Page 1 of 1
College professors call forboycott of McGraw Hill textbooks
Posted:
Wed Jan 26, 2005 1:24 pmby Sonny
Professors boycott textbook company for altering definition
By Devon Trolley
Collegian Staff Writer
Penn State professors are signing a petition to voice their disagreement with the McGraw-Hill textbook company after alterations were made to health books distributed in Texas high schools.
The health textbooks receiving criticism define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Some members of the Penn State community are offended by the influential textbook company's decision to get involved in current social debates.
How to sign the petition:
http://www.petitiononline.com/mh2005sm/petition.html Sam Richards, senior lecturer in sociology, said he was going to use a McGraw-Hill textbook, but decided not to after signing the petition.
"I very strongly oppose allowing politicized interest groups to determine what is put into textbooks, whether it's on the right or the left," he said.
Allison Subasic, director of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender student development, said she signed the petition to show McGraw-Hill textbooks that she disapproves of their decision to adjust material to conservative or religious pressures.
"I hope that we will send our message economically," she said.
The petition was created by Sean Massey, assistant professor of human development at SUNY Binghamton, who wanted to give colleagues the opportunity to show their disapproval of McGraw-Hill's decision.
Currently, there are two similar petitions available; one pledges the boycott of the textbooks with 263 signatures, while the other pledges the disagreement with the text changes and has 235 signatures. Most of the signatures are names of professors or staff associated with universities.
FULL ARTICLE:
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2005/01/01-21-05tdc/01-21-05dnews-10.asp
Am I the only one who finds this story funny? Don't college professors have better things to do with their time?
Posted:
Wed Jan 26, 2005 9:46 pmby DanGenck
It's the job of the academic community to maintain academic freedoms and serve as a system of checks and balances for society. Obviously those books are swinging too far in one direction and the academic community is speaking up about it...
Posted:
Wed Jan 26, 2005 10:31 pmby Kyle Berggren
I would just like to point out that the conflict, if you call it that, they are speaking of, has used hours of people's lives, now 2 minutes of mine. It's simply not that important. People should be passionate about things, but this really isn't one of them.... If people are offended by that, I hope they don't have cable tv, or allow any freedom of thought/speech in their classroom.
Posted:
Wed Jan 26, 2005 11:21 pmby Gregg Pathiakis
Why can't people be passionate about it? It's one thing if they always defined it as between a man and a woman, but they haven't. They have changed it to that. They are letting political or moral views come into play. I don't think one person should be telling another what they should or shouldn't be passionate about.
Posted:
Thu Jan 27, 2005 12:10 amby MinesGoallie45
Why dont they just omite the entire arguement from the text book. Who ever put it in there was trying to make a political statement. Political statements do not belong in text books....atleast in my opinions
Posted:
Thu Jan 27, 2005 9:35 amby B. Ballay
This whole petition would make a lot more sense to me if the people effected by the change, Texans, were the ones leading the charge to stop the changes. In reality it is the Texas Board of Education that pushed for the change and while many Texans are upset with the changes( I myself am not too pleased) it appears as if (at least from a Texans pov) outside meddlers are trying to have a say in what Texans teach their children.
p.s. IMHO the changes were less politically motivated than they were morally motivated. There is little to no chance of marriage laws being changed in Texas anytime soon. I understood that the purpose of the change was to promote a more Christian atmosphere, that was why they decided to not allow discusion of various forms of birth control or abortion as an option to pregnancy. If you are going to sign a petition, sign one against teaching the issues listed above, they effect our students at a much higher rate than the proposition of gay marriage does.
Posted:
Thu Jan 27, 2005 5:14 pmby DanGenck
I would imagine that if you go to Austin, College Station, or any other large academic hub that you will find college professors in Texas who are rather disappointed by this. Wherever you go, the academic community is pretty much the same...
Posted:
Thu Jan 27, 2005 8:19 pmby Gregg Pathiakis
MinesGoallie45 wrote:Why dont they just omite the entire arguement from the text book. Who ever put it in there was trying to make a political statement. Political statements do not belong in text books....atleast in my opinions
Great point, 45. You can have whatever moral/politcal belief you want, but in a college academic book, you need to try to be as unbiased as possible. That definition is very biased toward the anti-gay-marriage political/moral view.
Posted:
Fri Jan 28, 2005 11:45 amby B. Ballay
Just to clear things up, the books in question are used in middle schools and high schools. If I remember correctly the big debate in Texas over these changes was wheather Texas schools should teach a) abstinence only w/ no mention of safe sex b)abstinence first but safe sex if necessary or c) give up on abstinence on kids who have already had sex and teach safe sex. This presented an oppurtunity to also reword some ambigous defintions about marriage from “when two people marry” and “partners” to “when a man and a woman marry” and “husbands and wives.”
It is strange to me that people would be more concerned with children reading "when a man and a woman marry" over being concerned with the fact that children are not being educated about safe sex in health class.
Here is another article about the topic that goes into more detail
http://www.detnews.com/2004/nation/0411/07/nation-327048.htm
Posted:
Sun Jan 30, 2005 12:08 pmby DanGenck
It is strange to me that people would be more concerned with children reading "when a man and a woman marry" over being concerned with the fact that children are not being educated about safe sex in health class.
It's walking a fine line. What's next? "When white people interact with other white people..." etc etc.
Marriage is a social construction and we need to be careful what label we give to those social constructions. The academic community at Penn State (and several other colleges) simply want people to know that this type of automatic labeling of social interaction is not okay. We cannot skew the line between teaching sex education and teaching social ideals like marriage (and what exactly constitutes marriage).
Penn State and others simply believe we're walking a fine line and they are raising a point for discussion. I applaud them for doing their job.
Posted:
Tue Feb 01, 2005 12:03 amby MinesGoallie45
B. Ballay wrote:p.s. IMHO the changes were less politically motivated than they were morally motivated. There is little to no chance of marriage laws being changed in Texas anytime soon. I understood that the purpose of the change was to promote a more Christian atmosphere, that was why they decided to not allow discusion of various forms of birth control or abortion as an option to pregnancy. If you are going to sign a petition, sign one against teaching the issues listed above, they effect our students at a much higher rate than the proposition of gay marriage does.
The question is though...whose Morals? What makes one persons morals the right ones and others wrong? Are Christain morals the ones we should be teaching in the schools, why should we bend to one religions beliefs in educating? Now dont get me wrong...I am Christain, I refuse to take off my cross even while playing, but I dont think my values should influences everyones because my values are just that, mine. And values shouldnt be in text books, information should. When you start putting values in textbooks, you start making it ok for atrocosities to happen. After all, to the Germans, it was ok to kill the Jews, it was in their textbooks.
Posted:
Tue Feb 01, 2005 7:21 amby B. Ballay
White people interacting with white people and killing jews?
You guys are stretching things a bit. I find it hard to believe you think these two lines in a textbook in one state will spark another holocaust or civil rights reversal.
Labeling marrage as between a man and a woman is like labeling adolescents as children between the ages of 12 and 18. The label is accurate in Texas so what is wrong with using it? (State law in texas that only a man and woman can get married)
quote
When you start putting values in textbooks, you start making it ok for atrocosities to happen. After all, to the Germans, it was ok to kill the Jews, it was in their textbooks.
You also make it great things possible like equal rights for all. Teaching values is a two edged sword, if we teach none do you really think our children will be better off. I agree if we teach the wrong ones it leads to catastrophy, so the question is which values to teach. In Texas the appointed officials made that decision on what values to teach, if you don't like the values they choose then attack them on that not on the concept of teach values in schools(the lack of which has left many of our public schools morally lacking).
Posted:
Wed Feb 02, 2005 12:36 amby MinesGoallie45
Who said anything about white people?
Posted:
Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:02 amby B. Ballay
DanGenck wrote:It's walking a fine line. What's next? "When white people interact with other white people..." etc etc.
Posted:
Wed Feb 02, 2005 3:40 pmby MinesGoallie45
Ahhh, sorry about that, I need to read better...