creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Miguel Perez
Miguel Perez
7 Feb 2012
Romney: The DREAM Latino Unifier

In our public schools, we taught them to be civic minded and to exercise their rights as Americans. There … Read More.

31 Jan 2012
Snake Oil Peddlers

It takes a lot of gall to defend either Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney in the Hispanic community nowadays. And yet,… Read More.

24 Jan 2012
My Mother Wouldn't Let Me Vote for Gingrich

When my mother was diagnosed with Alzheimer's, back in the mid-'90s, Newt Gingrich was trying to take away … Read More.

Politicizing Education

Share Comment

Editor's Note: This is the 20th part of an ongoing series, "America's Hidden Hispanic Heritage." To read previous columns in the series, go to http://www.MiguelPerez.com.


When I was a boy growing up in my native Cuba, communist ideology suddenly began to be filtered into my education. The government had determined that, like all other Cuban children, I was to be indoctrinated.

Lesson plans were to be altered; new books had to be written; history needed to be distorted; and Cuban children were to be taught to believe that "Yankee imperialists" were our new enemies — the reason for all our problems.

Back in fourth and fifth grades, I probably was too young to notice these curriculum changes on my own. But my mother, Lilia, who was a teacher, made sure that I noticed. She had seen the changing lesson plans, refused to implement them and come to the conclusion that no one was going to turn her into an indoctrinator and me into a communist.

We had to leave Cuba, she told me, and move to a country where political ideologies are not allowed to creep into children's education.

Memories of those days — when my mother convinced the entire family that we had to emigrate to the United States — have kept coming back to me recently as I've watched the Texas State Board of Education's efforts to rewrite American history and filter political ideology into the state school curriculum.

Of course, in Texas, the ideology is not communism. It's the other extreme!

In Texas, a panel of elected politicians has unapologetically revised the social studies and history curricula to reflect the majority's Christian/conservative ideology in the textbooks that some 4.8 million Texan schoolchildren will read for the next decade. And because schoolbooks used by many other states are usually based on the standard set by Texas, the politicized lessons will be widespread.

Voting 9-5 entirely along party lines, the Texas State Board of Education last month went along with the Republican majority and crafted new curriculum standards that surely would have made my mother cringe. She was politically conservative and a devout Christian, but until she died in Miami in 1998, she never believed politicians of any faith or ideological persuasion should be dictating school lessons.

Yet for the next 10 years, the textbooks read by children in Texas and many other states will play down the importance of Thomas Jefferson while re-elevating the stature of Commie-bashing former Sen. Joe McCarthy. I'm a rabid anti-communist, but McCarthyism was an abomination. I never thought I would see such misguided distortion of history — not again, not since I left Cuba.

Their problem with Thomas Jefferson stems from the fact that evangelical Christians detest the very thing that made him a genius: Jefferson's participation in pioneering the legal theory of separation of church and state. He coined that phrase! Yet students now will be needlessly reminded that the words "separation of church and state" — although part of our judicial language — are not in the U.S.

Constitution. In an appalling attempt to weaken one of the pillars that have sustained our great democracy, students will be asked to question the Founding Fathers' commitment to church-state separation.

And so, because Jefferson still stands in the way of the theocracy they would like to create, the principal author of the Declaration of Independence and one of the key thinkers behind our precious Constitution is no longer to be considered an influential political philosopher in world history courses.

Claiming to be reversing what they see as liberal bias in the classrooms and textbooks and ignoring fierce protests from outraged historians and educators, the board's conservative majority proposed hundreds of amendments to skew the standards that had been drafted for more than a year by educators. Some conservative board members said that they belong to a political body and that they had no qualms about making political decisions as they revised the state school curriculum.

They filtered conservative ideology into many lessons, downplaying the importance of the civil rights movement while propping Newt Gingrich's "Contract With America"; citing the "conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s"; recognizing the roles played by Phyllis Schlafly, The Heritage Foundation, Moral Majority and the National Rifle Association; requiring students to read the speeches of Confederate President Jefferson Davis along with those of Abraham Lincoln; and recognizing country music as a significant cultural movement but denying the same recognition to hip-hop.

The children in Texas also will be taught not that we live in a "democratic" country, but a "constitutional republic." And they won't be reading about "capitalism" because some board members disliked that word's negative connotation. Now they will learn about "free market enterprise."

If it weren't so sad, it would be funny.

Amazingly, they wanted to go even further. Some of them wanted to rename the slave trade the "Atlantic triangular trade," as if trying to minimize the inhumanity of slavery.

In a state where conservatives have tried to prevent children from learning about gay rights, Darwin's theory of evolution and global warming, where evangelicals constantly have tried to ban books they feel are too liberal or anti-Christian, this is not entirely surprising. Unfortunately, politics have a history of creeping into Texas education.

Yet this time, the changes are more dramatic and more ideological than ever. This time, the aim is to brainwash — Cuban-style indoctrination — to promote a right-wing agenda.

In spite of Texas' huge Hispanic population and rich Hispanic history, efforts by the board's Hispanic members to cite more Latino figures as role models were mostly rejected, causing Latina board member Mary Helen Berlanga to storm out of a meeting and charge that "they can just pretend this is a white America and Hispanics don't exist."

When these revisions were being made, even U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan felt compelled to warn that school officials "should keep politics out" of curriculum debates. "We do a disservice to children when we shield them from the truth, just because some people think it is painful or doesn't fit with their particular views," Duncan said in a statement. "Parents should be very wary of politicians designing curriculum."

I know that feeling. I learned it from my mother.

To find out more about Miguel Perez and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM


Comments

4 Comments | Post Comment
Another early user of the term was James Madison, the principal drafter of the United States Bill of Rights. In a recorded conversation surrounding the meaning of the 1st Amendment being offered the following was said:

August 15, 1789. Mr. [Peter] Sylvester [of New York] had some doubts...He feared it [the First Amendment] might be thought to have a tendency to abolish religion altogether...Mr. [Elbridge] Gerry [of Massachusetts] said it would read better if it was that "no religious doctrine shall be established by law."...Mr. [James] Madison [of Virginia] said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that "Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law."...[T]he State[s]...seemed to entertain an opinion that under the clause of the Constitution...it enabled them [Congress] to make laws of such a nature as might...establish a national religion; to prevent these effects he presumed the amendment was intended...Mr. Madison thought if the word "National" was inserted before religion, it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen...He thought if the word "national" was introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent.[14]

In 1868 the renowned Baptist pastor Charles Haddon Spurgeon perhaps best summed up the separationist Baptist stand thus:

Part 2
Comment: #1
Posted by: David Henricks
Wed Jun 9, 2010 4:22 AM
Mr Perez. You write, in part, "...Jefferson's participation in pioneering the legal theory of separation of church and state. He coined that phrase! Yet students now will be needlessly reminded that the words "separation of church and state" — although part of our judicial language — are not in the U.S.Constitution."*** Thomas Jefferson "coined the phrase" when he was assuring The Danbury Baptists that the Federal government was prohibited from establishing a Federal religion (specific denomination of Christianity) as an official religion. [See King Hent VIII and the Anglican denomination]. Here is the letter. "Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802."

Part 1
Comment: #2
Posted by: David Henricks
Wed Jun 9, 2010 4:23 AM
Which shall we wonder at most, the endurance of the faithful or the cruelty of their tormentors? Is it not proven beyond all dispute that there is no limit to the enormities which men will commit when they are once persuaded that they are keepers of other men's consciences? To spread religion by any means, and to crush heresy by all means is the practical inference from the doctrine that one man may control another's religion. Given the duty of a state to foster some one form of faith, and by the sure inductions of our nature slowly but certainly persecution will occur. To prevent for ever the possibility of Papists roasting Protestants, Anglicans hanging Romish priests, and Puritans flogging Quakers, let every form of state-churchism be utterly abolished, and the remembrance of the long curse which it has cast upon the world be blotted out for ever.^ Spurgeon, Charles H. (August 1988). "The Inquisition". Sword and Trowel. http://www.spurgeon.org/s_and_t/inq.htm. Retrieved 2006-12-20.
You sir, are either uneducated in the founding of this great nation or, are deliberately trying to sabotage the country who made your freedom possible. I suggest that you spend more time on legitimate research, rather than on disruptive tabloid journalism. The Truth. The Whole Truth. Nothing but the Truth.
Part 3

Comment: #3
Posted by: David Henricks
Wed Jun 9, 2010 4:24 AM
Has this guy ever written a column that wasn't whining about latino's not getting something, or being treated unfairly. I guess since blacks have Al Sharpton, latino's get Perez.
Comment: #4
Posted by: James Reinhardt
Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:45 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Miguel Perez
Feb. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 31 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 13 Feb 2012
Bill O'Reilly
Bill O'ReillyUpdated 11 Feb 2012
Mark Shields
Mark ShieldsUpdated 11 Feb 2012

28 Aug 2007 Running for President -- of Flip-Floppers

4 Jan 2011 Happy Three Kings Day!

2 Jun 2009 Who's on Trial, Sotomayor or Republicans?