The litigants in the Mozert case argued that the textbooks their children used were not "balanced" when it came to the presentation of controversial topics. What specific complaints did they have about the Holt reader? Were their concerns reasonable for textbooks used in a public school? Why or why not?
The parents, who described themselves as fundamentalist Christians specific complaints about the Holt reader were that only God can make decisions. They argued that the United States is the greatest nation on earth and there should be no question about its history, policies, and founders because this offends God. They believe that international cooperation could lead to a “one-world government” and this can be based on religious tolerance, which for the protesters it is unthinkable. They also didn’t want their children to be reading books about racism and social injustice because they were convinced that America offers equal opportunity for all. They did not want their children reading these types of books because they would have another view of America. Parents also did not want their children reading books about adolescents struggling because to them adolescents are supposed to obey without questioning their parents.
The protesters’ argued, “the purpose of education is not to ask what children think about moral issues, but to teach right and wrong – that is, rules that apply in every circumstance” (40). It seems that these parents want “robots” that do what they are told without questioning anything. It seems they forget that their children are human beings who have the choice to imagine and think critically about issues that surrounds them. Their concerns were not reasonable for textbooks used in a public school because children need to have the ability to think critically in order to make decisions as they are growing up. They cannot have all their decision made because of their religion; that’s what sometimes makes “close-minded” people. People need to step out of the box in order to see the whole picture!!!!!
2 comments:
Couldn't agree with you more! If the children's views are censored and restricted by their parents then they will not be able to function as well when they are adults.
I agree with you in that the parents in the Mozert case wanted robots. They didn't want to deal with the problems that could arise if their children were taught that they could think for themselves. I think that one plaintiff gave an example of how her child refused to take the trash out or something.She was pretty upset.
Post a Comment