Texas Textbook Controversy
A limited time offer! Get a custom sample essay written according to your requirements urgent 3h delivery guaranteedOrder Now
Ever since the 1960s, the Texas textbook controversy has had an issue in America. The Texas school board is meeting to make revisions to their textbooks and curriculum. But are they also revising history? Educators across the country are watching to see the effect this issue will have on students. The choices the board members are making will affect politics, religion, monies spent thru-out the Texas school system. Christian conservatives on the state education board want curriculum changes. Parents and student would like the curriculum to remain the same, or not be so drastic. This analysis will show how, what, when and why the Texas Board members want the History of textbooks to be changed.
What does the history of Texas have to do with Textbooks?
Texas State Board of Education members Cynthia Dunbar, Barbara Cargill, and Gail Lowe discussing curriculum standards, Austin, May 2008. Cargill, who was appointed chairwoman last year by Governor Rick Perry, has expressed concern that there are now only ‘six true conservative Christians on the board.’ “What happens in Texas doesn’t stay in Texas when it comes to textbooks: ”No matter where you live, if your children go to public schools, the textbooks they use were very possibly written under Texas influence. If they graduated with a reflexive suspicion of the concept of separation of church and state and an unexpected interest in the contributions of the National Rifle Association to American history, you know who to blame.
When it comes to meddling with school textbooks, Texas is both similar to other states and totally different. It’s hardly the only one that likes to fiddle around with the material its kids study in class. The difference is due to size—4.8 million textbook-reading schoolchildren as of 2011—and the peculiarities of its system of government, in which the State Board of Education is selected in elections that are practically devoid of voters, and wealthy donors can chip in unlimited amounts of money to help their favorites win.
Those favorites are not shrinking violets. In 2009, the nation watched in awe as the state board worked on approving a new science curriculum under the leadership of a chair who believed that “evolution is hooey.” In 2010, the subject was social studies and the teachers tasked with drawing up course guidelines were supposed to work in consultation with “experts” added on by the board, one of whom believed that the income tax was contrary to the word of God in the scriptures.
Ever since the 1960s, the selection of schoolbooks in Texas has been a target for the religious right, which worried that schoolchildren were being indoctrinated in godless secularism, and political conservatives who felt that their kids were being given way too much propaganda about the positive aspects of the federal government.
Mel Gabler, an oil company clerk, and his wife, Norma, who began their textbook crusade at their kitchen table, were the leaders of the first wave. They brought their supporters to State Board of Education meetings, unrolling their “scroll of shame,” which listed objections they had to the content of the current reading material. At times, the scroll was fifty-four feet long. Products of the Texas school system have the Gablers to thank for the fact that at one point the New Deal was axed from the timeline of significant events in American history. Who approves textbooks in Texas?
The Texas State Board of Education, which approves textbooks, curriculum standards, and supplemental materials for the public schools, has fifteen members from fifteen districts whose boundaries don’t conform to congressional districts, or really anything whatsoever. They run in staggered elections that are frequently held in off years, when always-low Texas turnout is particularly abysmal. The advantage tends to go to candidates with passionate, if narrow, bands of supporters, particularly if those bands have rich backers. All of which—plus a natural supply of political eccentrics—helps explain how Texas once had a board member who believed that public schools are the tool of the devil.
Texas originally acquired its power over the nation’s textbook supply because it paid 100 percent of the cost of all public school textbooks, as long as the books in question came from a very short list of board-approved options. The selection process “was grueling and tension-filled,” said Julie McGee, who worked at high levels in several publishing houses before her retirement. “If you didn’t get listed by the state, you got nothing.” On the other side of the coin, David Anderson, who once sold textbooks in the state, said that if a book made the list, even a fairly mediocre salesperson could count on doing pretty well.
The books on the Texas list were likely to be mass-produced by the publisher in anticipation of those sales, so other states liked to buy them and take advantage of the economies of scale. “What happens in Texas doesn’t stay in Texas when it comes to textbooks,” said Dan Quinn, who worked as an editor of social studies textbooks before joining the Texas Freedom Network, which was founded by Governor Ann Richards’s daughter, Cecile, to counter the religious right.
The cost for the Texas textbooks?
As a market, the state was so big and influential that national publishers tended to gear their books toward whatever it wanted. Back in 1994, the board requested four hundred revisions in five health textbooks it was considering. The publisher Holt, Rinehart and Winston was the target for the most changes, including the deletion of toll-free numbers for gay and lesbian groups and teenage suicide prevention groups. Holt announced that it would pull its book out of the Texas market rather than comply. (A decade later Holt was back with a new book that eliminated the gay people).
Given the high cost of developing a single book, the risk of messing with Texas was high. “One of the most expensive is science,” McGee said. “You have to hire medical illustrators to do all the art.” When she was in the business, the cost of producing a new biology book could run to $5 million.
“The investments are really great and it’s all on risk.” Imagine the feelings of the textbook companies—not to mention the science teachers—when, in response to a big push from the Gablers, the state board adopted a rule in 1974 that textbooks mentioning the theory of evolution “should identify it as only one of several explanations of the origins of humankind” and that those treating the subject extensively “shall be edited, if necessary, to clarify that the treatment is theoretical rather than factually verifiable.” The state attorney general eventually issued an opinion that the board’s directive wouldn’t stand up in court, and the rule was repealed. But the beat went on. “Evolution is hooey”
Texas is hardly the only state with small, fierce pressure groups trying to dictate the content of textbooks. California, which has the most public school students, tends to come at things from the opposite side, pressing for more reflection of a crunchy granola worldview. “The word in publishing was that for California you wanted no references to fast food, and in Texas you wanted no references to sex,” Quinn told me. But California’s system of textbook approval focuses only on books for the lower grades.
Professor Keith Erekson, director of the Center for History Teaching and Learning at the University of Texas at El Paso, says that California often demands that its texts have a California centric central narrative that would not be suitable for anywhere else, while “the Texas narrative can be used in other states.” Publishers tend to keep information on who buys how much of what secret, but Erekson said he’s seen estimates that the proportion of social studies textbooks sold containing the basic Texas-approved narrative range from about half to 80 percent.
Some extremely rich Texans have gotten into the board of education election game, putting their money at the disposal of conservative populists. No one has had more impact than James Leininger, the San Antonio physician who has had an intense interest in promoting school vouchers. He backed a group called Texans for Governmental Integrity, which was particularly active in state school board elections. It’s most famous campaign was in 1994, when it mailed flyers to voters’ homes in one district, showing a black man kissing a white man and claiming that the Democratic incumbent had voted for textbooks that promoted homosexuality. (http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com)
What religion has to do with Texas textbooks?
Another organization Leininger has supported, the Heidi Group, sent out a prayer calendar in 1998, which unnervingly urged the right-to-life faithful to devote one day to praying that a San Antonio doctor who performed abortions “will come to see Jesus face to face.” The chorus of objections to textbook material mounted. Approval of environmental science books was once held up over board concern that they were teaching children to be more loyal to their planet than their country. As the board became a national story and a national embarrassment, the state legislature attempted to put a lid on the chaos in 1995 by restricting the board’s oversight to “factual errors.”
This made surprisingly little impact when you had a group of deciders who believed that the theory of evolution, global warming, and separation of church and state are all basically errors of fact. In 2009, when the science curriculum was once again up for review, conservatives wanted to require that it cover the “strengths and weaknesses” of the theory of evolution. In the end, they settled for a face-saving requirement that students consider gaps in fossil records and whether natural selection is enough to explain the complexity of human cells.
Don McLeroy, the board chairman who had opined that “evolution is hooey,” told Washington Monthly that he felt the changes put Texas “light years ahead of any other state when it comes to challenging evolution!” The process by which the board came to its interesting decisions sometimes seemed confused to the point of incoherence. Things would begin tidily, with panels of teachers and expert consultants. Then the expert consultants multiplied, frequently becoming less and less expert, until the whole process ended in a rash of craziness.
The science curriculum was “this document that had been worked on for months,” Nathan Bernier, a reporter for KUT in Austin, told National Public Radio. Members of the [teachers’ association] had been involved…. People with Ph.D.’s had been involved in developing these standards. And then at the last second, there was this mysterious document that was shoved underneath the hotel doors of some of the board members, and this document, at the very lastminute, wound up—large portions of it wound up making its way into the guidelines. In 2010, the board launched itself into the equally contentious sea of the social studies curriculum, and the teacher-dominated team tasked with writing the standards was advised by a panel of “experts,” one of whom was a member of the Minutemen militia.
Another had argued that only white people were responsible for advancing civil rights for minorities in America, since “only majorities can expand political rights in America’s constitutional society.” “The way I evaluate history textbooks is first I see how they cover Christianity and Israel,” McLeroy told Washington Monthly. “Then I see how they treat Ronald Reagan—he needs to get credit for saving the world from communism and for the good economy over the last twenty years because he lowered taxes.”
In their first year of work on social studies, the board agreed that students should be required to study the abandonment of the gold standard as a factor in the decline in the value of the dollar. If the students were going to study the McCarthy anti-Communist witch hunt of the 1950s, they were also going to contemplate “how the later release of the Venona papers confirmed suspicions of communist infiltration in US government.”
The changes often seemed to be thrown out haphazardly, and to pass or fail on the basis of frequently opaque conclusions on the part of the swing members. In 2010, the board tossed out books by the late Bill Martin Jr., the author of Baby Bear, Baby Bear, What Do You See?, from a list of authors third-graders might want to study because someone mixed him up with Bill Martin, the author of Ethical Marxism. http://truth-out.org/news/item/10188-bill-moyers-messing-with-texas-textbooks.
Texas: Texas’ Accessible Materials Laws for Textbooks.
Texas was the first state to pass a law requiring publishers to provide e-files. At first, the law was limited to Braille, but it was later expanded to include modifications for non-visually-impaired students with print disabilities, such as dyslexia. Texas Education Code, Section 31.028 (b), states: The publisher of an adopted textbook shall provide the agency with computerized textbook files for the production of Braille textbooks or other versions of textbooks to be used by students with disabilities, on request of the State Board of Education. A publisher shall arrange computerized textbook files in one of several optional formats specified by the State Board of Education.
In addition, Texas State Board of Education rules [Texas Administrative Code (TAC), Title 19, Part II, Chapter 66. State Adoption and Distribution of Instructional Materials] further direct that: On or before the deadline specified in the schedule for the adoption process, each publisher of newly adopted instructional materials shall provide computerized files as specified in the proclamation to be used for producing Braille or other versions of materials to be used by students with disabilities. All information contained in adopted instructional materials shall be included on the computerized files.
Computerized files may be copied and distributed to a school district, upon request, for instructional use with a student with disabilities who requires the use of computerized instructional materials, pursuant to an individualized plan developed for the student under the Rehabilitation Act, §504; the Americans with Disabilities Act; or the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Ordering, Producing and Obtaining Accessible Materials in Texas; at the May 2, 2003 meeting, Texas was represented by Jim Allan of the Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired and Chuck Mayo of the Texas Education Agency.
They noted that the state of Texas is an adoption state. In order to participate in an adoption in Texas, publishers must provide computerized files of adopted print textbooks for production into Braille. Included in each proclamation (call for bids for instructional material from the publishing industry) is a section on accessibility information for that particular proclamation. The current proclamation, Proclamation 2001 (state adoption 2003, school implementation 2004-2005), includes specifications for producing computerized files for the production of Braille textbooks.
In Proclamation 2002 (state adoption 2004, school implementation 2005-2006), there are also requirements for producing accessible web-based, CD-ROM, and DVD-based textbooks. According to Chuck Mayo of the Texas Education Agency (TEA), Proclamation 2002 may be altered in format before actual state adoption, especially given the current budget crisis, but accessibility requirements should survive. In Texas, orders for all textbooks are submitted to the TEA. The Texas School Districts send their orders on-line and they are categorized by publisher in the central TEA. To order alternative format versions of curriculum materials, teachers contact their school district’s textbook coordinator.
Textbook coordinators, in turn, place their districts’ orders for Braille or large type materials via the Internet using an automated online system (EMAT). State school districts send their orders for audiotape materials directly to Recording for the Blind and Dyslexic. If a teacher is interested in receiving computerized files, the district notifies the Texas Education Agency (TEA) of their need and the agency checks on the availability of the requested files. A letter is sent to the school district superintendent stating copyright guidelines the district is expected to follow. If the superintendent agrees to comply with all the guidelines, he/she signs the letter and returns it to TEA. TEA then places the orders with the organizations that house the files.
Texas does not share electronic files with other states, due to intellectual property concerns. However, Texas has encouraged its contractors and transcribers to sell materials to other states. With regard to funding, Texas does not have an existing or pending law or bill providing money for instruction of teachers or students regarding the use of alternative format versions of textbooks. Braille or large print textbooks are provided free to the school districts through $2 million dollars in funding that is disbursed bi-annually. It should be noted that it costs approximately $7,500 to transcribe a Braille master copy of 500 page book.
Then the book is maintained on open forum and copies can be produced. Texas has increasingly sought multimedia versions of adopted textbooks (see Proclamations 2001 and 2002, supra). Sometimes, this has resulted in resistance from publishers, particularly since Texas seeks voluntary rather than mandatory compliance with its accessibility guidelines. However, even when publishers provide multimedia versions of textbooks, there can be problems in the schools because the infrastructure required to get the computer-based products up and running and to teach the teachers and students to use them are not necessarily in place.
Identified Challenges or Concerns:
One difficulty confronting educators and accessible materials providers in Texas is the fact that the state does not have a single state clearinghouse for accessible versions of curriculum materials. Requests are channeled through the Texas Education Agency and forwarded to the appropriate Braille producer that houses those materials. However, since there are only three Braille Production Centers in the state, there is often a “feast or famine” situation. Producers rush for an September deadlines and then everything slows down. Jim Allen suggests that there needs to be a system set up for better work-flow year-round.
In addition, Texas struggles with finding high quality transcribers, especially for science and math textbooks (e.g. Nemeth Code transcribers). This is a problem that was echoed by the representatives of several of the states that were represented at the May 2, 2003 meeting. There seems to be a nationwide hortage of high quality transcribers. (http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/ed/ed0003100toc.html) Lauri Lebo is the author of The Devil in Dover: Dogma v. Darwin in Small-Town America, a book about the 2005 First Amendment trial of Kitzmiller v. Dover in which intelligent design was ruled creationism.
Members of the Texas Board of Education:
Ken Miller has been through the Texas Board of Education’s textbook review process before. Three times in fact. So, the Brown University biology professor, who co-wrote the popular high school textbook Biology with Joe Levine, said he’s not terribly worried about going through it again. Actually, the new science standards written last year present him with an invitation to delve into the issue of evolution and the fossil record more thoroughly. But ask him whether he knows how he’d cope with writing a history textbook under the new social studies guidelines, he responds quickly: “God no!” he said, horrified.
“Beats the heck out of me. I really don’t know.” The 30-day public comment period for the Texas Board of Education’s revised social studies curriculum is underway, and organizations from the American Civil Liberties Union to historians to the Texas Library Association are urging the public to weigh in regarding conservative efforts to rewrite history. The more than 100 revisions have garnered outrage from educators across the country, which include playing down Thomas Jefferson’s role as an influential thinker, requiring the President of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis’ inaugural address to be taught alongside the writings of President Abraham Lincoln, and replacing the word “capitalism” with the phrase “free enterprise.”
The curriculum changes are part of the Texas Essential Knowledge standards, which serve as a guideline for publishers and writers hoping to secure the lucrative Texas high school textbook market—the second largest in the country, second only to cash-strapped California. In addition to rewriting the social studies’ standards, the board last year also made significant changes to the science curriculum, inserting language that raises questions about the validity of evolution and man-made climate change.
Fundamentalist Christians on the board fought for and approved creationist and intelligent-design friendly language asking students to analyze the “complexity of the cell” as well as “analyze and evaluate the sufficiency of scientific explanations concerning any data of sudden appearance, stasis and the sequential nature of groups in the fossil records.” Board member Don McLeroy fought to have the language inserted because he lacks a scientific understanding of how evolution accounts for things like cell complexity and the fossil record. So rather than tiptoe around the questions raised about evolution, Miller views it as an opportunity to embrace the wording and address the issue head-on.
“That’s really an invitation,” he said. But whether the strategy will work depends on who will be sitting on the board at the time. Texas’ textbook review process is like no other. Next year, Miller and other authors and publishers of high school textbooks will gather before the Board of Education in Austin to testify to the fact that their books meet the new standards.
The board will then vote whether to reject them or put them on the approved list. After that, individual school districts will select textbooks from that list. In 2003 and 2004, despite McLeroy’s attempt to reject Biology, it was approved 11-4 and Miller and his co-writer spent 43 days and 43 nights flying around Texas, visiting with local textbook selection committees. “I spent more time in Texas than George Bush did that year,” Miller said. “I could have registered to vote there.”
Publishers Watching, But Are They Listening?
While the code language in the science standards may be vague enough that perhaps writers like Miller can use them to their advantage, the social studies requirements are another story. Many warn that as goes Texas, so goes the nation, since publishers writing textbooks to adhere to Texas’ standards would sell the same or similar versions to other states as well. In response, People for the American Way has begun a petition to send to publishers urging them to ignore the new guidelines. Others, including those who count themselves among the board’s most vehement critics, say the impact on the actual writing of textbooks may not be that dire. Still, that doesn’t spell good news for public education.
For no matter what the outcome of the standards on textbooks—either in Texas or across the country—the board is clearly rewriting history to fit a conservative agenda and a Christian-dominated worldview. Jay Diskey, executive director of the school division of the Association of American Publishers, called the idea that the Texas standards would impact the education of students in other states “an urban myth.” Diskey said publishers have been customizing separate state editions since 1994 when the federal government required each state to come up with its own separate academic standards. While digital publishing has made it easier to accommodate various editions, even before the mid-’90s, states were asking for textbooks geared to the local history.
“Texas might ask for more information on the Alamo; California might ask for more on the Gold Rush,” he said. Diskey said textbooks have long played a prominent role in the culture war, dating back to the Civil War. “We don’t argue against it,” he said. “That’s a state’s prerogative.” While Ken Miller acknowledges that publishers are capable of producing different state editions, if they had their druthers, it’s more cost effective to only having to make one version, just with minor tweaks to accommodate state standards. “Indeed it’s possible to produce a special edition for just Texas, but the reality is that almost all publishers would prefer the same core textbooks,” he said. Biology has state versions, but where they differ is at the end of the chapter with review questions material.
Miller said everything else in the different versions is the same. Pearson publishes Miller’s Biology. CEO Marjorie Scardino, Miller said, has assured the authors that she would rather be known as the publisher who sold no books in Texas, rather than the one who compromised scientific integrity and failed to stand on principle. David Hillis, a professor of integrative biology at the University of Texas—Austin who co-wrote the textbooks Life: The Science of Biology and Molecular Systemic said no reputable publisher or writer would kowtow to the board’s standards. “It’s hard to imagine any publishers taking this seriously,” said Hillis, who testified before the education board last year regarding the science standards.
“Are they really going to remove Thomas Jefferson from a discussion of the Enlightenment? And are they really going to substitute ‘free enterprise’ for capitalism? That’s ridiculous. They aren’t even synonyms.” “Publishers have reputations to maintain and this is so far off the mainstream of what is taught. They’re not going to add pseudoscience to the books. They’re not going to eliminate key historical figures.” For the most part, publishers of high school textbooks are reluctant to discuss the Texas controversy, even though it’s acknowledged that they have been following it closely. Sinauer Associates is a small publishing house that publishes college-level science textbooks, some of which are used in high school advanced placement classes. Sinauer, along with W.H. Freeman jointly published Hillis’ Science of Biology and Molecular Systemic.
President Andrew Sinauer said his company would never consider inserting anti-evolution language into a textbook to make a sale to creationists. “We simply wouldn’t do it and our authors wouldn’t tolerate it,” he said. However, he said that the smaller college textbook market isn’t subject to the same kinds of pressures as the high school publishing houses for which state and regional standards have long required specific editions. So, a company might customize 8,000 copies for Texas, but still sell educationally legitimate copies to the rest of the country.
More than Just Textbooks
Even though Hillis is less worried about the board’s impact on textbooks, it doesn’t mean he isn’t concerned about what it could do to students’ education. Under the standards, the board could require use of “supplemental material” as a way to sneak in creationist and intelligent design documents, like the Discovery Institute’s Signature of the Cell, or books that rewrite history from a distorted and dubious Christian perspective, like David Barton’s America’s Godly Heritage. Other states have tried the supplemental material language, so far unsuccessfully. “But they keep trying,” Hillis said. Interestingly, the person who led efforts to rewrite the standards won’t be around next year to pick the textbooks. McLeroy, the board’s former chairman and the most vocal conservative on the board, lost his primary race last month.
McLeroy, a young earth creationist and Christian fundamentalist, has argued that his goal is to add balance to the curriculum. “History has already been skewed, “he said following last month’s vote. “Academia is skewed too far to the left.” Of course, McLeroy also argues that women and minorities should be thankful to the ruling white male majority for bestowing them with equal rights. (See video here of his statement which begins at about 4:00.) Three of McLeroy’s fellow conservatives lost their races as well. Randy Rives and Joan Muenzler, who were backed by groups such as Wall Builders and the Texas Pastor Council, also lost their primary races.
In addition, Austin attorney Brian Russell, whom board member Cynthia Dunbar recruited to run for her seat, lost his race to a moderate Republican. Dunbar, who is retiring, is a dominionist and has said public education is evil. Another conservative, Ken Mercer, is facing a serious challenge from a pro-education candidate in the fall election. Next year, just in time for the textbook review, the far-right Christian conservatives may no longer hold a majority. At that point, it will be up to the new board whether it should apply or ignore the standards.
So, if the Texas textbook controversy were to end up having little impact on textbooks either across the country or even in Texas, was it all just a tempest in a teapot? The answer, Hillis says, is no. Unfortunately, young inexperienced teachers in small districts will look to the curriculum standards for guidance. And while teaching creationism is illegal, someone would have to be willing to challenge it. “Clearly this is part of an effort to generate a culture war,” Hillis said. Dan Quinn, a spokesman for the watchdog group Texas Freedom Network, points out that Texas in the next 10 years could become like Kansas; in response to Kansas’ board of education’s decision in the late 90s to eliminate evolution from its standards, voters elected a pro-science board. In the next election, voters elected a creationist board and then back to a pro-science board.
“It became like educational schizophrenia,” Quinn said, “where teachers didn’t know what to teach from year to year.” The amended standards, which will be reviewed and voted on May 19-21, are now available at the Texas Education Agency Web site. The Texas Freedom Network has a pretty comprehensive list as well. In no particular order, here is a list of 10 of the most egregious changes to the social studies curriculum: 1. Exceptionally Unjust: Conservative board members spent much time stressing that students need to learn about “American exceptionalism,” even as they removed the concepts of “justice” and “responsibility for the common good” from a list of characteristics of good citizenship for Grades 1-3.
They also unsuccessfully tried to remove the word “equality.” 2. Disestablishing the Establishment Clause: A proposal suggesting that high school students be able to “examine the reasons the Founding Fathers protected religious freedom in America by barring government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion over all others,” was rejected by religious conservatives.
3. The Enlightenment Ends Here: Board members voted to remove Thomas Jefferson from a world history standard about the influence of Enlightenment thinkers on political revolutions from the 1700s to today. Instead, they replaced him with theologians Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin. Then, because neither were Enlightenment thinkers, board members also removed the word “Enlightenment.” 4. A Free Substitute for Capitalism: Board conservatives banned the word “capitalism” from the standards, arguing that “liberal professors in academia” use the word in a negative way. The phrase “free enterprise” is to be used in its place.
5. McCarthy, Great American Hero: Led by McLeroy, board members voted to require students to learn about “communist infiltration” in the 1950s in an attempt to absolve Joseph McCarthy for his Cold War Communist witch hunts. McLeroy asserted inaccurately that McCarthy has been “vindicated by history.” 6. Expunge the (Brown) Socialist: The board took Dolores Huerta, co-founder of United Farm Workers of America, from a Grade 3 list of “historical and contemporary figures who have exemplified good citizenship” because she was a socialist. Inexplicably, socialist Helen Keller remained on the same list.
7. A Hero Ain’t Nothin’ But a Conservative: Students are required to learn about “conservative heroes and icons” like Phyllis Schlafly, the Heritage Foundation and the Moral Majority. No similar standard is required for “liberal heroes and icons.” 8. History, Rewritten by the Losers: When studying the writings of President Abraham Lincoln, 8th-grade students are also required learn about Jefferson Davis’ inaugural address as president of the Confederacy during the Civil War in their US history class.
9. Declaring Culture War on Liberal Programs: Students are required to learn about “any unintended consequences” of the Great Society, affirmative action, and Title IX. 10. As Goes Hollywood So Goes the Texas School Board: The board removed freedom fighter and Salvadoran archbishop Oscar Romero, who was assassinated during Mass, from a standard about leaders who resisted political oppression. The reason? Because they hadn’t heard of him and, as one board member said, “he didn’t have his own movie” like Nelson Mandela and Mohandas Gandhi. (Lebo L.; April, 2010)
[/i] Retrieved from http://www.modern-simplicity.com/2010/12/eat-wholly.html
[/i] Retrieved from http:// www.capitol.state.tx.us/statues/ed/ed003100toc.html Lebo L., (2010). [i] Texas Textbook Massacre Deceitful Propaganda Campaign or Tempest in a Teapot. [/i] Retrieved from http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/05/19/19467/? Moyer, B. (July 2012) Bill-Moyers-messing-with-Texas-textbooks. Retrieved June 29, 2012, http://truth-out.org/news/item/10188.