Geoausch

An article published in the March 31, 2010 edition of the New York Times, examining the burgeoning role of psychology and neuroscience in college English departments, sparked a debate on a recent podcast of Slate’s “Culture Gabfest,” regarding the future of college English departments and humanities studies as a whole. The three panelists expressed outrage at the thought of English departments nationwide filling their curriculum with theoretical science (i.e. using MRI scans of people’s brains as they read different texts to determine the impact they have on the brain), in hopes of adding practical applications to their degree program, thus attracting more students, but sacrificing the notion of literature for literature’s sake.

I test drove literally every degree program that the humanities department at my colleges offered before ultimately earning a bachelor’s degree in English. The question of whether or not these departments should do more to make their degrees more marketable is one that I’ve wrestled with for some time. Even though we were the brightest, most creative and unique students on campus and even though we took the most interesting classes, being able to write a paper on the role of misogyny in Hamlet or being able to thoroughly explain the difference between an Italian sonnet and a Shakespearean sonnet has yet to earn me a single job.

God knows I spent many a sleepless night in college asking myself, “what in the hell are you going to do with a degree in (depending on the semester and college: philosophy, history, religion, political science or English),“ but through it all, I never once considered pursuing a degree outside the field of humanities. For me, and many other liberal arts students, college was never about developing marketable skills, but rather about the pursuit of knowledge and honing our analytical skills, which in turn produces students prepared for any field.

Like the podcast panelists, I too am outraged at attempts to cheapen a classical education in the name of economics (and make no mistake about it, this is ALL about economics). I graduated from Texas A&M University-Texarkana, a rural, commuter school in far Northeast Texas. Of all the students in the school’s English department, I was the only one not seeking teacher certification. As a result, much of the departments curriculum was geared towards training these students for the classroom. I always felt the courses, especially the reading lists, to be extremely watered down. As President of the university’s English club, I tried to expand the scope of the department’s emphasis, sponsoring student symposiums and starting a book club where we would tackle some of the best contemporary literary fiction.

I don’t blame my professors. Their hands were tied by administrators who had in essence turned the English department into a glorified vocational school. While I don’t fear Yale, Stanford, Duke, etc. will ever turn their English departments into a trade school, I do fear the trend of cheapening liberal arts education will continue to spread like a virus across academia. The only way to stop the spread is to convince students that knowledge is far more valuable than any salary they may earn in their career

Recently, I penned a piece exposing the Democrat’s faulty logic in continuing to press forward with health care reform in the face of widespread opposition. In that piece, I made it clear that Democratic politicians are not alone in their use of faulty logic to promote a personal agenda. Indeed, Republicans are just as guilty of the charge. Consider the faulty logic displayed by the Bush administration in the build-up for the invasion of Iraq. Even many “third party” and independent candidates build their political platform on a foundation of faulty logic. Perhaps that’s why so many rational people find the world of politics so disgusting; it’s a world void of logic.

It seems that some elected officials make the mistake of assuming that we live in a democracy, when in actuality the United State is a constitutional republic. Other politicians profess to understand the distinction, yet continue to govern as though in a simple democracy.  On Friday, Republican members of the Texas State Board of Education voted to adopt new social studies and history curriculum that would, among other things, refer to the United States government as a “constitutional republic” instead of a “democracy”. Ironically, they relied solely on a democratic principle–the simple majority–to ram through the curriculum’s most controversial elements.

At the heart of the “Texas Textbook War,” is the attempt on the behalf of cultural conservatives to inject their beliefs into the textbooks. This includes their belief that the United States was founded on “Judeo-Christian values,” studies of the role of conservative political action committees during the 20th Century, and an ultra-conservative interpretation of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960′s. While there is definitely a time and place to debate these ideas in the classroom, they would be taught as fact if the current curriculum survives a final vote in May.

Not surprisingly, the attempt to radically alter the way history and social studies are taught in Texas’ classrooms has generated intense opposition from Democrats and many Republicans. Earlier this month, two of the board’s most outspoken cultural conservatives, most notably Dr. Don McLeroy, lost Republican primary elections to opponents who oppose this curriculum. McLaren remains defiant in the face of defeat, and vowed to push through the curriculum before relinquishing his seat, a maneuver that would make Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama smile.

The biggest difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic is the allocation of protections of the minority from the “tyranny of the majority.” The Constitution serves as the primary guarantor of the rights of the minority, but Republicans on the SBOE seem to reject that notion as well. On Thursday, they blocked a measure introduced by a Democrat that would have taught the importance of “separation of church and state” as contained in the First Amendment.  While Republicans claim to support the idea that we live in a constitutional republic, their actions indicate they favor a simple democracy when the results further their agenda.

Students should be taught the difference between a “democracy” and a “constitutional republic.” The nuances between the two forms of government seem to baffle even the most astute politicians. Elected officials have the responsibility to ensure balance exists between competing ideas in the classroom, but must understand that one extremist stance does not balance out another extremist stance. Perhaps educators can use the examples of Democrats on health care reform and Republicans on textbook adoptions as examples of the dangers of simple democracy and to teach the protections provided by a constitutional republic.   Until then, we the people must remain resolute in combating faulty logic wherever it may occur in the realm of politics. Our freedom and liberty, not to mention our children’s future, depend on it.

Just when you thought the Texas Textbook Wars could not get any more absurd,  Republicans on the SBOE blocked a measure yesterday that would have taught students the importance of the First Amendment. 

Really?

This proves my theory that these zealots are not interested in democracy, but rather in living in either a theocracy or an idiocracy.

Do evangelicals not realize that “separation of church and state” actually protects them? If there were no “separation of church and state,” and Christianity was allowed to be taught as truth in the classroom, there would be nothing in place to stop a more progressive brand of Christianity being taught–one that might challenge their kids to question their parent’s narrow interpretation of Christianity.

Also, not only does the First Amendment guarantee the ”separation of church and state”, but also the “separation of state and church.” In other words, it prevents the Federal government from coming into your church and telling you what you may preach and how you may preach it.

Many of the early immigrants to this country came escaping countries with state sponsored churches. Why would we want to revert to the practices of England?

You ask me, there is a lot of value for both conservatives and progressives, Democrats and Republicans, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, etc. in the “separation of church and state.”

I said it during the Bush years and I’ll say it again, Christian extremists are scared to death of the First Amendment, not only because of “separation of church and state”, but also because of the guarantee of “freedom of speech.” In the end, that is what this argument is about.

As a five year old kid, I remember riding around in the family station wagon, listening to Bruce Springsteen’s Born in the USA. Along with Michael Jackson’s Thriller and Culture Club’s Colour By Numbers, Springsteen’s landmark album was one of the first I remember listening to, beginning to end, over and over again.  As a child, I thought of Springsteen as some American super hero, a contemporary to Ronald Reagan, fighting the Cold War with his music. “Born in the USA” meant nothing more than those words. It wasn’t until I reexamined that song in college that I discovered the song’s true meaning. At that point, a thought came to me, a true patriot may not necessarily agree with Springsteen’s political message, but at least recognizes the song represented a reality for many American heroes.

Many conservatives approach American history in similarly naive fashion that I approached Born in the USA as child, hearing only “USA! USA! USA!”–refusing to dig deeper into the legends surrounding our nation and its founding. No where has this been more evident than in Texas’ State Board of Education’s recent hearings on selecting new textbooks. Due to Texas’ large size, decisions made by our SBOE play a large role in determining textbooks used in classrooms across the United States and the story has captured the nation’s attention, with cable networks devoting entire shows, spreading misinformation and depicting Texas as a state held hostage by religious radicals.

Sadly, this narrow mindset is not limited to politicians. Indeed, this disease has spread to the administrators in school districts throughout the state. In college, a friend of mine applied for job as a history teacher at a school district in rural East Texas. During the interview, the principal told my friend that, if hired, he was to teach “…the United States has never been wrong in any armed conflict” and “…that the United States has made no mistakes as a nation.”

I love this country and I vote Republican more often than I do Democrat, but the audacity of these religious zealots and cultural conservatives who have hijacked the Republican Party sickens me. We can only hope that voters sent a message to some of these ideologues in the recent primaries when they sent Dr. Don McLeroy, the Rapture Right’s vocal leader on the SBOE, packing, choosing instead Thomas Ratliff, a man with a strong pedigree in the traditional wing of the Republican Party. Unfortunately, McLeroy has promised to not go quietly into that good night, choosing instead to take an approach not too different from the Congressional Democrats’ approach on health care reform, attempting to jam an unpopular agenda down the throat of the people.

While I firmly believe the United Sates is the “greatest” nation in the world, we are not without faults. In order to learn from our nation’s mistakes–and as a nation we have plenty–we must study those mistakes. In addition to ignoring causes cultural conservatives find repulsive, the SBOE seems to gloss over many of the dark shadows creeping in our nation’s and state’s past, unlike Mr. Springsteen.

Is there bias involved with the publishing of a textbook? Yes, there is no such thing as unbiased writing.  Every author, no matter how good their intentions, has a belief system and this belief system will seep through their writing.  In order to ensure balance, more power should be placed in the hands of local schools districts, administrators and teachers to supplement textbooks with ancillary materials. In this age of hyper technology, where schools are wired for Internet access, it’s easier than ever to find scholarly material to serve as a counterpoint to any material presented in a textbook.

One final observation, I’ve read a lot of quotes from the extreme right-wingers on the SBOE stating their desire to see an emphasis on this nation’s “Judeo-Christian values” in social studies textbooks. Let’s be clear, what these people really mean to say is that they want an emphasis on the values of the evangelical Christian church.  These people think they can just capriciously add the term “Judeo” in front of Christian and be considered progressive. Don’t be fooled, these people are not friends to the Jewish community. They only use the term “Judeo” to seem open to other faiths. In reality, their world is big enough for only one faith road, a road they seek to force us all travel, whether we want to or not.