Former Texas State Board of Education Challenged
While political observers seem transfixed on the coming heavyweight brawl between Gov. Rick Perry and U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, the fight for the soul of the Texas GOP may be down the ballot in a race for State Board of Education. A battle between incumbent school board member Don McLeroy, a symbol of Christian conservatism, and challenger Thomas Ratliff, the scion of a moderate Republican family may show what’s to come.
“It’s a question: What direction does the Republican Party go in Texas and nationally for the future?” said Tom Pauken, who chaired the state GOP ...
Comments (11)
TxVoter
Cynthia Dunbar, the current Place 10 representative on the State Board of Education, covering North Travis and Williamson counties, is a very focal social conservative. In fact, many of Dunbar’s statements and actions have made a mockery of our public schools and the board.
Voters will have two chances to relieve our current representative of duty. Already, three excellent candidates for the board have stepped up and all have the ability and vision to better represent our area. Rebecca Osbourne is an educator running in the Republican primary, and Lorenzo Sadun and Judy Jennings both have great experience in education and are declared candidates for the Democratic side.
No matter the reader’s political stripes, we are sure to have better choices than incumbent Cynthia Dunbar in the upcoming SBOE Place 10 race.
OnSecondThought
This is a good article that shows how national trends are playing out even in races that don't get a lot of attention.
However, I have to say that I'm less than happy by the imprecise way the article characterizes McLeroy's and Ratliff's positions.
The article repeatedly describes McLeroy as favoring what is "moral" or "traditional." I'm sorry, but that just sounds like you're lifting language from his own campaign materials.
Why should the socially conservative person get to use those labels but not the more moderate person?
I am pretty darn liberal and guess what - I believe that my positions are moral and traditional. Yep, I am a "VALUES VOTER." How dare media assume that such a term belongs to conservatives.
You're doing the same thing here by letting McLeroy claim the mantel of "moral" and "traditional."
This sentence is especially bad: "His [McLeroy's] faction on the state board has unabashedly used the position to imbue the public school curriculum with traditional moral values and increased academic rigor."
To a lot of people, it is "traditional moral values" to keep religious dogma OUT of public education. What is radical or non-traditional is to use THE STATE (though public schools) to put certain religious or social issue beliefs into the minds of school children.
And increased academic rigor??? So liberals and moderates do NOT favor academic rigor? Sorry, but give me a break.
Now, I am not saying that McLeroy should be described as "a crazy right-winger" who "advocates theocratic public education." That would not be fair to him or his, I assume, sincere beliefs. And the Trib isn't MSNBC, after all.
But if the Trib is to be truly non-partisan, you need to be more precise in your language.
Your response to me would probably be "well, everybody KNOWS what I mean when I characterize McLeroy's values as 'traditional' or 'moral,' right?"
No. Actually, that's part of what infuriates people on the left. I am sure there are similar examples that infuriate people on the right. When you use such imprecise language, you are taking sides in an argument.
I'm not trying to suggest that you need to be PC or "watch what you say to not offend anybody, anywhere, anytime." Just be more precise.
Here are just a couple of examples:
1. "injecting moral values" is more precisely stated as "injecting what many evangelical Protestants consider to be moral values"
2. "used the position to imbue the public school curriculum with... increased academic rigor" is more precisely stated as "used the position... to correct what he sees as a decline in academic rigor"
or something like that.
Also, I have to laugh at this passage: "A student-centered lesson might, for instance, instruct students to write their own survival plan for a colony just landing in America. A teacher-centered approach would focus on the actual actions dates for Christopher Newport and John Smith."
Are we really to believe that "student-centered" education wouldn't include historical facts and dates? Or that the kind of approach that McLeroy favors could not include the kind of creative, critical thinking that would come from having a student come up with a survival plan and then compare that to what actually happened in history? After all, such an exercise helps to strengthen writing skills and maybe draw on the student's knowledge from the sciences. I can hardly think McLeroy or his allies would be opposed to that.
Unfortunately, what you present is a very cartoonish view of the two approaches.
Being precise and accurate may not make for as elegant a sentence. And presenting cartoonish characterizations may make it easier to tell a story in fewer words.
But so what? People on the left, on the right, and everywhere in between are tired of reporting that glosses over the issues and doesn't represent one side (or either) precisely and clearly.
Only when we have a clearer understanding of where the other side is coming from can we get past the point in our history when we increasingly see someone with a different political view as evil at worst or stupid at best. Imprecise reporting adds to that and, in my view, is as destructive as the current trend in big media of blurring the lines between reporting and editorializing.
I don't mean to beat up on you on the first day, Ms. Rapoport. I'm just expecting great things from you folks.
Joe
This statement from "Trouble in the big tent" is incorrect: "Bill Ratliff served as a state senator from 1988 to 2000." Because the Texas Senate chose Bill Ratliff to serve as lite guv following Rick Perry's move into the Governor's Mansion following the election of the ill-fated Bush 43 administration, Gov. Ratliff also remained a state senator. He actually continued to serve as a senator past the time his tenure as lite guv ended, in January 2003. He didn't leave the Senate, in disgust with the R leadership, until after the redistricting debacle later in 2003. I thought the Trib's writers are supposed to know Texas politics.
Bumpr
While this article talks about how a State Board of Education election will foretell national politics, a better analysis is how national politics should direct GOP policies.
The Limbaugh - Palin - Beck fringe of the GOP claims that Tuesday’s results show a clear repudiation of the policies of Pres. Obama and the Dems, and support for the conservative “agenda.” But with Christie and McConnell having won by running to the center and the anointed candidate in the NY23rd, Hoffman, losing when playing to the fringe agenda, the results show that the message of the Limbaugh - Palin - Beck fringe doesn't play in mainstream America.
Pres. Nixon talked about a silent majority. Yesterday, that majority showed that they were still here. They are the center, and are tired of fringe agendas. They want policies that address the problems plaguing us today; massive unemployment, no real job growth, increasing poverty, increasing homelessness. Health care is nice, but if you have don't have a job to get the money to buy a policy, who cares? Increased intervention in Afghanistan may be necessary, but if we aren’t safe in our homes and on our borders, who cares?
A battle for control of the GOP has been on going for over a year. There are serious problems that need to be addressed immediately. As long as the Limbaugh - Palin - Beck fringe agenda of “NO” or individualism over community well-being is touted as GOP ideals, America will continue to suffer. The GOP needs to take back control of the Republican Party from the fringes and bring back the policies that made Texas and all America great.
laraypolk
This sentence in the report makes no sense: "His faction on the state board has unabashedly used the position to imbue the public school curriculum with traditional moral values and increased academic rigor."
The behavior of McLeroy and his faction is best described as unethical. They seek to make gains by circumventing protocol. Is that an exercise of "traditional moral values?" Or, gaming a system of government to infuse the public schools with a skewed, religious-based interpretation of science, social studies and world affairs?
The second part of the description, "increased academic rigor" is ludicrous. McLeroy has publicly denounced the input of "experts." He has repeatedly turned a deaf ear to recommendations by education teams and academic experts in any given field. In actuality, the opposite is true. The only academic rigor has been been applied has come from the numerous people involved who have tried returning to protocol and academic standards and procedures. The rigor he is interested in has no semblance to academia. Not only are his approaches and ideological interests not academic (that is, they cannot be objectively tested or verified), they are unconstitutional. Public schools are not Sunday schools. The only "experts" he is willing to concede are those hand-picked religious ideologues who have identical agendas. As it stands, SBOE obstructionists have succeeded in establishing no objectivity, no verification, no academic rigor and no ethical means for achieving consensus.
schafersman
The article is good but has several lapses. First, the sentence, “His [McLeroy’s] faction on the state board has unabashedly used the position to imbue the public school curriculum with traditional moral values and increased academic rigor” is inaccurate. In fact, the radical religious right members of the Board have repeatedly acted unethically by rejecting textbooks for illegal reasons, written standards that ignore the wishes of the Texas Legislature, intimidated and threatened publishers, ignored education and curriculum experts, insulted teachers and scientists, and repeatedly expressing their disgust with education professionals in particular and public education in general. They have lowered academic rigor in science by writing ignorant and anti-scientific standards and forcing them into the new science standards; these standards are expected by them to make students and teachers question evolutionary biology and other scientific topics. They are currently lowering academic rigor in social studies by writing standards that will feed students false myths about America’s Christian heritage and American exceptionalism. I consider the seven members of the radical religious right faction to be paragons of anti-intellectualism, who reject traditional moral values such as honesty, truthfulness, tolerance, and respect for science, education, and professional expertise, placing before these their own religiously-motivated ignorance and bigotry. McLeroy's faction is not imbuing anything with "traditional moral values."
The second lapse is the article’s repeated but very misleading contrast of the two Republican factions as “moderate” and “conservative.” In fact, McLeroy’s primary challenger Thomas Ratliff, Mercer’s primary challenger Tim Tuggey, and Dunbar’s primary challenger Rebecca Osbourne are traditional Republican conservatives. They respect traditional values and want to preserve them in society--the stance of a true conservative. The same is true of the three conservative Republicans currently on the State Board--Geraldine Miller, Bob Craig, and Pat Hardy. I know these Board members very wells. They are socially and fiscally conservative and conservative Christians. In particular, they respect public education, science, and the rule of law, something the seven in the State Board's radical faction do not.
McLeroy, Mercer, and Dunbar are not conservatives but extreme radicals. They despise and want to damage science and public education. They want their own bizarre and reactionary versions of science and history taught in Texas schools. These three plus their four colleagues--Gail Lowe, Terri Leo, Bargbara Cargill, and David Bradley--are part of the Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh wing of the Republican Party. The individuals in this faction flatter themselves by calling themselves “conservative.” They are radicals and reactionaries, not conservatives. They want to radically change society into a theocracy in which minorities (ethnics, gays, secularists, and the working class) will face organized government discrimination. Journalism is not served by just blandly accepting the name McLeroy and Dunbar falsely call themselves because the name sounds good, or referring to their opponents as moderates when in fact they are traditional conservative Republicans. Examples of moderate Republicans would include Nelson Rockefeller, John Lindsay, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Colin Powell, who were and are fiscally conservative but socially liberal and tolerant.
tratliff
Thank you Texas Tribune for covering this race and increasing awareness of the SBOE. As I have repeatedly said, win or lose, my goal is to raise the public's awareness and understanding of the SBOE. As your article points out, my candidacy offers the voters a choice based on a different philosophy from Dr. McLeroy's of what is best for our schoolchildren. Again, I wish to thank Dr. McLeroy for his ten years of service on the board, but I think it is time for a new direction for District 9.
Robert Duckham
My, my, the first day and already you are drinking tons of the crimson kool-aid, you are making an assumption that a big tent exists in the Rethug party. If NY-23 has taught you anything is that the tent doesn’t exist. We see a strand of the Rethuglicans smashing to bits the campaign of the only candidate who could hold that seat, and watching a seat that hadn’t gone D since the Civil War go D. It would not surprise me to see 275 to 300 Democrats in the House within 10 years. As the far reichwing takes on the reichwing in bloody primary fights. CIRCULAR FIRING SQUADS FOR THE REICH WINGERS OF ALL STRIPES!
Ronald
I'm a bit confused on Ken Mercer's comments about Tuggey and Ratliff, being registered lobbyists, somehow makes them not qualified to hold an SBOE office. I would ask Mr. Mercer what profession Haley Barbour held before he was elected governor of Mississippi.
latoscana
Rigor?? It's hard to see how subscribing to the notion that the planet is 6,000 years old, and wanting all school children to be indoctrinated to believe this, aligns with academic rigor. It's a sign of emotional, not rational thinking. This is an example of "denialism," not rigor.
eyeswideopen
Why can't both sides of the "big" argument show up in text books?
I am a Christian who believes that the earth and all things living on it were created by God.
I also don't believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old. I guess that kinda takes shots at both fanatical camps. If you absolutely believe that everything in the Bible happened absolutely as written, then there is no further room for debate. If you absolutely believe that life on earth just started as a one cell amoeba and that we just happened to evolve into where we are today, there is no room for debate.
It seems foolish to me that we can't have both positions stated in our text books, with a third one added ... that God created life on earth and he used amoeba as his initial building blocks. We didn't get where we are today through ramdom happenings.