
This article appeared in The
Textbook Letter, Volume 12, Number 4,
accompanying a review of Diane Ravitch's book The Language
Police:
How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn.
Students
across the state of New York recently took their Regents'
examinations, the tests that they must pass in order to get a high
school diploma. A year ago, the state education department was
embarrassed when Jeanne Heifetz, a vigilant parent in Brooklyn,
announced her discovery that state officials had expurgated literary
selections on the English examination. Words and sentences that
might offend anyone had been quietly deleted from passages by writers
such as Elie Wiesel, Isaac Bashevis Singer, and Franz Kafka. . . .
Since [The Language Police]
appeared, I have received a large number of letters from people in the
educational publishing industry, offering fresh material about the
sanitizing that occurs on a regular basis. In Michigan, the state
does not allow mention of flying saucers or extraterrestrials on its
test, because those subjects might imply the forbidden topic of
evolution. A text illustrator wrote to say that she was not permitted
to portray a birthday party because Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe
in celebrating birthdays. Another illustrator told me that he was
directed to airbrush the udder from his drawing of a cow because that
body part was "too sexual."
A review of my book in "The Scotsman"
(Edinburgh), said that a well-known local writer for children sold a
story to an American textbook company, along with illustrations. The
U.S. publisher, however, informed her that she could not show a little
girl sitting on her grandfather's lap, as the drawing implied incest.
So, the author changed the adult's face, so that the little girl was
sitting on her grandmother's lap instead. . . .
[C]ertain images -- women cooking, men
acting assertive, scenes of poverty, and old people walking with the
aid of a cane or a walker -- are likewise considered unacceptable.
The specifications for photographs, I have learned, are exquisitely
detailed. Men and boys must not be larger than women and girls.
Asians must not appear as shorter than non-Asians. Women must wear
bras, and men must not have noticeable bulges below the waist. People
must wear shoes and socks, never showing bare feet or the soles of
shoes, . . . .
On 14 July 2003 the Journal printed a letter in which the president of the Association of American Publishers responded to Ravitch's article:
Don't Blame Publishers
In her July 1 editorial-page commentary
"Cut on the Bias," Diane Ravitch again unfairly lays the blame for the
censorship of language and ideas in education on the backs of American
publishers, who are outspoken opponents of censorship. Perhaps Dr.
Ravitch has confused the process of textbook development with the
forces in a free-market economy.
Publishers are accountable to local and
state education authorities for alignment of textbook content to a
framework of state standards. Only instructional materials that
conform to these standards will be considered. Many states or school
districts invite their citizens to review textbooks submitted for
adoption and offer the public a forum to comment on the
appropriateness of the submitted materials. Dr. Ravitch's
participation in such a public forum could add significantly to the
dialogue, and we hope she will consider participating.
The publishing industry has been in the
forefront of virtually every major First Amendment fight for the past
three decades. In the spring of 2002, the Association of American
Publishers was one of the very first groups to support Jeanne Heifetz
in calling the New York State Board of Regents to account for
routinely altering and expurgating literary passages on the state's
English Language Arts Regents Exam.
Pat Schroeder
for Bowdlerized Texts
President and CEO
Association of American Publishers
Washington
On 24 July 2003 the Journal printed this letter from the president of The Textbook League:
How Textbook Publishers Mangle
Everything
In a July 14 Letter to the Editor, the president of the Association
of American Publishers, Pat Schroeder, denounces Diane Ravitch's July
1 editorial-page commentary "Cut on the Bias."
Ms. Schroeder writes that "Diane Ravitch again unfairly lays the
blame for the censorship of language and ideas in education on the
backs of American publishers, who are outspoken opponents of
censorship. Perhaps Dr. Ravitch has confused the process of textbook
development with the forces in a free-market economy." Then Ms.
Schroeder says, "Publishers are accountable to local and state
education authorities for alignment of textbook content to a
framework of state standards. Only instructional materials that
conform to these standards will be considered."
Ms. Schroeder thus suggests that schoolbook companies cannot be held
responsible for their deeds and products because the companies are
merely de facto agents of state authorities, charged with
implementing the dictates and "standards" those authorities put
forth. But if that is true, the companies surely are not functioning
as players in "a free-market economy." Ms. Schroeder cannot have it
both ways. I hope she soon will tell us what she really wants us to
believe.
I further hope she will answer this question: If the publishers of
schoolbooks are "outspoken opponents of censorship," why haven't they
spoken out? Why haven't the publishers themselves exposed and
publicly rejected the censorship that thoroughly pervades the
writing, editing and illustrating of American schoolbooks? Why have
we had to learn about it from Diane Ravitch?
American schoolbook companies, for decades, have willingly embraced
and have assiduously practiced an extreme style of censorship that
extends to outright fraud -- i.e., the mangling and misrepresentation
of literary works, art, classic historical documents and religious
writings (among other things). Ms. Schroeder's effort to depict these
companies as "outspoken opponents of censorship" is ludicrous.
William J. Bennetta
President
The Textbook League
Sausalito, Calif.
