While I don't necessarily support any of the changes being made, I will say that it is hilarious to me that it has liberals in such an uproar. That's because public education has historically had a very strong liberal bias, and for the most part it hasn't been all that controversial. One anecdotal piece of evidence that I have to back up that claim is the fact that my junior year of high school, which was from between 2007 and 2008, my AP US History textbook was "A People's History of the United States," by radical leftist Howard Zinn. In it, everyone from the founding fathers, the men responsible for the freedom, and the strong Republican form of government that we enjoy today, down the the capitalists of the eighteenth century, who rose America from literally the dirt, to a nation that enjoys the strongest standard of living ever experienced by a society anywhere, as merciless, brutal, and oftentimes downright disgusting.

When we put politicians in charge of providing our education, we shouldn't expect anything other than politicization of the education system. And when liberals play political hardball with that system for fifty years, they should expect conservatives to swing back once in a while.

Generally you can't sue unless someone is harmed, you can't be harmed until the changes are implemented. Sometimes you can get an injunction, sometimes not.

Curioius, what is a liberal bias when it comes to this? I try to avoid polarizing things in any fashion so I don't always see what others may see.

To get an injunction at an early stage in the case, you'd need to be able to show that unless the injunction is granted, the plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm. I'd posit that even if these textbooks had Gen. George Custer being an often misunderstood if not well-intentioned guy, that probably wouldn't be enough.

Right, and posing it as harm to the children would also be difficult, so hence anyone, ACLU or otherwise, "acting" will probably wait until changes actually go into effect.

One anecdote from your own educational background a few years ago does not a widespread 50-year trend of liberal hardball make.

Yes, it's a response. It's just not a relevant response. :p :D

There has been nothing for the ACLU to act on so far. So, there's no reason to construe the fact that they haven't done anything yet as an indication that they probably won't. They know perfectly well that any legal challenge they filed would have been thrown out of court as premature.

One of my favorite lines: The plural of anecdote is not data.

How about McCarthy was just a misunderstood patriot? Probably still not enough but still repugnant.

Beautiful.

No, probably not enough. My hunch about what would be required is something promoting, say, a particular religious view over other religious views. Either that or a total distortion of history to the point of colleges refusing to accept that Texas students received an adequate education in history.

We're talking about preliminary injunctive relief here. I don't even think a textbook alleging that the proper religion of all good U.S. Citizens is First Presbyterian and that all other Protestants and especially Catholics and Jews are going straight to hell, would be enough to show irreparable harm.

And how big a deal is this really? No one can control what individual teachers do. Some teachers I know would use the book to teach students about how these new textbooks are propaganda, etc. And the further these books go in doing this, the better armed some teachers will be to teach kids a valuable lesson -- do not trust the government, no matter who is in power.

Not necessarily. I know that's what you and DF were talking about, but I was talking about surviving a motion to dismiss rather than preliminary injunctive relief.

Exactly, which is why so much of the question goes to what the state school board actually does and how it is really implemented on the ground.

Gotta have an injury in fact, standing and ripeness, all of which are problems at this juncture. I'm with ya.