Sep
23
Written by:
William Lutz
9/23/2009 10:09 AM
A few days ago, I posted an item on the Fifth-Grade history textbook
History Alive! America’s Past, currently in Texas classrooms – including (of all places) Ector County ISD.
This is the textbook that tried to rewrite the Declaration of Independence on its cover artwork to “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all people are created equal …” (men was changed to people.)
The text’s treatment of the Second Amendment is almost as suspect. In the back of the book, the text of the Bill of Rights appears with a summary in the left-hand column. The summary reads “Citizens have the right to own and carry weapons for use in state militias.”
A photo of the page in question can be viewed here.
Yes, that’s one interpretation of the Second Amendment. But clearly, this summary favors the pro-gun-control view of the Second Amendment, and a lot of pro-Second Amendment organizations would definitely take issue with using that as a textbook summary of the Second Amendment.
In all fairness to the publisher, the
Teachers’ Curriculum Institute of California, the book was published before the U.S. Supreme Court decision in
D.C. v. Heller, which declared that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to own weapons. A spokeswoman for the publisher told me the book is reviewed by scholars prior to submission to ensure accuracy.
Also, the book’s chapters do contain a more detailed explanation of the Second Amendment. But even that raises issues.
On page 154, the book contains a more detailed discussion of the Second Amendment:
“The Second Amendment describes the need of states to have a militia, or volunteer army. For this reason, it says that the government cannot take away people’s right to “keep and bear (carry) arms,” or weapons.
“Americans in 1789 wanted to be able to defend themselves. The Revolutionary War had started when militiamen grabbed their muskets to resist British soldiers. Americans remembered how ‘citizen soldiers’ fought the British army to protect their rights. They also wanted to be able to hunt for food and to defend their families. In 1789, there were no police to protect people. In addition, many Americans lived in the countryside and feared attacks by Native Americans and outlaws.
“Today, the Second Amendment protects the right to own hunting rifles and certain other kinds of guns. However, people argue whether every citizen has the right to own any type of gun. Many people say no. They are disturbed by violent crimes, accidental shootings, and other events involving firearms. They think that there should be laws controlling who can own and carry guns. Others argue such laws are forbidden by the Second Amendment. They do not think that citizens should lose the right to carry guns just because some people misuse them.”
So after giving two and one-half paragraphs trying to justify the claim that the Second Amendment only applies to a state militia, the textbook then devotes two sentences to another point of view. That’s better than nothing, but it’s a far cry from fair and balanced.
Given that this publishing house is located near San Francisco, the authors of this book may not come into contact with supporters of the Second Amendment very often. For a different historical view of the Second Amendment, I recommend Fifth Circuit Judge Will Garwood’s
informative opinion in US v. Emerson 270 F. 3d. 203 (5th Cir. 2001), which provides a detailed history of the Amendment and why it confers an individual right. Garwood notes, for example, that the term militia in the late 18
th Century included all males capable of acting for defense of the community.
In short, there are many thoughtful and reasoned arguments as to why our Founding Fathers intended the Second Amendment to confer the right to own guns on every individual American, and many of them existed when this book was published.
Fortunately, we in Texas have an elected State Board of Education that exists to watch over the education establishment. Most members of our elected State Board of Education believe in the Second Amendment and will do their best to ensure it is taught accurately to our children. The educational establishment and some of the newspaper editorial boards attack the State Board of Education precisely because it stands up for Texas values.
The State Board members I have talked to are very concerned that our children learn about the Bill of Rights and our Founding Father’s intent. There is discussion amongst the board members already underway about how to write social studies standards to ensure that students are taught the truth about the Second Amendment, and not merely given anti-gun propaganda.
If the board acts on this issue and puts the Second Amendment in the new draft of the social studies standards, then it will be taught and tested. That would ensure the next round of textbooks will give students a much more accurate and balanced view of the Second Amendment than the book discussed above.
1 comment(s) so far...
Some are disturbed by violent crimes (accidental shootings, and "other" events involving firearms), but does anyone not understand FIREARMS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE. You don't think not creative enough to find another type of weapon, i.e. "A teacher in Tyler was STABBED to death by a student yesterday (092309. So, you make laws on who can own and carry guns? How does that work? Let's see: I passed the test that says I can own a gun/carry a gun, and another CRIMINAL breaks into my home, steals it and shoots somebody - how did that law work? Gang members have any number of ways to acquire guns. They're sold "underground". But, you know let me just use a knife instead; I get the same result. The Supreme Court has already addressed this in D.C. v Heller. If the PUBLISHER SAYS IT'S WAS REVIEWED BY SCHOLARS PRIOR TO SUBMISSION TO ENSURE ACCURACY THEN CONSIDER THE SOURCE: CALIFORNIA. Feeding inaccurate material to our students should NEVER BE TOLERATED.
You can't just change The Declaration of Independence to suit the needs of some to be politically correct. It's a historical document and if they wanted to say "people" instead of "men" they would have done so. They need to stay the course of historical documents as they were originally written. Leave the Constitution and OUR "Bill of Rights" alone.
By D. Wood on
9/24/2009 10:37 AM
|