Texas State Board of Education votes to erase Hillary Clinton from history curriculum
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The State Board of Education in Texas voted on Friday to eliminate several historical figures, including Hillary Clinton and Helen Keller, from the state’s social studies curriculum.
Barbara Cargill, a Texas Republican and member of the board, told The Dallas Morning News that "the recommendation to eliminate Helen Keller and Hillary Clinton was made by [Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills] work groups.”
“However the board did vote to agree with the work groups' recommendations,” Cargill pointed out. "In speaking to teachers and testifiers, they did not mention these specific deletions."
The decision made by the 15-member body reportedly came as part of an overall effort to "streamline" the state’s social studies curriculum.
Texas high school students have been required to learn about Clinton after the former first lady made history in 2016 by becoming the first woman to be the presidential nominee of a major political party.
Texas third-grade students have also been required to learn about Keller, who went on to become the first deaf-blind person to earn a Bachelor of Arts degree and later led a life of activism.
Members of the volunteer work group that made such recommendations to the board said the state requires children to learn about too many historical figures.
So, the volunteer work group was tasked with creating a rubric for grading historical figures to deem who was "essential" to learn about and who wasn't. The group would ponder things like whether the historical figure triggered a watershed change or if he or she were from an underrepresented group.
Clinton reportedly scored a five on the 20-point grading rubric, and Keller scored a seven.
Though the vote on Friday was preliminary, the board, whose members are elected to represent specific geographical areas, is scheduled to cast a final vote on the decision this coming November.
Tags
Who is online
85 visitors
One can only imagine what sort of morons sit on that board.
As one who has read many U.S. history books, and loved history class in high school, I can say without a shadow of a doubt that I read about and learned about, if briefly, countless people who had less importance than Hillary Clinton. Even simply in terms of the 2016 election she is an historic figure.
What's next: erase references to evolution and the Big Bang from science books! I wouldn't be surprised.
I think it was Texas, on one of their tests, where one of their test questions was something like, if Johnny the slave was beaten 5 times last week and 7 times this week, how many more times was Johnny beaten this week? This was an elementary school level test
It was Georgia in 2012.
Thanks for that. I was trying to find it but couldn't
Who implied what?
You're the first person to mention racism GC
besides,
I see that you didn't read the linked articles GC
So are we ignoring context?
Your answer defies that conclusion. You may have read the first link, but not the "linked" articles which more clearly laid out the accusations.
WTF did you think it was referring to? Also I did say the question was along the lines of, because I couldn't remember exactly what the questions were. Again, everyone else came to the same conclusion except you. What a surprise.
But you accused me of implying racism.
You should watch your replies...
What did Hillary ever do that was worthwhile and relevant? Many people consider her to be dishonest and corrupt, a serial liar, an enabler of a sexual predator, and just an all around nasty person who wasn't fit to be president.
did Putin fill you in ?
Sounds like you're talking about Rump. Does that make Melania a sexual predator enabler?
What did Jeffery Dahmer do that was worthwhile and relevant? Don't see them removing him from history, do you?
<clears throat>
Trump lies 4x as much as Hillary does and he has been sued for fraud over 3,000 times, Hillary never has been sued for fraud. Corrupt? Donny's "foundation" is under investigation for fraud, right now. Donny is the most corrupt president we have ever had. Enabler of a sexual predator? Please. Bill had 10 accusers, donny has 19, and his wife is as much an "enabler" as Hillary is. Who said, "No one under investigation by the FBI should be president? That was trump as I recall. So you are saying he should resign?
Hillary was the most vetted candidate in history. If donny was vetted even 1/10th as much as Hillary he would be in prison right now. Trump is not only unfit to be president, he isn't fit to pick up dog shit. Hillary though she was a flawed candidate would have been a MILLION times better than the epic failure we have as a POTUS now.
What did Hillary ever do that was worthwhile and relevant?
Google is your friend Greg.
As First Lady
As Senator
As Secretary Of State
There are other accomplishments but it would take up too much additional space.
Many people consider her to be dishonest and corrupt, a serial liar, an enabler of a sexual predator, and just an all around nasty person who wasn't fit to be president.
But it is okay with you that your idol is all of those things and more?
Trump just hit the 5000 mark
with misleading falsehoods{LIES}
how does he continue to get a pass ?
yet hold Hillary to some ridiculous standard ??
Why do you believe disgust towards Hillary precludes disgust towards Trump or anyone else?
?
what have I written to support your interpretation
?
That Trump "gets a pass", while HRC is held to a different standard.
Forgive me if I misunderstood your meaning.
I think many, many people are disgusted with both Trump and Clinton, and were disgusted when they voted. I don't know many people who voted for either candidate, but I know tons of people who voted against one or the other.
So I'm not sure Trump "gets a pass", so much as people are resigned to the fact that he's nasty, dishonest, and an asshole. They knew that when they voted for him, so they can't really complain about it now. The criticisms of Hillary are really just along the lines of "she's even more awful than Trump", even if it's only slightly.
Hillary Clinton was the First Lady for 8 years and she was a Democratic candidate in 2008 and 2016. Why do conservatives have to be so petty to try to edit history to fit their revisionist beliefs? Did these people think that people wouldn't notice their partisan attempt to change the facts? She is a one paragraph mention so don't make an issue of it and just tell the truth.
I forgot to mention that she was both a New York Senator and the Secretary of State of 4 years, so that are more reasons why Hillary deserves to ber mentioned in the history books.
Some people are so childish to try to revise history according to their beliefs. Why is it so hard to just tell the truth?
The board hasn't made a final decision.
The question is on how much should be included in a Social Studies Course for third graders. I happen to think as much as possible should be taught when it comes to America's rich history. As far as Hillary Clinton is concerned, she should be mentioned as the democratic party's candidate in the 2016 Presidential election. That is sufficient for 3rd grade. Obviously later on the Clintons would be required (in depth) learning for US History & Political Science courses.
The article says nothing about Hillary Clinton being taught to third graders.
I'm going to be as specific as possible.....THE QUESTION IS HOW MUCH CAN BE PUT INTO A SOCIAL STUDIES COURSE FOR VARIOUS GRADE LEVELS:
"Texas high school students have been required to learn about Clinton after the former first lady made history in 2016 by becoming the first woman to be the presidential nominee of a major political party.
Texas third-grade students have also been required to learn about Keller, who went on to become the first deaf-blind person to earn a Bachelor of Arts degree and later led a life of activism."
I have already stated my opinion. Hillary Clinton should only be mentioned as the democratic party candidate in 2016 for 3rd graders. Much more should be taught at a higher lever. I think what liberals want is for their heros/heroines to get an out-of-proportion share of their actual piece of history.
Understand?
Vic, the article says nothing about Hillary Clinton being taught to 3rd or 4th graders, so I assume that is not an issue since she is not taught to 3rd and 4th graders, but rather, to high school kids.
I'm not sure why you want to argue about something that is not in the article.
The third graders should also be taught that she was a former first lady, senator, and secretary of state.
Oh, so somebody got what I was saying.
And I can also assume, to be fair, that third graders will also be required to learn of all the defeated Presidential candidates.
do you have a daughter, sister, or any female relatives' other than mom?
Don't you think they might want to know about the first woman candidate that represented a major party and actually got More votes than the pathetic chump who got elected via Russia Putin him in place ?
No, we believe in equality
For old white conservative men?
In other words, you believe in special interest groups & identity politics. Shouldn't it only be about qualifications?
I believe in equality for all people, regardless of their race, creed, color, age, disability, sex/gender, or account balance.
If you do, you would know that the gender of a political candidate is irrelevant.
Why is it just the gender of a political candidate irrelevant, instead of all of their characteristics?
Because you said you believed in equality. Is one gender preferable to the other?
This is not just about a person's gender.
You seem to be making a case for gender to be considered. Are you not?
The only thing that should be considered are qualifications and the policies of the candidate. Why are you debating that?
Can I assume that you don't believe in equality?
Why would you edit what you said?
If you do, you would know that the gender of a political candidate is irrelevant."
I do not agree with that assessment
I don't think episette agrees either, she was looking for a way around equality. So you are admitting that you believe in special groups?
ive always been a tad special
like Ed
.
So, im assuming Vic is not short for Victoria,
and
U R not of the female gender, though one might get the impression , through the androgyny often shimmering from your posts.
.
I find it amusing, that you, an alleged male man, can't timely deliver
cause
if U
actually believe men and women have been, R, and will continue to be viewed as equals,
your perception is further distorted than one might have realized,
wait for it
.
there you go
Concern with the gender of a candidate is like being overly concerned with race. It is not a defense of gender equality or racial equality, but rather another version of sexism/racism
I hope that was an accurate interpretation of what you said
I can understand removing Helen Keller from a third grade curriculum (not sure what she was doing there in the first place) but maybe they could mention her in social studies class for older kids.
BTW , more info on Texas school books
Do new Texas textbooks whitewash slavery and …
Jul 07, 2015 · New social studies textbooks planned for use in Texas public schools this year are under fire for the way they depict slavery, the Civil War and racial segregation. According to a report in the Washington Post, the books downplay slavery as a cause of the Civil War and "barely address" segregation in the Jim Crow-era South.
Didn't Texas once try to remove references regarding the Founding Fathers thoughts on the separation of church and state? I do remember hearing about some Texas citizens who wanted to ban the Harry Potter books because they thought it promoted witchcraft. Morons indeed.
Yep. David Barton and other Christian extremists were behind it. They also tried to minimize the impact of Thomas Jefferson and to stress superstitious folks like Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin.
I thought so. Thanks for that.
At what horizon would these changes be effective?
Hillary is a failed Presidential candidate, a group whose historical shelf-life is very limited.
When I was in high school we learned about every presidential election going back 30 or 40 years. The platform of the losing candidate often reflects the issues that were being discussed at that times as much as the winning candidate's does. Of course Clinton was also first lady, which I believe made her the first and only first lady to become a serious presidential candidate in her own right. There is no doubt Hillary Clinton is an historic figure. She certainly deserves a couple paragraphs in a history textbook, at the least.
OK. Here is a start.
Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton's First Lady, ran for the office of President of the United States and was defeated both times. She lost the first time to an inexperienced, little known new Senator, Barack Obama. The second time, despite rigging the primaries in her favor she still lost the general election to an even more inexperienced presidential candidate and business man Donald Trump. Both she and her followers whined and cried about how it wasn't fair that she lost and put blame on everyone but herself where it belonged. Her only real accomplishment was having more Electoral College delegates pledged for her become faithless and place their votes for other people than any other candidate before her. In other words she's a big loser .
It makes one shudder to think what Trump's pages in the history books will say -
"criminal" "dishonest" "psychologically disturbed" "know-nothing" "deleted-expletive", "clown" "buffoon" "cheat", "idiot" "sexual predator" "traitor" , "narcissist" for openers
Read my post 1.3.4 before you laughingly reduce her to one paragraph. Putting blame on everyone else but himself where it belongs is Trump's M.O.
But if we're talking about achievements that get you into the Texas curriculum, that list doesn't warrant her inclusion above Kay Bailey Hutchison or Ann Richards. It certainly doesn't warrant inclusion above Ma Ferguson.
Certainly. But it is standard operating procedure for most politicians, and Hillary Clinton is a career politician.
She and the zealots of her religion have made laughing stocks of themselves blaming everyone from Fox News to Facebook to Russia to Comey to Bernie to the Deplorables who dared oppose her to the regular Americans she either disgusted or failed to inspire. They don't even have the wherewithal to be embarrassed about it.
More details here:
Do you have a point ?
That objective news sources are better.
"Objective news sources are better." Absolutely. And especially when they come from RT and Putin's machine.
Are you suggesting the Dallas Morning News is part of "Putin's machine"?
James A. Lovell
Harriet Tubman
Juliette Gordon Low
Ellen Ochoa
The Four Chaplains
Todd Beamer
Hector P. Garcia
John "Danny" Olivas
First Responders
Community Volunteers
Veterans
Texas tends to focus way more attention on historical figures never heard of outside of Texas.
Meh. Possibly.
To whom are you referring, specifically?
Besides the obvious ones, Austin, Bowie, Houston, Navarro, Rusk, Lemar, Hogg, Snow et al.
just looking at the 3rd grade list above
The Four Chaplains?
Hector Perez Garcia?
three relatively unknown retired astronauts
Todd Beamer, OK, but for 3rd graders?
I'd put Helen Keller back in there for inspiration alone.
Hillary has come to be known as too controversial and corrupt to ever be given the power of the presidency. Her illegal use of the governments email systems was the most shameful of her life, and one of the main reasons she lost.
Met at Harvard, apparently. I'd never heard of them before today.
The majority of kids in Texas public schools are Latino. That's been the case for a few years now, actually. I presume that has a lot to do with it.
Does seem a bit serious for an 8 year old.
I dunno. It seems perfectly reasonable that they need to have a manageable list of people, and it the size of the biography section in the library indicates there are more worthy and interesting people than we can possibly expect kids to study. So somebody has to get cut.
I can understand the reasoning behind keeping Helen Keller, and even Hillary Clinton, but I can also see the benefit in teaching Latino kids about Latino astronauts. It's probably just as well I'm not on the committee, because I'm not sure any decisions would ever get made.
Yep, that was about the age I learned what "69" meant...
Hillary belongs in the dustbin of history. It's kind of funny how liberals get mad whenever anybody mentions her but they want her immortalized in school books.
I'd be all for leaving her in if the textbook authors include the biased nomination process, the hiding of classified information and the interference in her FBI investigation by Lynch, Strzok and the rest of the deep state.
You probably want MAGA as a chapter title too.
Of course the endless travesties of the Trump presidency will get a lot of coverage in history books, but it's not going to be a pretty sight. By the time Trump is in retrospect in history books Texas will be a blue state so his cult members probably wont be able to keep the truth out of the schools.
Ah yes. The travesties of a roaring economy, a successful tax cut, eliminating Isis, rolling back Obama era abuses, bring dead Americans back from N Korea, moving the embassy to Jerusalem, etc.....
My, what travesties.
The main thing Trump will be known for, by far, will be for leaving office in disgrace.
Only in the sense that they're used to demonstrate the foolishness of the hysteria surrounding them, the ridiculously comical attempt to re-define words like "travesty", the demise of the press as an objective source of information, and the result of decades of omission of basic statistical analysis from our public school curriculum.
The left has been saying Trump will leave in disgrace for almost two years. Before that it was he'll ever be president. I'm sure in fall of 2024 the left will still be saying, "Any day now....."
The right has been screaming that Hillary will, "be arrested any day now" for 25 years. Better get used to it because... "Trump will be arrested any day now".
Guess I'll just have to console myself with "Hillary will never be president".
Meh.
Why would Hillary be in Grade School or Middle School history books anyway ? She was a first lady but not a President. She ran for President but she was not the first woman to run for President. Maybe if you took a Political Science Class in High School she might be worth mentioning. Kids should learn who the Presidents were and the more significant Presidents should get more coverage. Certainly Obama as the first Black President is significant in that respect and deserves special mention. Hillary's only significance is she was a First Lady who later ran for President. Given all the things that are much more significant that her and the fact that you can't teach them everything means you need to make choices and that would leave Hillary pretty far down the list. It's funny that just last week Texas Right Wingers were up in arms because this same panel decided to reduce the extensive coverage of the battle of the Alamo which included profiles of each of the Alamo's Defenders. It's nice in this day and age to see a bipartisan panel piss everyone off.
Does the left want all of here history in there? Like how she aided and enabled her husband Billy to sexually abuse a large number of unwilling women, and then demonized those victims. She's just not worthy of any special recognition.
I wouldn't want my child to learn about a 2 time Presidential loser, one that got her Senate seat and SoS only because of her name, either.
Ah, so you are in favor of removing any politician that lost two elections? That's pretty fucking funny. Buh Bye Mittens!
Didnt say that and you know it. Hillary was able to run for President only because she stuck to her forever cheating husband, and more importantly his name, as he was far more popular than she was/is.
After she was no longer first lady, she got every "job" simply because of her name and none for her accomplishments.
THAT is why she is a two term Presidential loser.
I'm willing to bet Romney is not part of the Texas curriculum.
Nonsense. She is a two time presidential loser because she's a dishonest nasty, angry bitch with nothing positive to offer except "she would be the first woman president".
Seriously...when you lose an 1 on 1 election to Donald fucking Trump, how bad must you suck as a candidate?
Her importance is an appendage to her husband. Together, they moved America to a post truth society. As the Clintons taught the country and their friend Donald Trump, character and honesty don't matter in politics, keeping your base on your side is all you need.
So the text books will now say....what..."Donald Trump won the presidential election because he ran against absolutely no one!"?
Christ these people are morons.
School History books usually don't mention who the President ran against unless they won against a sitting President seeking reelection. The only exception I can think of is Nixon Vs. Kennedy in 1960 and the only reason they mention Nixon in that context is because he was Elected President in 1968 and won a second term in 72. Face Facts unless Hillary runs again and wins 100 years from now she will be a nobody just like most unsuccessful Presidential Candidates.
Dewey, Stevenson, Stevenson, Nixon, Goldwater, Humphrey,Mc Govern, Ford, Carter,Mondale, Dukakis, Bush Sr., Dole, Gore, Kerry,McCain, Romney,Clinton
Those are the names of every major party losing candidate in presidential elections since the end of WW2. I did that by memory and it took me less than a minute to recall them all. That is because I have read about them in books.
Do you think Sarah Palin will be mentioned in history books?
By the 4th grade?
The point is not to eradicate her name for textbooks.
Of course a textbook can say “Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton.” But she’s not going To be singled out as a person of importance students have to learn about. She’s a historical footnote like Walter Mondale, and not worth emphasizing to students. American students lack a basic grasp of their history as it is, forcing them to spend time studying losing nominees is simply dumb.
I am no fan of Hillary F Clinton, but I will say this:
She was the first (and currently only) woman to break the glass ceiling and become the nominee of her party for PotUS (and went on to win the popular vote; failing to win the electoral vote). That is of great historical significance.
Ah. Fair enough.
OK. So you studied all those presidential opponents in high school?
Out of curiosity, how much math were you required to take?
Meh. She's less important than the multiple female governors of Texas, IMO. That's especially the case when you consider the extent to which the presidential nomination was prejudiced by the party structure.
The first woman to be nominated for PotUS is perfect for inclusion in an American History textbook or studied in Political Science classes.
This is a hard historical fact and it is clearly of substantial significance.
Pretend that Carly Fiorina had been the R nominee for PotUS and then lost to the D. Would you agree with someone who held that her achievement is not of great historical significance?
You're a humorous guy Sean.
Meh. I don't know.
Not more than a passing mention.
HRC has the added issue of the nomination basically being an appointment. Between the DNC backing and the superdelegates, she didn't win it the same way other candidates have.
Jack, that alone is of historical significance.
Look man, I am absolutely not defending Hillary Clinton. I am offering objective analysis of the situation. It does not matter the person or the party; this is of historical significance and will certainly be in American History books as more than a passing mention. The reason is because Hillary, like it or not, is the first and only woman to be nominated by a major party for PotUS. Add to that, she won the popular vote and (with different timing) would probably be the PotUS right now. Now if Hillary had been male then yes she would simply be recorded as the loser of the 2016 election.
Good point
Big deal and totally irrelavent
Thank God for small favors for not making it a different time..
Oh certainly. But there are 175 school days in a year. LOTS of historically significant stuff is going to get missed. The question is "what is more or less significant than what else?"
And I'm not condemning her. At least not in this context.
So was the work of Woodward and Bernstein. So was Henry Kissinger. So was Oliver North. There is a finite amount of time in which to teach kids.
When we look at her overall influence on American history or on western civilization overall, I just don't think that's all that significant. I think our proximity to the event makes it seem more significant than it is. But she's not nearly as influential on US history and culture as Queen Victoria.
But she's not.
I agree that her being female makes her candidacy more notable. But I'm not sure it's enough to warrant inclusion in a very crowded curriculum.
It is historically relevant. Is it possible for you to think objectively instead of viewing the world through a partisan lens? We are talking about what is historically significant / relevant, not bullshit partisan politics.
I am sure history teachers will find a way to squeeze in discussion on the first woman to run for (and almost secure) PotUS for a major party.
She is of very minor significance because of that and she will cease to be relevant once we elect the First Female President. Unless it happens to be Her but I highly doubt she could secure the nomination again.
Hillary's political career is over.
We can only hope and thank God for that! Now if we could only get her to shut up and not enter the public arena anymore
Well that is a very different matter.
Probably.
I wonder if anyone still talks about Geraldine Ferraro. Not a presidential nominee, obviously, but still a groundbreaker.
A few differences:
Hillary, in contrast, had to secure the top slot nomination herself and wound up getting the majority to vote for her. Although I greatly favor the late Geraldine Ferraro over Hillary F. Clinton, there just is no comparison in terms of the historical significance.
I find it more concerning that they dumped Helen Keller. What kind of nincompoop would vote to dump Helen Keller from an educational curriculum?
K-12 history is generally of the survey variety, so you try to hit the big important stuff and you'll obviously miss a lot of other stuff. There's only so much time and a lot to cover, so you have to make decisions about who to leave in and who to take out. Such decisions are not anti-education or anti history and Hillary Clinton has not been "erased" from history.
By the way, being First Lady - by itself - is not an achievement. It just means you're married to the president. Certainly several have been of some significance, but you can't cover them all. Hillary probably makes many scholars' top ten "most influential" or "most significant" list of First Ladies, but she probably does so pretty close to number ten. So even if you are covering First Ladies along the way, there's a good chance you don't need to talk about her.
So, there's no mention of any previous first ladies in the Texas version of U.S. history? You can testify to that under oath?
Such has Lady Bird Johnson and the two Bush matriarchs, Barbara and Laura.
Did I say that?
If they're including our current "president" Scumbag then it's clearly a politically driven curriculum.
something tells me she will be making a comeback in the history books under seditious and treasonous figures in US history
give it time
Try again. You'll be wrong every time
wow, that is the same thing I heard when I said:
me? still batting 1000
you? try to be more creative next time...
cheers
Sure Captain Oblivious. As usual, no proof to back up your claims
time provides my proof every time without fail
when all has been said and all has been done on this issue, you will find me still batting 1000
for most, it is not easy being right long before the crowd, but it is a burden I easily bear.
these things take time and time has never let me down yet.
so if clinton has not been charged by 2024 (after trumps 2nd term) that is when you can say I was wrong.
until then? all ya have is hot air.
or... if you dare to make a prediction?
maybe you can tell me when trump will be impeached one more time?
then we can compare results at a later date
● Don't count on it. ● My reply is no. ● My sources say no. ● Outlook not so good. ● Very doubtful.