Guest columnist expresses strong opposition to Label

I am writing in response to Libby Moore's April 13 article in her Patriot Talon column, "Libby's Label," regarding changes in social studies curriculum for Texas public schools.

I should first congratulate her for earning her own column and commend her for her provocative articles.

Among my favorites are the inspiring manifesto published March 2 that is sure to empower women, and the bluntly romantic firecracker April 20, wherein she expressed hope for a relationship built on honesty.

I look forward to sharing "I am woman" and "Forget the fireworks" with the special women in my life - my precious daughter and granddaughter.

However, I just want to offer something I have been thinking about since Libby's article on Texas' textbook curriculum decisions.

While I accept as accurate her summary of the decisions, I have to ask if there is more we should consider, before we share in her lament over some of the topics that are being admitted to the curriculum (such as the Venona papers), and some that are omitted (such as hip-hop).

Libby's article - which is interestingly similar to the March 18 Washington Post piece titled "Historians speak out against proposed textbook changes" - seems to blur the line between events that happen and events that are important. The former is an evidentiary matter, the latter a value judgment.

Libby argues, "If we have documentation and adequate evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt something in history happened, it should be taught, regardless of whether people agree with it."

If we apply Libby's evidentiary doctrine to the question of whether to include the Venona papers, then the papers are in - and so is everything else that has ever happened.

Bear in mind that available time to teach the curriculum remains the same, while the body of history continues to grow. We cannot include everything.

That is why an evidentiary test is not the lone standard. Instead, we must make value decisions.

Libby may argue for including this or that, but she does so based on her own values.

Just as you and I do.

Just as the Texas School Board members do, as our elected representatives.

Libby simply disagrees with the values applied by the board in deciding issues of importance. And that's okay. We all do it - that is, we all make decisions and we all disagree with somebody.

Perhaps more importantly, Libby says, "People are entitled to their own opinion."

I wholeheartedly agree.

But then she says, "You don't have to believe what you learn, but don't withhold knowledge..."

Did you hear that?

"You do not have to believe what you learn."

Really?

Please tell us, Libby, why we should want to learn anything that we cannot believe?

Tell us that, and I won't ask you to explain how hip-hop has been more important than Fredrick Jackson Turner's American "exceptionalism" in making me who I am.

Persuade me to believe that I should learn anything that is not believable, and I won't ask why Christmas is not as important to who we are as Americans than the Hindu observance of Dwali.

Convince me that I should learn any lie, and I will even consider pulling my head out of wherever you say it is, to proudly place it wherever you say yours is.

Until then, rather than wishing anyone would suffocate, let's all hope the trust will save us.