16 March 2010

They Prefer The Alinsky Textbook

With all the phony academic hand-wringing and whining over the Texas textbook debate, you think you would have heard one, just one (Come on, can I hear just ONE!?), academic express concern about the most powerful teacher's union in the United States, the NEA, embracing and recommending this book for its "non-partisan" and "apolitical" teachers and members:

Here are a few choice quotes from Alinsky's NEA endorsed book:

"Society has good reason to fear the Radical. Every shaking advance of mankind toward equality and justice has come from the Radical. He hits, he hurts, he is dangerous. Conservative interests know that while Liberals are most adept at breaking their own necks with their tongues, Radicals are most adept at breaking the necks of Conservatives." (Sounds like Alinsky is advocating violence. Does the NEA endorse that type of inflammatory language? Evidently so.)

"He will fight conservatives whether they are business or labor leaders."

"The Radical may resort to the sword but when he does he is not filled with hatred against those individuals whom he attacks." (No, of course not. Words and phrases like "fear, hits, hurts, dangerous, breaking the necks, fight, target, personalize, and sword" are always associated with love and moderation.)

"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

I suppose the "concern" over politicizing of the classroom is only vocalized when it's perceived the bias is coming from the right. Aren't you just overwhelmed with Alinsky's non-partisan, apolitical approach? I wonder how many of those complaining about the bias of the Texas board are NEA members? I wonder how many of them have expressed the same public outrage over the NEA's endorsement of Alinsky and his tactics?


What is also interesting about the Texas textbook controversey is the attitude expressed by some of the critics, acting as if the children in the classroom are "theirs." As I noted in a previous post, the people making the decisions regarding these textbooks are duly elected representatives of the people - elected by responsible citizens, parents, and grandparents.

Moreover, the suggestion that the decision regarding what should be included, excluded, and emphasized should be delegated solely to "experts" and academics in education is problematic due to the fact that most academics lean left. And that assertion comes from the Washington Post, not really known for conservative conspiracy theories:

College faculties, long assumed to be a liberal bastion, lean further to the left than even the most conspiratorial conservatives might have imagined, a new study says.
See story here.

Bill Buckley once said, "I'd rather be governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston telephone directory than by the faculty of Harvard."

When it comes to choosing content for textbooks, I'd rather have individuals elected by the parents and grandparents of those being taught making those decisions than I would the faculty of Harvard. Parents and grandparents have much more of a vested interest in the outcome. Those are who the children belong to after all, right?


MSimons said...

I agree Richard the man is a left wing nutt and the NEA is worse than that.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Interesting isn't it that so many CW bloggers and academics go after the SCV and their political view of history, but they remain strangely silent where it REALLY counts regarding the politicization of history.

As I said, phonies.