While looking around FOXNews.com I noticed a story about a high school student arguing that his “American Government” textbook is biased. The article cites some parts of the textbook that claim global warming is still being studied and that the Supreme Court decision on striking down the Texas law regarding gay sex harmed the fragility of the federal system.
What bothers me is that this story is nothing more than a high school student with too much time on his hands – and a considerable liberal bend – trying to take the low road on each of these debates. The low road, as anyone who keeps an eye on political discourse can tell you, is to immediately claim that the other side’s argument is wrong and presents an inherent bias. It’s sad, really.
But I don’t blame the kid. In fact, I admire his will to put himself out there in the public eye. I do, however, blame the horrible education system in New Jersey that apparently has failed this child. A citation from the article linked above:
Another part of the book that the report criticizes deals with a Supreme Court decision overturning a Texas law banning sexual contact between people of the same sex.
The authors wrote that the Supreme Court decision had a “benefit” and a “cost.” The benefit, it said, was to strike down a rarely enforced law that could probably not be passed today, while the cost was to “create the possibility that the court, and not Congress or state legislatures, might decide whether same-sex marriages were legal.”
Derek Araujo, the report’s author, said that’s a matter of opinion and that gay-rights activists, for example, see it differently. “The major problem with this is they describe the costs and benefits of the system in a very political way,” he said.
No, you morons, this is not a matter of opinion. Stop blurring the fucking issue that the textbook is talking about, damn it. The “political” part of this debate is not looking at the issue in terms of American Government (which is the purpose of the class and textbook in question). American Government can ONLY be taught from the facts, not from a biased point of view. When it IS taught from a biased view or to an audience/class that has inherent biases with no preparation for a clean discussion, you get stupid stories like this one.
From the standpoint of American Government, the issue here is the Supreme Court making a decision about an issue that is not specifically cited in the Constitution. A teacher (and a textbook) MUST make that connection. Now, if you want to ignite some debate with the students you can always ask for their opinions on the issues themselves (in this case, gay marriage). That will probably bring a lively discussion. But the authors of this textbook (James Wilson and John Dilulio) are correct – the root issue here is the Supreme Court deciding whether or not gay marriage is legal. Does anyone read the Constitution any more besides Ron Paul?! This type of issue is to be decided by the states, period.
Now, if one wants to make an argument that certain freedoms are being restricted and thus the Supreme Court needs to step in, then I can buy that argument if it’s made well. But the issue at hand here and as discussed in this textbook is one that is not inherently political. It’s a basic, fundamental discussion of how the American federal, judicial, and legislative system work together. Get over it.
In the interest of full disclosure, I did NOT use this textbook in my class on American Government that I taught last semester. I did, however, use a previous version of this text as a student at my ultra-liberal Graduate School. Also, I was sent an updated copy of this text by the publisher when I began teaching my course and I made the decision last semester to switch to the college version of the textbook in question.
The article states that the newest edition of the textbook says, “Science doesn’t know how bad the greenhouse effect is.” The new text goes on to say that global warming is “enmeshed in scientific uncertainty.”
Those statements – alone – are not false. However, if the question is whether an overwhelming number of scientists agree that global warming is here, then the answer is yes. The next question should then be whether a majority opinion on scientific results automatically mean that opinion is correct. The answer this time should be an obvious no. A logical alternative to 100% agreeing or 100% disagreeing with either of these statements is simply to put an “uncertain” line in a text book. HOWEVER…
This is the perfect example of where a competent teacher needs to takeover. A competent teacher should present both sets of scientific data (in a manner easily understood by the students) and then present statistics on which data is accepted by the majority and minority (and – most importantly – why).
Simply stating that global warming is real or global warming is fake is a biased statement either way. The former is biased against the minority and the latter is biased against the majority. Bias works both ways.
And as for AP classes – I just remember that my AP classes in high school were no harder than my regular classes. Of course, that may have changed (for better or worse) since I took these classes!
Joe,
I am sorry but the majority of scientists agree that global warming is human caused. The book took a swipe at that majority, I call that bias. Nonetheless, authors have the right to write what they believe, just as the student has the right to argue against it being used in his school. BTW, I doubt he has too much time on his hands if he is taking AP classes.
Yeah but stating “Science doesn’t know how bad the greenhouse effect is.” or “enmeshed in scientific uncertainty.” is disingenuous to say the least. There is a general consensus among most climatologists regarding the issue. Just an anectdote to relate, I was in Washington DC on the 28th of march for the cherry blossom festival. It turns out that that is the earliest the cherry blossoms have peaked and it turns out that according to Virginia Tech scientists every year the blooms come 8 hours earlier.
BTW, nobody reads the constitution anymore except Ron Paul (I saw him in person when he was on the Colbert Report), the bill of rights have been legislated out of applicability.
I disagree about the “enmeshed” statement. And I reiterate that this is why there are teachers in classrooms – to help students understand the bigger picture. And I read the “greenhouse effect” statement differently. In fact, I would read it as an admittance that there IS a global warming problem. Stating that such an effect exists and that science doesn’t know how bad it is yet tells me that the authors agree – to some degree (pardon the pun) – that global warming exists.
And it’s a damn shame about the Constitution. The funny thing is that our Founding Fathers would have revolted against what this country has become. Sad.