Matthew LaClair is the high school student who made headlines when he recorded his (public) high school history teacher preaching fundamental Christianity in class.
He was last seen leading the charge to get a mistake-riddled, conservatively-biased Government textbook corrected or purged from the school systems.
He has an Op-Ed piece in today’s LA Times about his goal.
In one of my classes, we use the 10th edition of “American Government” by James Q. Wilson, a well-known conservative academic, and John J. DiIulio, a political scientist and former head of President Bush’s Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. (2005). The text contains a statement, repeated three times, that students may not pray in public schools. In this edition of the text, the authors drive the point home with a photograph of students holding hands and praying outside a school. The caption reads: “The Supreme Court will not let this happen inside a public school.”
I knew this was false. In fact, students are allowed to pray in schools; courts have ruled many times that a student’s right to pray may not be abridged. What’s generally impermissible is state-sponsored prayer, in which school officials lead prayer or students are called on or required to pray. It seemed clear to me that the purpose of the discussion in the textbook was to indoctrinate, not to educate.
Matthew elaborates on several other mistakes as well:
The authors neglect to mention the growing scientific consensus on this subject. They dismiss those who are concerned about global warming — that is, the overwhelming majority of scientists — as “activists” motivated not by data but by “entrepreneurial politics.” Those who deny or downplay it are described as “skeptical scientists.”
Pointing out dissent within the scientific community is appropriate. Suggesting that the majority, but not the minority, is politically motivated is not appropriate. If a controversy truly exists, then the authors should not instruct students which side to “support.”
The Center for Inquiry even drafted a detailed report (PDF) listing the relevant parts of the book — the incorrect or biased passages that are seen all too often.
Matthew closes the piece with this:
As Americans, we should stand up for our common values. We should champion education and settle for nothing less than the best. Our teachers should do the same and should not misuse their positions to promote their personal agendas.
Not coincidentally, one of the textbook’s authors, James Q. Wilson, also has an opinion piece in today’s Times.
Right out of the gate, he’s on the defensive:
Of course some textbooks are politically biased. It is not hard to understand why. Opinion surveys and studies of campaign contributions show that the great majority of academic social scientists are liberals, so no one should be astonished to learn that some liberals write left-leaning textbooks and that some of them assign them to their classes.
When he uses language like that, it’s hard to believe he’s going to be politically neutral on anything…
Let’s look at his arguments (emphasis mine):
But of late there has been a sudden flurry of charges that our book has a deep conservative bias. The Center for Inquiry, a nonprofit organization devoted to “secularism and planetary ethics,” published a lengthy complaint saying that we had said the country was founded on a belief in “original sin” and that the text misinterprets the Supreme Court’s rulings on school prayer. Two letters from space scientists say we give too little support to the idea of global warming.
And a New Jersey student, known for his activism in promoting 1st Amendment rights, says that a caption in the book, accompanying a photo of students praying outside a public school, falsely suggests that no student may ever pray inside a school building. And he complains that we unfairly called scientists who believe in global warming “activists.”
“Falsely suggests”? The picture shows kids praying outside of school. The caption reads: “The Supreme Court will not let this happen inside a public school.” Nothing false about that.
Original sin? The authors did say the colonists believed in it and founded the country on that principle. They write:
“To the colonists all of mankind suffered from original sin, symbolized by Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden. Since no one was born innocent, no one could be trusted with power. Thus the Constitution had to be designed in such a way as to curb the darker side of human nature. Otherwise everyone’s rights would be in jeopardy.”
Of course, that’s historically inaccurate. Some believed it. Not everyone. As CFI mentions, there’s no evidence that “original sin” played any role in the drafting of our Consitution.
But apparently, everyone just read the wrong edition of the book.
Wilson’s entire argument seems to be that CFI and Matthew were picking apart the 10th edition of the book, which came out in 2005/2006.
Had they all just read the 11th edition, they would’ve seen all was fair and balanced!
As for school prayer, we made it perfectly clear in our book that what has been banned by the Supreme Court is state-sponsored prayer. It’s true that a sloppily written photo caption was taken out of the 11th edition — as our critics would have seen if they had looked at the most recent version of the book (which was in print long before they complained).
“Long before”? The 11th edition was published November 30th, 2007. About five months ago. The actual copyright date is 2008. Obviously not enough time for school districts to get the new versions.
The space scientists think that we were too critical of the global warming argument. In the 10th edition of the book, which they read, we wrote that there was disagreement among scientists about this matter. In the 11th edition, which they did not read, we said that the disagreement was much less, though it still exists. What happened between the 10th and 11th editions? Among other things, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a new report in which the evidence for greenhouse gases affecting Earth’s temperature was stronger…
That evidence was available long before the IPCC’s report came out.
“Disagreement”? Hardly. Scientists knew about the evidence for man-made global warming en masse. Hell, Al Gore‘s movie An Inconvenient Truth came out in 2006 and that was well after the scientists were already in consensus on the issue.
CFI’s report even states:
… the U.S. National Academy of Sciences… issued a joint statement in 2005 with 10 other National Academies of Science declaring that “the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions.”
And no word on whether the “activist” label was removed in the new edition, either.
The Committee for Inquiry ignored the book and cherry-picked sentences.
Well, CFI has quite a few sentences… and several very long passages. They looked at the 10th edition in depth. And it hardly seems fair for the author to discredit that version of the book in lieu of a newer one most students have never seen and chalk all the major mistakes up to outdated information, when current information was present for many years prior.
If anyone who reads this article believes the text is biased, they should write to me. If they think it is not biased, they should write the Center for Inquiry.
Looks like Wilson’s going to be receiving a lot of letters… or phone calls.