Anti Trump/Conservative bias in public school textbook

[StLucieBengal]

https://www.dailywire.com/news/29479/anti-trumpconservative-bias-public-school-textbook-amanda-prestigiacomo


This is just crazy. It’s not that hard to get a textbook that is balanced. It’s just blatant disregard for the truth. Home schooling has got to be the way to go. Seeing this stuff just makes me want to go back to it.

Quote:The Anti-Trump/Conservative Bias In This Public School Textbook Will Make You Consider Homeschool
Amanda PrestigiacomoApril 16, 2018

Spencer Platt/Getty Images
A new Pearson-published advanced placement (AP) history textbook displaying some overt anti-Trump and anti-conservative bias is just more confirmation that the public school system is becoming increasingly geared towards indoctrinating our children with liberal ideology.

Co-host of the Indianapolis-based Joe and Alex Show. "Alex on Air," uncovered new language from the high school AP textbook "By The People" that plainly suggests President Donald Trump is mentally ill and his supporters are racists.


As reported by The Blaze, one passage of the textbook insinuates that Trump voters were largely white people who felt racial anxiety and animosity over the browning of America.

"Trump’s supporters saw the vote as a victory for the people who, like themselves, had been forgotten in a fast-changing America–a mostly older, often rural or suburban, and overwhelmingly white group. Clinton’s supporters feared that the election had been determined by people who were afraid of a rapidly developing ethnic diversity of the country, discomfort with their candidate’s gender, and nostalgia for an earlier time in the nation’s history," says the text.

And, for good measure, the text highlights Trump's "mental instability." Clinton voters "also worried about the mental instability of the president-elect and the anger that he and his supporters brought to the nation," it reads.

"By The People" by James W. Fraser goes on to claim Trump's administration is comprised of "largely white males, more so than any presidential cabinet since Ronald Reagan."

"Those who had long thought of the nation as a white and Christian country sometimes found it difficult to adjust" to the election of President Barack Obama, the book states.

The text also addresses the racial tension from Ferguson, Missouri in 2014 after the death of Michael Brown; The Blaze reports: "'The nearly all-white police force was seen as an occupying army in the mostly African American town,' the book states, adding, '…police increased the tensions, defacing memorials set up for Brown and using rubber bullets on demonstrators.'"

In recent years, public school literature has included censorship, troubling takes on allegedly inherent white racism and privilege, and the liberal concept of sexuality and gender, which is defined as detached from biology and on a "spectrum."

[hollodero]

(04-16-2018, 03:30 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: https://www.dailywire.com/news/29479/anti-trumpconservative-bias-public-school-textbook-amanda-prestigiacomo


This is just crazy.  It’s not that hard to get a textbook that is balanced.  It’s just blatant disregard for the truth.  Home schooling has got to be the way to go.  Seeing this stuff just makes me want to go back to it.

What a huge, huge scandal.

[Belsnickel]

I don't actually see anything that is inaccurate in those statements. I think there are inferences being made by conservative media that is causing them to be on the defensive in response, but I don't see anything wrong with what was said based upon those snippets.

[*Nately120*]

I love not having kids. The liberals want them to play imaginary soccer and to conservatives want them to believe that Trump isn't an insane golden calf to a racist fanbase. Anyways, I'm sure there are schools out there that will teach that Trump is an awesome branch of the Jesse Tree and Jimmy Carter sent nude selfies to Satan. You just need to find them and move somewhere that'll teach what you want your kids to learn.

[*bfine32*]

(04-16-2018, 03:39 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't actually see anything that is inaccurate in those statements. I think there are inferences being made by conservative media that is causing them to be on the defensive in response, but I don't see anything wrong with what was said based upon those snippets.

"Clinton’s supporters feared that the election had been determined by people who were afraid of a rapidly developing ethnic diversity of the country, discomfort with their candidate’s gender, and nostalgia for an earlier time in the nation’s history," says the text."

I agree there are inferences made, we just disagree if the Conservative Media is the one that made them.

[CKwi88]

They could use a few hedging words no doubt, but the only egregious misrepresentation is "Trump's mental instability."

Call it perceived, apparent, suspected, or any of a bunch of other hedging words, but stating it like fact is irresponsible

[hollodero]

(04-16-2018, 04:56 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: They could use a few hedging words no doubt, but the only egregious misrepresentation is "Trump's mental instability."

Call it perceived, apparent, suspected, or any of a bunch of other hedging words, but stating it like fact is irresponsible

But it didn't quite state it like fact. It said it was something Clinton voters were worried about. Which is true.

[Belsnickel]

(04-16-2018, 04:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: "Clinton’s supporters feared that the election had been determined by people who were afraid of a rapidly developing ethnic diversity of the country, discomfort with their candidate’s gender, and nostalgia for an earlier time in the nation’s history," says the text."

I agree there are inferences made, we just disagree if the Conservative Media is the one that made them.

I think the conservative media is making them in reference to the book. The Clinton supporters, many of which did fear those things, were also making inferences about those people. Maybe the language could make that more clear, but that is what I am getting from the book. The book isn't claiming Trump supporters are those things, but rather that is how Trump supporters were perceived by Clinton supporters.

(04-16-2018, 04:56 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: They could use a few hedging words no doubt, but the only egregious misrepresentation is "Trump's mental instability."

Call it perceived, apparent, suspected, or any of a bunch of other hedging words, but stating it like fact is irresponsible

They don't state it as fact. They state that Clinton supporters were concerned about that. Which I don't think could be argued against as it was a major point for a lot of people.

[Dill]

(04-16-2018, 03:39 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't actually see anything that is inaccurate in those statements. I think there are inferences being made by conservative media that is causing them to be on the defensive in response, but I don't see anything wrong with what was said based upon those snippets.

That is the problem, Bels. 

How can we build a post-truth America if publishers and school districts keep demanding school texts conform to scholarly standards?

Now repeat after me--

"The 3rd-rate political scientists like lying James Fraser at the failing Pearson Press are spinning up Fake History.  No mention of crooked Hillary's crimes. Sad!"

[HarleyDog]

(04-16-2018, 03:39 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't actually see anything that is inaccurate in those statements. I think there are inferences being made by conservative media that is causing them to be on the defensive in response, but I don't see anything wrong with what was said based upon those snippets.

It’s writer opinion in textbook. Not fact! Teach our kids and let them make their own choices. What I read disgusts me.

[Dill]

(04-16-2018, 04:56 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: They could use a few hedging words no doubt, but the only egregious misrepresentation is "Trump's mental instability."

Call it perceived, apparent, suspected, or any of a bunch of other hedging words, but stating it like fact is irresponsible

 A majority of mental health professionals would likely disagree with you.

Rather than just "calling it" anything, the authors could (or perhaps they did) simply state some of Trump's relevant behaviors--leaving out those which should be censored in a high school text. 

No one should be seeing this as a problem with the publisher, though.  How do your represent this president--the premiere US role model--to HS kids? 

A picture that satisfied the right wing press would require tons of spin and selective amnesia, with Clinton whatatboutism for balance.
Any book that does not satisfy that impossible demand will be "biased." So those offended by/fearful of the facts run to home school for alternative facts.

(And let's be fair here. REAL conservatives do not support Trump. They see the long term as well as the short term effects of keeping him in authority.)

[GMDino]

(04-16-2018, 05:07 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think the conservative media is making them in reference to the book. The Clinton supporters, many of which did fear those things, were also making inferences about those people. Maybe the language could make that more clear, but that is what I am getting from the book. The book isn't claiming Trump supporters are those things, but rather that is how Trump supporters were perceived by Clinton supporters.


They don't state it as fact. They state that Clinton supporters were concerned about that. Which I don't think could be argued against as it was a major point for a lot of people.

True or not I don't know if what Clinton supporters were "fearing" even needs a place in a text book.

But if this is even true it might be the first time in a long time Conservatives were concerned about how items were worded in a textbook because it made conservatives look bad.  

[Dill]

(04-16-2018, 05:23 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: It’s writer opinion in textbook. Not fact! Teach our kids and let them make their own choices. What I read disgusts me.

Course texts are based upon the professionally vetted work of historians and political scientists, not "opinion."

And we don't just let kids "make their own choices." We teach them some behaviors are honorable and good, some are not.

When we stop doing that to accommodate Trump and supporters, we are in real trouble.

[Belsnickel]

(04-16-2018, 05:23 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: It’s writer opinion in textbook. Not fact! Teach our kids and let them make their own choices. What I read disgusts me.

It's not, though. What is stated in there were major concerns during the election cycle. The writer isn't saying Trump is unstable or that his supporters are whatever Clinton's supporters believed them to be.

You're getting whipped up by sensationalist media.

(04-16-2018, 05:28 PM)GMDino Wrote: True or not I don't know if what Clinton supporters were "fearing" even needs a place in a text book.

But if this is even true it might be the first time in a long time Conservatives were concerned about how items were worded in a textbook because it made conservatives look bad.  

Sure it does. The 2016 election cycle was highly contentious and the public mood and opinions are a part of that.

But no, it won't be the first time. Conservatives notoriously make moves to have textbooks edited to make them feel better about their shitty policies.

[GMDino]

Couple facts to add here:

• This is one passage in an update to include the 2016 election...it's 2018 already.
• The book is not in schools...yet.  The publishers are trying to get it sold.
• The publishers are a British owned company...although it as edited by a NYU Professor.
  

I'm not sure the book has any facts wrong, but apparently it triggered a handful of conservatives after a student saw a copy...and apparently had time to read the specific passages and highlight them.    (pics at the link)


https://12newsonline.com/anti-trump-american-history-textbook-039blatantly-biased039-critics-say/

Quote:Tarra Snyder, a student at Rosemount High School in Minnesota, who saw a copy of the book sent to her school, told Fox News she was “appalled” after seeing how “blatantly biased” the newest edition of “By the People: A History of the United States” was toward Trump and his voters. She said it also glossed over all issues then-Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton faced during her campaign.  

“There are specific parts where it goes off the rails from a historical textbook toward an op-ed,” Snyder told Fox News.

[GMDino]

(04-16-2018, 05:37 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's not, though. What is stated in there were major concerns during the election cycle. The writer isn't saying Trump is unstable or that his supporters are whatever Clinton's supporters believed them to be.

You're getting whipped up by sensationalist media.


Sure it does. The 2016 election cycle was highly contentious and the public mood and opinions are a part of that.

But no, it won't be the first time. Conservatives notoriously make moves to have textbooks edited to make them feel better about their shitty policies.

I can understand the argument that the "mood" would need to be explained.  Maybe conservatives just don't want to know/remember?

[Dill]

(04-16-2018, 05:28 PM)GMDino Wrote:
True or not I don't know if what Clinton supporters were "fearing" even needs a place in a text book.

But if this is even true it might be the first time in a long time Conservatives were concerned about how items were worded in a textbook because it made conservatives look bad.  

This leads to even more basic questions about what we should be teaching students.

The tendency has always been to water down rather than offend.

And watering down might be one reason why the country is divided over standards right now, and susceptible to alternative science, history, and facts.

[Belsnickel]

(04-16-2018, 05:38 PM)GMDino Wrote: I can understand the argument that the "mood" would need to be explained.  Maybe conservatives just don't want to know/remember?

It's not that. What has happened is sensationalist, click-baity "journalism" has grabbed onto some out of context snippets from a textbook and used them to whip up those that read their stuff. We see this from media on both sides of the aisle for things. We just need to call it out for what it is. These media sources are doing this to drive ad revenue. If you look at this in a critical way, you can see what makes the most sense, but that isn't what drives people to their sites.

[GMDino]

(04-16-2018, 05:43 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's not that. What has happened is sensationalist, click-baity "journalism" has grabbed onto some out of context snippets from a textbook and used them to whip up those that read their stuff. We see this from media on both sides of the aisle for things. We just need to call it out for what it is. These media sources are doing this to drive ad revenue. If you look at this in a critical way, you can see what makes the most sense, but that isn't what drives people to their sites.

No doubt about the clickbait end of it. That's why I shared the other facts about it not even being in a school. I was just trying to discuss the merits of the story for a change. 

[GMDino]

(04-16-2018, 05:39 PM)Dill Wrote: This leads to even more basic questions about what we should be teaching students.

The tendency has always been to water down rather than offend.

And watering down might be one reason why the country is divided over standards right now, and susceptible to alternative science, history, and facts.

And there is bias in most of the history we teach (winners write history, right?).