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 Holt books emphasized tolerance for diversity, and the protesters said they wanted their children to obey without question. Instead, the new readers promoted creative thinking and independent decision making. Their concerns were reasonable for the textbooks used in public schools, because they were not teaching their religion, Christianity. The public schools were said to be violating the First Amendment with the promotion of one religion, at the expense of another.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I agree that their concerns were reasonable when it comes to private schools, since the protesters wanted their children to obey without question. When it comes to learning about religious aspects, of course the students will obey, and not question. On the hand, with public schools, I feel that their concerns were unreasonable. The new readers will have positive results since it promoted individual thinking, and sets out opinions. How would the students learn and grasp certain subjects when they cannot think freely? It is like teaching the students topics which may be completely false, while the students are just obtaining the information, and accepting it whether it is true or false.
I agree, that the new books emphasized tolerance and diversity to allow the children to think freely and make their own decisions. And also that the public school were not just teaching Christianity but other religions too to promote diversity in different ways.
Post a Comment