Sometimes you wonder just how much education the legislators in Lansing really have.
And then you can't help but wonder why in the hell we let them have any say in the education of anyone else.
Case in point: State Senator Patrick Colbeck of Northville. It started last week, with a series of posts on his campaign's Facebook page criticizing Northville Schools for including Toni Morrison's "The Bluest Eye," a book that won the Nobel Prize for Literature, in its AP English course, referring to it as a "pornographic work." The book, which has been part of the curriculum at Northville since the early 90's, features depictions of sexual assault, rape, and incest, which clearly aren't meant to be glorified or intended to be erotic. The books in question aren't meant to tittilate. They're meant to evoke an emotional response, not of sexual stimulation, but of disgust and horror that a person could do those sorts of things to another human being. You'd think any reasonable adult or even high schooler would realize this. But, not Sen. Colbeck.
That said: were he simply questioning whether or not these books are appropriate for students, that'd be one thing. It'd be far easier to have a reasonable discussion over it, and I probably wouldn't be writing this now. But unfortunately, Colbeck followed up his criticism by taking the particularly explicit passages of Morrison's books, putting them next to the Ten Commandments, and asking "which book is more offensive?" A clear attempt to make his oft-repeated point that the Bible should be taught in schools and that religious indoctrination is somehow the role of the public school system.
Of course, if Colbeck were being truly interested in being fair here, he'd place those passages of Morrison's alongside some of the more explicit ones in the Bible, that bring up things such as adultery, prostitution, date rape, incest, and fathers pimping out their own daughters, none of which are exactly condemned in the Old Testament. If you're really interested in an honest comparison, Sen. Colbeck, why not put any of the explicit parts of Ms. Morrison's novels along side the stories of Judah and the harlot, or Lot and his daughters, or hell, Sodom and Gomorrah?
Then, after that crusade, Colbeck came back with a list of changes he'd like to see to the state's proposed social studies curriculum. The list starts out pretty straightforward, with the gripe that "it's not a democracy, it's a 'constitutional republic'" that Tea Party folk are rather hung up on. Then, things take a... somewhat authoritarian turn, as Colbeck criticizes the emphasis on citizen involvement, or as he calls it, "political activism." He then calls for limiting citizen involvement lessons to "the importance of understanding the law and abiding be the law." Apparently, Sen. Colbeck believes you don't need to learn how you can change the system, but only how to mindlessly obey it. And people want to accuse liberals of "brainwashing" students?
From there, he goes on about the limited powers of federal government and an emphasis on "states' rights"; again, typical Tea Party talking point, nothing new. Then we get into his personal crusade against the Southern Poverty Law Center; Colbeck is infuriated that the SPLC has condemned the Family Research Council as a "hate group" for it's stance on same-sex marriage, among other things, then further assails them for "undermining our system of government." Of course, he can't cite a single example, other than their use of terms like "justice" and "the common good," which is the same thing as socialism in his eyes.
Next, Colbeck turns his outrage to a supposed "Islamic bias," because as he claims, there is an entire section in the world history curriculum devoted to Islam, but not one devoted to Christianity. Of course, the section he references is in direct reference to the part of the Arab world in which Islamic-based governments came to be; Christianity is mentioned in that very section as well; and the Roman Catholic Church is given its own section on the next page in relation to Western Europe pre-1500. Keeping in mind we're talking about a section covering world history before the year 1500, he also demands inclusion of the Great Awakening of the mid 1800's, and the role of religion in founding America. It can't possibly be that hard to see why that makes no sense whatsoever.
It only gets better from here. In a section I have yet to find in the original copy of the proposed curriculum, Colbeck objects to any reference to the LGBT community, and suggests it be replaced with his long-winded treatise about how Everson v. Board of Education, the 1947 Supreme Court ruling that the "establishment of religion clause" applied to state governments as well as federal, somehow suppressed "religious liberty." Or, prevented the government from imposing or promoting religion by law; in Colbeck's mind, the two concepts are one and the same. He further went on to claim the Obergefell v. Hodges decision as "legal action against people of faith that assert their right to conscience protected under the First Amendment." The delusion of this man knows no bounds.
The next few sections are in relation to the Declaration of Independence and public education; nothing noteworthy save for the last sentence of the public education section: "If one would truly like to get to the origin of public education in America, you should start with the Old Deluder Satan Act of 1642 which points to the need for public education so that students could read the Bible and understand when they were being deceived by false precepts." Par for the course, really; literally anywhere he can try and sneak in some sort of religious propaganda, Colbeck does.
Perhaps it shouldn't come as much surprise that Colbeck's next target is the Progressive Era of the late 1800's and early 1900's, and Progressive support of political and social reform. Naturally, he can't help himself but to remind everybody that the KKK was founded as an anti-Republican group, and that it was Republicans that were pro-civil rights. From there, he attempts to whitewash over climate change, claiming that even mentioning it promotes an "alarmist atmosphere" in the classroom. Next, it's time to tear apart the New Deal, as Colbeck cries bias again because "significant focus is applied to policies of a single president." Of course that tends to happen when one is referring to sweeping political change enacted by the only man to ever be elected to four terms as president, but our man has an answer to that as well, calling to add discussion of how FDR's policies lead to the ratification of the 22nd Amendment (which instituted the two-term limit), because that's clearly not politically biased at all.
Finally, in a section about "domestic conflicts and tensions," Colbeck calls for the aforementioned Everson case and a few other "religious liberty" cases to be included in a section on controversial Supreme Court rulings with, among others, Hazelwood v. United States, Gideon v. Wainwright, and Miranda v. Arizona. Because clearly the right to a fair trial, the right to an attorney, and the right to not face employment discrimination are the same thing as the right to have schools and governments promote religion. And last but not least, he insists on putting the Clinton trial alongside Watergate in the lesson plan. Because again, breaking, entering, and bugging the offices of your political opponents and covering it up is as bad as lying about oral sex.
It'd be somewhat tempting to give him the benefit of the doubt on some of this, if this weren't the same man who regularly prattles on about how "Faith is on trial in America," and citing schlock like the "God's Not Dead" films in his defense. Or if he didn't regularly cherry-pick any and every quote from the Founding Fathers that can be twisted to support religion in the public square. Or if he didn't cite discredited Wallbuilders proprietor and noted historical fraud David Barton as an expert on the same.
Clearly Sen. Colbeck has an agenda that has absolutely nothing to do with the best interest of the education of Michigan students.
And if the man had his way, he'd be pushing back education in this state a good hundred years or more.
No comments:
Post a Comment