Join 3,572 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Trust in Textbooks
April 7, 2008 11:44 AM   Subscribe

The things they teach kids in school today. Details in the pdf. From science to history to law, evidence of increasing political bias in education.
posted by binturong (51 comments total) 9 users marked this as a favorite

 
pretty much everything is in the pdf.
posted by shmegegge at 11:54 AM on April 7, 2008


The pdf states that they teach kids to wash their hands after going to the bathroom. However, it's sometimes okay for boys to skip washing their hands after taking a leak.

Great find. What will the school system think of next?
posted by KokuRyu at 11:57 AM on April 7, 2008


A 59 page PDF? Reviewing one textbook?
posted by rusty at 12:02 PM on April 7, 2008


TLDR - Textbook is shitty and says ignorant things about global warming, prayer in school, the fact that the US was a christian nation, and something I didn't read because it has latin words and it's late.

gist is, that textbooks are being focused towards the same hooting fucking morons that got us into this huge kerfuffle.

I think the center for public integration, or integrity are concerned and they released a PDF.

So yeah. I'm irritated, and that textbook is dumb, and if you let your kids think that stupid shit textbooks are right, they too will be dumb.
posted by Lord_Pall at 12:06 PM on April 7, 2008


We've doomed our species anyway, so who cares what the kids are taught? They won't be around long enough for it to matter.
posted by valentinepig at 12:07 PM on April 7, 2008


Textbooks are business. They'll appeal to the politics of whatever panel is selecting them. Unless the panel is actually made up of intelligent, skeptical people there's no reason for them to go for accuracy.

We've doomed our species anyway, so who cares what the kids are taught? They won't be around long enough for it to matter.

You sir, are undoubtedly part of the problem.
posted by Citizen Premier at 12:20 PM on April 7, 2008 [7 favorites]


However, it's sometimes okay for boys to skip washing their hands after taking a leak.

Poo as I say, not as I poo.
posted by DU at 12:25 PM on April 7, 2008 [1 favorite]


Unless the panel is actually made up of intelligent, skeptical people there's no reason for them to go for accuracy.

But isn't that the point? That the current system for reviewing and adopting textbooks is in the hands of school boards that can be hijacked by political ideologues -- hence the creationism in science textbooks. Shouldn't the standards for education be a little more in the hands of people who at least know the subjects? And you are right about the publishers. Textbooks are a multi-million dollar a year business and they will publish whatever they are asked to. Education controlled by partisan government hacks seems a little totalitarian to me.
posted by binturong at 12:32 PM on April 7, 2008


valentinepig... please explain further.
posted by Phantast at 12:39 PM on April 7, 2008


Yup. The book I'm supposed to give my sixth graders for the Missouri state government class I'm teaching has a list of "constitutional qualifications" and "political qualifications" to become governor. Under "political qualifications" is listed "politically conservative" and "attends church regularly."

Sixth graders see the word qualifications and almost universally translate it as "this is what you have to do in order to be governor as a matter of law. It takes some serious conversation to deconstruct it and arrive at the idea that "the book is saying that almost everyone who's been elected has been like this" - but that's not even 100% true in terms of conservatism, and if they're going to do that, why didn't they list "white" and "straight" and "Christian," too?

I can use it as a springboard to talk about whether or not things are fair in our system of government, sure. I can use it to critique the book with them, too. But how many sixth grade classrooms across the state are having that conversation? That kind of critique isn't covered on the standardized tests, natch.
posted by Chanther at 12:44 PM on April 7, 2008 [7 favorites]


I only read the first few pages or so, but already I can tell that this article is really awesome. I wish there were more comprehensive studies of political bias in textbooks. Whether we like to admit it or not, textbooks - and the way the are used in public school - have a huge effect on the political shaping of children and youth in our culture. There is almost nothing that seems as important to me as this work.

Great post!
posted by lunit at 12:49 PM on April 7, 2008


I wish someone would do this for Economics textbooks, too.
posted by lunit at 12:50 PM on April 7, 2008


binturong: I think you have something of a misunderstanding about how textbooks are created and chosen.

Created: Textbooks in all subjects are essentially written to cater to Florida, Texas, and California. Some textbooks, such as government, might release, say, a "Tennessee Edition" that will have SPIs (Specific Performance Indicators), State Dept of Edu. curriculum standards, etc, but essentially such texts are just the FL/CA/TX versions with specialized inserts. They tend to be written by a coterie of experts in the field.

Chosen: Generally textbooks are not chosen by the school board, but rather by a committee of what we in the biz like to call "stakeholders", but primarily by a Textbook Adoption Committee of one sort or another primarily made up of teachers and/or school administrators. Ground level people. It will have members from the board, or representative of the board, but in most school districts the board members have other things to do than sit around picking textbooks. (note: I did not say *better* things, only *other* things.)

PS: The article doesn't talk about creationism in science textbooks, it talks about the representation of science in a government textbook. SLIGHT difference, eh?

----

To address the post itself more generally. This is crap. I mean, only in so far that we're examining a *single* textbook and extrapolating it to represent the entire of public school curricula. In any other subject, such gross and pitiful strawmen are usually torched post-haste. Allow me to provide the torch and or matches.

NOW, that does not mean that the American Government Institutions and Policies textbook isn't hogwash, I suspect it is. I have not read it, and don't have the time or energy to read a 56 page skewering of it, but I do know a couple of things. I do know that James Q. Wilson is a conservative darling, former Reagan staffer, holder of the Regan Chair at Pepperdine, and was given the Medal of Freedom by GWB. I am not the least bit surprised that one of his textbooks is agenda driven and riddled with selective facts.

Full Disclosure: I took AP Us Gov in high school out of the 1994 edition of his textbook, which was not nearly so obvious about such things. (As I remember. I still have the textbook if anyone cares enough for me to break it out)
posted by absalom at 12:56 PM on April 7, 2008 [6 favorites]


(By crap I do not mean the PDF, but the framing of the link)
posted by absalom at 12:58 PM on April 7, 2008


But how many sixth grade classrooms across the state are having that conversation?

How else could you discuss those lists, though? Constitutional means what's legal and political means what's viable in a certain populace. That's what those words mean. What other distinction will someone draw between what's constitutionally necessary and what's politically necessary?
posted by mdn at 1:14 PM on April 7, 2008


We've doomed our species anyway, so who cares what the kids are taught? They won't be around long enough for it to matter.

Your ideas do not interest me and I do not wish to subscribe to your newsletter. In fact, please stop publishing it and burn all extant copies.
posted by cog_nate at 1:15 PM on April 7, 2008 [1 favorite]


absalom: I have been writing textbooks for 20 years -- although in Canada not the US and the systems of curricula and adoptions differ. I know that the textbook market in the US is essentially geared to the markets of the big three states (in Canada each province has its own curricula and customized textbooks, despite a much smaller population.) I also grant that this link is a single exhaustive analysis of a single textbook. Also that this textbook does not deal with the issue of creationism. But the evidence of political influence in education in the US generally is overwhelming. As the analysis in this link shows in great detail, it is not simply a matter of different opinions but of clear mis-statements of facts and of mis-representations. If I had a kid in the education system I would be concerned that they were being fed propaganda.
posted by binturong at 1:18 PM on April 7, 2008 [2 favorites]


Through the Medieval period in Europe, it was the Muslim world that perserved and developed scientific method. For various reasons, including the rise of religious fundamentalism, the Muslim world fell behind in science (more here in this essay - *link includes pop-up ads*). I think the same thing is happening with the States: religious dogma (fueled by political motivation) is overtaking scientific method. It's one thing to have kids believing that government officials must be church-goers by law, but fundamentalist religious dogma replacing scientific teachings in the general school cirricula is far more dangerous.

On the one hand you have revisionists claiming that the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation with a Constitution that recognises "flaws in human nature resulting from original sin." On the other hand there's Kentucky's Creationist Museum and other church-funded institutions that try to re-write human history and biology in Biblical terms. Between the two you lay the grounds for a country that could eventually retreat from modernity and decline into another Dark Age with a few generations' passing. You can't put men on the moon if you think that stars are just points of light in Heaven, but with enough faulty instruction including untruthful school textbooks, you can start laying the foundation for the long slope backwards.
posted by spoobnooble at 1:19 PM on April 7, 2008 [4 favorites]


That Wilson and DiIulio sucks will not be news to anyone who's ever taught introductory American politics.

It seems worth pointing out that the pdf is disingenuous. It says that they looked at the "advanced" version of the textbook, implying that it is more advanced than the version of the same book used in mainstream civics class. In fact, Wilson and DiIulio is a college textbook that happens to have an even-more-dumbed-down version of itself for AP classes. The book still sucks even more than the average intro-American text does, which is saying something, and the book is of course horribly biased.

So anyway, the creation process will have been different from that that absalom describes, likely starting with the standard version of the text and stripping out the sections that aren't covered as strongly by the AP exam. The selection process will be whatever schools use to select AP texts, which I dunno.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:42 PM on April 7, 2008


Yes, but I must revert to that age old question, "Will I actually need to know this stuff when I grow up?"
posted by Brocktoon at 1:45 PM on April 7, 2008


Though I am a little bit surprised that the College Board will accept courses that use a text that clearly identifies itself as not being a true college-level text.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:45 PM on April 7, 2008


If you don't like a textbook that's being used by schools, write your own damn textbook and convince your school board to use it. That's called "representative government," people. Being in the minority does not automatically mean that the majority consists entirely of "political ideologues" any more than any of the above commenters are "political ideologues" (and there's good reason to believe that plenty of people around here probably are). If you can't convince sufficient numbers of people to agree with you, you just kind of have to deal with it. But don't get all self-righteous and attempt to skirt the political process. That makes you just as bad as your opponents.

Right now there are sufficient numbers of people in particular school districts to make sure a textbook worth publishing. If you don't like it, don't send your kids to those schools. It's what plenty of conservatives are doing, mostly for exactly that reason: they represent an ideological minority and have chosen an alternative to coercion to get what they want.

If anything, the "study" here represents a blatant attempt to force a particular viewpoint upon those who disagree with it. Whether or not it's "correct" doesn't change that fact: coercion is always coercion.

Can we please be a little self aware?
posted by valkyryn at 1:57 PM on April 7, 2008


binturong writes "But the evidence of political influence in education in the US generally is overwhelming. As the analysis in this link shows in great detail, it is not simply a matter of different opinions but of clear mis-statements of facts and of mis-representations."

I wish that the post had taken a broader view, then, and used that PDF as one example out of a few. As it is, it is indicative of a problem, but the post doesn't give a context or synopsis of the issue.
posted by krinklyfig at 2:01 PM on April 7, 2008


valkyryn writes "If anything, the 'study' here represents a blatant attempt to force a particular viewpoint upon those who disagree with it. Whether or not it's 'correct' doesn't change that fact: coercion is always coercion."

Teaching accurate science and history is not coercion. Teaching inaccurate science and history in order to advance a political view (which is what happened with this textbook) is also not coercion, unless you view public schooling to be coercive, but it is propagandist and a misuse of the education system.
posted by krinklyfig at 2:03 PM on April 7, 2008


We've doomed our species anyway, so who cares what the kids are taught?

Well, I'm teaching the kids in my neighborhood how to hunt and eat the kids in your neighborhood. We may be doomed, but that's not a binary state: the kids from my area will be well fed in the coming 'pocy-lypse.
posted by quin at 2:13 PM on April 7, 2008


"So Johnny, what did you learn at school today?"

"That the United States is a Christian nation."

"Well Johnny, that's not really accurate. (Long dissertation on the framers, deism, and separation of church and state.) And the most important thing to remember son is that JUST BECAUSE YOUR TEACHER SAID SO DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE. Always question what you are told."

"And stop picking your nose."
posted by three blind mice at 2:15 PM on April 7, 2008 [1 favorite]


Yup, Chanther. Aside from the fact textbooks are boring and biased, the fact that authentic discussions are relevant to real life - you can see the kids come alive! - but irrelevant to the standardized tests which are eating education alive, is a shame.
posted by kozad at 2:22 PM on April 7, 2008


valkyryn, your viewpoint leaves out the fact that there are textbooks out there that, while flawed, don't have the issues outlined in this post. The goal here isn't to deride all textbooks or claim that public schools are bad -- it's to acknowledge that this is an example of a textbook with obvious biases that is used in some public schools. Maybe the complaints to the publisher will result in a less biased second edition, or the school board will pick a better option next time.

If every school textbook had a review like this, then it'd be easier to pick through them to find the best one for your school district.
posted by mikeh at 2:47 PM on April 7, 2008


krinklyfig, what you're missing is that the term "accurate" involves a truth claim, and that claim is disputed. People can disagree with you, particularly about politics. Which side of the dispute is "correct" depends on who you ask and is ultimately irrelevant: if you believe in pluralism, then you are required to accept others' perspectives on science and history as valid, or, at worst, to respect their right to hold that belief. Even if they're wrong, you don't get to force them to teach their children what you believe.

Public education could be considered coercive except for the fact that parents are permitted to send their children elsewhere. If that option were removed, there isn't any way of construing it as uncoercive. One can have a discussion about whether it's appropriate to force people to learn truth, but let's not pretend that that isn't what we're doing.

Note that I'm neither criticizing nor supporting either the findings in the study or the views expressed in the textbook. My opinions on these subjects not relevant here.
posted by valkyryn at 2:50 PM on April 7, 2008


mikeh, I don't have a problem with reviewing textbooks. That is a useful thing to do. I do, however, object to the idea that there can be such a thing as an "unbiased" textbook, and I object to criticizing a textbook for being "biased." All accusing someone of "bias" really does is to accuse them of not agreeing with you, which is not only not a particularly useful accusation, but deceptive, as it pretends to challenge accuracy when it really challenges perspective. It would have been much more honest for the CFI to say "We don't like this book because it's conservative." Nothing wrong with that.
posted by valkyryn at 2:54 PM on April 7, 2008


If anything, the "study" here represents a blatant attempt to force a particular viewpoint upon those who disagree with it.

Well, no; there may be some issues which can be argued about, but there are some points the PDF makes that simply reveal factual errors on the part of the textbook, clearly made with political goals in mind. For instance, the claim that "In God We Trust" as our national motto has not been considered problematic by the Supreme Court, completely misrepresents how the supreme court works (as the PDF makes clear). That a civics textbook misrepresents such a basic part of our structure of government is a legitimate concern, and worth pointing out. It's also a way of taking part in that "representative gov't" - not every one of us is qualified to write a good textbook, but raising awareness about the pluses & minuses of the existing ones is useful.
posted by mdn at 2:55 PM on April 7, 2008


Textbooks that I had in HS were useless. Textbooks from college were hit-or-miss. Textbooks from medical and graduate school are almost all excellent. Speaking to practitioners in the field, they will reference the same crucial texts which I study from. Large education systems like ours should be able to do better.
posted by a robot made out of meat at 2:56 PM on April 7, 2008


So you're saying that if the textbook left out or changed the points that they mentioned, that it'd be "liberal?" Or if it mentioned a conflict in some ideas, and taught it as Chanther does, it wouldn't be a good textbook? There is a middle ground for textbooks.

I remember my teachers having pretty decent textbooks, especially for the Advanced Placement courses I took in high school, even if there were always one or two points they'd elaborate on per chapter. Textbooks should be part of a balanced curriculum, not the whole class, but it's hard to find the time to move beyond what's there, sometimes.
posted by mikeh at 2:58 PM on April 7, 2008


I do, however, object to the idea that there can be such a thing as an "unbiased" textbook, and I object to criticizing a textbook for being "biased." All accusing someone of "bias" really does is to accuse them of not agreeing with you, which is not only not a particularly useful accusation, but deceptive, as it pretends to challenge accuracy when it really challenges perspective.

I find this kind of offensive, since the point of laying out a good argument, or describing a side of an argument as a textbook would do, is to do so in a logical way, based in fact, such that anyone who disagrees with you at least understands your premises and how you got there although they may disagree with the conclusion.
posted by mikeh at 3:00 PM on April 7, 2008


If you don't like a textbook that's being used by schools, write your own damn textbook and convince your school board to use it. That's called "representative government," people.

That's not how scientific facts are established.

It would have been much more honest for the CFI to say "We don't like this book because it's conservative."

They weren't arguing that the textbook was biased, they were pointing out that it was wrong. And by "wrong" I mean "not corresponding to objective, scientifically verifiable reality."

That matters. Or at least it should.
posted by stevis23 at 3:09 PM on April 7, 2008 [1 favorite]


valkyryn writes "krinklyfig, what you're missing is that the term 'accurate' involves a truth claim, and that claim is disputed. People can disagree with you, particularly about politics. Which side of the dispute is 'correct' depends on who you ask and is ultimately irrelevant: if you believe in pluralism, then you are required to accept others" perspectives on science and history as valid, or, at worst, to respect their right to hold that belief. Even if they're wrong, you don't get to force them to teach their children what you believe."

I'm not even sure what you mean by "truth claim." What is disputed, precisely? I've heard from creationists, for instance, that the theory of natural selection is disputed within the scientific community, but that's not accurate. There is a very small minority of scientists who will rail against the theory, but nothing has withstood scientific scrutiny. This is true for many scientific theories, however, even ones we take for granted as "true." In any event, science doesn't make claims on true or false. It simply states what we know, given the information we have. New information can invalidate past theories, but arguing isn't the same thing.

The last point is a straw man. Besides, why should I respect your beliefs if they're factually inaccurate? This is the canard of multiculturalism: "if you believe in pluralism, then you are required to accept others" perspectives on science and history as valid." What does it mean when you say, 'if you believe in pluralism?' What do you consider to be pluralist which is "forced" on your children?
posted by krinklyfig at 3:14 PM on April 7, 2008


binturong: Indeed, and I even agree with what you say in your first and followup points to a great extent. (Speaking as a textbook user, not a textbook writer). My overall frustration is from the gross overextension of the contents of the pdf in the link, and the following gross generalities that follow. In my experience, in most textbooks, things are simply too tepid, narrow, and non-offensive to have any meaningful propaganda and misrepresentation in most cases. I mean, we just went through social studies adoption for our district this year, so I've been exposed to a staggering amount of textbooks for world history, US history, and US government and, I have to say, I consider the Wilson text to be a particularly extreme example. Not QUITE to the level Of Pandas and People, but maybe a couple layers removed. I still think it is very unfair and unreasonable to generalize to the level you are doing. I realize all of my evidence is one-man anecdotal, and I would certainly be interested in seeing the "overwhelming" preponderance of evidence you are speaking of. (My desire to see such evidence is sincere, not simply a stupid gotcha, by the way.)

And, for that matter, sadly, children in classrooms have always been fed propaganda of one sort or another. Indoctrination and socialization were the A-#1 pitches for the modern American public school system. Hell, many see that as a feature, not a bug.

In addition, the Xenophobe expands perfectly on my problems with the pdf, the post, and the generalities that are coming out as a result. Taking a Wilson text as a baseline in Government is just pointless, and - in my estimation - there are so many real and crippling problems with the public education system, that going about erecting windmills of outrage to tilt against only aggravates the problem.
posted by absalom at 3:16 PM on April 7, 2008


This article from the NY Times, on the death of Norma Gabler, clarifies the Texas textbook policies that lead to its overwhelming domination of the textbook market. It also explains the enormous role Gabler and her husband played in forcing a conservative agenda on the textbook hearings in the state. In 2006 the Attorney General of Texas (Greg Abbott (R)) reaffirmed that textbooks cannot be rejected merely because of their ideological slant, but only for failing to meet specified educational standards, having factual errors, or not fostering the free enterprise system. The Gablers used this to their advantage by ferreting out minor factual errors in textbooks they found morally objectionable, thus giving them legitimate grounds to argue for their exclusion.
posted by katemonster at 3:19 PM on April 7, 2008


absalom: good points. I may have generalized too much from a single example, but the example is refreshing and exemplary in its very thoroughness. I think in this discussion there is conflation of error and bias. The report focuses on error, which can easily be identified and should be eliminated from all textbooks -- they are, after all,supposed to be authoritative in some degree. As for bias, well, that's a whole other can o worms. Everybody sees what they want to see if that's how they're so inclined. Every country has these debates over the hearts and minds of the little ones, especially when it comes to portrayals of their own history. This site has a useful breakdown of types of bias. This site is a good resource for errors in science. And this site is an excellent example of weasel scumbag fundamentalist hypocrites masquerading as fair-minded textbook critics.
posted by binturong at 3:45 PM on April 7, 2008


Socialized education is nothing less than government mandated brainwashing. The fact that Conservatives clearly love to misuse our socialized education system to indoctrinate your children is the natural consequence of allowing your government to take your money and fund schools that your child has to attend (unless you prove they are receiving an appropriate education) and giving the government funded institutions parental rights over your children.

Conservatism is often the rallying cry against socialized programs like our education system. This is because conservatives know deep down they REALLY REALLY REALLY want to fuck everyone else over and expect you to do similarly.

The solution is to get our government out of education. Appointing academic scholars to select textbooks would work approximately as well as trusting your doctor to prescribe the best medicine for your condition rather than the newest trendiest pharmaceutical that the drug rep is pushing.

At one point in time the "best and brightest" of society thought Eugenics was super keen, to the point that forced sterilization was an accepted necessity. Given the correlation of social maladjustment and intelligence, I think there's equal peril in trusting eggheads to make all the decisions vs empowering dogmatic politicians.
posted by polyhedron at 3:55 PM on April 7, 2008 [1 favorite]


Texas math books have over 100,000 errors. Although I don't think these were politically motivated. Or were they....
posted by binturong at 4:06 PM on April 7, 2008


"Well Johnny, that's not really accurate. (Long dissertation on the framers, deism, and separation of church and state.) And the most important thing to remember son is that JUST BECAUSE YOUR TEACHER SAID SO DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE. Always question what you are told."

"And stop picking your nose."


Well, that works great for the children of the educated. But the current administration has created a majority out of those below the median and the greedy. All they need to do is get their moiety from the lower half of the spectrum and they've built a lasting majority.
posted by Mental Wimp at 4:08 PM on April 7, 2008


Hmm. that math article seems to need a registration, but this doesn't.
posted by binturong at 4:11 PM on April 7, 2008


If you don't like a textbook that's being used by schools, write your own damn textbook and convince your school board to use it. That's called "representative government," people.

Local school boards have some control over some textbooks in some classes.
Most school boards follow state policy as a matter of course (there are always exceptions, though). And those state boards follow the recommendation of textbook review boards.

The textbook review boards are supposed to be diverse and open minded, a representative sample of the American populace, blah blah blah. However, they tend to be heavily influenced by textbook publishers (because some of the publishers sit on those boards) and guess what? The publishers are often members of the very same pressure groups that influence the content of the books.

So after you write your textbook, you'll need to get it approved, probably at the review board level. In the process of getting approved, it will go through many, many revisions and be in the hands of a great many people. It will be challenged on fact, certainly - but it will also be screened for just about anything that doesn't fit the vanilla-flavored pap that's considered acceptable fare for our fine public school systems.

By the time it's all set for approval your textbook will be the same watered down bullshit (complete with political points of view) that's approved over and over again. If it gets approved. Because those publishers? They want their books approved, not yours. Good luck with that fight. They tend to have a lot of money and influence.
posted by disclaimer at 4:30 PM on April 7, 2008


This article from the NY Times, on the death of Norma Gabler, clarifies the Texas textbook policies that lead to its overwhelming domination of the textbook market.

This is a bad example of that for a couple of reasons.

First, these are AP courses that use nominally college-level books, not standard high school courses using high-school textbooks. Frankly, you'd almost certainly find that college texts tend to be more biased than high school because for the most part professors can pick any book they damn well please, and many of us have our own biases that we like to see echoed in the text. So no matter what the review committees are doing, they're starting with different raw material.

Second, this book wasn't approved for use in AP government courses in Texas in any case. One of Wilson's solo textbooks was, but not this one.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:03 PM on April 7, 2008


I don't mind a bit of political bias in school, there is really very little the right can teach that is actually useful.
posted by mattoxic at 7:38 PM on April 7, 2008


This sucks. What we need to do is collectively publish online textbooks for all subjects in high school and earlier, and then shame school boards into choosing them instead of paper textbooks Bowdlerized by fucking Texas.

You know, if one percent of Metafilter activity were displaced to that task, the world would be a significantly better place.
posted by gum at 9:56 PM on April 7, 2008


I don't mind a bit of political bias in school, there is really very little the right can teach that is actually useful.

I don't quite see your logic there, mattoxic.
posted by AdamCSnider at 12:43 AM on April 8, 2008


From science to history to law, evidence of increasing political bias in education.

How does anything in this link constitute evidence of increasing political bias in education? Am I missing something?
posted by pardonyou? at 6:54 AM on April 8, 2008


According to the NY Times: "Americans are as likely to believe in flying saucers as in evolution."

And you think they can discern political bias?

They should shoot a copy of Idiocracy into space so that some other civilization will understand what happened to our planet.
posted by asusu at 8:06 PM on April 8, 2008


Why does a kid have to be subjected to such bigotry in school? It's mind-depleting. Am sadden.
posted by pixxie at 10:45 PM on April 25, 2008


« Older Generative Creativity...   |   Pay to play.... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments