April 9, 2008

Student Claims to Have Found a Textbook Case of Conservative Bias

Charges by a high-school senior and a think tank that a popular college textbook on American government is politically biased have prompted the book’s publisher to change some passages and reconsider others.

The book, American Government: Institutions and Policies, was written by James Q. Wilson and John J. Dilulio Jr., two well-known conservatives. It is used in both college and high-school courses.

According to the Associated Press, Matthew LaClair, a senior at Kearny High School, in New Jersey, complained to the Center for Inquiry, in Amherst, N.Y., about passages in the textbook that cover global warming and school prayer, among others.

“I just realized from my own knowledge that some of this stuff in the book is just plain wrong,” Mr. LaClair told the AP.

In a report it released in late March, the Center for Inquiry — a think tank that studies science — criticized the textbook’s statement that global warming may not be scientifically valid. It also took issue with the book’s statement that the U.S. Supreme Court has outlawed all school prayer. First Amendment experts told the AP that, in fact, students are allowed to pray privately in school, or in groups before lunch, as long as they do not disrupt the school day.

Mr. Dilulio, a professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania, worked for the Bush administration as director of faith-based initiatives. Mr. Wilson is a professor of public policy at Pepperdine University. Neither responded to the AP’s requests for comments.

Richard Blake, a spokesman for the book’s publisher, the Houghton Mifflin Company, said the it would be “working with the authors to evaluate in detail the criticisms of the Center for Inquiry.” Mr. Blake said some disputed passages already had been excised from the book’s newest edition. —Robin Wilson

Comments

1. It’s certainly important to address this issue, and we appreciate the coverage and link, but it should be pointed out that the Center for Inquiry is based in Amherst, N.Y., not Massachusetts.

   Henry Huber
   Assistant Director of Communications
   Center For Inquiry

   — Henry Huber    Apr 9, 01:26 PM    #

2. I have used Wilson’s works before and never noticed a conservative bias. Furthermore, I am not sure that the evidence presented here would support such a charge. Perhaps a mistake on the prayer issue – and goodness everyone makes those. On the point of global warming, scientists continue to disagree, so I do not see any controversy here.

   — Cicero    Apr 9, 01:43 PM    #

3. Re Comment No. 1: Thanks for the correction, Mr. Huber. We have updated the post to reflect it.

   — Andrew Mytelka    Apr 9, 02:54 PM    #

4. I can’t believe we’re still hearing the “scientists continue to disagree” argument. No, they don’t. Only a lunatic fringe denies global warming. The only sensible debates are on the magnitude of warming and our prospects for reversing it.

   — DLS    Apr 9, 03:55 PM    #

5. Re comment #2 – maybe Cicero should pull your head out of the sand and look at what is happening in the world. The Arctic polar caps have been shrinking for years now. The south polar ice sheets are consistently smaller than historically recorded. About the only “scientists” that dispute the global warming thesis are those bought & paid for by this reactionary government or big industries who don’t want us to actually realize what’s really happening around us.

   This incompetent U.S administration and it’s government-supported lackeys live by the saying, “tell a lie often enough and people will believe it as fact.” The “myth of global warming” is one of their biggest and most egregious lies.

   And why am I not surprised that one of the authors is a bushie toady who worked on circumventing the Constitution’s separation of church & state?

   — Gary    Apr 9, 03:59 PM    #

6. Is that a petulant foot I hear stomping, DLS and now you too Gary? Please note your nomenclature; it’s “Climate Change” now, that way, you have your bases covered in the (likely) event the scientific data doesn’t support your hypothesis; you know, kinda like what is transpiring now.
   Oh, for future reference, anytime anyone uses the phrase “bushie” they’ve lost any chance of being viewed seriously.

   — maxsdadeo    Apr 9, 04:04 PM    #

7. I’m sure if we searched hard enough, we would find plenty of other misinformed texts throughout our school systems. Thankfully, this student knows his stuff!

   — Christopher Chell    Apr 9, 04:04 PM    #

8. This is too hilarious, can any person actually believe the AP would run such a story about liberal bias’ throughout our education system? The examples they give are quite weak as well. And to you global warming alarmists, you can NOT prove one “certainty” that has been predicted with global warming computer models – thus the quote about its affects being uncertain are 100% correct. The earth hasn’t warmed since 1998, the ocean temps have actually decreased, and now they are saying 2008 will be cool. Yet, this article focus’ on “conservative” bias when liberal bias is everywhere. This is just too funny.

   — pacificaharry    Apr 9, 04:05 PM    #

9. So, students praying privately or in small groups while in school is school prayer? No. School prayer is prayer that is led by school officials, which has been (perhaps correctly) outlawed. Seeing conservative bias in that statement in the textbook is a little bit of a stretch. The spin on the global warming statement also belongs to Mr. LaClair and the think tank, as global warming may not turn out to be scientifically valid, given that there isn’t even consensus on this in the scientific community. It looks like the knowledge of another high school senior has failed him.

   — Tracy G.    Apr 9, 04:07 PM    #

10. how about we look at the fact that ALL textbooks are biased to some extent. Maybe authors should admit their biases up front. Even math/science texts come with the authors bias. It’s just human nature. What you choose to include or exclude, who you quote or who you don’t. We all do it.

    — Lynne    Apr 9, 04:07 PM    #

11. Cicero’s comment about the evidence for the textbook’s conservatism and his remark about scientists’ disagreement about global warming have a common feature: they are strictly true but entirely vacuous.

    Of course the evidence presented in this short “News Blog” feature is insufficient. What is given is said to be about certain passages “among others.” The question, then, is whether the full report gives sufficient evidence.

    As for global warming, of course scientists disagree about many things. They have also earned the right to disagree, which Cicero has not (at least he shows no evidence of it). To give a botanical analogy: they agree on the family and the genus but they haven’t fully pinned down the species, yet they have ruled out some species possibilities and are strongly inclined to others (though some go for species A over species B). They are not sure of the exact range of coloration possible, the exact length of the body, legs, and snout, etc., but they know these within ever smaller margins of error. They will continue to have disagreements, but within an agreed framework. They understand this framework, and, even more important, they work with it every day.

    And so when what they are studying quacks they have a high probability of identifying what it is (p<.05).

    — dionysos    Apr 9, 04:15 PM    #

12. While the current Chicken Little view of climate change may prove accurate, the fact remains that scientists today, even with advanced computer modeling, have limited amounts (as in decades or centuries or even a milenium) of historical data upon which to rely. The earth has proven time and again that viewing the eco-system in that limited scope is myopic at best. And, remember, these same scientists were warning us in the 70s that we were surely heading for another ice age.

    I, for one, will do all I can to minimize my impact on the environment and I support government and business efforts to do the same because it’s the right thing to do. But I do not yet subscribe to the theory that we must do these things or risk humanity’s doom.

    — Michael    Apr 9, 04:22 PM    #

13. Well, one conservative biased text, and 200,000 left biased books. When the odds even out, let me know.

    And a consensus for global warming? Ask yourself how Copernicus and Galileo felt about consensuses.

    — Bob    Apr 9, 04:24 PM    #

14. I LOVE the headline. It sounds like it comes straight out of The Onion.

    — Dr. J    Apr 9, 04:34 PM    #

15. DLS says: Only a lunatic fringe denies global warming. The only sensible debates are on the magnitude of warming and our prospects for reversing it.
    What a hoot! Reminds me of the “scientific consensus” in 1490 that the Earth was flat. . . The heck with intellectual curiosity – anyone who disagrees is on the lunatic fringe. I’ll give you lunatic fringe – we had the second snowiest winter on record this year! And the cold weather still isn’t over! But of course, the Global Warming crowd always has the answer!
    Q. Why was it so hot last summer? A. Global Warming.
    Q. Why was it so cold and snowy this winter? A. Global Warming.
    Q. Why did Hurricane Katrina destroy New Orleans? A. Global Warming.
    Q. Why didn’t we have all the Cat-5 hurricanes this year that they predicted? A. Global Warming.
    Q. Why did the Red Sox finally break the curse in 2004 and win the Series again in 2007 A. Global Warming.

    There’s more of political science than climate science behind the Global Warming hysteria. . .

    — Bill    Apr 9, 04:37 PM    #

16. Copernicus and Galileo were fighting the same type of false, religious based consensus that is perpetrating the myth that Global Climate Change isn’t real today. Just as the scientists were right then, they are right today. So, you are very much defeating yourself, Bob.

    And Bill, there never was a real debate on whether the earth was round. The question was how round. It took a lot of measurement to realize that it is an oblate elipsoid. Also, Bill, sarcastic questions do not trump empirical data.

    And, just in case a member of the Fixed Earth Society finds his way in here, yes the earth does rotate around an axis.

    — Dr. Smith    Apr 9, 04:42 PM    #

17. The Wilson book has always had a conservative bias. I use one with a liberal bias, but the differences are pretty obvious. Therefore. . . why is this news??

    — Landrum Kelly    Apr 9, 04:45 PM    #

18. RE Bill’s questions—

    Yes, the short answer to all those questions truly could be “global warming” because the devastating truth is that global warming is causing a shift in prevailing weather patterns. Global warming is increasing the occurence of extremes of weather, both wet and dry. Try reading past the headlines and listening beyond the sound bites.

    — RW    Apr 9, 04:52 PM    #

19. Regarding Bob at #13. The mere fact that you use the term “left-biased” is a conservative bias. I don’t know about you, but when I took about a dozen political science courses, “left” meant socialism, marxism, communism, anarchy, etc. There might be a lot of liberals in the United States, but there is almost no “left.” Even conservatives didn’t seem to refer to liberals as “the left” until they wanted to imply that there as many extreme liberals in the U.S. as there are extreme conservatives, which obviously isn’t true.

    — DSC    Apr 9, 05:00 PM    #

20. Reducing Pollution (links to illness, etc.) and reducing our dependence on foreign oil (using renewal energy, etc.) is something I think all of us would agree whether you agree with global warming or not. Even if it doesn’t exist, the solutions to reduce it or are all of our best interest. We should instead be arguiing what is better – wind or sun energy, etc.

    — John D.    Apr 9, 05:16 PM    #

21. The paragraph on climate change is probably the weakest point in the Center for Inquiry report on the textbook, and to focus on it could be an intentional or unintentional attempt to distract the reader from its other findings. This textbook plainly lies about Supreme Court decisions and current law in several cases, and in what it says about school prayer it presents Supreme Court decisions as saying the exact opposite of what the court actually said. The report documents several instances of out-and-out bigotry, for example in what the authors present – in what is supposed to be a textbook! – as “positive” and “negative” implications of Lawrence v. Texas. The text has a direct link to the report. I can’t comment on the impulses of those who have been posting comments without having clicked on the link and reading the full report first, but I would give a failing grade to any student who did his homework in this way.

    — Adam Reed    Apr 9, 05:22 PM    #

22. For a nice overview of history textbook biases and misrepresentations I highly recommend “Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong” by James Loewen.

    — Tom B.    Apr 9, 05:34 PM    #

23. Galileo was wrong, too, if the religious leaders were to be believed. But scientists know that global warming produces higher highs and lower lows, namely resonances, and one day the resonance upward won’t be stopped. This will be followed by mass starvation around the world and, unless we give in to China, World War III.

    — William Allin Storrer    Apr 9, 06:09 PM    #

24. About prayer: the Court forbade school prayer – NOT IN-School prayer. In other words: Institutional prayer, No; Individual prayer, Yes.
    About global warming. To focus by contrast: no reputable scientist doubts evolution’s occurrence – but how and why are argued. Some reputable scientists do doubt global waming’s very existence.

    — richard    Apr 9, 06:35 PM    #

25. I haven’t read this book, nor I suspect have any of the respondents. I don’t know if the statements in the Center for Inquiry report quoted from the book are taken out of context or not. But if the report is accurate, the book is seriously flawed. All scientific opinion is open to question, but when a (very) large majority of scientists who are actually climate experts reach the kind of agreement we’ve seen from the National Academy of Sciences, we should take notice. And so should these authors, who are not scientists, if they want this book to be credible.

    — CW    Apr 9, 06:37 PM    #

26. As a public school teacher for ten years and a higher ed instructor for five, I agree that I have seen many textbooks that may be considered biased, depending on who you talk to. Bias is usually unintentional, but is existent in almost all writings including textbooks. I always tell my students to be skeptical and not to believe everything you read. This student is taking it a little too far. We should never assume textbooks or any other writings are always 100% unbiased.

    — Julie Bilz    Apr 9, 06:39 PM    #

27. Isn’t it ironic that in an election year the presidential hopefuls espouse “bringing the country together.” But here we have the same old battle raging, liberal vs. conservative. We in academia, especially, should move beyond this meaningless battle and begin to use our talents and gifts to constructively address the social, economic, and environmental issues that plague this great nation, together.

    — Daryl    Apr 9, 07:28 PM    #

28. The comment that scientists disagree about global warming (whether accurate or inaccurate) presents a fine standard for truth and should also be applied to the Bible and other religious texts and doctrines. That is, only those interpretations and beliefs about which there is no disagreement should be accepted as true.

    — Tom Roberts    Apr 9, 10:03 PM    #

29. The “debate” over “global warming” is actually an very useful test of a very specific form of intelligence—namely, the essential ability to distinguish between science (as flawed and provisional as it is and always must be) and propaganda (which is infinitely malleable and easily disseminated).

    For those posters above who have immediately leapt into a critique of global warming as “unproved” or perhaps even provided some clever rhetorical witticism about the temperature last summer, I confess that I really didn’t bother to read your responses. I have seen them already (in the conservative media), and I recognize that you are not a person of “reason” (in the Enlightenment sense of the word). Your opinion will only change when your masters’ opinions changes; you are nothing more than a protoplasmic echo chamber.

    Curiously, this is NOT the case on some of the other conservative/liberal flashpoints. I have met many intelligent, reasoned people who disagree on the issue of abortion, for instance, or on the issue of the wisdom military interventions overseas. “Global warming” is in some senses unique as an issue: I have never met any “skeptic” of global warming who turned out to possess even the vaguest degree of critical discernment.

    Useful indeed.

    — d    Apr 10, 07:07 AM    #

30. The question is not whether climate change is occurring, but rather the cause. The earth’s climate rises and falls in cycles.

    The fallacy is that man is causing the change.

    When was the last time we stopped/started a hurricane, volcano, tornado… The point is that we can’t.

    — -c    Apr 10, 11:06 AM    #

31. Every year several accuracy advocate groups pour over new textbooks looking for egregious mistakes. Every year they find numerous whoppers that you can’t believe are actually penned by the esteemed authors listed on the facing page. There’s an old adage: If you have a choice of attributing perfidy or stupidity, always choose stupidity because you’ll be correct 99% of the time.

    — the first marci    Apr 10, 11:56 AM    #

32. A question for the readers – Our school is considering purchasing this book for our AP classes. We haven’t purchased yet as our process includes sharing with a committee our rational for its selection. Among other criteria is the need for the textbook to be accurate, fair, balanced and free of bias. Given this, is this the right book for our adoption? Why or why not? If no, anybody have any suggestions for an alternate?

    — kay    Apr 10, 02:26 PM    #

33. I guarantee there is climate change. Where my house now stands was once under a lot of ice. What changed the climate? When were internal combustion engines invented?

    Maybe climate change is caused by the sun.

    — Bill    Apr 10, 02:31 PM    #

34. It is a disgrace for the state of education in America that the politicized debating demonstrated in many of these comments could play any hand at all in determining school curriculum. These are educational issues and should be treated as such. Matthew is a brave boy to have challenged the big fists of curriculum implemention wielded by authors who seem to have no qualms at all about
    vocally pronouncing their stupidity.

    — Erasmus    Apr 10, 06:04 PM    #

35. You think this is bad , try looking thruogh some other texts. My grandsons sociol science book contains some “whooper ‘’ misinformations about the drug war its not as bad as “Reefer Madness” a movie made in the 30s but bad to the point of disbeleaf, even worse pointing it out to teachers get you nowhere. noone wants to loose their place at the trough, where everyone drinks. Pat

    — pat schreer    Apr 10, 08:32 PM    #

36. I don’t understand the name calling and insults. We know the earth’s weather is changing; yes it has changed in the past, but never this quickly without some major event causing it.

    Even if this were a natural event, if we can slow it down or stop it, why not? It’s not like the changes will hurt you. We end up with cleaner air and a cleaner environment. All you have to do is sit in traffic with your window down to get an idea of what is being spewed into the atmosphere.

    For those who argue that not all scientists agree there is global warming, most do. Why not error on the side of caution? There is more at risk here than having to wear sunscreen all year round and the polar bears dying off and if it means living without an eight passenger SUV, then fine with me. When was the last time you saw eight people in one of those oversized trucks anyway?

    — Tom    Apr 10, 09:41 PM    #

37. To Tom’s reasonable question – why not err on the side of caution? – there are serious costs to some of the proposed solutions to global warming. Costs that will be disproportionately borne by people in lower income countries. How about a consideration of costs vs. benefits?

    — PJ    Apr 10, 11:50 PM    #

38. If we allow global warming, the poor will pay dispproportionately anyway. We spend trillions of dollars on carbon fuels that we know harm the earth. I’m sure if we wanted to, a solution could be found. Of course the operative word is “want”.

    — Tom    Apr 11, 12:12 AM    #

39. For anyopne wanting more of the story—- like the exact parts of the book that are incorrect—- the report is available on line for free!
    http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/CFI_Textbook_Critique.pdf

    now people can actually argue what was said, not what they think was said.

    — jess    Apr 11, 10:47 AM    #

40. The article failed to mention that Wilson is one of the most highly respected and honored political scientists working today. Daniel Patrick Moynihan once called him “the smartest man in America.” He moved to Pepperdine after holding a chairs in government at Harvard and UCLA.

    — Jerry Martin    Apr 11, 05:10 PM    #

41. My son’s ninth grade honors geography textbook stated that Iraq planned to build a theme park in Baghdad modeled after the hanging gardens of Babylon.

    — EB    Apr 11, 09:23 PM    #

42. The statement that “the U.S. Supreme Court has outlawed all school prayer” is not even remotely contradicted by the facts that “students are allowed to pray privately in school, or in groups before lunch.” Neither of those are “school” prayers—prayers sponsored by and directed by the schools. So, this statement of the textbook is not false, but the reporting of this article by Robin Wilson is FALSE.

    — Chad Woodburn    Apr 12, 01:06 PM    #

43. In the interest of full disclosure, I should mention that I used an earlier edition of this text several years ago in my AP Government class. It was the book chosen by my teacher, who was an admitted liberal. His liberal bias did not prevent him from being a good teacher. Apparently whatever bias was in this book did not prevent it from teaching me government as well, as I got 5 on that AP.

    Anyway, I do encourage everyone to read the actual report, if only to realize how silly the whole thing is. The report is nothing more than the members of the CFI listing their disagreements with the interpretations Wilson and DiIulio give of some fairly controversial areas of government, history, and constitutional law. None of these issues are matters were there are settled facts. Instead, matters like the religious influences on the founders, the merit of the Lawrence and Bowers decisions, and the proper interpretation of the establishment clause are controversies in which many very intelligent individuals have advanced many highly defensible opinions. There is little of consequence that is demonstrated to be objectively wrong with the book in this report; instead it is a list of areas in which the CFI disagrees with Wilson and DiIulio. They are entitled to that disagreement, but it seems to me that you should have more than a subjective disagreement if you are accusing a widely used and well-regarded textbook written by two highly respected scholars of factual errors, misleading statements, and serious bias.

    One thing that bugs me outside of the report: when exactly did Wilson and DiIulio become “two well-known conservatives.” Is this simply grading on a curve whereby people who are at most moderates compared to the general public become “well-known conservatives” in the world of academia? Wilson has had a long and distinguished career and has been employed and praised by Democrats and Republicans. DiIulio is a lifelong Democrat and a fellow at the Brookings Institute, and though he worked with the Bush administration on the issue of faith-based initiatives he resigned and fiercely criticized the administration’s politics. If these two are examples of conservatives in American higher education, then I am inclined to believe that we are spending a lot of time on the wrong kind of bias here.

    — Kevin    Apr 12, 10:22 PM    #

44. This is too funny. My wife—a communications major—brings home textbook after textbook filled with brazen left-wing propaganda about everything from homosexuality to Wal-Mart. This liberal crybaby found a marginally inaccurate reference to prayer in school and ran for a think tank? Please!

    This is just further evidence of how liberals will tolerate a diversity of everything except opinion.

    — Magic Boogaloo    Apr 15, 02:29 PM    #

45. I read the CFI analysis, which is over 30 pages long. This small article does not touch on ALL of the inaccuracies or bias.

    In one passage, the authors assert that the constitution was written in consideration of an understanding of “original sin”. Though none of the sources of constitutional debate mentions this as a source of inspiration. NONE of them.

    I was also personally offended by the characterization of the Catholic faith on the same page (85)…where the author speaks of Puritans as “hard working and faithful” and Catholics as having “devotion to sacraments and priestly authority”…were they not also “hard working”?

    In reviewing a decision on gay rights, “Lawrence vs. Texas” as “trifling” and indicates that the decision was 5-4…it was 6-3. And it was hardly “trifling”, overturning “Bowers v. Hardwick” and asserting the principle that states cannot outlaw sexual acts between same sex partners…pretty relevant I’d say, whether you agree with it or not!

    There is more if you care to review it. Perhaps this is a bit nitpicky, but suppose liberally biased textbook undergo the same scrutiny from conservative think tanks.

    I teach government and though I don’t use this book as my main text, I do use it for additional information and with my Honors class. I think it is good to know where bias lies, but near impossible to find a text with NO bias.

    — Theresa    Apr 16, 09:54 AM    #

46. The discussion here has gotten sidetracked onto the issue of bias. The Wilson/DiIulio text contains the statement, phrased three different ways in the tenth edition, that the Supreme Court has ruled that students may not pray in a public school. That is the exact statement, and it is unqualified.

    All questions of bias completely aside, that statement is false and indefensible. Similarly, the main problem with the comments on global warming is not that they are biased, but that they are at best misleading.

    That is not to say that bias is not a problem with this text. Most of it is a good, standard text on American government and politics. However, on contemporary hot-button issues, the authors obviously let their political agendas override any concern they may have as educators.

    — Paul LaClair    Apr 17, 12:46 PM    #

Previous: Now in Book Form, a Professor's 'Last Lecture' Describes How to Live and Die With Grace
Next: And Why Exactly Are College Costs So High?