[url]http://channels.netscape.com/ns/news/package.jsp?name=news/textbook/words[/url]

If this is what is being taught in school, in the long run we are in trouble.  Problem is, ALL of you already now this.

If having "polo" and "yacht" in a text book is too elitist, then not having them is too poor assed, or po'ass'd.  I have been po'ass'd before, and I'd rather strive for elitist and not make it than stay po'ass'd.

Bilster

War is Peace.
Ignorance is Strength.
Freedom is Slavery.

OMFG....


It doesn't surprise me that something like this would pass in Californistan, but if it were nationwide, I'd have to say, as a society, we'd have stuck our heads up our asses for good.

That's just so fucking ludicrous, it boggles my mind.  

[b]"Oh heck: Hell hath no place in American primary and high school textbooks.

But then again you can't find anyone riding on a yacht or playing polo in the pages of an American textbook either. The texts also can't say someone has a boyish figure, or is a busboy, or is blind, or suffers a birth defect, or is a biddy, or the best man for the job, a babe, a bookworm, or even a barbarian."[/b]

Thank God for the Internet; where the barbarians can talk about babes, yachts and polo.  

It's [b]lacrosse[/b] thank you very much... [rolleyes][:D]

I don't buy it.  I think that article is alarmist.

They say certain words are "banned," but who the hell is doing the "banning?"

And that bit about not mentioning Mao's totalitarian rule...is probably an isolated incident.

There are niche markets for textbooks.  I know some people who homeschool their kids.  They're staunch Cristians and somehow found biology and science books that omit evolution and the big bang theory of universe creation.  That's probably where the authors are finding the most egregious examples.

I think academia is too PC and there's a definate liberal/socialist bias in most of our educational institutions (particularly public ones), but I don't believe it's at the point where that article tries to make it.

-Nick Viejo.

The article doesn't have anything to do with non-existant California law. In fact, it says in black and white that the article's about a book...



When I read the article, it's my understanding that the book is about publishers that censor these 500 words. Not because of any law, but voluntarily.



As far as I can see, the only thing concerning California is the origination of the article which happens to be Los Angeles.

I still haven't figured out about the public schools and how they books seem to be 'dictated' but the larger states.  I talked to my Dad about it (recently retired college prof) as one of our friends who teaches High School in TX was talking about.  He said that the book reps that came in almost all said that they would do a special version of the book for only his class to his specs.  His classes wouldn't have yielded over 100 copies and the cost wouldn't be any higher than the 'normal' version.   Just blew my mind that they were so accommodating.

If the book company would print a limited run for Dad's ~100 students with out an extra charge, then why not do a run for a state or even a school district?  

Could it be that the schools are really not buying 'new' but surplus of the larger states for pennies on the dollar and not mentioning it to keep costs down?  Or the more likely option is they are caving into the ‘progressive’ ideas from California?

you mean I can't tell my joke with a wetback, scratch that, a recent immigrant, a black, scratch that, person of color, a dwarf, scratch that, vertically challenged, drunken Irish, scratch that, a sobrerity challenged person of Irish descent, jokes anymore?
DAMM!
edited to add tell

Doh!

How can that be?  Texas: Land of the free, the six-gun and shoot 'em if the sun's not shining[rolleyes]  Yeah right.  I know teachers that worked in that state.