Language Cops
A new book shows how school texts and reading lists, from kindergarten through the universities, have been sanitized and made politically correct.
by JOHN SEILER
Sunday, July 6, 2003
Editorial writer, The Register
Just in time to mark last month's centenary of the birth of George Orwell comes "The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn," by Diane Ravitch. She's a professor at New York University and a scholar at the Brookings Institution.
Teaching children in some ways ought to be simple, and was until recent decades when large-scale experimentation began. Teach them the basics of language and math (not Whole Word reading or the New New Math). Then introduce them to the best that has been written or discovered in the liberal arts and science.
But at least since Plato those seeking to turn society in a new direction have known that the best way to do so is to indoctrinate the young. As Orwell put it, that means stuffing forbidden ideas down the "memory hole."
No better example of this can be shown than the way school textbooks and reading lists, from kindergarten through the universities, have been sanitized and made politically correct. Another example is the same process censoring school texts. Ravitch give us the details.
A good example is what happened to Holt, Rinehart and Winston. "During 1975 ... the Holt editors worked with a numerical quota system, imposed by their own internal guidelines. These guidelines directed them to 'familiarize yourself with the latest U.S. population figures so that our materials reflect current statistics [on race, gender, etc.].' ... 'Counting and chart-keeping should not be regarded as a useless editorial exercise. Careful tallies and analysis of how people are represented will reduce the need for costly reprinting corrections and may prevent the loss of an adoption' by a school curriculum committee."
Even so, Holt has been attacked over the years. The National Organization for Women complained that, while there was a perfect 1:1 balance of men to women shown in the texts, the gender equality did not extend to animals, where "males actually outnumbered females 2:1."
That's practically a scene out of Orwell's "Animal Farm."
Some ethnic groups complained they were portrayed in menial positions. New Mexico's public schools regime demanded diversity not only on the page, but among the authors. Holt then supplied a long list of authors from many backgrounds.
Then there are the actual books of literature used. "Since the 1950s, the leading target of left-wing censors has been Mark Twain's 'Huckleberry Finn'," Ravitch writes. "This book has unsettled people ever since it was published in 1885."
It's hated, of course, because it uses the "n-word." But anyone reading the book will find that it really is an elegy to tolerance and equality.
The bias isn't only from the left. Some right-wingers didn't like Huck. And others found in textbooks "secular humanism, satanism, witchcraft, fantasy, magic, the occult, disobedience, dishonesty, feminism, evolution, telepathy, one-world government and New Age religion."
At the end of the book, Ravitch includes a useful glossary of banned words.
Her solution? "The reign of censorship must end," she pleads.
Actually, given how diverse America is now - with thousands of different ethnic, religious and cultural groups - I think it's impossible to give a standardized schooling to everyone. This isn't the 1950s any more.
The public schools will remain a battleground until complete control and funding over children's schooling is returned to where it ought to be - with the parents.
If there's one public issue today that's more misunderstood than any other, it's guns. The media, alas, bear a good part of the blame. A good corrective comes from American Enterprise Institute scholar John Lott, author of the best-seller "More Guns, Less Crime."
His new book is "The Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything You've Heard About Gun Control Is Wrong." Lott is a master at dissecting statistics on guns.
A good example is so-called "assault weapons," which really are just military-looking rifles with the same mechanics of other rifles. "California provides a relatively unique example in that it both enacted an assault weapons ban in January 1990 and then had the law declared unconstitutional in early 1998," he writes. "[Statistics] indicate that there is little impact on the state's violent crime rates from the law."
He also details the most recent research on concealed handgun laws, which allow any citizen without a criminal record to carry a concealed weapon (usually after taking a course in handgun safety): "For the 10 states that adopted concealed handgun laws during [1977 to 1992], murder rates were rising or constant in all the states and falling after the law was passed."
The reason is simple: Criminals fear armed citizens. Even citizens without guns are safer because a criminal never quite knows if his intended victim is unarmed or might pull out a gun. That's why guns are called "the great equalizer."
If California adopted a concealed handgun law, murders and other crimes would drop here, too. It would be an inexpensive and liberty-enhancing way to reduce crime.
Lott explodes many other myths about guns. This book and his previous one combined are a double-barreled reason to buy a gun if you don't have one, and buy another if you already do. Read the new book during breaks at the shooting range.
Message 19098214 |
