;

- Regional bias is to be stricken -- for instance a story of a mountain climber would discriminate against students who live in flat areas;

- Girls cannot be depicted as watching sports, they must be playing them;

- Children cannot be portrayed as questioning authority or being in conflict with adults;

- Characters must not be orphans, ghosts or animals with negative or dirty associations, such as mice, bugs or scorpions;

- Ethnic stereotypes must not be propagated, so people with Irish roots cannot be police officers and a black person cannot be an accomplished athlete.

In an interview, Dr. Ravitch -- a professor at New York University, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a former education advisor for both Republican and Democrat presidents -- said the result is harmful to children.

"It bores the tears out of them and makes them cynical," she said. "The things around them are far more interesting than what they are finding in the classroom. The books can't portray what the children see before them with their own eyes so they dislike reading.

"The first requirement of good writing and good history is accuracy," she said.

"The bias and sensitivity reviewers work with assumptions that have the inevitable effect of stripping away everything that is potentially thought-provoking and colorful from the texts that children encounter."

The pressure on officials and publishers come from both the left and right of the political spectrum, Dr. Ravitch said.

The revision of materials started as a way of rooting out truly offensive material. Then politics entered the fray in earnest: While the left was ripping out material considered insensitive to multiculturalism or gender equality, the right was stripping out material deemed anti-family or pro-sex, she said.

The solution, she said, is to remove state and school board control of approved reading lists and trust teachers to select material appropriate for their specific classes.

Last month, an elementary workbook was removed from primary schools because it said Inuit people collect welfare and lack the skills to hold permanent jobs and that their traditional way of life was "no longer the right way to live."

Parent of pupils at an Iqaluit school complained about the references in Let's Visit Nunavut, a workbook produced by S&S Learning Materials, based in Napanee, Ont.

[email protected]

[Butter]

Originally posted by JeeberD
Last month, an elementary workbook was removed from primary schools because it said Inuit people collect welfare and lack the skills to hold permanent jobs and that their traditional way of life was "no longer the right way to live."

You don't find judging the appropriateness of other cultures offensive?

[John Galt]

Just to make it clear, the thought police pushing textbook editors come from both the right and left according to Ravitch (this is not just a problem with PC - it is problem with controlling thought). From the NYT book review:

"While censors on the right aim "to restore an idealized vision of the past, an Arcadia of happy family life" in which Father knows best, Mother takes care of the house and kids, and everyone goes to church on Sundays, censors on the left believe in "an idealized vision of the future, a utopia in which egalitarianism prevails in all social relations," a world in which "all nations and all cultures are of equal accomplishment and value."

[JeeberD]

Well, that example is certainly something that needed to be removed. It is uncalled for, rude, and insensitive. But what about the rest of the article?

Changes made to books and test questions, as documented by Dr. Ravitch, include:
- Women are not portrayed as caregivers or as doing housework and men cannot be professionals such as lawyers, doctors or plumbers;

- Elderly people must be active and not feeble;

- Regional bias is to be stricken -- for instance a story of a mountain climber would discriminate against students who live in flat areas;

- Girls cannot be depicted as watching sports, they must be playing them;

- Children cannot be portrayed as questioning authority or being in conflict with adults;

- Characters must not be orphans, ghosts or animals with negative or dirty associations, such as mice, bugs or scorpions;

- Ethnic stereotypes must not be propagated, so people with Irish roots cannot be police officers and a black person cannot be an accomplished athlete.

Not to mention the fact that dinosaurs can't be brought up because they might bring up questions about evolution, non healthy food can't be discussed, and the numerous other examples in the article.

[QuikSand]

Sounds like an awful lot of strawmen in that article.

I don't disagree with the notion that these pressures exist, but I think it's overstated by this "study." These statements (like "Regional bias is to be stricken -- for instance a story of a mountain climber would discriminate against students who live in flat areas") are not standards that any significant share of textbook publishers follow today, nor are inclined to in the future.

[cuervo72]

This from a couple of days ago is on the same subject, figured I'd dig it up: http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/for...&threadid=8550

[stkelly52]

"Last month, an elementary workbook was removed from primary schools because it said Inuit people collect welfare and lack the skills to hold permanent jobs and that their traditional way of life was "no longer the right way to live."

This part bothered me. It would be interesting to see what it meant in contest with what was around it. If it was explaining new programs that were being set up to help the Inuits because thier traditional way of life no longer met thier needs I could understand it.

As to judging the appropriatness of cultures, I know nothing about the Inuit people, but there are many aspects of many cultures that are no longer appropriate in today's world. Slavery, canibalism, human sacrifices. These are some aspects of many cultures in the world that are being ended today. In some places child prostitution is just part of the culture. Many cultures squash the rights of women, treating them little better than cattle. In many places in Africa sex is about as common as a handshake. This results in the rapid spred of Diseases like AIDS. This is not to say that it is OK to just go westernize all cultures, but there are parts of cultures that do need to change. The trick (and a difficult trick it its) is to find the balance between the two.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by stkelly52
This is not to say that it is OK to just go westernize all cultures, but there are parts of cultures that do need to change.

Why?

[stkelly52]

Originally posted by Fritz
Why?

1. Because cultures are in a constant state of change. You can't help it, no matter what you do cultures are going to change anyway. Take a look at what life was like in the the old Leave it to Beavers episodes, you will see that life is very different now.

2. Because there are aspects of cultures that are wrong. Shall we continue to allow genocide, human sacrifies, slavery etc.?

3. Because some parts of culture are destructive. Some cultures think nothing of destroying the environment. Thier fatalistic worldview leaves them not caring about furture generations, or even others from this same generation.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by stkelly52
1. Because cultures are in a constant state of change. You can't help it, no matter what you do cultures are going to change anyway. Take a look at what life was like in the the old Leave it to Beavers episodes, you will see that life is very different now.

2. Because there are aspects of cultures that are wrong. Shall we continue to allow genocide, human sacrifies, slavery etc.?

3. Because some parts of culture are destructive. Some cultures think nothing of destroying the environment. Thier fatalistic worldview leaves them not caring about furture generations, or even others from this same generation.

1. Cultures change, that doesn't mean we should force that change in directions that people don't want to move because we "know" what is best.

2. A total strawman. Not only are genocide, slavery, and human sacrifice not part of culture, they are also not at issue in this case.

3. You mean like American culture?

[Fritz]

Originally posted by John Galt

2. A total strawman. Not only are genocide, slavery, and human sacrifice not part of culture...

Really? I think you have some convincing to do.

[stkelly52]

Originally posted by John Galt
1. Cultures change, that doesn't mean we should force that change in directions that people don't want to move because we "know" what is best.

2. A total strawman. Not only are genocide, slavery, and human sacrifice not part of culture, they are also not at issue in this case.

3. You mean like American culture?

1. I tend to agree with you, but my point is that there are many parts of culture that do need to change. Also culture is becomming more globalized. The long arms of commerce and big business are stretching to every part of the globe. You may not like that it is causing cultures to change, but the tide can not be stopped. It is going to happen. because of that people of other cultures need to prepare themselves for it. However, the way that it offen happens (now, not in the past) is that aspects of other cultures are introduced into the culture and those aspects are adopted by the people (usually the youth). So it is not being forced on them, but rather they are integrating the new culture into thier own.

2. As I said, I don't know anything about the Inuites, just that it MAY not be offensive to judge another culture.

3. Yes this is also a major weakness of the American culture. Hopfully some of the aspects of other cultures will be adopted by the next generataion of Americans.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Fritz
Really? I think you have some convincing to do.

I think genocide is the easiest one to dismiss. Germans don't have a genocidal culture just because of the Nazi's. Even at the time, the culture had elements which helped genocide occur (high respect for authority, a prepensity to scapegoat, etc.), but the culture itself was not premised on annihilation. It would be hard to name a culture in history that had genocide built into it.

Slavery, similarly became part of societies and affected culture, but was never part of culture itself. American history (especially Southern history) included a lot of traditions and even some rituals relating to slavery, but slavery was not cultural in the same way language, art, or learned behavior would be.

Human sacrifice is a little trickier because it was sometimes bound up in religion. In those cases, it was a judgment call (depending on whether you view religion as part of culture or separated). There is an argument, however, that human sacrifice is no different than the American death penalty. One was meant to ensure good crop yields (or other such goal) while the other was meant to decrease crime. Just because one of those has some scientific (albeit nothing conclusive) evidence to support it doesn't change the element of sacrificing for the greater good.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by stkelly52
1. I tend to agree with you, but my point is that there are many parts of culture that do need to change. Also culture is becomming more globalized. The long arms of commerce and big business are stretching to every part of the globe. You may not like that it is causing cultures to change, but the tide can not be stopped. It is going to happen. because of that people of other cultures need to prepare themselves for it. However, the way that it offen happens (now, not in the past) is that aspects of other cultures are introduced into the culture and those aspects are adopted by the people (usually the youth). So it is not being forced on them, but rather they are integrating the new culture into thier own.

Assimilation doesn't have to happen. If globalization continues at its current pace and in its current direction, it probably WILL happen, but it doesn't have to. I also think globalization could take a different course if it left room for other cultures and ways of life. American capitalism doesn't have to work for everyone and we shouldn't try to force it where it doesn't fit.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by John Galt
I think genocide is the easiest one to dismiss. Germans don't have a genocidal culture just because of the Nazi's. Even at the time, the culture had elements which helped genocide occur (high respect for authority, a prepensity to scapegoat, etc.), but the culture itself was not premised on annihilation. It would be hard to name a culture in history that had genocide built into it.

I think one could look around and find examples that would contradict your point. Slaughter of one people by another is nothing modern, and is often deeply ingrained in a people. (The ability to commit genocide has been greatly enhanced by technology.) In the case of the Germans in WW2 you may have a point, but african genocide is another issue entirely.

Slavery, similarly became part of societies and affected culture, but was never part of culture itself. American history (especially Southern history) included a lot of traditions and even some rituals relating to slavery, but slavery was not cultural in the same way language, art, or learned behavior would be.

hmm, some people may argue that slavery was not an important aspect of southern culture. Even if it was not, there are other examples of cultures that had strong slavery traditions.

Human sacrifice is a little trickier because it was sometimes bound up in religion. In those cases, it was a judgment call (depending on whether you view religion as part of culture or separated). There is an argument, however, that human sacrifice is no different than the American death penalty. One was meant to ensure good crop yields (or other such goal) while the other was meant to decrease crime. Just because one of those has some scientific (albeit nothing conclusive) evidence to support it doesn't change the element of sacrificing for the greater good.

And there is also canibalism in all its forms. Certainly this is part of a culture.

My point in all of this is not to defend the above practices. We want to protect culture as long as it is language, or art, or putting a bone in your nose. When it is something more serious, like eating people or giving women a non-western role in society, we have no problem with forcing a change.

[stkelly52]

Originally posted by John Galt

I think genocide is the easiest one to dismiss. Germans don't have a genocidal culture just because of the Nazi's. Even at the time, the culture had elements which helped genocide occur (high respect for authority, a prepensity to scapegoat, etc.), but the culture itself was not premised on annihilation. It would be hard to name a culture in history that had genocide built into it.

Slavery, similarly became part of societies and affected culture, but was never part of culture itself. American history (especially Southern history) included a lot of traditions and even some rituals relating to slavery, but slavery was not cultural in the same way language, art, or learned behavior would be.

Human sacrifice is a little trickier because it was sometimes bound up in religion. In those cases, it was a judgment call (depending on whether you view religion as part of culture or separated). There is an argument, however, that human sacrifice is no different than the American death penalty. One was meant to ensure good crop yields (or other such goal) while the other was meant to decrease crime. Just because one of those has some scientific (albeit nothing conclusive) evidence to support it doesn't change the element of sacrificing for the greater good.

I disagree with your definition of culture. Culture is how people live, how they think, how they act, thier forms of trade and industry.

While germany did not have a culture of genocide (just a select few mass murderers), there are many cultures that do. Many cultures see themselves as the superior race and others are little better than animals. To kill one of another race can be seen a service. Granted these are rare, but the point is that they do exist.

Slavery has very much been part of most cultures in human history. Anceint Rome was comprised of 90% slaves. It still continues today in some parts of Africa. Much of the trade and industry are based on slave labor.

Originally posted by John Galt

Assimilation doesn't have to happen. If globalization continues at its current pace and in its current direction, it probably WILL happen, but it doesn't have to. I also think globalization could take a different course if it left room for other cultures and ways of life. American capitalism doesn't have to work for everyone and we shouldn't try to force it where it doesn't fit.

I am not arguing that it should happen, only that it IS going to. I do not believe that there is anything that can be done to stave off globalization (in the long term). Instead we should as best as possible prepare people for the change that is going to happen.

[sterlingice]

Originally posted by John Galt
2. A total strawman. Not only are genocide, slavery, and human sacrifice not part of culture, they are also not at issue in this case.

What the heck is a strawman and what does it mean in this context? I've never heard that word used before.

SI

[cuervo72]

Someone who is grasping at straws with an argument (just my guess)?

[mrskippy]

They had this on TV the other day too. Apparently they also are removing the concept of Founding Fathers from textbooks too.

In fact, the history books seem be getting the biggest retooling. Uh ... hello ...

You can't change the past. History is history, even if its bad. Part of learning that history is so we don't repeat it. Or if it was something good, we can use it again.

Even the part of history about the Protestant reformation is being removed. This was an interesting part of my history class and at a secular school no less.

To me this is complete foolishness and I don't care what side is doing it ... There is no room for revisionist history or getting rid of important litarary works.

[stkelly52]

In a sence I would agree with that Skippy, but I don't have any problem with looking at history in a new way. History is always writen with a slant toward one side or another. There is a time when the accuarcy of history should be questioned and changed to make the books more accurate.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally posted by sterlingice
What the heck is a strawman and what does it mean in this context? I've never heard that word used before.

SI

Strawman is a thing built up to knock down. Something fake and easy. Sensational. Often heard in phrases like "building up a straw man to knock him down."

-Anxiety

[JPhillips]

Skippy: Your argument assumes that history is objective fact. It never is. As soon as someone commits to writing history their believes and biases will inevitably be a part of their view of history. Take the Civil War as an easy example. Was it a legal attempt to seperate states from an over oppressive federal government, or was it a pathetic attempt to maintain slavery against modernity? Both.

This isn't to say that I agree with a lot of what is happening with history texts. However, to claim that history is one set of undisputable facts is incorrect.

[tucker342]

Political Correctness just goes to far... If the parents really don't like it, can't they just excuse their kid from reading it or something?

[mrskippy]

My problem with all of this revisionist history and political correctness is that if you keep it up we will create a more ignorant society.

In the school district here, the schools banned all Rated R movies -- including ones with educational purpose. Among the most notable movies to be banned was "Schindler's List" because it contains nudity, violence, and other material the district doesn't believe high school students should view.

Instead, the school encourages watching a movie about Anne Frank when it comes to the Holocaust.

To show "Schindler's List" it must be edited the school district argued, something that Steven Spielberg has refused to do. He insists the rating is appropriate and rightly so.

I did agree on "Ben Hur" over "Gladiator" when it comes to films on that era of history. And not for the religious reasons, but for the historial significance of "Ben Hur."

I'm still dumfounded by a culture that wants to ban books that are an integral part of American literature and the nation's heritage.

Unfortunately, most schools (all the way through the university level) are adopting multiculturalism as a standard. Even universities are doing away with many of the old fashioned standards for general education and changing the courses students must or are allowed to take to satisfy graduation requirements.

When the accrediting body visited the college I attended they were surprised to see a college sticking to old fashioned way. But at one point the college has considered teaming up with other like minded colleges to form a new accrediting group -- fearing the day when accreditors want multiculturalism.

Sadly, today's children and tomorrow's leaders will most likely be cynical, ignorant idiots.