aug_glencoe1.htm

Response to Oral Testimony — August 23, 2002

Glencoe/McGraw-Hill

September 13, 2002

The Publisher provides responses in boldface type within each reviewer's testimony that pertains to one of the Publisher's submissions.

BEFORE THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY

*******************************************************
PUBLIC HEARING ON TEXTBOOK ADOPTION

*******************************************************

On the 23rd day of August 2002 the following proceedings came on to be heard in the above-entitled and numbered cause before the Chair Grace Shore, Chairperson presiding, held in Austin, Travis County, Texas:

Proceedings reported by Computerized Stenotype Machine; Reporter's Record produced by Computer-Assisted Transcription.

CHAPMAN COURT REPORTING SERVICE 512.452.4072

PROCEEDINGS August 23, 2002

CHAIR SHORE: I want to thank all of you who came today and who plan to testify. I think this is an important hearing for the public to be able to give their opinion. I would ask you to please adhere to the three-minute time limitation, because we have 55 people signed up to speak. And there are several of us who are going to have to leave. And we would hate to leave you speaking, like the House of Representatives does, to an empty room. But I have a plane to catch and some other people have planes to catch, so we need to be — we need to get the hearing done as quickly and as efficiently as possible.

We will take a break for lunch, probably about 45 minutes.

So with no further adieu, we will get started. And I will ask Terry to start reading the names.

MR. RIOS: Richard S. Collins.

MR. COLLINS: As noted, my name is Richard S. Collins. I reviewed the books The American's Reconstruction to the 21st Century. On Page 887 of this book, the author states, "It is

clear that the new century America faces will bring changes, but those changes need not deepen divisions among Americans. With effort and cooperation, the change could foster growth and tolerance. The 20th Century brought new ways of destroying and enriching lives. What will the 21st bring? Much will depend on you, the dreamers, the decisionmakers and the voters of the future."

I think the authors of this book have done well in preparing students for change. A change that will not deepen divisions among Americans in fostering growth in tolerance and in stating the challenges of a new century for the dreamers, the decisionmakers and the voters of the future. I did not find factual errors in this book. I did not find the, "antiChristian, antiAmerican, anticapitalism," much talked about by those that would impose their own personal beliefs and morality upon the rest of us. I did find a neutral, at times possibly understated, recitation of events in our collective history.

I think the authors' efforts to track the contributions of women, African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Asian-Americans and the successive ways of European migrants to building a

4 modern America are commendable.

I believe this text could and

probably will be challenged by ideologues of both the left and the right, which indicates to me that the authors have driven right down the middle.

I was troubled by the lack of context in some of the side bars. For example, on Page 824, there is a side bar that is a block of pictures and text titled history through films. The text reads in its entirety, and I quote, In 1983 on her way to meet with a reporter from New York Times, Karen Silkwood, a worker at a nuclear power facility, was hit and died in a car crash. In the film dramatization, Silkwood, 1983, Meryle Streep played Karen and Kirk Russell and Cher her coworkers. The death of Karen Silkwood and the controversy over it were important, but you would never guess why from this side-bar.

Enough of the matter, of course, is what is fact. Was the editorial process fair and balanced in text and graphics as to what was included and what was excluded? In my judgment, the graphics were appropriate and without bias. I think reasonable people can differ reasonably over the text, since no book of 1,000 pages can be expanded

to 2,000, 3,000 or more pages without boring a student half to death and completely negating the learning process.

I think the authors made defensible choices. In short, I recommend this book.

CHAIR SHORE: Thank you.

MS. MILLER: Mr. Collins, I have a question. Was this the only book you reviewed.

MR. COLLINS: Yes.

MS. MILLER: It was. Thank you.

CHAIR SHORE: I think we need to reflect for the minutes that Rene Nunez is not present.

MR. NUNEZ: Right here.

CHAIR SHORE: That David Bradley is not present.

MS. MILLER: Your microphone.

MR. McLEROY: Can I ask a question?

CHAIR SHORE: Just a minute. I just want to reflect for the record for the minutes that Mr. Bradley is not present and Dr. Sorrells is not present. And everyone else is present.

MR. McLEROY: How did you come to select this one book? Just picked it up at random?

MR. COLLINS: No, I was going to take

another history book. And I got to thinking, my son works for a publishing company. And my God, could that be the publishing company he works for? And it was. So I quickly, while sitting in that sweat box where the books are kept over there, I took another text and this was the one I took.

MR. McLEROY: Thanks.

MR. BERNAL: What qualifies you for your assessment here?

MR. COLLINS: My — I put some biographical notes of myself in the back. I have a degree in history. I recorded some history textbooks for the blind.

MR. BERNAL: Do you teach it?

MR. COLLINS: Pardon?

MR. BERNAL: Do you teach it?

MR. COLLINS: No, I do not.

MR. BERNAL: Have you taught it?

MR. COLLINS: No.

MR. BERNAL: Could you — could you — you said that the book — I haven't read the book myself, but you said that the book was very fair regarding women, African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Asian-Americans, et cetera, et cetera. What makes you — I'll be very specific:

What makes you think that it was fair with Hispanic-Americans and why would you say that?

MR. COLLINS: Well, first of all, obviously, I am not Hispanic-American, so my judgment —

MR. BERNAL: No, that wasn't the question. The question is: How did you come to assess that they had been fair regarding Mexican-Americans or Hispanic-Americans.

MR. COLLINS: There were separate threads running throughout the period that devoted itself to Hispanic-Americans, as it did African-American, women and so forth. So you traced each of these and their contribution through those threads. And it seemed to me that the threads were admirably fair.

MR. BERNAL: Have you written in this area or have you taught in this area, say, diversity, a class on —

MR. COLLINS: No, I have been a writer and an editor for 40 years, but not specifically on this, no.

MR. BERNAL: — class, gender.

Okay. Thank you.

MR. COLLINS: Surely.

MR. UNTERMEYER: Mr. Collins, you are not being compensated in any way for your reviewing of this, are you?

MR. COLLINS: Of course not.

DR. ALLEN: Just a little information I wanted to say to Mr. Collins. The paragraph which reads, "I was troubled by the lack of content in the side bar for the McDougal Littell book," which is a reference to a set of films or lead to maybe the children seeing the movie Silkwood. But there is a set of films that accompany these books. I've read them. And so there — I think it refers to the teacher to refer to the set of films so that it goes in depth and we get that information that you thought was lacking.

MR. COLLINS: Right. You have to get that, though, from the teacher.

DR. ALLEN: Yes.

MR. COLLINS: Yeah, there are several side bars that way that are very incomplete.

DR. ALLEN: Well, I think it leads to the completeness when you review the film.

MR. COLLINS: Yeah, puts the burden on the teacher to do that, yes.

DR. ALLEN: Right.

DR. ALLEN: Thank you.

MR. COLLINS: Any other questions? Thank you all.

MR. RIOS: Don Zimmerman, followed by Meg McKain Grier.

MR. ZIMMERMAN: I would like to — my name is Don Zimmerman. I'm with the Republican Liberty Caucus. I'm also a proud member of the Citizens for a Sound Economy.

I'd like to thank the Board for

letting me speak today and also for letting me move up, because I do have to get back to work, as I'm sure a lot of others do, too. Thank you very much for that.

As you get —

MR. BERNAL: You're a proud member of what did you say? Would you repeat that?

MR. ZIMMERMAN: The Citizens for a Sound Economy, CSE, and also I'm the executive director of the Republican Liberty Caucus here in Texas.

So I'd like to start this very brief testimony with a remark: In the name of God, amen. So now that I have sufficiently polarized everybody, I'll go to the point. The first item I've got on

Page 94, this is the Prentice Hall American Nation Beginnings through 19 — through 1877, James West Davidson. I believe this is an Eighth Grade text.

On Page 94, the Mayflower Compact is in the book started as "We whose names are underwritten have an undertaken for the glory of God in advancement of the Christian faith and honor of our King and country," et cetera. Now, when I looked this up, I had a recollection of this from reading a long time ago. I looked it up. And all of the references I found to the Mayflower Conflict started with, "In the name of God, amen." So I was naturally curious as to say, for people like me who are very passionate about our faith and who believe that America was founded by a lot of people who believed in God and some who didn't, I thought it was very important and very poignant that this was left off.

Now, for those of us in here who are

of the atheist bent or agnostics, I think they would be equally disturbed by the mention of God. We had a good example of that in the 19th Circuit Court of Appeals. People who think that under God is a violation of the Constitution, which I find that amazing.

But anyway, everybody in here, all of us have our own biases, you know. And it's really not possible for us to write a history book without interjecting our bias, whether we like it or not. I think there are a great number of people in the country who would be very satisfied with this textbook. You know, that it's a balanced approach, it's a moderate approach, it reflects everything fairly. A lot of people would believe that. And there's a lot of people who don't. So rather than try to say, well, this is right, this is wrong. The point I'd like to make to this group is that the very fact that we have a — oh, I'm out of time.

MR. McLEROY: No, you have 30 seconds.

MR. ZIMMERMAN: Thirty seconds. Okay.

So the fact here is that this is really kind of a confrontational thing, because taxpayers are being required to pay for books and they're being given to our children, not necessarily in the wishes of the parents. That's really my point. So if anybody has any questions on any of the particular items on the list, I'd — I can entertain those.

MS. THORNTON: Sir, I have a question.

MR. ZIMMERMAN: Yes.

MS. THORNTON: Are you basically saying that you would like to see the entire document stated in the text for the children?

MR. ZIMMERMAN: Oh, that would be a great idea, sure. The Mayflower Compact is very short.

MS. THORNTON: I understand.

MR. ZIMMERMAN: Very brief. Yeah. I don't know why you wouldn't just include it in its entirely. It would fit easily in the side bar.

MS. THORNTON: That was my next

question. I don't have the book before me. So my next question is: If the publisher and the author were willing to put the whole document in, is there indeed room on that page?

MR. ZIMMERMAN: Oh, yeah, there's plenty of room.

MS. THORNTON: Thank you.

MR. ZIMMERMAN: Okay. Thanks. Thanks very much for your time.

MR. RIOS: Meg McKain Grier, followed by Chris Patterson.

MS. GRIER: Good morning. As the

author of the Texas World History Grass Roots Women, I interviewed hundreds of women involved in politics at all levels since the early 1950's. Their universal concern is to communicate the value of freedom and the duties of citizenship to children, our future voters.

I commend the publishers this year from proving cognitive challenges to students and appealing to higher levels on Blooms taxonomy. I'm not here today to pick apart the textbooks for errors, although I could briefly list a few. Texas and Texans, Page 579, "Women Republicans seem to appear out of nowhere in 1993." In fact, Barbara Colver was elected Midland County judge in 1962 and Republicans nominated the first statewide woman candidate since Ma Ferguson, Mary Lou Grier, who ran for Land Commissioner in 1972.

PUBLISHER'S RESPONSE

Women in politics do not just "appear out of nowhere in 1993." The page referenced by the reviewer, 579, is from a section on Texas Politics Today. In the previous chapter, the text states on page 568:

Women in Politics

"During the 1960s and 1970s, women became more active at all levels of Texas political life. They increased their numbers on school boards, city councils, and in the state legislature.

In 1958, Hattie Mae White became the first African American to serve on the Houston School Board. Anita Martinez was elected to the Dallas City Council in 1969. When Barbara Jordan was in the state Senate and Frances "Sissy" Farenthold was in the state House, they were the only two women in the legislature. The Texas Women's Political Caucus, the National Organization for Women (NOW), and the Mujeres por la Raza encouraged more women to run for office. Farenthold ran for governor twice,

although she did not win. By 2000, 86 women had served in the Texas legislature.

In 1972, as women's political power kept growing, Anne Armstrong became the first woman to give a keynote address at a national political party convention. A few years later, San Antonio and Austin elected women mayors."

No survey history text can possibly chronicle every event or election. Rather, historians deal with large brushstrokes of history. On page 579, the textbook is dealing with Texas politics today and the events that helped shape it.

It begins on page 578 by summarizing for students information they need to know to then explore the Texas political scene from the 1980s to today. It states:

"The Texas political scene continues to undergo many changes. The events of the 1960s and 1970s so transformed Texas politics that, by the 1980s and 1990s, groups that had been excluded from political power were included now. The political power of minorities, women, and urban dwellers (those who live in cities) grew significantly."

The text then explores in depth the political events from the 1980s to the present. It explores; in particular, the role of women in political life. The main idea of the passage is that women, both Republicans and Democrats, were participating in greater numbers at both the local and state level during this time. By the late 1980s, for example, the text points out that Houston, Dallas, and El Paso all had female mayors. Students read:

"Both parties welcomed women into greater political participation. Democrats nominated Ann Richards for state treasurer in 1982. She held the office until 1991, when she became governor for a term. Democratic women such as Sheila Jackson Lee and Eddie Bernice Johnson were African Americans who represented Texas in the U.S. House of Representatives. Republican women also became more prominent in their party. Kay Bailey Hutchison was elected to the U.S. Sentate in 1993 and reelected in 1994 and 2000. In 1996 Kay Granger became the first Republican woman to be elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from Texas. She was reelected from her district in 1998 and 2000."

Celebrating Texas, Page 531,

Barbara Jordan was credited as the first woman to give a keynote address in the major political convention in 1976. In fact, it was Ann Armstrong at the Republican Convention in 1972.

Loan Star, Page 456. Authors say

sought political office in the 1960s after the call

for equal rights with the Texas Women's Political Caucus formed in 1971 encouraging them. This is true, but the Republican Party had encouraged women leaders and candidates since the 1950s.

Texas, Page 595 said women were

making successful bids for local office in the mid to late 1970s. In fact, women were elected to local office in the 1960s.

These factual problems lead to the main concern I have for Texas history and U.S. government texts. Individuals who wanted freedom and opportunity founded Texas and the U.S. The message communicated by all of these texts is subtle and just the opposite. In order to contribute to the political process, you need an advantage or group to give you access.

In sections on citizenship, texts emphasized being an informed citizen. This is important, but passive. Texts don't teach students how to be active in the political process. In discussions of political parties, texts do not mention that citizens participate in precinct conventions to influence political parties.

Additionally, students will think that working through special interest groups is the

only way to communicate to elected officials. Only one texts mentions that citizens can write letters directly to an official.

Government textbooks continue this omission spending little, if any, time explaining grass roots organization, but highlighting the importance of special interest groups and political action committees. In chapters about political parties, government texts also mention of precinct conventions.

If Texas and the U.S. are to have an educated and an involved electorate in the future instead of the apathetic one we have now, these admissions must be rectified.

MS. MILLER: Meg?

MS. GRIER: Yes.

MS. MILLER: Thank you for coming forward. Was this the only book you reviewed?

MS. GRIER: I reviewed four Texas history books and four government books.

MS. MILLER: This was your —

MS. GRIER: This is a summation.

MS. MILLER: A summation of your concerns over these books.

MS. GRIER: Yes. With three minutes,

16 it's difficult.

MS. MILLER: Yeah, I understand. And I know how hard that is. And I congratulate you for trying to work that in. It was very informative. But I think these factual errors are important and I appreciate you bringing them forward to our attention.

MS. GRIER: And in the interest of the publishers, a lot of this information had not been compiled for them to use as a resource.

MR. McLEROY: Have you talked to any of the publishers on these?

MS. GRIER: Just informally this morning. I have not had any conversations in depth.

MS. BERLANGA: I have a question: In your comment to the work Lone Star, you say, "Authors say that women sought political office in the 1960s." And your concern there is that the Republican Party had encouraged women leaders since the '50s. But I think — it appears to me that we're talking about two different things. One is the encouragement, everyone could argue their party encouraged women to run for office. Here the point made by the authors — and I'm reading from your

17 comments —

MS. GRIER: Right.

MS. BERLANGA: — were that they actually sought political office, not just encouragement. They actually sought political office.

MS. GRIER: Well, and they also sought them in the 1950s as well.

MS. BERLANGA: Okay.

MS. GRIER: It was hard to put the whole quote in this brief recap.

MS. BERLANGA: And did they seek office and were they elected?

MS. GRIER: The first one I was able to find was in 1962 as the county judge. The implication in the excerpt from Lone Star, if you read the actual text, it — it's more towards the later — the end of the '60s, after the Civil Rights Movement became more prevalent.

MS. BERLANGA: Well, it's just that what you just answered, 1962, coincides with what the authors are saying in the book, that they sought political office in the 1960s. And evidently, that person that you're referring to in '62 was just right exactly during that time period.

MS. GRIER: But women also sought office in the '50s.

MS. BERLANGA: Okay. I have no further questions.

MR. WATSON: Sought, meaning they

filed for election and ran, but weren't necessarily elected. But they did file and run.

MS. GRIER: Yes. Right.

MR. BERNAL: Right.

MR. BERNAL: You also had a lot of mayors — women running for mayor and getting elected mayor.

MS. GRIER: Yes.

MR. BERNAL: How early was that?

MS. GRIER: From — I had —

MR. BERNAL: We had Lila Cochran in San Antonio very early. But I don't think it went down to 1950s. I think it was in the late '60s, early '70s.

MS. GRIER: That's correct. And I

think there were some women. And I want to say one of the other textbooks, I can't remember which one it was, mentioned that there was a Hispanic woman and a black woman elected to school board positions in the 1950s.

MR. BERNAL: On school board?

MS. GRIER: I believe so.

MR. BERNAL: That goes back to —

DR. ALLEN: Hattie May White.

MR. BERNAL: Irena Zavala's —

Lorenzo Zavala's granddaughter ran for the school board back in the '20s. I think she got elected. And so did Mrs. Guerra. Mary Nunen Guerra was on the school board back in the '20s.

DR. ALLEN: That was Hattie May White, Houston, Texas, in the '50s.

MS. GRIER: Thank you. I couldn't remember exactly who it was.

DR. ALLEN: That's how old I am. (Laughter.)

CHAIR SHORE: Thank you.

MR. RIOS: Chris Patterson, followed by Scott K. Harris.

MS. PATTERSON: Good morning, Madam

Chairman, members of the Board. Thank you for this hearing and the opportunity to tell you about the publishers' response to the Texas Public Policy Foundation's textbook review.

I'd like to report that publishers addressed 65 percent of the errors that were noted

by reviewers and we submitted to the TEA on a list. Those errors that the publisher addressed, the publishers agreed to either revise statements to correct factual inaccuracies or to add clarifying statements to rectify ambiguity. Two of the five publishers addressed over 80 percent of the errors noted in the textbook.

Harcourt, we only reviewed one textbook, addressed 85 percent of the errors. Prentice Hall addressed 82 percent of the errors reported over six textbooks. And also Prentice Hall deserves recognition for the most improved textbooks in four of the six different subject areas that we reviewed. And the changes made by Prentice Hall represent substantial improvements. And examples are appended to my testimony.

Errors were refuted by all publishers for several reasons. In few cases the publishers made convincing arguments that detail different facts by different experts and cited sources. However, in none of these cases did publishers agree to note in the textbooks that expert sources disagree. In many cases the publishers denied the information as incorrect and stated that the reviewers misunderstood the textbook.

And lastly, when reviewers challenged that the textbook failed to provide the facts needed to fully satisfy the TEKS, the publisher challenged the reviewer's in interpretations of TEKS and the text. These responses clearly identify broad differences of opinion as to what constitutes a factual error. And I recommend that this means that the Board should adopt a definition of factual error. A definition that recognizes factual errors can be caused by ambiguous statements, partial information, by a statement that distort objective understanding of the facts.

And I'd like to suggest that the

words of John Locke offer some wisdom on this. He noted, it's one thing to show a man that he is in error and it's another thing to put him in wisdom of truth— possession of truth.

The textbook should identify what is true, verified and undisputed fact, while acknowledging conjecture, theory, interpretation and academic disagreement. And I ask the Board to ask publishers to address these ambiguous, incomplete or bias statements that are noted.

I'd like to conclude that the response of the publishers is substantial but yet

disappointing, because we need and want the best textbooks, the most complete, accurate and objective textbooks to address the changes and improvements in performance that we're demanding of our students.

High quality textbooks are especially essential because they determine classroom learning, especially, particularly where classrooms are led by novice teachers. In Texas 30 percent of teachers are teaching out of their field and a third have less than five years experience.

We're ending social promotion, asking students to pass social studies exams. And today one out of four students failed the social studies TAAS test in Eighth Grade American History. We need quality textbooks. And so I urge you to closely examine the petitions revision in textbook improvement.

And I'd like to conclude by saying that three of our reviewers are present today to answer questions about the review, to provide some explanation of publisher responses.

And I thank you.

DR. NEILL: Madam Chair.

I have a question, Chris. You mentioned there was considerable disagreement as to

what constituted a factual error. Do you have maybe an example or two?

MS. PATTERSON: I'm going to give you just general — two general examples and then — and defer to my experts who are here, because they're prepared to answer that in detail.

One, for example, is one reviewer said that in the world cultures textbook, Sixth Grade, that the textbook went into great detail about cultural celebrations and holidays, but no patriotic holidays. And, asks for example Presidents Day and different days to be included. And one publisher responded, well, this is a book about culture. This is not a book about patriotic holidays. We're not required to cover it. But our reviewer's comment is that this book is about our culture and patriotism and patriotic holidays are a part of our culture.

Another example is that one of our reviewers said that there's a different interpretation that's widely held by the second — of the Second Amendment. And you've only included one. And the publisher cited lots of places where he said that there were explanations covered, but there were no explanations covered. It just was an

answer that really diverted attention from the fact that the publisher didn't cover a second opinion.

But I'd like to ask you to ask those questions. We have Dr. Ricky Dobbs, who looked at American — high school American history; Scott Harris, who looked at high school world history; and Chris Hammons back to talk about the government textbooks. And they have explicit examples.

DR. NEILL: So your response from the publishers was some were okay, some were so-so and some were pretty disappointed with.

MS. PATTERSON: Well, some of the publishers responded to less than half, about 40 percent, and basically just dismissed. Now, it was a coin toss, yes. We'll acknowledge that there was some additional information needed here. No, here (indicating). Other publishers were much more circumspect, such as Prentice Hall.

DR. NEILL: Do you have a list of those publishers, the ones that —

MS. PATTERSON: There are actually — yes. Listed in the back of my testimony have tables about the percentages of responses made.

DR. ALLEN: Ms. Patterson, on the

25 bottom of Page 2.

MS. PATTERSON: Yes.

DR. ALLEN: Where you list an example from the Prentice Hall book, because there's so much there and I haven't had an opportunity to read it, would you explain your concern and then explain the publisher's response to me, please?

MS. PATTERSON: You're right. There's a lot of material here.

Okay. Actually, if I may call

Chris Hammons up to the mic. This is one — his criticism and he can best explain this.

Chris, would you come up and address this example from Prentice Hall.

I'm sorry, Chris didn't have access to this either. This is your — where you talk — what was your problem and why?

DR. HAMMONS: Let's see, I'm going to have to look and see which textbook this was from.

MS. PATTERSON: Prentice Hall.

DR. HAMMONS: Oh, Prentice Hall. If I recall, the Prentice Hall statement in the textbook as it reads is — let me see what the actual statement in the book is. I think I have it here.

The text — the Prentice Hall textbook reads, on Page 750, that the Second Amendment as was added to the Constitution to protect the right of each state to keep a malitia. And later, on Page 571, the textbook says that, "Many insist the Second Amendment also sets out an individual right. And the Supreme Court has never — but the Supreme Court has never accepted that interpretation of the Second Amendment."

And those statements are true, except for the fact that there's great division among scholars, citizens in the courts over how to interpret the Second Amendment. There's that recent court case out of the Fifth Circuit. It's U.S. versus Everson where the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that there is an individual right to keep and bear firearms. And so my criticism to the publisher — suggestion to the publisher was to included both perspectives. I mean, argue that some people say it only applies to the states and also the flip side, that many people believe the Second Amendment is an individual right as well. And I think that's what the criticism here addresses. DR. ALLEN: No. Page — on your handout the bottom of —

DR. HAMMONS: This is her handout, not mine, but let me see.

MR. UNTERMEYER: There are two.

DR. ALLEN: Page 2, Reviewer Note 19.

MS. PATTERSON: Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you, Chris.

I'd like to call Dr. Ricky Dobbs,

because this was his criticism and he's here. But he — I don't know if he's had time to look at this either. This is a criticism with regard to the book's coverage of segregation and voting restrictions.

MR. MONTGOMERY: She's talking about this Page 2.

DR. DOBBS: Your question was, ma'am?

DR. NEILL: What was your question?

DR. ALLEN: My question was: Because of the length of it, because it starts on the bottom of Page 2 and it goes over to the next page, I didn't have time to read it all and nor did I have time read the to the publisher's response. So I was asking, for me, to just summarize your concern and then —

DR. DOBBS: My concern —

DR. ALLEN: And summarize the publisher's response to you.

DR. DOBBS: My concern was that the history of the populists movement in the late 19th century cannot be properly explained without its direct link to the disfranchisement of African-Americans and poor whites at the turn of the 19th century and early 20th century. The book does not make that connection.

One of the results of

disfranchisements and one of the things that disfranchisement helped accelerate was the process of segregation. And the book also does not make that link.

On the second page, the book had

presented a chart which detailed which states use which types of restrictions. I was under the impression that Mississippi had used all the restrictions indicated. But as it turns out, the book is cited as source J. Martin Cowser, a widely-respected historian of this topic. The suggested Mississippi did not. That's something I am willing to concede. However, the coverage did not discuss the white primary system, which was invented in Texas in 1905. And by the end of the

1910s it spread to the entire South. So there are some omissions. There's also a failure to make a critical connection.

Is that helpful?

DR. ALLEN: Yes.

DR. DOBBS: Thank you.

MS. PATTERSON: I provided those examples as an exemplary model of how — of the changes that publisher can make in relatively short space to substantially add information and change and give a broader context and more objective and accurate view of what occurred.

MR. BERNAL: I've got a question. Because on that same page, the comment under Reviewer No. 19 says, "The effort to restrict voting by African-Americans is taken entirely out of context." And I know he goes on to try to explain that. But I'd have to look at the textbook itself to see what the exact wording is. And I guess we can come back to that. But I'm just curious —

DR. ALLEN: Why are you talking —

MR. BERNAL: — as to why they can say that that is entirely taken out of context.

DR. ALLEN: Could I see the book, too? I'd like to see that book. Could I have a

copy of it, please? Prentice Hall high school American History after Reconstruction.

MS. BERLANGA: And while they're

doing that, I'd like to ask you a question: You were talking about celebrations — oh, wait, before you get to that.

I was — I thought while Alma was

looking at the book. You mentioned something about celebrations and how you were concerned about different dates that they had noted as dates of celebrations, is that what you were saying?

MS. PATTERSON: Actually, it's not my concern. It's a concern of actually two of the reviewers looking at the — both reviewers looking at this particular — and I don't have this. I said that this was a general. And I can go to my seat and actually pull the criticism.

MR. BERNAL: And what books they were concerned —

MS. PATTERSON: Both reviewers were

concerned because the TEKS call for a description of holidays in Grade 6. And only cultural holidays were given, not any patriotic holidays. And the reviewers said that both are important and both are integral to the culture that we enjoy. And so the

patriotic as well as cultural holidays should be included. And the publisher refuted that.

CHAIR SHORE: Did they have the 4th of July?

MS. PATTERSON: No.

MS. MILLER: I think after 9-11 every book ought to have it in there.

MS. THORNTON: Chris, do you have the name of that book?

MS. PATTERSON: I will give you the

name of the book. I brought the error list and I'll give that to you.

DR. DOBBS: Ms. Allen?

DR. ALLEN: Yes.

DR. DOBBS: What were you asking

again? Would you remind me, was it taken entirely out of context? Is that what you're concerned about?

DR. ALLEN: Yes.

DR. DOBBS: What I'm suggesting here is that coverage of disfranchisement segregation ought to be carefully linked with the decline of the populist movement and its collapse in the late 19th century. Instead, the chapter, "The World of Jim Crowe," does not make any reference back to that

important link. You cannot understand segregation without failing to understand the failure of populism. The two things feed off one another.

Populism was a biracial movement.

And in order to quash that biracial movement, you had to deprive poor whites and African-Americans of the vote. And in order to divide them, you had to institute segregation. That's my point.

DR. ALLEN: Do you have a copy of the book?

DR. DOBBS: Yes, right before me.

DR. ALLEN: You only have one?

Go ahead. Go ahead so I can read.

MR. BERNAL: Ms. Patterson.

MS. PATTERSON: Yes.

MR. BERNAL: While she's looking at that, I just asked her permission to go ahead and question. Would you make an attempt to define for us, at least recommend a definition, for what is factual error?

MS. PATTERSON: Yes.

MR. BERNAL: Would your

organization — I know you spent a lot of time and money in this effort in sizing up the books that we're adopting. Would you be able to have time and

money set aside for developing a good definition — recommended definition that we could consider? Because that's what you're asking for.

MS. PATTERSON: Absolutely. I thank you. I would — yes, absolutely, we'd love to do that. And what we would do is not write it ourselves, but go back all of our reviewers and ask them to help us write a proposal for the Board and send it to you within a week.

MR. BERNAL: While you're considering that. Two things that as I read through your very poignant comments about factual errors and the definition of the factual error and citing John Locke saying — and that's where I ask that you come up with a way by which we could possess a greater truth by giving a definition and reaching for that greater truth.

Two things that bother me in

everything that is missing here. One is that we fall back to a lot of legend, especially in Texas history. How would you cover that factually, you know? That's one, that we have lived with a lot of legend. And we build heroes that are not six-feet tall but maybe 12-feet tall because of legend.

The other is a whole seriousness of

omission. That you have a lot of territory there that's omitted because the people that wrote the book were writing it with a bias. You know, they were writing it for people that would read it. And oftentimes there's a lot of — a lot of matter omitted that could give us that — that possession of truth that we would be seeking. And I don't mean revising and rewriting history. I just mean capturing and getting —

MS. PATTERSON: All the facts.

MR. BERNAL: — further away from legend, because legend, to me, is just propaganda and it builds a false situation where it shouldn't be. Because I have a lot of respect for the people that died in the Alamo, but to build them as 12-foot tall doesn't make it a better story, if you're seeking truth, especially in Texas history.

And in the whole area of omission, how — if you were submitting a definition of factual error, I certainly would want to have those two issues brought into the definition.

MS. PATTERSON: Absolutely. And in fact, you'll hear with Dr. Dobbs' testimony in a minute that he's focused on just those points that you talk about. But I thank you for the opportunity

35 to work with you on a definition.

MS. MILLER: I just want to say, I

support Dr. Bernal's suggestion. And I also want to thank you for the thoroughness, Chris, and your organization studying these books. The end result will be better books for our children and that's what we're about. Thank you.

MR. McLEROY: I would like to invite everybody in the room to send in a submitted definition.

DR. ALLEN: Okay. I want to go — can we revisit that paragraph?

DR. DOBBS: Certainly, Ms. Allen, if you'd like.

DR. ALLEN: Okay, I'm looking at it, and it has not been changed in this book, has it, the book that we have?

MS. PATTERSON: No, the —

DR. ALLEN: The error has not or the part that you consider an error has not been changed?

DR. DOBBS: The question about the context?

DR. ALLEN: Yes.

DR. DOBBS: No, ma'am, it has not

36 been changed.

DR. ALLEN: Okay. Because I'm reading it and —

DR. DOBBS: My feeling is that a

decent introductory paragraph or two leading from populism to this would be sufficient to link this chapter up with populism.

DR. ALLEN: Okay. Leading to or

following? Because I see the information here as being very factual.

DR. DOBBS: Oh, I'm not disputing the facts. I'm disputing the context. I'm disputing that it's not linked up to something that's important to understand why it came about. I would not begin to dispute the need to cover this stuff. It's simply covering it correctly and covering it well so that students have a grasp of the sweep of things.

DR. ALLEN: Okay. Then is that the

place where you would like it at that paragraph, if you wanted that information? I think that —

DR. DOBBS: If I were king?

DR. ALLEN: If you were king, would you put it there or would you put it —

DR. DOBBS: If I were king, I would

do what — what the American republic has done. And that is, have segregation, disfranchisement, Jim Crowe come immediately after populism and a full chapter on populism followed by a full chapter on Jim Crowe, which links the two together. Because they are, in fact, inseparable.

DR. ALLEN: Okay. And there are no other places where populism is mentioned in the book?

DR. DOBBS: Yes. Populism is mentioned quite extensively earlier, if I recall.

DR. ALLEN: Okay. Where is that?

I'm just wondering why it's needed there if it's — if it's mentioned, if it's covered and the students have had an opportunity to review that particular concept, then why —

DR. DOBBS: My complaint, Dr. Allen,

is that if you remove the impetus of the origin from the subject — I mean, from the thing that we're talking about here in this case, segregation, disfranchisement — then as a concept in and of itself populism is no good and as a concept in and of itself Jim Crowe is no good. The two depend upon one another in order to be understood well. And that's my beef, essentially. It's not a beef with

the individual facts, necessarily, that are presented. It's rather an issue of one thing leads to another thing, leads to another thing, instead of them being isolated concepts floating about in space.

MS. MILLER: So you're talking about a causal kind of relationship?

DR. DOBBS: Yes, a causal relationship that's not really related here.

DR. ALLEN: Yeah, I hear that. And I hear you also saying that it's been covered. Now what you're thinking, it ought to be closer to this — this particular paragraph in the book —

DR. DOBBS: Yes, ma'am.

DR. ALLEN: — is what you're

saying. I don't want this facts — these facts watered down.

DR. DOBBS: Certainly not. In fact, if anything, they're watered —

DR. ALLEN: Because they are accurate.

DR. DOBBS: They are also watered downed because they don't include the white primary. So they're accurate but also watered down. That's one of the problems with a lot of the

39 textbooks.

MS. BERLANGA: Personally, Ms. Allen, in looking at this particular section, I think it's very well done.

DR. ALLEN: Uh-huh, I do, too.

MS. BERLANGA: I think to change that to rewrite a paragraph or rewrite a page just to cover additional information that's already covered earlier in the book, would really be taking away from the material as it's written. And I think it's written very well. I would hate to see that.

DR. ALLEN: I do, too. And if you

read it close enough, I think you'll find — if you read it closely you might find in there what you really wanted to say. But because of that — because it really does cover well, I don't think the —

DR. DOBBS: Well, with respect, Dr. Allen, I spent a long time with this book.

DR. ALLEN: I know. That's why I know you know it well. That's why I wanted to reviewed it. You probably had a longer tome on this particular item that I had. That's why I wanted it —

DR. DOBBS: But I guess what I —

just to rephrase: I'm not suggesting that there is an absence of fact. I'm suggesting there's not enough of it in that there's not a mention of the white primary. And I'm also suggesting there's not enough of it and it's not connected to the impetus for it. You know, this thing brings this thing.

MS. BERLANGA: I'm against rewriting it.

DR. ALLEN: Yeah, I would like to see this stand alone, especially if that concept is covered prior to this one. I surely don't want this one watered down.

DR. DOBBS: Certainly not. But I would submit that it is watered down.

MS. MILLER: I think it's linking it. And let me ask you this, Mr. Dobbs: Is it possible to bring the linkage together without any major rewrite or whatever? Can it be done? Because that's the key is the expense.

DR. DOBBS: I'm not a publisher, but

I would suspect that an introductory paragraph would be sufficient to make the link between the fall of populism and segregation.

MS. MILLER: I think that's a reasonable request.

MS. BERLANGA: Well, Ms. Miller,

before you-all start rewriting the textbook, let's me just say, just by the comments that he made on the bottom of Page 2, where he says, "The effort to restrict voting by African-Americans is taken entirely out of context," I think that kind of raises a red flag. Because that's pretty much telling us what the mentality is. And then you look at the textbook and it's very well written.

DR. DOBBS: Which mentality, Ms. Berlanga?

MS. BERLANGA: There is no reason to rewrite that is not like that. The material that you're concerned about is already covered.

DR. DOBBS: Whose mentality?

MS. BERLANGA: Your mentality, if you're the one that wrote that statement.

DR. DOBBS: I wrote that statement, madam, because if you are teaching a college level course in American history, you invariably pass from populism to disfranchisement to segregation. So logically, if you teach a concept or an idea or a time period completely separate and isolated out from another one that is related, then students will miss the point that a whole lot of disfranchisement

and segregation was a backlash against the populist party. That is not covered in this text.

MS. BERLANGA: I think you said that it was.

DR. NEILL: That makes very good sense to me.

MS. MILLER: Makes complete sense what he's saying.

DR. DOBBS: And I would point out that this is not a conservative viewpoint by any stretch of the imagination.

MS. PATTERSON: And it is not an

attempt to water down — if I may add, it's not an attempt to take any information out or water down the problem of segregation or Jim Crowe or anything else. Just merely to add information to tie this to how it developed.

DR. DOBBS: From whence it came.

MS. BERLANGA: It is there.

DR. DOBBS: I think I'll go sit down now and wait for — do you have anymore questions for me?

MS. THORNTON: I have a question. Do you have the book in front of you?

DR. DOBBS: Yes.

MS. THORNTON: Would you turn to Page 281, please, sir.

DR. DOBBS: 281. Yes, ma'am.

MS. THORNTON: Are you saying that

the area that's called the populist on this page is in the wrong place?

DR. DOBBS: I beg your pardon?

MS. THORNTON: Would you say that the area that is titled "Populist" is in the wrong place in the textbook?

DR. DOBBS: Am I saying it's in the wrong place?

MS. THORNTON: Yes.

DR. DOBBS: That would be up to the authors and publisher to decide. My point is that it needs somehow to be linked contextually with the matters we're discussing with respect to disfranchisement and segregation.

MS. THORNTON: So you're saying that area that we're discussing, which would be in the lower section of this area, should be related, again, on the page that we're speaking about, which is 331?

DR. DOBBS: Not a complete rehash, but a connection.

MS. THORNTON: But that one area?

DR. DOBBS: Yes.

MS. THORNTON: Since the populists were involved in other areas.

DR. DOBBS: Absolutely.

MS. THORNTON: And other issues.

DR. DOBBS: And other issues. In the South particularly.

MS. THORNTON: As stated on this page.

DR. DOBBS: I'm sorry?

MS. THORNTON: As stated on the page. The other issues are stated.

DR. DOBBS: I'm sorry, which other issues?

MS. THORNTON: Well, increased circulation of money, unlimited —

DR. DOBBS: Yes.

MS. THORNTON: — minting of silver, et cetera.

DR. DOBBS: Yes, populists or biracial movement —

MS. THORNTON: So this all right. What you're saying is that the area that we're talking about should be integrated over here on

45 Page 331 as a linkage?

DR. DOBBS: That's precisely the word I would use "integrated."

DR. ALLEN: Does that paragraph not say exactly what you want said?

DR. DOBBS: No, ma'am, it does not.

DR. ALLEN: Start with sinking or

breaking through deeply-rooted prejudice, populist sought to unite a united front of African-Americans and white farmers.

DR. DOBBS: Doctor Allen, what I'm seeking to have — what I'm suggesting ought to be said is that the populists did these things listed here. Then in response to the electoral threat that the populists posed, the conservative democratic establishment in the South, the white democratic establishment, took the vote away from African-Americans and poor whites. Once the vote is taken away, then segregation can be imposed as well.

DR. ALLEN: They say it once over there.

DR. NEILL: So what I hear you saying is you're trying to tie everything together it's — one thing follows another in sequential order.

DR. DOBBS: Yes. I don't believe

that you can teach history as a concept floating around in the air.

MS. MILLER: I agree.

DR. ALLEN: I don't understand what ought to be taken away. It's there.

DR. DOBBS: No, ma'am, I understand that. I'm —

DR. ALLEN: Now, if you wanted a side bar that made a reference back to Page 281, that would be okay. But I certainly would like to see that voting restriction paragraph — part of the Page 333 stand alone. If you would like to have a reference back.

DR. DOBBS: That would be up for the publishers to decide. But my suggestion — you know, we've apparently hit sort of a brick wall with each other.

You asked me what I felt would be the appropriate way to —

DR. ALLEN: Yeah.

DR. DOBBS: — to handle this and I

answered that question. As for a side bar, I think it minimizes it. I think a lot of these side bars in a lot of these books are simply factoids that leave more questions unanswered than answered. I

47 would be concerned about that approach, too.

DR. NEILL: Give me your background. I think you may have mentioned it, but —

DR. DOBBS: I'm an assistant

professor of history at Texas A&M University, Commerce. My specialization is in Texas history, history of the modern South. I have a book accepted at Texas A&M University Press about Allen Shivers and the role of — the role of segregation, the role of civil rights in the production of the modern Republican Party in Texas.

So I'm not approaching this from a conservative point of view, I assure you. I am simply pointing out that scholars tend to link these things together. These things are not concepts that can be separated.

MS. BERLANGA: I think scholars will talk about these things together, but I don't think that we want to take — I mean, I —

DR. DOBBS: I haven't taken anything, Ms. Berlanga.

MS. BERLANGA: I have a real — I

don't have anymore questions of you. I think I just have some comments that I'm going to make to my board members. I don't have any — I understand

where you're coming from. And I appreciate your comments. I don't have anymore questions from you. But I do want to make some comments to my board members.

MS. MILLER: I just want to —

DR. ALLEN: I want to make a comment right there.

MS. MILLER: I'd like to state, if I may, that I want to thank — is it Dr. Dobbs?

DR. DOBBS: Yes, ma'am.

MS. MILLER: I want to thank you for taking the time and the effort to do this. Obviously, you've got a background of very fine expertise. And I respect that and your — and your efforts to do this and bring forward. And I think you're — all you're trying to do is create a balance. That's all we're trying to do in these books. And it's very obvious that you are not trying to take out anything but you're just trying to create something.

You know, in history, when things

happened back there, you know, looking back at it, but what you're trying to do is create the situation where the young people learn, this is what was happening then.

DR. DOBBS: Rather than try to take anything back, take anything out, I am suggesting that there's not enough in. That's my point.

MS. MILLER: Anyway, thank you.

DR. DOBBS: Yes, ma'am.

DR. ALLEN: And I appreciate your

effort, too. And I understand the background and I understand how much effort has been into it. We all have some background along that line. And so the only thing that I might have that you don't have is, I've been Black 63 years.

DR. DOBBS: I wouldn't dispute that. And I acknowledge that.

DR. ALLEN: Let me read give you one line and then I want to just kind of make this the last justification for what I'm saying. It says here — and we're talking about, for the public's information, this was about Blacks receiving the right to vote by paying poll tax and being given literacy tests.

DR. DOBBS: Could you give me a page reference, please, Ms. Allen?

DR. ALLEN: Page 333.

DR. DOBBS: Yes, ma'am.

DR. ALLEN: I want you to go to

50 voting restriction.

DR. DOBBS: Yes, ma'am.

DR. ALLEN: Go down to — in the

third paragraph, the last three lines, "But like the property tax requirement" — I'm sorry . "But like the property requirement and the poll tax, literacy tests were really designed to keep African-Americans from voting. In fact, Blacks were often given more difficult tests than whites."

I understand what you're trying to say is that they were trying to — that both the Blacks and the whites were discriminated against. What I'm saying is that, that there was discrimination for both. But listen to the last line one more time. "The fact is that often Blacks were given much more harder tests than whites." So even when it got right down to the door, we were still discriminated in another way. That's why I wanted that information to kind of stand alone.

DR. DOBBS: I believe I now ascertain the reason for your concern.

DR. ALLEN: Thank you.

DR. DOBBS: I understand. I would not want that obfuscated or covered at all.

DR. ALLEN: Thank you.

MS. BERLANGA: Thank you. I don't have any comments.

MR. MONTGOMERY: Chris, I just wanted to ask you one question regarding your testimony last month when I was asking you about your organization to some degree. Do you remember? You said that — and I quote, "Our organization does not have a membership. No one joins the organization." Yet, when you go to your web-site, on your home page, there is a place to click on that says "Membership. How to join the TPPF." Then you go to this page and it says, "Becoming a member." And there are seven levels of membership here. So I just wanted to —

MS. PATTERSON: Well, I appreciate

that. And then I must apologize, because I haven't looked at our web-site and I'm only repeating what — what — what we have said at Texas public policy. So I'm going to have to find out how we distinguish our membership because we don't publish members. We don't have a membership, as far as I know, in the traditional sense.

MR. MONTGOMERY: You couldn't provide us with a membership list then?

MS. PATTERSON: I will be glad to go

back and investigate this and send you all a statement about it.

MS. BERLANGA: I have one more

question of this individual. Going back to the issue of the celebrations. And I would love to see 4th of July in there. But if I understand, Grade 6, Page 30 of the proclamation, which is where we kind of outline what we want from the publishing industry when they're developing their books, there is a section that says, "Culture. The student understands the relationships among religion, philosophy and culture. The student is expected to explain the relationship among religious ideas, philosophical ideas and cultures and explain the significance of religious holidays and observances." And it goes on and gives examples. Perhaps this is what they covering in Grade 6, what was in our proclamation.

MS. PATTERSON: You have an advantage over me. I don't have a copy of the TEKS with me. I thought that there was a section of TEKS that just called for a description of the Sixth Grade TEKS of holidays separately rather than the cultural connections. I will be glad to get back with you as soon as I — does anyone here have a copy of the

. TEKS I could quickly look at?

: DR. ALLEN: Yes. The objective would

I be in the front of the book. TEK.

MS. BERLANGA: It's under Culture i 6.19. i I mean, I would be in favor of

putting in the 4th of July. I mean, I think you i could say it's, you know, part of our philosophy, i it's part — you know, I don't have a problem with I putting in the 4th of July. But I did want you to

see what it was that we were requiring of the ! publishing industry. ! MS. PATTERSON: Well, I see the

6.19. I'm just looking to go through to whether — i I thought there was another requirement. ; MS. BERLANGA: No, not in Sixth

' Grade.

! MS. PATTERSON: You're quite right,

i That's the only reference to holidays and I requirements for holidays.

MS. BERLANGA: Thank you.

: MS. PATTERSON: But I would go back

i and take out that particular recommendation and

bring it forward. Thank you. i DR. NEILL: Chris, I have just one

quick question. I want to be real brief and don't spend a lot of time on it. But I — just in very general terms, at the last meeting — I was a little surprised by your response and I was glad to hear it, but it sounded like a pretty optimistic testimony last meeting. This meeting, I sense — I wouldn't say negative by any stretch, pessimistic. But it seems you're maybe a little more disappointed at this point. Am I reading you right or is that off base?

MS. PATTERSON: You're reading me right because some of the publishers made very little change.

DR. NEILL: I mean, I see some that

are 30 percent, 33 percent. And that's more than a little disappointing to me, but I sense that in your tone as well.

MS. PATTERSON: What's disappointing to me is that not the fact that there weren't whole scale changes to the textbook, but rather an admission that the textbooks could be interpreted differently and that there were disagreements about how the textbook could be read and about varying opinions. And where — where there's confusion in textbooks, if the experts can't disagree, students

can certainly not get a clear understanding of a person's significance, of an event. And so I think that it — and we were very careful about choosing reviewers with expertise in teaching and scholars. And I think that I take — and their recommendations very seriously and hope you do as well, that the textbook can only be improved by clarification and additional information.

So, yes, I'm disappointed that more

publishers didn't take more of the opportunities to improve the textbooks. And it's very important to us in Texas to get it right for our students and our children, but also throughout the children Nation that are going to be using these textbooks.

DR. NEILL: Thank you for all the time you put into it. I take the report very seriously because I know all the time and effort they put into it. So I have some legitimate, I think, very big concerns here.

Thank you.

MS. BERLANGA: I have one last

comment to make. You know, I look back here and I see where you're talking about all your different percentages. And I think, what gives the right to the Texas Public Policy Foundation to come up and

say that this group is this percent or that percent? I mean of what? Of your comments? I may not even agree with everything. We've seen some disagreements this morning. So if you're telling me the publishers have already made changes to suit your concerns when I'm not sure I agree with your concerns — some of your concerns may be legitimate. If there are factual errors, I'm going to agree, but I have to see them. Because sometimes those that you designate as factual errors are not.

I have a concern with having

percentages because I think that's sending a wrong message to anyone that picks this up. They may think that this is the State Board's recommendation. And it's not. You're not elected, you're not appointed. You're simply people that are making recommendations to our board. If anyone is going to have percentages it ought to be the State Board of Education. And it would be at the end of this process after every citizen has had an opportunity to make a presentation before this State Board and we have studied everything carefully and decided whether or not there is an error or not an error.

At that point, we could be looking at

percentages. But to do so prior to that, when you're not appointed or elected as a State official, I think it's sending the wrong message to the public.

MS. PATTERSON: With all due respect —

DR. NEILL: Any organization can do this. Texas Freedom Network could do this.

MS. BERLANGA: I think that it's sending the wrong message.

MS. PATTERSON: With all due respect, if I may respond.

DR. NEILL: They ought to bring their report. What's wrong with that?

MS. PATTERSON: With all due respect, if I may respond. These percentages would never — in this report would never be interpreted as something coming out of the State Board because right at the top of it, it says, "Texas Public Policy Foundation, Social Studies Textbook Review." And because the State Board of Education or the TEA can look at the content and determine the quality, how well the textbooks meet and satisfy the TEKS, we contacted experts that we think are the best in Texas. We got recommendations. We have social

studies teachers who are teaching in the field. And we have university scholars who are — I hope, would be respected by all. So this is not a review that was conducted by Texas Public Policy. It was sponsored by Texas Public Policy. The report is published by Texas Public Policy. But it is, word by word, a report of experts who we trust to teach our students, both in public schools and in colleges, history.

MS. BERLANGA: Well, thank you very much. And I don't have questions of you. I just want you to hear my comment. There are many, many professors out at the universities across this state and they may not agree with the people that you have had review your material. That's why I am not in agreement that these numbers mean anything. I appreciate your hard work. I appreciate anyone that goes into the sacrificing time that they give up from their families to review textbooks. And I think every citizen ought to be involved in the process.

I just say that this information — and I've seen organizations go out there and start publicizing it and, you know, knock down publishing companies because of their numbers. And I'm just

saying these numbers are not necessarily reflective of what we will ultimately decide.

And, again, I appreciate your

testimony and the testimony of your experts. But there are many other experts out there and they will not all agree.

MR. MONTGOMERY: Ms. Patterson,

you're not planning on sending these ratings to public schools when they make their final decisions, are you? They don't mean anything other than just your group's rating.

MS. PATTERSON: This is our group's rating.

MR. MONTGOMERY: Right.

MS. PATTERSON: It will be published on the web-site. We will put out the report that — a rating that you received last month that shows this was the top pick of the reviewers for this particular category of social studies textbooks, Grade 6.

MR. MONTGOMERY: But when local

textbook committees make their final decision — and they are the ones that make the final decision as far as content is concerned, at least, or lack thereof — they won't have a copy of this sent from

you where you've told them, look, we've rated this company. They agreed to follow our suggestion. You're not going to do that type of thing type thing?

MR. McLEROY: Why couldn't they?

MS. PATTERSON: We certainly are going to pub — we will send the grading that —

MR. NEILL: What's wrong with that?

MR. MONTGOMERY: Nothing. I'm asking.

MS. PATTERSON: And we will advise

teachers and schools to take a look at our web-site and see what the reviewers think of it because we stand behind the integrity of our review and our reviewers.

MS. BERLANGA: I rest my case.

MR. MONTGOMERY: I understand. And I'm not criticizing you if you do. And there's no need for my colleagues to be defensive. I'm just asking the question.

MS. PATTERSON: And I'm saying, no,

but I'm taking collections and would be willing to send it out if I had the ability to do so.

MR. MONTGOMERY: There is some feeling that some groups have a little more clout,

you know. And I agree that we should be objective here and we should listen to the comments of individuals who, as the gentleman said, receive no compensation whatsoever for his work, nor do the textbook reviewers that the TEA picks or has to review the books.

MR. NUNEZ: Nor do you.

MR. MONTGOMERY: So there is some

feeling that the publishers, knowing that money has been spent to pay reviewers, they have more clout, therefore, they are more likely to edit their books and agree to make changes based upon that. And there's nothing wrong with you having an advantage in that way. But, you know, we shouldn't be defensive either when we just simply ask these questions.

MS. PATTERSON: Well, I'd like to suggest, then, you may want to reconsider paying Texas Tech for the review that I believe is it 60,000 or 80,000 you're asking them to just check for errors. It is an accepted practice. And you can call any publisher up here and ask them how many people they've paid to review their textbooks for organizations such as the Texas Education Agency to pay reviewers. Those teachers that have been

impaneled, they're here for a day, they go through to check, oh, quickly summary to see if the TEKS are covered. Our reviewers spend weeks pouring over the textbooks. They weren't paid a lot. What they were paid represents a honorarium that they well deserve for giving up weeks of their lives to do this.

So thank you.

MR. MONTGOMERY: When am I going to get a check?

MR. NUNEZ: You don't get paid either.

DR. ALLEN: How many more textbook hearings do we have?

CHAIR SHORE: We have one more in September.

DR. ALLEN: One more. We have another textbook hearing on this very same book?

CHAIR SHORE: Yes.

DR. ALLEN: So my concern is that

after every meeting or after every hearing or after every contact to — with the publishing company, that the publishing companies come back and say, "Okay. You said this was in error and I'm going to change it." So next week or next — in September we have another hearing. Suppose that same incident

come up, I'm going to change it again. So I think the — as Ms. Berlanga suggested, that after we have finished, after we have gone through and — all of the hearings and after we have digested everything that has been put on the table, then it is our decision which is in error — what should be voted on in a book.

And to put out this kind of data as in the chart in this handout that you have here, that a publishing company,; i.e. example, Prentice Hall, did 100 percent of the request we said for them to change. That that group said change. But like McDougal Littell only did 90 — 89 percent. And look at Holt Rinehart and Winston, they only did 57 percent. So there's a public perception — et cetera, et cetera. There's a public perception that these companies are more accommodating than others and that we are only halfway through the game. So I think it's only fair that we don't do this. That this is not the image that we want out and I think we ought to wait until we get to the end of the hearings, come back together and then decide what it is we want the publishing companies to change. That they ought not jump every month and change books.

MR. NUNEZ: And that should be a

message to the publishers. That's a message to the publishers.

DR. ALLEN: Did you hear that publishing companies?

CHAIR SHORE: Dr. Allen, with all due respect, I don't have David Anderson here to back me up. But it's my understanding that what you suggest is not the proper process.

DR. ALLEN: What is the process, then?

CHAIR SHORE: Well, the publishers —

DR. ALLEN: Change it every time I want one? Well, I'm going to make a few changes every week, too. I can call them every week and say, "I want a few changes."

CHAIR SHORE: Well, you're certainly free to suggest a changes, too. But I believe that legally any group, any person can appeal to a publishing company. And they have the right to listen or reject or change. I mean, it's not up to us to decide whether the publishing companies make these changes at this point.

DR. ALLEN: No. I'm just simply asking that all —

CHAIR SHORE: Well, you can ask, but

I mean, we don't legally have any right to do that, to ask them to not make changes in response to public testimony.

MS. BERLANGA: Well, I would think that if we're going to select the books that we should have a lot more say than people that form organizations and come and give us statistics and numbers and they're not appointed and they're not elected. Everyone in this room can give their opinion.

CHAIR SHORE: That's right, everyone can.

MS. BERLANGA: But we're going to be the ones to make the decision. And I also don't want the publishing companies make changes according to what some of these people are recommending, because we may not be in agreement with that. And until we hear all of the testimony and hear — get all of the input, then we can decipher through the information, decide, well, this was in error, this was not error, whatever.

CHAIR SHORE: I don't think it would be possible for us to do that. It would be too lengthy.

MS. BERLANGA: Well, September, we'll

66 have time.

CHAIR SHORE: I still don't think it will be possible. I mean, I've got boxes of information. And the public has a right to come here and suggest these changes to the publishers.

MS. BERLANGA: I think they have the right.

CHAIR SHORE: And they can do it or not do it.

MR. NUNEZ: Madam Chair, they have the right, but they don't have the right to manipulate the system.

CHAIR SHORE: I mean, you can call it manipulation, but —

MR. NUNEZ: Sure, it is.

CHAIR SHORE: I don't see that we have a right to stop it.

MR. MONTGOMERY: After all these

changes have been made by publishers responding to citizens and citizen groups, it appears to me that it's a possibility if they make so many changes, they would have to go back before a review committee to see if they still follow the TEKS. They might come from conforming to nonconforming. I don't — you know, if there's just going to be wholesale

67 changes —

CHAIR SHORE: Well, anyone on the

Board has the right to review all this material and make objections as well. I mean, we all can — you can do that if you choose to do that.

MR. MONTGOMERY: That's what we're trying to do.

MS. BERLANGA: We're trying to comment on them as a — you know —

CHAIR SHORE: Well, that's why we're here. That's why we're here. But, I mean, we have that right, but so does everyone in the room have that right. And the publishers have the right to respond as they choose.

MS. BERLANGA: I just don't want them to feel obligated because they hear someone that's trying to water down some section that they think that because we're silent or we're not speaking up that we are in total agreement.

CHAIR SHORE: Then we need to speak up, if you disagree. And there are a lot of publishers here. I'm sure they're listening to everybody, including you. So — I mean, that's why we're here, to give everybody a chance to speak.

MS. MILLER: In all of my experience

on this board and every time we come to a textbook adoption process, it's always a very — usually a very interesting debate, if you will. And that's part of politics. And — but this is one of the best processes of selecting textbooks —

FROM THE FLOOR: Speak up, will you? We can't hear you.

MS. MILLER: — in the country and we study textbook adoption. I'm one with you on this board and probably the only one that's really sat through the complete selection process from the beginning. And the — I welcome citizen input. It is one of the best ways to filter through and get at the best that we can and to the truth. And that's what this is about.

MS. BERLANGA: Well, it's —

MS. MILLER: That's all this is

about. And so to — and they're all citizens. They all have a right to come forward. And that's what we are. We're the body that is here to listen to the people. And then we can debate, we can argue, we can whatever. But in the end, we're going to have the best — much better books than we had at the beginning. And I don't want to minimize the input that we have from our citizens because they

69 are our constituents.

MS. BERLANGA: Well, I don't want them dictating what is really our responsible.

MS. MILLER: Ms. Berlanga, they're not dictating, they're coming and giving their opinion.

MS. BERLANGA: Well, excuse me,

Ms. Miller. Today they're giving their opinion before our board. But I know what they're doing behind the scenes —

MS. MILLER: Oh, really.

MS. BERLANGA: — and what they're doing when, you know, we're not in board session.

MS. MILLER: Everyone has an individual right to their own opinion, Ms. Berlanga.

MS. BERLANGA: I agree.

CHAIR SHORE: All right. Let's go on to the next speaker.

MR. RIOS: Scott K. Harris, followed by Ricky Floyd Dobbs.

MR. HARRIS: I hope you'll pardon my lack of printed material. This is my first time at this, so I did not have that ready in time. I represent the Texas Public Policy Foundation, for which I did textbook reviews, and the National

Association of Scholars, of which I am a member. I also have taught high school history for 10 years.

In some of the books that I reviewed, there is a systematic selection of anti-western views and feel-good history. Instead, there should be balance. Both the good and bad of western and non-western societies should be presented.

Quickly, then, two examples. In

McDougal Littell's Pattern of Interaction, several opinions of Columbus' voyage to America are listed. In one, the publisher claims that a Native American cited, "Disputes the so-called benefits that resulted from Columbus' voyage."

If the benefits are so-called, let the person being quoted make that claim. The publisher did not refer to the pros and cons of any viewpoint as so-called. Further this viewpoint was listed in color bold type and a font twice as big as any opposing viewpoints. Students know that important things in a chapter are highlighted this way.

In the same book, Ulrich Zwingli, a key reformation figure, is absent. Instead, there are six paragraphs of "women who played prominent roles in the reformation." Katherina Zell's

prominent role was that she, "once scolded a minister for speaking harshly of another." This act is admirable, but certainly not prominent.

Similarly, Katherina Von Bora

played — "played a more typical behind-the-scenes role. Her well-run household became a model for others to follow." Are we to we believe that her well-run house was popularly and widely known and that it had an impact on the reformation?

Women should be included. But let us not glorify common things, gild daily life and call it prominent.

There also seems to be a systematic bias against capitalism and free enterprise, of which the text demands are covered extensively. Capitalism seems to be worth mentioning only when it makes technological improvement and not improvement in workers' lives. Instead, socialist Utopias such as Owens — Robert Owens are listed as a success, even though his venture was never profitable and it lasted only three years. Some books say that he inspired success. And I've research those and those, as well, failed. Yet capitalists such as Henry Ford who paid his workers $5 a day when the going rate was to 85 cents to $2 per day is only

mentioned for the assembly line. Who had a greater impact on worker's lives?

Cornelius Vanderbilt revolutionized both train and water travel. And the only Vanderbilt mentioned in any of the books I reviewed was one Consuelo, who married the Duke of Marlborough, bringing her already wealthy husband $10 million.

The free institutions of this country represent the zenith of the human experience. It is the greatest achievement of humanity. This country will ultimately collapse, as all countries in history have. And when it does, the response will be typical.

If I can conclude. It will be that we collapse because of our excess. If we collapse, it will not be because of your access, it will be because of infidelity. Infidelity to the institutions that made this countries great, lifted people out of poverty, eliminated slavery, et cetera.

Thank you.

MS. THORNTON: Sir, I have a question, if I may.

MR. HARRIS: Yes, ma'am.

MS. THORNTON: Would you give me the name of the book, again, that mentioned that Robert Owens was a success?

MR. HARRIS: Yes, ma'am.

MS. THORNTON: And the publisher, please.

MR. HARRIS: Actually, in my speech, I don't have it. But I do have it on my textbook reviews, which is posted on the web-site. I will say from memory that all four of them covered him. If I recall —

MS. THORNTON: All four of what?

MR. HARRIS: I'm sorry, four of the world history books I recovered — recovered — reviewed. That was Holt's book, Glencoe's book, McDougal Little's and Prentice Hall's. If I remember correctly, two of them gave fair treatment, I thought, of Owens and two painted it a little rosier than I thought was realistic.

MS. THORNTON: But you made the

statement that the book said that Robert Owens was a success.

MR. HARRIS: Yes.

MS. THORNTON: Do you recall which book that statement was made?

MR. HARRIS: No, ma'am. I was

condensing my speech quite a bit and that was one of the paragraphs I drew a line through. I have here, "Only half the books mentioned that his experiments failed after three years." Again, I can get that for you. I just don't have it at hand.

MS. THORNTON: Please do.

MR. HARRIS: I will.

MS. THORNTON: Thank you.

DR. ALLEN: And would you give me the name of the textbook that trivializes the women's contributions ?

MR. HARRIS: I don't think it

trivializes women's contributions. I certainly believe that women's contributions should be added. I am trying to understand how a well-run household made an impact on the reformation, which was an historical movement. I simply don't think it did. And you can say, "Well, we're arguing about word choice."

DR. ALLEN: That's why I wanted the book, because —

MR. HARRIS: Oh, I apologize.

DR. ALLEN: — if they mentioned it, speaking of trivial acts, you know, what we consider

something very small, I don't know what impact that had. Rosa Parks sat down on the bus.

MR. HARRIS: Yes, ma'am.

DR. ALLEN: Trivial, but it had a large impact.

MR. HARRIS: Correct.

DR. ALLEN: That's what I mean. So I wanted to read it in context, rather than just take it out of context.

MR. HARRIS: Certainly.

DR. ALLEN: Clean house.

MR. HARRIS: It's McDougal Little's. And the page number is 434. And I agree with you the context should be there. Perhaps there was some impact that she had, either one of those women, but you certainly wouldn't know that from reading the text.

DR. NEILL: What was at the very end you mentioned. You lost me there. I believe it was about society collapsing. Say what you said again there. Is that a quote from —

MR. HARRIS: No. That was a comment.

DR. NEILL: Okay.

MR. HARRIS: Do you want me to repeat

76 it?

DR. NEILL: Yeah, if you don't mind.

MR. HARRIS: I was arguing that this country will eventually collapse. Hopefully, not for hundreds of thousands of years. And I think there will be people that will celebrate when this country does collapse. And people will say it's because of our arrogance, our excess and so on. I think it will be because of — and I think history backs me up — our infidelity to the institutions that made this country work.

DR. NEILL: Right. Okay. Thank you.

DR. ALLEN: Which group are you with?

MR. HARRIS: McDougal Little's Pattern of Interaction Page —

DR. ALLEN: No, what group are you with — representing?

MR. HARRIS: Texas Public Policy Foundation and the National Association of Scholars.

DR. ALLEN: Okay. Now, give me your background.

MR. HARRIS: I'm a high school

history teacher. I went to Southwest Texas State University and received a bachelor of arts in

history with a minor in psychology. I have taught world history, U.S. history, psychology, a course called theory of knowledge and a philosophy club.

DR. ALLEN: Okay.

MR. HARRIS: I also do some

educational consulting and teacher training independently for myself.

MR. BERNAL: How did you come out to

the conclusion — you mentioned — the word was used here that you trivialized women's contributions. And you countered by saying that you didn't want ordinary women's work to be considered a great contribution or something to that effect. I don't want to quote you. But would you quote yourself on that again?

MR. HARRIS: Yes, sir.

MR. BERNAL: And say — and would you answer, then: What did you have in mind when you said that?

MR. HARRIS: Yes, sir. I said women should be included, but let us not glorify common things, gild daily life and call it prominent. And my key complaint here is the use of the word —

MR. BERNAL: Were there examples where that was done where women were just doing

78 their ordinary housework —

MR. HARRIS: Yes.

MR. BERNAL: — as you — as I interpret you to mean and making it a major contribution to the changes in society? Was there any particular book that said that?

MR. HARRIS: Yes, sir. The book we —

MR. BERNAL: How did they say it?

MR. HARRIS: I'm going to quote it

for you. McDougal Little's Pattern of Interaction Page 434, "Women" — and this is quote. "Women who played prominent roles in the reformation" — they cite two examples. One of which was Katherina Von Bora, who, "Played a more typical behind-the-scenes role. Her well-run household became a model for others to follow."

And my question is: Is that

prominent. Is that widely and popularly known? And more importantly, did it have an impact on the reformation?

Zwingli, who was a key figure in the reformation in the formation of the protestant church, is completely absent. Now, some will say, well, that's college-level material, but if you pair

him with Luther and Calvin, you have a nice little triumvirate of the key figures that truly changed the world as far as the reformation.

If I were king for a day, the change I would put would be the role of women was whatever. And then list what it was. This notion that we've got to elevate everything that everybody, every group played a — had an impact on everything, may or may not be the case. But let's just list what the role was and let teachers and students decide what the impact was.

DR. ALLEN: Okay. I have it here. And they said they played behind-the-scene roles.

MR. HARRIS: Right.

DR. ALLEN: Where they influenced

their husbands or whoever was in position because they didn't have a face on the outside.

MR. HARRIS: And as you mentioned

earlier, they may well have a role. I don't pretend to be an expert on the reformation. But I would like to see if they played a greater role or even just removed the statement about having an impact on the reformation saying they played a role. Here are even prominent women during the reformation. But to say they prominently had an impact on the

80 reformation is not clear from the text.

DR. ALLEN: Yeah, that's a prominent

impact when you change the women's equal role in the marriage. In those days that was prominent. Because we were just talking about women's roles just getting elected to the board. Now, we're saying the first women elected to the —a Board of Education was 1950. So we're right in the back door. If you were addressing the role in 16 — what is this? This is 1500s and 1580. That's way back there. That was the prominent role.

MR. HARRIS: I am married. I am aware of the prominent role of women. I —

MR. BERNAL: Would you care to

include that statement that you just made in the book, then?

MR. HARRIS: Sure, sure.

MR. BERNAL: I am married, but I know how to take orders. Let me ask you —

MR. HARRIS: She gives me my allowance for the week.

MR. BERNAL: — if you were to more accurately define what they meant by behind-the-scenes, I would go along with you. But you're just leaving it alone. And behind-the-scenes

was very significant. You know, I'm thinking of FDR's wife. I think she moved FDR in many, many ways. And later on we found out that she had a life of her own because of the impact that she had on FDR.

MR. HARRIS: And I agree with you I think —

MR. BERNAL: And that was behind the scenes.

MR. HARRIS: — that should be

detailed. I really don't think an junior is going to run across that and have that historical context that we as older persons have. I think they're going to look at it and go, household? What does that have to do with anything? So a side bar or —

DR. ALLEN: That's when they do that deep thinking. That's when they do that higher-level thinking, right then.

MS. BERLANGA: I think that McDougal Little book — I'm looking at it. I think it's — looks like a great paragraph.

DR. ALLEN: Yes.

MS. BERLANGA: I would not touch that. It is very, very interesting.

MR. HARRIS: I am not opposed, if I

may, say to those six paragraphs being there. I do still have a strong problem with Zwingli not being there because he was a huge figure.

MS. BERLANGA: Who?

MR. HARRIS: Zwingli. Yeah, apparently not that huge.

MS. BERLANGA: I'm looking at the paragraph. I'm not following where you're speaking.

MR. HARRIS: I think — and this is a good question the kids are going to ask. Who? Because it's not in any of the books. He was number three behind Luther and Calvin. And I know we can't list the top 10 or the top 100 influences —

MS. BERLANGA: We're talking about

the paragraphs you wanted to remove or rewrite. I'm saying that the way that they're written, I think makes it very, very interesting for a student. I think especially young girls. Probably, for the first time in the history book, they'll go, wow, you know, we were important even back then. And even though it may have been behind-the-scenes, but look what we were able to do. You know, I like it. I think we need to leave it alone.

MR. HARRIS: Yeah, I like them too. I'd like to see Zwingli along side it.

DR. ALLEN: Yeah, leave the women alone.

MS. BERLANGA: Don't touch them.

MR. MONTGOMERY: You're a high school social studies teacher now?

MR. HARRIS: Yes, sir.

MR. MONTGOMERY: Where do you teach?

MR. HARRIS: I taught at ten years at Judson Independent School District in San Antonio. And this is my first year at Ronald Reagan High School in the Northeast Independents School District in San Antonio.

MR. MONTGOMERY: In your teaching

your classes, is the textbook the main thing that you use in your classes to teach your students?

MR. HARRIS: More and more with

standardized testing, the schools would like that to be so. To answer your question, I don't know what percentage I would put on it. Say "main." I certainly try to be in the book very, very often and they certainly have assignments out of the book on a regular basis. I do include a lot of extra material, including Zwingli, if need be.

MR. MONTGOMERY: Including what?

MR. HARRIS: Zwingli. All right. I

84 give up on Zwingli. We'll move on.

MR. MONTGOMERY: We need to keep you here.

MR. HARRIS: He's not going to make it to the book.

MR. MONTGOMERY: My question is — my concern in just getting your opinion: Do you consider it a little bit of a put down that so much emphasis is put on scrutinizing textbooks, yet, as you say, there's tons of other materials out there that teachers use, number one, which should be your own knowledge of the subject matter that you give to your students.

DR. ALLEN: No. Uh-huh.

MR. MONTGOMERY: And you have a lot

of other material out there, such as library books, and you have all kinds of computer programs now, curriculum supplements. And we don't scrutinize that at all. Doesn't that seem a little odd to you that we spend so much time on textbooks and this is just one of the tools that a teacher uses?

MR. HARRIS: I do scrutinize

everything that comes into my classroom from the posters that go on the wall to the teaching methods of other teachers. And that's why I got into

educational consulting, because of some of the bad methods I saw out there. So I think the good teachers are scrutinizing everything they come across.

MR. MONTGOMERY: But I mean, they're not scrutinized by a public board like ourself.

MR. HARRIS: Every year, our

districts all hire consultants that come during in-service. And these people get paid very well to present some things that are sometimes very good and sometimes nonsense on stilts. So we do have to try and watch out for that.

MR. MONTGOMERY: Did you get paid for this review?

MR. HARRIS: Proudly so.

MR. MONTGOMERY: And I believe that Dr. Hammons testified last time that he did not ask you or any of the other reviewers anything about their political affiliation, their ideological beliefs. It was just a nonissue. And you consider yourself an independent reviewer?

MR. HARRIS: Yes, sir. I am registered with neither party and never will be.

MR. MONTGOMERY: In fact, he said that even in a number of instances, there were some

reviewers who said that they disagreed with most public policy positions of the Texas Public Policy Foundation and paid me. Are you one of those who disagrees with most of their public policy stands?

MR. HARRIS: To be honest, I don't know that I know enough about them to make that judgment. I have seen their web-site probably five years ago and every once in a blue moon click on to it, but have not much to do with them until they made this offer. I was very excited about the chance to have whatever influence I could on creating good history books.

MR. MONTGOMERY: Thank you, sir.

DR. NEILL: In other words, it's not a conspiracy.

MR. HARRIS: I haven't signed up for the membership, yet.

MR. MONTGOMERY: You can.

DR. ALLEN: There is no membership.

MR. BERNAL: I just wanted to ask

you, Mr. Harris: Are you going to go tell your wife that you learned a lot from these two ladies here?

MR. HARRIS: Yes, sir, I will.

CHAIR SHORE: Thank you.

MR. RIOS: Ricky Floyd Dobbs,

87 followed by Dr. Christopher Hammons.

DR. DOBBS: I participated in this

textbook review project of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, despite the fact that my politics are generally to the left of the Foundation's. I'm, in fact, a liberal democrat. If I were living in Corpus Christi, Ms. Berlanga, I would be voting for you.

MS. BERLANGA: I appreciate it. I'm on the ballot.

DR. ALLEN: Thank you.

DR. DOBBS: Unfortunately, I live in Conroe.

There's a great deal of talk about hidden agendas over the past few months in these proceedings. I want to stress to people on the right that no academic historian I know hates America. And no academic historian that I know wants to destroy the free enterprise system. We all expect much of America and we all expect justice in our economic system.

Now, of the four texts I examined, I would like to offer kudos to the American Republic published by Glencoe McGraw-Hill. It was the best of the four and most closely resembles a college

textbook. The problems I encountered in the texts were common in varying extents in all of them. One of them was organizational incoherence about which we had the conversation a moment ago. The other one was triumphalism, heroification, things that Dr. Bernal mentioned awhile back. Sanitization and conflict avoidance.

PUBLISHER'S RESPONSE

The publisher appreciates the positive comment.

Organizational incoherence means that a text is not only hard to follow, but the organizational problems actually undermine or distort historical understanding.

Triumphalism is the presentation and misinterpretation of historical events in a manner that suggests the inevitability