Rating: 
Summary: Shocking, as it should be
Review: Anyone who cares about the state of education in America, and we all should, will be apalled at the state of education politics described in this book. Children are being denied the opportunity to learn their own history, and to learn how democracy and protection of basic human rights can improve our world. Instead, they are subjected to a relativist view of the world where all cultures are equal, even those that oppress their members. On the other side of the spectrum, right wing interest groups try to deny students accurate information about science, religion, health, and social problems. In an attempt to shield them from things they may find upsetting, these lobbying groups are keeping children from learning about how the world really is and what they can do to make it better. If the current generation of kids learn only what these special interests want them to learn, I shudder to think about the problems of the world that may go unaddressed simply because no one understands them. This book is an eye-opener, and I urge everyone to read it and take action to fight the power of the politically motivated censors over our children's education.
Rating: 
Summary: The Language Police - Informative, Insightful
Review: Diane Ravitch explores a question that few people have the insight to see, the destructive qualities of self-censorship that most major textbook publishers utilize to extremes in fear of pressure groups influencing book sales. At the end of the self-censorship, these textbooks cannot contain any bias. This includes such outlandish practices including 1) not asking test questions related to the ocean (biases people living in landlocked states), 2) never mentioning/depicting the elderly doing stereotypical elderly practices (such as knitting or sitting in a rocking chair, because that suggests that the elderly are unable to function the same as everyone else), 3) not depicting or explaining owls (because of a Navajo taboo), and banning phrases like "better half" in lieu of its being "sexist" and "freshman" (also sexist). First of all, there is something wrong with this country when people are discomforted to the point that it distracts their academic learning because they saw an elderly person sitting in a rocking chair knitting. Granted that stereotypes are something that I believe should be avoided, but we cannot overlook the fundemental reasons why the stereotype exists, because it is true so often that people internalize them as stereotypes. Theres a good reason for elderly people not to be doing strenuous work, probably because they are old and their bodies cannot perform as well. This isn't being prejudiced, this is fact. Additionally, it is hard to believe that regional biases affect students that much that it makes it exceedingly difficult to the point of being distraught. Aren't kids exposed to the world (and ALL facets of the world, unfortunately), earlier than our parents anyways? In a society where the age for teens having sex is dropping, drug use in middle school is on the rise, and sex topics exist everywhere in prime-time sitcoms, I want to know which child hasn't even seen images of the ocean before and therefore have at least an inkling as to what a body of salt water is like. I didn't need to go to the mountains to understand their climate being more elevated than the plains, its intrinsic to the image of "mountain". I think that, instead of being afraid they might offend kids who don't live near the ocean, things ought to be explained to children in a controlled and enjoyable manner. It is nearly impossible to even get kids to pay attention to their classes in the first place, teachers should be incorporating a wide variety of the human experience (even if that experience is indirect), in order to captivate and encourage students to learn. Who can write an intelligent, vibrant textbook without mentioning the wonders of seahorses and seaturtles. If there is no regional bias, whose region becomes the standard? A dull one filled with banal descriptions of cats and mice (I am guessing), that I think would discourage kids even more from learning. Also, in all the self-censorship, there is a great deal of withholding real-life information and experiences, such as secularism, racism, and sex. Do we really want our kids to learn about these things by themselves, or rather in a controlled, instructional environment? I know that I would discuss the problems of real-life racism, sexism, and religion with my kids than have them learn by experience (Note: I am NOT saying that experience is all negative or worse than instructional discussion) in an uncontrolled setting that I do not know how to properly guide and control. Wake up America, your not saving your kids from harm by attempting to pass over controversial questions, your hurting them by not telling them about it. After all, what is learning environment if it does not teach about real life?
Rating:
Summary: A very timely and important work
Review: This work is a shocking surprise, and long overdue. For those of us who live outside America, it provides ample support for the impression of Americans that we get via the media: ignorant, self-absorbed, and uninterested. I have long wondered just what American children learn in school. Now I know: not much - and the little they do receive is bland and unstimulating. For a nation founded on diversity and democracy it is a travesty that the American education system has reduced itself to this. Do pressure groups not realise that there is a lot to be learned from dissimilar experiences and alternative views? Do we not grow as human beings by examining the lives of others (even those whose experiences are - shock!! horror!! - different to ours), our past (however unpleasant), contemporary world events, unbowdlerised literature, or even (dare I say it...) God (and religious experience in general)?? As a librarian I am horrified, and am making sure that my library has loads of "unauthorised" reading for our students: if for no other reason than to expose them to the challenge of 'other' ideas.
Rating:
Summary: Do You Know What Your Children Are Reading?
Review: Anyone who cares about the future of America should read this book. Author Diane Ravitch is a historian of education. She first encountered "bias and sensitivity review" panels when she served on the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) beginning in 1998.Ravitch represents neither the left nor the right. Recognizing that both factions agree that children will be shaped by what they read, she provides an objective -- yet impassioned -- viewpoint. She poses tough questions that society must address if we are to preserve our heritage. Ravitch focuses her attention on textbooks and standardized reading tests. In looking first at the tests, Ravitch includes summaries of reading selections that failed to meet the criteria of the bias and sensitivity review panel. One such story involved a blind man who hiked to the top of Mount McKinley. This selection was deemed inappropriate, first of all, because it would be biased against students who had not experienced hiking in the mountains (in fact, any story with a specific geographic location is considered to have a regional bias). In addition, the story was seen as demeaning blind people. Celebrating the feat of the blind man implied that blindness is a handicap. Not only must the subject matter of tests be within students' experience, it must also avoid stereotypes and topics that might distract or upset students (such as illness, death, or divorce). Furthermore, the tests cannot rely on outside knowledge. They have become, then, tests of ability rather than tests of achievement. Ravitch suggests that more attention is given to the inoffensiveness of test items than to their academic soundness. Ravitch cites three types of fairness that govern educational materials in the United States. Ethnic and gender groups must be equitably represented in authorship as well as in content. In addition, gender/ethnic/age stereotypes must be avoided along with specific words, such as those containing "man." On one hand, we can't present things that are outside students' experience; on the other, we can't portray minority groups in typical situations. As Ravitch points out, "mothering" can't be shown at all: It is outside the realm of experience for males; it is stereotypical for females. Most things written before 1970 fail to meet ethnic and gender guidelines. Classics, therefore, are generally omitted from textbooks that anthologize literature. Sometimes works of literature are bowdlerized, with or without the author's consent. Characters may be changed to provide the requisite gender and ethnic mix without so much as a footnote acknowledging a change from the original. History textbooks provide a unique challenge. In order to survive, major publishers have had to acquiesce to the content demands of powerful state textbook adoption committees. They have added multicultural heroes and have eliminated controversy. Ravitch asserts that the books have become very difficult to read. Splendid graphics and sidebars distract the reader from the text, which has been reduced to pablum. In addition to reviewing a number of history textbooks and reporting on state history guidelines, Ravitch includes two thirty-page appendices: a glossary of "banned words, usages, stereotypes, and topics," and a recommended list of classical literature for grades three through ten. Not only does Ravitch offer a thorough description of censorship of educational materials, she details a three-point solution, beginning with the elimination of massive state adoptions that determine, to a large extent, the books' content. We might expect censorship to be signaled by protests and outcries. What is at work in the world of textbook publishing is more insidious, however. It is a silent censorship, because the compliance of publishers has been voluntary. Problems created by censorship of educational materials extend well beyond our schools, which have traditionally played a major role in molding the next generation of citizens. We run a serious risk of creating citizens who not only lack basic facts about our country and our world but also lack the critical-thinking skills to evaluate controversial information effectively.
Rating:
Summary: The Language Police deserves our attention
Review: The Language Police highlighted a little known problem in the work of textbook and standardized test publishing. I was amazed to learn how much different "special-interest" groups have influenced the content of textbooks and tests, reducing the material to what the author descibes as pabulum. I just finished reading Ray Bradbury's 1953 book "Fahrenheit 451" a book about a future where books are burned. Mr. Bradbury's description of how special interest groups reduced magazine and book contents to "vanilla tapioca" and "dishwater" seemed startlingly prophetic. The Language Police is a must read for anyone concerned about our children's education.
Rating:
Summary: I just purchased two more copies...
Review: I just purchased two more copies of this book to give to family members. I've asked our college library to get a copy for the stacks. This is a must-read for anyone involved in education. I teach Philosophy at a community college and I constantly deal with smart kids who don't know anything. When I talk about ancient history, they have NOTHING to work with, so I have to start from scratch. Ravitch has stated that the greatest cost we've experienced from advocacy-group censorship is the raw boredom of education. As she so ably demonstrates, history can't be taught in the public schools. In its place is a bland mush that is designed to offend no one. History is filled with violence and stupidity standing alongside genius and accomplishment. The truth is ugly and messy and funny and engaging. My relatives come from Germany. I know of the horrifying atrocities that my kin have committed as well as their brilliant accomplishments. If I were from another ethniocity, textbook authors and editors would feel obligated to erase our wrongs and then overstate our accomplishments just so that I would feel good about myself. One of the most important truths of life is: It Isn't All About You.
Rating:
Summary: Makes you wonder
Review: Really good points made throughtout the book. Many parents believe schools, or districts, set the curriculum. In reality, the schools are the tail end of a trickle down process that begins with some very small special interest groups. The power of these groups defies logical reasoning. In our efforts not to offend anyone, we diminish the very things we stand for.
Rating:
Summary: Should frighten people across the political spectrum
Review: I first heard Prof. Ravitch interviewed on Fresh Air with Terry Gross on NPR. Another reader heard about it on Savage Nation. If the book is highlighted on both a left-wing and right-wing radio show, what does that tell you about the even-handedness with which Ms. Ravitch approaches the subject? As an independent, I found the balance to be refreshing. Disregard claims that she "falls back on left bashing". Though she definitely makes light of some of the more extreme examples of the feminist and multiculturalist activism, she gives the religious fundamentalists a taste of the same medicine. She even highlights examples of right-wing censorship with her own experiences working in her high school library in Houston during the McCarthy era, and points out the problems that she had as the child of "Yellow Dog Democrats" in that environment. In fact, Ms. Ravitch was an appointee of both the first Bush and the Clinton Administrations. It is hard to believe that the reviewers accusing her of bias have read the book, though it could be that they are so biased that their view is distorted. Some seem to believe that she just doesn't understand the value of Social Content codes, or that the codes don't mandate the excesses which she illustrates. I think they misunderstand her, or have not read the book carefully and open mindedly enough. Sure, we must be sensitive of other cultures, but not to the point that we decide not to read Huckleberry Finn because Twain uses the n-word. Although bans of this book should be examples of extremism, they have been so common in our country that censorship of this book is almost mainstream. As anyone who has actually read the story knows, Twain ironically shows Jim to be the only rational, honest, intelligent, and sane man on the whole trip, all the while people hypocritically treat him as subhuman. Sure, we must have equal treatment of women and minorities, but students should know that was not so in the past. Her point is that modern textbooks are not only avoiding intelligent discussion of such problems, but in some cases are flatly trading off truth (lying) in the name of balance and political correctness, and the reason is the unintended consequences of those Social Content codes. The codes may not mandate the sillines explicitly, but the extremist, litigious groups that follow these issues demand extreme interpretations of those codes, with hilarious results. Consider one effect of the Social Content codes: everything prior to about 1970 does not contain the balance sought. Therefore, all literature produced prior to 1970 is eliminated, whether it be Shakespeare, Twain, Dickens, or any number of other outstanding writers. Heck, even Upton Sinclair portrayed women as domestic and men as strong and active. Actually, it's worse than that, since many of the loudest groups demand that not only do the subjects have to be balanced, but the authors have to be as well. They claim that only black authors can write about black subjects, Asians about Asians, etc. I guess they have never heard of Alex Kotlowitz or Joseph Conrad - but of course they haven't, because each of those authors portrayed minorities in roles other than upper middle class, and so would be banned. If you narrow the population of allowable authors on grounds other than merit, you reduce the probability that you will get good literature. What does that leave for children to read? Bad literature produced by hack writers. The other side of the coin is that the Religious Right demands avoidance of controversial subjects. Great literature examines controversial subjects. Therefore, all great literature is banned. We are left, again, with pap and pablum. As Milton Friedman has pointed out, one of the worst trends in education has been the consolidation of school districts. He cites the number that existed when he was a child, and notes that the number has fallen by orders of magnitude as districts consolidate. Eventually, we will have 50 state districts, then 1 federal district. When you have many districts, you have many laboratories. Each is better able to tailor the curriculum to the local tastes and culture, and the result is a vibrant and multicultural American culture - the Melting Pot. When you have few districts, you have less innovation. When you have to mollify millions rather than dozens of parents, you must strive to offend the least common denominator, so you must "blandify" the content of the curriculum to a thin gruel. Which brings me to another minor point that Ravitch points out. If you have a thin, bland, boring curriculum presented at school, and that competes with the loud, colorful culture of MTV, Mickey D, and the local mall, which do you think will reverberate more with kids? Which is more influential? Try as you might to brainwash kids into thinking that girls and boys, old and young, abled and disabled are interchangeable (the Left), or that everything in the past was good, the government and parents should not be questioned, and Christianity is the only religion (the Right), they are going to learn that these notions are false. Wouldn't it be better to teach them the truth and deal with it directly and therefore retain their respect, then to teach them a lie, ignore the consequences as they grapple with it on their own, and watch as they develop a strong cynicism with regard to schools, parents, and social institutions?
Rating:
Summary: Denizens Of Ivory Towers
Review: Quite an exposé on how publishers feel the pressure of special interest groups, the politcally correct, and the sensitivity law-suit hungry. The blind leading the blind. Where does this non-sensical lunacy begin? You guessed it. American universities. In a bubble, removed from the "realities" of the workings of everyday society. At many higher education institutions the tenured don't teach--that's considered bad for career. Instead, they do research supported by taxpayer dollars, write books about something if at all possible, that hasn't been published by anyone before. So, let's write for the loony bin. The more strange, more bizarre, and just flat out wacky your piece is, the better chance it has of getting attention, and a couple of sales. Forget about historical truths, just don't hurt anyone's feeling and make sure that the "victims" get plenty of coverage. Who are the victims? We still haven't figured that out yet.
Rating:
Summary: "I can't do it anymore!"
Review: Assuming a reader of this review has a general idea of the content and theme of "The Language Police"--from many fine reviews herein provided, I take another tack. Most reviewers comment on what the censorship regime Diane Ravitch uncovered means for children. But a snapshot of what comically-elaborate "bias and sensitivity guidelines" mean for writers and illustrators is also revealing. Pages 40-41: "In 1990, the New York Times described an author and an illustrator who couldn't take the shifting mandates anymore. The writer explained, 'Maybe it was the messenger at the door with another set of guidelines, updating the set she had received from the publisher a few days before. Maybe it was the elaborate recipes for an ethnic and racial mix in the cast of characters.' The article quoted an artist who stopped accepting textbook assignments in 1986 after receiving the latest instructions from the publisher for an illustration: "'It's etched in acid in my mind. They sent 10 pages of single-spaced specifications. The hero was a Hispanic boy. There were black twins, one boy, one girl; an overweight Oriental boy; and an American Indian girl. That leaves the Caucasian. Since we mustn't forget the physically handicapped, she was born with a congenital malformation and only had three fingers on one hand." "'One child had to have an Irish setter, and the setter was to be female....They also had a senior citizen, and I had to show her jogging." "I can't do it anymore." **** What could be the literary quality of stories produced under the above conditions? What would be the effect on children of being constantly forced to read such stories? In thirty years in education--elementary level, I have not encountered a more important book. Every chapter brims with insight. We have only to put this insight to use, by whatever means each of us can. The structures, however, that enable madness on this scale are very difficult to alter. The potential audience for the book--those who could fully appreciate it--is shrinking by the day. Those who would resist the suffocating "language police" may already be too few to turn the tide. But thanks to this eminent historian, whose commentaries I have relished for twenty-five years, we can go down fighting, battling on--raging, like Lear against the storm--while our common culture--imperceptibly, out of public view--slowly slips away.
|
