The benefits of illegal proposals

Tom Kysilko pds at VISI.COM
Mon Feb 28 22:20:21 UTC 2000

Not to dispute Dennis' more general point, but the references to Kansas and
Texas aren't slurs.  The acts of the Kansas legislature regarding the
teaching of evolution should be well-known.  Less commonly known perhaps is
that in Texas public school textbooks are (or at least were until recently)
adopted on a state-wide basis.  That's an incredible amount of purchasing
power.  Consequently, textbook publishers who aim for big sales aren't
likely to put something out that doesn't pass muster with the Texas board
of ed.  You don't have to think of these folks as hopelessly retrograde to
see them as a seriously narrowing influence.

--Tom Kysilko (who is expressing his own views, not those of his kinfolk.)

At 02:47 PM 2/28/2000 -0500, Dennis wrote:
>Hmmmm. This is a very interesting reponse. Since teachers in US public
>schools aren't qualified to teach a subject, let's not do it. The second
>part I find hard to understand is that we should not even attempt such
>curricular innovation since school boards in Kansas and Texas (I hope y'all
>Kansans and Texans take care of this slur on your own; I got my own
>Kentucky problems) won't go for it. What if they don't go for math,
>physics, algebra? . . .

  Tom Kysilko        Practical Data Services
  pds at       Saint Paul MN USA

More information about the Ads-l mailing list