texas republican critical thinking

Social Media

• Facebook Facebook Circle Icon
• Twitter Twitter Circle Icon
• Flipboard Flipboard Circle Icon
• RSS RSS Circle Icon
• Culture & Media
• Economy & Labor
• Education & Youth
• Environment & Health
• Human Rights
• Immigration
• LGBTQ Rights
• Politics & Elections
• Prisons & Policing
• Racial Justice
• Reproductive Rights
• War & Peace
• Series & Podcasts
• 2024 Presidential Election
• Project 2025

US Planned to Re-Anchor Gaza Pier One Last Time — And Even That Failed

Video shows trump endorsing plan for project 2025 in april 2022, entire families were killed during israel’s attack on gaza city, anti-trans policy pushed by project 2025 passes dem-controlled senate committee, texas gop declares: “no more teaching of ‘critical thinking skills’ in texas public schools“.

The Texas GOP’s hidden curriculum against critical thinking and other educational threats to authoritarianism is now part of its official platform.

The Republican Party of Texas has issued their 2012 political platform and has come out and blatantly opposed critical thinking in public schools throughout the state. If you wonder what took them so long to actually state that publicly, it is really a matter of timing. With irrationality now the norm and an election hovering over the 2012 horizon, the timing of the Republican GOP announcement against “critical thinking” instruction couldn’t be better. It helps gin up their anti-intellectual base.

The Texas GOP’s declarative position against critical thinking in public schools, or any schools, for that matter, is now an official part of their political platform. It is public record in the Republican Party of Texas 2012 platform . With regard to critical thinking, the Republican Party of Texas document states: “Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.” (page 20, Republican Party of Texas, 2012 ).

Yes, challenging beliefs or claims is considered insubordinate, immoral and could lead to rebellion, disobedience or perhaps worse: revolution. For the Republican Party and their followers, thinking is subversive, imagination is a sin and the Republican Party in Texas and elsewhere is working to codify this into public policy. The plutocrats can’t have a working-class citizenry that is asking questions of those in power, be they parents or bosses; instead, the people must be taught the ideology of what is morally acceptable, what rules and regulations to follow. and even more importantly, how to accept and internalize hierarchical authoritarianism. Critical thinking is a direct challenge to the “leaders” and their claims on authority, and any opposition to vertical arrangements is ethically unacceptable to those in power.

Reactionaries have long known that enshrining ignorance and hierarchy in both thought and practice within the school curriculum is essential if the control of young minds is to be accomplished softly and quietly yet profoundly through propaganda and perception management. In the quarters of obedience training, “education” has nothing to do with “schooling” under capitalism.

Read more: The Public Intellectual

This thinking is not new. The ideological underpinnings for such repugnant beliefs sorrowfully tread back throughout the history of the 20th century and undoubtedly before. William Bagley’s book, “Classroom Management,” published in 1907 and widely used as a teacher-training manual throughout America in the early 1900s, was so highly praised at the time that it went through 30 printed editions. The book echoed the morbid thinking of many so-called Gilded Age educators at the time. One such passage from the book sums up the thinking regarding children and childhood: “One who studies educational theory aright can see in the mechanical routine of the classroom the educative forces that are slowly transforming the child from a little savage into a creature of law and order, fit for the life of civilized society .”

Law and order is what counts, and critical education, of course, seeks to subject all laws and claims to order to the lens of critical scrutiny, something the powerful disdain. Schooling under the neofeudalistic capitalist relations that are now emerging in the new Gilded Age of the 21st century is no different than in the past, where learning how not to think critically was the norm. The Texas GOP is simply creating the new conditions for a technological form of Plato’s Cave with zero tolerance and the school-to-prison pipeline.

The Republican Party platform gets worse when it comes to prohibiting thinking critically about science or the scientific method. Take the section on ” controversial theories,” found on page 20:

Controversial Theories – We support objective teaching and equal treatment of all sides of scientific theories. We believe theories such as life origins and environmental change should be taught as challengeable scientific theories subject to change as new data is produced. Teachers and students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind.

Alternative beliefs such as creationism are now cleverly invited into the curriculum as so-called science or theories to debunk the purportedly false notions of the theory of evolution. But if critical thinking is not to be used in the classroom, how would these beliefs be examined for evidence? Science, the scientific method, critical thinking and the process of subjecting claims to evidentiary experimentation – all related activities – pose a threat to self-proclaimed power and the harbingers of supernaturalism.

IDEA Public Schools

One of the purveyors of such rubbish is Texas educational retail chain IDEA Public Schools. IDEA is a retail charter outfit that standardizes curriculum downwards, away from critical thinking, embracing instead rote memorization and regurgitation, or what I call the “anorexic/bulimic” learning model of intellectual atrophy, ossification, and decay .

IDEA is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization. This status was obtained for tax purposes, and it would take another article to demonstrate how nonprofit status has been hijacked by special interests (charter schools in this case) in the interest of profit extraction. In fact, IDEA Public Schools is public only because it takes public subsidies to stay alive.

IDEA’s board members include representatives from JPMorgan, Teach for America, International Bank of Commerce, Wells Fargo and other Wall Street banking concerns. In spite of the fact that the board of IDEA is filled with Wall Street banking interests, IDEA says it works to assure students get what they call a “core curriculum.” Critical thinking is never mentioned in the IDEA core curriculum – let alone entertained in IDEA classrooms, either by faculty or students; instead, IDEA is devoted to turning education into a commodity, students into customers mounted with saddlebags for tax funds that subsidize IDEA and turn schools into fortresses of profit.

According to IDEA’s online blurb, the company is all about growth and expansion using taxpayer monies to grease the wheel: “In addition to its exemplary academic achievement, IDEA is moving forward with growth and expansion efforts to help serve more students throughout the Valley and Central Texas. IDEA currently enrolls over 9,000 students, with campuses in ten communities throughout the Rio Grande Valley. When all IDEA schools are at full scale (serving students in K-12th grade), IDEA will serve 15,000 from communities throughout the Rio Grande Valley.”

The company is moving across the Texas prairie, taking down traditional public schools like locusts consuming wheat fields. Keeping with the Republican platform, they promise to make obedience training and anti-intellectualism the cornerstone and foundation of education in Texas, to the detriment of students and society.

The Age of Irrationality and the Abdication of Reason

In the case of the Texas Republican Party, they have really upped the stakes. Supernaturalism and supernatural beliefs no doubt will continue to snake their way into public school lesson plans, and as Texas will have significant impact on the content of all the nation’s texts through its textbook purchasing power, we may find that the tale of the Loch Ness Monster is now told to children as if it were a true story in science classes. Don’t laugh! This is now the case in Louisiana where, as The Washington Post reported, “A biology textbook used by a Christian school in Louisiana that will be accepting students with publicly funded vouchers in the fall says that the Loch Ness Monster in Scotland is real. And it isn’t just any monster but a dinosaur – an effort to debunk evolution and bolster creationist theory .”

Remember: In Louisiana, taxpayer money is given in the form of school vouchers so that parents can now see their tax monies spent on a supernatural curriculum bent on teaching that the Loch Ness Monster and other fairy tales are true.

All of this can be seen as part and parcel of the emerging Age of Irrationality, the hemorrhaging of a post-literate society where reason is abdicated in favor of irrationality and appeals to supernaturalism. The sad part is that all of this is now encouraged, by forces bent on enslaving the minds of children, as the new “curriculum circus” in schools.

In the New Digital Dark Ages, where the landscape is packed with scurrilous corporate politicians on the take, textbook companies clawing for educational profits, and tent preachers looking for a congregation of sheep-le and a quick Elmer Gantry buck, the people who suffer are students, teachers and the average citizen.

It Doesn’t Stop There

Prohibitions against thinking critically or scientifically comprise just one of 30 pages of the anti-Enlightenment thinking seen in the Texas GOP platform document. Here is some more of its chilling content:

• Abstinence-only sex education
• Trying juveniles as adults
• Emphasis on faith-based drug rehab
• Opposition to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
• Flat-rate income tax
• Repeal of the minimum wage
• Opposition to homosexuality in the military
• Opposition to red light cameras
• Opposition to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, because firms should be able to fire people for what they consider “sinful and sexually immoral behavior.”
• Continued opposition to ACORN ( even though it has not existed since 2010! )
• Opposition to statehood or even Congressional voting rights for the citizens of the District of Columbia
• And no-questions-asked support for Israel because, and this is another direct quote: “Our policy is based on God’s biblical promise to bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel and we further invite other nations and organizations to enjoy the benefits of that promise.”

This is corporate American culture and education today, or at least a great and growing part of it. Learning to identify assumptions and differentiating them from facts, questioning assumptions in light of evidence, engaging in wonder and inquiry, exchanging other points of view in an atmosphere of civility and inquiry (especially entertaining those points of view one does not agree with), learning the art of critical self reflection, asking for evidence for claims made by oneself and others, and testing hypotheses through the development of methods and protocols of thinking – opposition to all of this has emerged from the Texas GOP’s “hidden curriculum” and is now under the magnifying glass of scrutiny – and secured a place in the Texas Republican platform.

This is not only a telling moment for a complex empire in spiraling decline, but also a frightening moment, for we can see evolution transformed into devolution and schools converted into the supernatural rabbit holes that lead to Alice-in-Wonderland gated communities of ignorance governed by a chilling hierarchy of totalitarianism and fear.

Correction:

It says above that ‘critical thinking is never mentioned in the IDEA curriculum.” I erred, it is mentioned – but only as it applies to Humanities. It is not mentioned anywhere else in the curriculum:

“Humanities

The IDEA Public Schools Humanities curriculum is designed to teach students a variety of reading, writing and critical thinking skills that they will use throughout their secondary and post-secondary careers” (ibid).

With thanks to Meg Griffith, 12th Grade IB Math Teacher, 12th Grade Team Leader who brought this oversight to my attention.

Countdown is on: We have 10 days to raise $50,000

Truthout has launched a necessary fundraising campaign to support our work. Can you support us right now?

Each day, our team is reporting deeply on complex political issues: revealing wrongdoing in our so-called justice system, tracking global attacks on human rights, unmasking the money behind right-wing movements, and more. Your tax-deductible donation at this time is critical, allowing us to do this core journalistic work.

As we face increasing political scrutiny and censorship for our reporting, Truthout relies heavily on individual donations at this time. Please give today if you can.

• New Hampshire
• North Carolina
• Pennsylvania
• West Virginia
• Online hoaxes
• Coronavirus
• Health Care
• Immigration
• Environment
• Foreign Policy
• Kamala Harris
• Donald Trump
• Mitch McConnell
• Hakeem Jeffries
• Ron DeSantis
• Tucker Carlson
• Sean Hannity
• Rachel Maddow
• PolitiFact Videos
• 2024 Elections
• Mostly True
• Mostly False
• Pants on Fire
• Biden Promise Tracker
• Trump-O-Meter
• Latest Promises
• Our Process
• Who pays for PolitiFact?
• Advertise with Us
• Suggest a Fact-check
• Corrections and Updates
• Newsletters

Stand up for the facts!

Our only agenda is to publish the truth so you can be an informed participant in democracy. We need your help.

I would like to contribute

• Gail Collins

Gail Collins says Texas GOP platform calls for schools to stop teaching “critical thinking”

New York Times columnist Gail Collins’ latest book, "As Texas Goes," takes the state to task for, well, being Texas. And her Aug. 1, 2012, column did pretty much the same. Casting the nomination of Ted Cruz for U.S. Senate as a harbinger of doom, Collins wrote that Texas "does tend to treasure the extreme" in politics, saying, "The current Republican state platform calls for an end to the teaching of ‘critical thinking’ in public schools." Collins is actually a bit late to this party: Major liberal websites launched assaults on this part of the 2012 platform (adopted June 8) as early as June 26, and Comedy Central’s "Colbert Report" satirized it July 17. Mainstream media weighed in, too. A July 9 Washington Post blog entry was headlined "Texas GOP rejects ‘critical thinking’ skills. Really." Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts wrote July 21: "The Texas GOP has set itself explicitly against teaching children to be critical thinkers." Austin American-Statesman opinion columnist Ken Herman reported July 21 that the party’s deputy executive director, Chris Elam, told him the platform subcommittee did not intend to indicate that the party opposed critical thinking skills. We began our research by trying to contact Collins but did not hear from her. Her column gives no information about her claim beyond that single sentence. We pulled the complete wording of the "Knowledge-Based Education" plank from the 2012 platform:  

We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

Next, we contacted Elam, who told us by email that party chairman Steve Munisteri had given a good explanation in a July 24 interview with Austin’s KVUE-TV. Munisteri told KVUE, "The platform plank is against a specific type of teaching called 'outcome-based education.' "The reason why critical thinking is mentioned is some places try to disguise the program of outcome-based education and just re-label it as 'critical thinking.' " That’s supported by the wording in the platform. Following the lead of a July 6, 2012, Chronicle of Higher Education blog post on the Texas platform fracas, we looked back to the 2010 platform . Its "Knowledge-Based Education" plank said, "The primary purpose of public schools is to teach critical thinking skills, reading, writing, arithmetic, phonics, history, science, and character … We oppose Outcome-Based Education (OBE) and similar programs." Both platforms support critical thinking when it comes to "controversial theories" such as evolution, which "should be taught as challengeable scientific theories ... Teachers and students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind." Next, we set out to see if we could determine whether opposing outcome-based education is also, de facto, opposing critical thinking in the larger sense. The debate over outcome-based education caught fire in the 1990s as outcome-based curricula were installed in U.S. school districts. In the Lexis newspaper archive and on the web, we saw a dozen news stories and opinion pieces from as many states -- Texas included -- describing public concern about the new approach. Opponents said the outcome-based approach was antithetical to critical thinking. They claimed it "dumbed down" curricula and influenced students to adopt liberal attitudes because the "outcome" of their studies was predetermined by academia. Supporters claimed it encouraged -- in fact, taught -- critical thinking. Rather than testing students on facts learned by rote memorization, they said, it required children to demonstrate that they had learned to analyze the material. So what the heck is it? The news stories we read indicate outcome-based education takes different forms nearly everywhere it’s applied. The Fort Worth Star-Telegram gave a description in an Oct. 30, 1996, news story about opposition to OBE-like elements in the state’s planned education overhaul:  

Under outcome-based education, academic and personal goals are set for students before they can graduate. The program stresses that children are not allowed to fail, so they might be given the same test or report over and over until they do the work satisfactorily. It also may eliminate traditional grades, competitive student assessments and distinct subjects and grade levels.

Methods of implementing outcome-based education include awarding group grades instead of individual grades and eliminating honors programs.

Featured Fact-check

The "founding father" of OBE, education reformer William Spady, gave an example in an interview for the December 1992/January 1993 issue of Educational Leadership magazine, published by ASCD (formerly the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development). Asked whether an outcome might be "The student will be able to list the five causes of the Civil War," Spady replied: "No, sorry; that is not an exit outcome. But, ‘Identify and explain the fundamental causes and consequences of the Civil War’ would be an enabling outcome worth pursuing en route to some larger exit outcome." Today, a divide remains between the "OBE teaches kids to think" side and the "OBE suppresses thinking" side. We didn’t find allusions to "critical thinking skills" being used as a code phrase for OBE, but did note that a Feb. 15, 1994, news story in the Dallas Morning News said some educators were avoiding the name "outcomes-based education":  

Because of the controversy, many educators are going to great lengths to avoid being associated with outcomes-based education.

"We've always had outcomes," said state school board member Diane Patrick. But "we'd be foolish to call it outcomes-based education right now. That would be very unwise."

Our ruling As Collins says, the Texas GOP platform does state that the party opposes "critical thinking." But Collins leaves out some important context. The platform makes it clear that its opposition is centered on one type of education model: outcome-based education. That’s just the kind of situation addressed in PolitiFact’s definition of Half True: "The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context." By those lights, Collins’ statement is Half True.

Read About Our Process

The Principles of the Truth-O-Meter

Our Sources

The New York Times , column by Gail Collins, "For God, Texas and golf," Aug. 1, 2012 Austin American-Statesman , column by Ken Herman, "Know your platforms," July 21, 2012 Republican Party of Texas 2012 platform KVUE-TV Austin news story, "Texas GOP chair explains controversial 'critical thinking' platform language," July 24, 2012 Chronicle of Higher Education, blog post "What were they thinking?,"  July 6, 2012 Republican Party of Texas 2010 platform Fort Worth Star-Telegram news story, "State's curriculum rewrite criticized at meeting," Oct. 30, 1996 ASCD Educational Leadership magazine, "On Outcome-Based Education: A Conversation with Bill Spady," December 1992/January 1993 Dallas Morning News news story, "A thorny road to results; Outcomes-based education seems like such a simple idea but it has created a complicated controversy," Feb. 15, 1994

Browse the Truth-O-Meter

More by sue owen.

Support independent fact-checking. Become a member!

July 13, 2024 77 °F PBS Passport .st0{fill:#0A145A;} .st1{fill:#5680FF;} .st2{fill:#FFFFFF;} UH Search for: Search MENU CLOSE News & Information Features Hello Houston inDepth Topics Local News Texas Education News Politics Criminal Justice Transportation Energy & Environment Weather Hurricane Tracker All Stories >>> Arts & Culture Arts & Culture Main Classical Music Music Opera & Musical Theater Dance Visual Art Literature Theatre & Film Voices and Verses: A Poem-A-Day Series Awareness Hispanic Heritage Pride Month: Better Together! Asian American Pacific Islander Heritage Black History Women’s History Education Programs & Podcasts Local Programs Party Politics Houston Matters with Craig Cohen I SEE U Texas Standard UH 100 Years of Houston Bauer Business Focus Briefcase Engines of Our Ingenuity Health Matters UH Moment Features Dead and Buried Career Frontier Podcasts Below the Waterlines: Houston After Hurricane Harvey Party Politics Skyline Sessions Encore Houston All Podcasts >> Support Membership Update Payment Method Upgrade Your Monthly Gift Give a Gift Membership Giving Programs Affinity Council Studio Society In Tempore Legacy Society Innovation Fund Volunteers Foundation Board Young Leaders Council Mission Ambassadors Donations Vehicle Donation Giving Opportunities Employee Match Program More Ways to Give Partnerships Corporate Sponsorship About About Us Meet the Team Join the Team Contact Us Ethics and Standards Reports & Financials Press Room Listen Watch Donate Facebook Twitter Instagram YouTube Linkedin Mastodon googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1488818411584-0'); }); Politics

Here’s what you need to know about a texas bill that aims to ban critical race theory.

At the beginning of next month, more than 650 new state laws take effect. Leading up to Sept. 1, public radio reporters from across Texas are explaining some of the most high profile and consequential of those laws. Today: HB 3979, which targets teaching critical race theory in schools.

In Texas and across the country , critical race theory (CRT) has become a political lightning rod. Many Republican-led states are working to ban the school of thought from classrooms — even though teachers say they don't even teach it .

This spring, Texas passed two laws taking aim at CRT, including HB 3979. Republican Gov. Greg Abbott didn't think they went far enough, so he included CRT on the agenda for both special legislative sessions, including the one underway right now.

Educators say most people, including critics, don't even know what critical race theory is.

What Is Critical Race Theory?

Nikki Jones teaches African American studies at the University of California, Berkeley. Jones described CRT as a way to understand how race influenced the historical laws of this country — laws that justified everything from slavery to violence.

"It's a way to see race," Jones said. "To see understandings of race, to see racism, in places where it may not otherwise on the surface of it be apparent."

CRT is a decades-old intellectual movement born out of law schools. It teaches that racism is embedded in systems and structures in the U.S. — such as legal institutions — rather than just being the product of individual prejudice. It is taught in some law schools and universities, but there’s little evidence children and teens are learning the concept in grades K-12.

The Story (And Controversy) Behind The Law

Houston-area Rep. Steve Toth (R-The Woodlands) says he wrote HB 3979 to help children.

"We need to teach about the ills but you can't blame this generation," Toth said. "Kids are being scapegoated."

Toth's legislation takes on CRT without ever naming it. He says the new law is aimed at teaching complex subjects like slavery and racism without making white children feel guilty.

"You can't teach that one race is better than the other," Toth said, describing what's outlined in HB 3979. "You can’t teach that one gender is better than the other. You can't discriminate either... and say that one race or one gender is responsible for the ills of the past."

Texas history teachers say they don't scapegoat anyone. Critics call the bill and others like it in other states, a political football.

State Sen. Royce West (D-Dallas) says Toth's approach could hinder what teachers teach and how they teach it.

He said to consider the prohibition that you cannot teach one race is better than another.

"There were instances in this country where even in the articles of secession in 1861, it was said that the Caucasian race is superior to the African American race,” West said. “That's history. I think that it would be totally unfair if you said you can't teach what history has shown us to be the position in the past."

Teachers worry the law could sweep certain subjects off the table, like slavery and the Civil War.

And school districts, like Fort Worth ISD, are concerned their efforts at attaining and teaching racial equity could be derailed because critics who complain CRT is in the schools often confuse it with a district's racial equity policies.

While the new law takes effect next Wednesday, it's unclear how any presumed violations will be proven or punished.

What Else Is In The Bill?

The legislation, which you can read in full here , directs the State Board of Education to "adopt essential knowledge and skills that develop each student's civic knowledge," including the founding documents of America and writings of the founding fathers.

During the 2021 regular legislative session, House Democrats successfully pushed for that list to include other historical figures, adding more women and people of color. Texas Democrats also added requirements to include "historical documents related to the civic accomplishments of marginalized populations" in social studies curriculum.

HB 3979 prevents schools from offering extra credit or course credit for any activism or lobbying activities and prohibits schools from requiring educators to take any "training, orientation, or therapy that presents any form of race or sex stereotyping or blame on the basis of race or sex."

Resources like these are made possible by the generosity of our community of donors, foundations, and corporate partners. Join others and make your gift to Houston Public Media today! DONATE

Sign up for our daily weekday newsletter - hello, houston sign up now.

Texas GOP: No More Critical Thinking in Schools

• Share article

Teachers, you may want to be sitting down for this one.

The 2012 Texas Republican Party Platform , adopted June 9 at the state convention in Forth Worth, seems to take a stand against, well, the teaching of critical thinking skills. Read it for yourself:

We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student's fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

As a top commenter on a Reddit thread wrote about the language, “I was absolutely sure this had to be an elaborate fake ... .” It’s not.

We at Teacher think this may be a kind of first. While the push for accountability via standardized testing—which the current Democratic administration has stood behind—has frequently been characterized as potentially undermining instruction in critical thinking, blatant opposition to teaching students to think deeply has not often (ever?) been a part of the policy conversation.

In that same section of the document, labeled “Educating Our Children,” the Texas Republicans go on to state that they “oppose mandatory pre-school and Kindergarten.” And, in a statement that human rights groups (and many others) will find difficult to stomach, the platform says, “We recommend that local school boards and classroom teachers be given more authority to deal with disciplinary problems. Corporal punishment is effective and legal in Texas.”

While corporal punishment is in fact legal in Texas—and 18 other states, according to The Center for Effective Discipline —we’re still poking around to find the research backing its effectiveness in the Lone Star State. Nothing so far. Readers, let us know what you come across.

(HT: Huffington Post .)

UPDATE: A spokesman for the Republican Party of Texas said that the “critical thinking skills” language should not have been included in the document after the words “values clarification,” reports Talking Points Memo . The members of the subcommittee “regret” the mistake, he told TPM—however, since the platform was approved, “it cannot be corrected until the next state convention in 2014.”

A version of this news article first appeared in the Teaching Now blog.

Sign Up for EdWeek Update

Texas Senate approves bill barring professors from “compelling” students to adopt certain political beliefs

Critics say Senate Bill 16 is overly vague and will create a chilling effect that will prevent important conversations about race and gender. But Republican supporters say the legislation is necessary to protect conservative students who are self-censoring in the classroom.

Sign up for The Brief , The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

The Texas Senate approved a bill Wednesday that would prohibit a college or university professor from “compelling” a student to adopt certain political beliefs, a proposal belonging to a slew of legislation introduced this session that university and community college faculty worry will restrict academic freedom in the classroom. The bill now heads to the Texas House.

Sen. Bryan Hughes , R-Mineola, told lawmakers on the Senate floor Tuesday he believed that universities are places where students are exposed to different ideas to develop their own critical thinking skills and that his bill would not censor the discussion of any topics in the college classroom.

“What we are not for is when professors attempt to compel a student to adopt a certain belief, require adherence to a professor’s viewpoint, to a certain viewpoint. That’s another matter entirely. That’s what this bill is about,” Hughes said.

Senate Bill 16 would bar university professors from compelling students “to adopt a belief that any race, sex, or ethnicity or social, political, or religious belief is inherently superior to any other race, sex, ethnicity, or belief.”

Related Story

How republicans’ threats to tenure and diversity might undercut their own efforts to advance texas’ universities.

April 11, 2023

Critics have argued the legislation is too vague and will create a chilling effect that will curtail difficult conversations about race and gender in the classroom, rather than supporting free inquiry of ideas.

“This is censorship masquerading as academic freedom,” said Sen. Sarah Eckhardt, D-Austin, on the Senate floor Wednesday. “We will be assuring that our Texas institutions of higher education are nothing but echo chambers, incapable of welcoming the full marketplace of idea ... and uninterested in challenging our worldview with a larger one.”

Faculty who testified against the bill said they encourage critical thinking skills and denied that they force students to adopt any beliefs.

“My worry here is that SB 16 is a solution looking for a problem that doesn’t exist,” said Karma Chávez, a University of Texas at Austin professor who testified on behalf of herself before the Senate subcommittee on higher education last month.

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick characterized SB 16 as a ban on critical race theory in higher education when he unveiled his list of legislative priorities for the session.

Conservatives over the past few years have targeted critical race theory, an academic discipline that studies how racism shapes policies and societal structures. The term has been adopted as a catchall to describe a perceived liberal bent in lessons about race and racism.

Last legislative session, Texas lawmakers passed a “critical race theory ban” that restricted certain types of conversations about race and racism in K-12 classrooms. In the interim period, Patrick said he would extend that legislation to higher education after a group of UT-Austin professors filed a resolution reaffirming their academic freedom to teach critical race theory in higher education.

SB 16 does not explicitly mention critical race theory, but Hughes said it targets the same concepts.

"Critical race theory is a shorthand way to refer to the bill … but it’s about discrimination in higher education,” Hughes said Tuesday.

In a statement Wednesday, Patrick continued to characterize the bill's passage as a ban on critical race theory.

“This session, there was no question that we would ban the teaching of CRT in Texas universities,” Patrick said. “Liberal professors, determined to indoctrinate our students with their woke brand of revisionist history, have gone too far.”

Legislators preliminarily approved the bill on Tuesday with an amendment that would add a process for students or other members of the public to lodge complaints against a professor they believe is violating the law. Faculty who violate the law could see their tenure revoked or lose their jobs. During a final vote Wednesday, they approved an additional amendment that would direct the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board to establish the complaint process and other implementation rules. The vote was 18-12 in support of the bill, with Sen. Phil King, R-Weatherford, absent and not voting.

Testing the premise

SB 16 faced heated pushback from Democratic senators, who accused Hughes of crafting legislation based on a “political narrative.”

They posed a variety of hypothetical situations to Hughes as they tried to determine when a professor teaching about an uncomfortable topic or aspect of history might be considered “compelling” a student versus teaching them.

In nearly all instances, Hughes responded that under his legislation, those hypothetical situations would be allowed. But when asked if this bill would allow faculty to teach about the concept of critical race theory, Hughes would not explicitly answer.

Democrats also repeatedly asked Hughes to provide examples of the issue his bill was seeking to address in Texas universities. Hughes responded by citing vague media reports and referring to comments made by a political science professor who testified in support of the bill during a Senate subcommittee on higher education meeting last month. The professor, Carol Swain, taught at Vanderbilt University and Princeton University but had not taught in Texas.

Eventually, Sen. Charles Perry , R-Lubbock, who supports the bill, offered an example of a professor at Texas Tech University who insisted that his biology students affirm that they believe in human evolution. A group of Christian lawyers filed a complaint to the U.S. Justice Department, and the professor eventually removed the requirement. The incident occurred in 2003.

Sen. Royce West , D-Dallas, pointed out that no students had testified that this was an issue in their schools.

“There’s nothing that we’ve heard other than some political narratives that would even suggest that this is a problem in the state of Texas,” West said.

But Sen. Mayes Middleton , R-Galveston, said it's important for lawmakers to ensure that students don’t “feel they have to censor their sincerely held belief or their ideology, what they truly believe about a particular issue.”

He cited his own experience at UT-Austin’s law school, where he was afraid to admit to his professors he was conservative for fear of negative consequences or backlash.

But faculty members say there is a difference between sharing opinions in a classroom versus facts and arguments that are backed by research.

Chávez, who is also a member of the Texas Conference of the American Association of University Professors, said she will often listen to classroom discussions where one student will offer an opinion and others will challenge it based on research or scholarship from the course curriculum.

“That’s good. I want people to be making arguments,” she said, adding that she tells students all viewpoints are welcome as long as they are engaging with the material and verified research.

“But you cannot just make arguments based on an unfounded opinion,” Chávez said. “I do think that one of the challenges is when you’re talking about studies of race, and sex, and gender, sexuality … the scholarship that exists across the humanities and social sciences, by and large, does not support a conservative viewpoint. Not because it’s based on a liberal or politicized opinion, but that’s what the principal archival or social scientific research has shown about a given topic. But it’s not political, it’s research.”

SB 16 is one of a few of Patrick’s higher education priorities that has faced criticism from faculty and students who accuse lawmakers of political overreach into the college classroom and campus.

Senate Bill 17 would prohibit diversity, equity and inclusion offices, programs and training on public college campuses. The Senate higher education subcommittee approved that bill last week. It now heads to the full education committee for approval.

Another bill, Senate Bill 18 , would eliminate faculty tenure for new hires. The education committee approved that bill, sending it to the full Senate for a vote.

Disclosure: Texas Tech University and University of Texas at Austin have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here .

We can’t wait to welcome you Sept. 21-23 to the 2023 Texas Tribune Festival , our multiday celebration of big, bold ideas about politics, public policy and the day’s news — all taking place just steps away from the Texas Capitol. When tickets go on sale in May, Tribune members will save big. Donate to join or renew today.

Texans need truth. Help us report it.

Independent Texas reporting needs your support. The Texas Tribune delivers fact-based journalism for Texans, by Texans — and our community of members, the readers who donate, make our work possible. Help us bring you and millions of others in-depth news and information. Will you support our nonprofit newsroom with a donation of any amount?

Support independent Texas news

Become a member. Join today.

Choose an amount or learn more about membership .

Information about the authors

Higher Education Reporter

[email protected]

@McGeeReports

Learn about The Texas Tribune’s policies , including our partnership with The Trust Project to increase transparency in news.

Explore related story topics

Higher education Politics Texas Senate

• Investigates
• Houston Life
• Newsletters

WEATHER ALERT

2 flood warnings in effect for 6 counties in the area

Texas gop’s swing to far right cemented with party platform.

Will Weissert

Associated Press

WASHINGTON – Ten years ago, the Texas Republican Party used its platform to oppose teaching critical thinking in schools. In 2014, it declared homosexuality a chosen behavior contrary to God and endorsed “reparative therapy” to reverse it. By 2020, the party was ready to remind the world that “Texas retains the right to secede from the United States.”

But now the GOP platform in the country's largest red state — long an ideological wish list that even the most conservative Texans knew was mostly filled with pipe dreams that would never become policy — has broken new ground in its push to the far right.

Recommended Videos

Approved by 5,000-plus party delegates last weekend in Houston during the party's biennial convention, the new platform brands President Joe Biden an “acting” commander-in-chief who was never “legitimately elected.”

It may not matter who the president is, though, since the platform takes previous language about secession much farther — urging the Republican-controlled legislature to put the question of leaving the United States to voters next year.

The platform also says homosexuality is “an abnormal lifestyle choice” and rejects bipartisan legislation in Congress seeking to raise the minimum age to buy assault weapons from 18 to 21, saying Texans under 21 are "most likely to be victims of violent crime and thus most likely to need to defend themselves.”

Though non-binding, the platform illustrates just how far Texas Republicans have moved to the right in the past decade — from championing tea party ideals in 2012 to endorsing former President Donald Trump's continued lies about nonexistent widespread fraud costing him an election he actually lost by more than 7 million votes.

“The platform reflects the direction that party activists believe the party should take,” said Matt Mackowiak, a Republican strategist based in the Texas capital of Austin. He said that, rather than deciding elections or dictating legislative action, the platform is more relevant as a signal of "where primary voters are and what they care about.”

Mackowiak said items like considering succession won't be taken seriously, but “Trump’s policy agenda is here to stay.” He said that, as the former president continues to question 2020 election results, he will continue to find a receptive audience in the Texas GOP.

“Are people really in doubt that Republicans have concerns about how the election was conducted?” Mackowiak asked.

Matt Rinaldi, a former state lawmaker who now chairs the Texas GOP, said state Republicans “rightly have no faith in the 2020 election results and we don’t care how many times the elites tell us we have to.”

“We refuse to let Democrats rig the elections in 2022 or 2024,” Rinaldi said in a statement.

Democrats haven't rigged anything. An Associated Press r eview of every potential case of voter fraud in the six battleground states disputed by Trump has found fewer than 475 — a number that would have made no difference in the 2020 presidential election.

Meanwhile, Texas' 2020 election was a romp even by the standards of Republicans who have dominated the state for decades . The party's candidates topped Democrats in key congressional and statehouse races as Trump easily carried its electoral votes.

But that didn't stop the former president from praising the party's 2022 platform, posting Tuesday: “Look at the “Great State of Texas and their powerful Republican Party Platform on the 2020 Presidential Election Fraud.”

“Such courage,” he wrote, “but that’s why Texas is Texas.”

Trump was cheering language declaring, “We reject the certified results of the 2020 presidential election, and we hold that acting President Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. was not legitimately elected." That was a departure from as recently as 2014, when the Texas GOP platform questioned Barack Obama's “commitment to citizens' constitutional rights," but at least recognized him as president.

This year's platform also says that “Texas retains the right to secede from the United States, and the Texas Legislature should be called upon to pass a referendum consistent thereto.”

Ed Espinoza, executive director of the advocacy organization Progress Texas, said some of the adherence to open discriminatory language might have receded if not for the rise of Trump — who has demonstrated “he could double down on the crazy and not suffer a consequence yet.”

“Normally what happens is, when there’s crazy in a party, people try to soften it,” said Espinoza, former Western States Director of the Democratic National Committee. “In this case, they saw it worked for Trump so they think it’ll work for them.”

Texas was an independent republic for nearly a decade until 1845. With the coronavirus pandemic raging, the 2020 Texas Republican Party convention was held virtually and degenerated into a leadership struggle. But it also featured platform language declaring, “Texas retains the right to secede from the United States should a future president and congress change our political system from a constitutional republic to another system."

That caveat about governmental system was dropped in the 2022 edition, which seeks a referendum for voters "to determine whether or not" their state "should reassert its status as an independent nation.”

Texas' rightward push was clear in ways beyond the party platform. Delegates booed Republican Sen. John Cornyn — who has held his seat for 20 years and got more 2020 votes statewide than Trump did — for working on bipartisan legislation seeking to impose modest limits on guns. Those efforts began following last month's mass shooting in the Texas town of Uvalde, which killed 19 elementary students and two teachers.

Still, such state convention outbursts also aren’t new. Republican Gov. Rick Perry was booed in 2012 for praising fellow GOPer and Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, who was then locked in a primary battle for an open Senate seat with Ted Cruz. Some delegates also in the past walked out of a speech by then-Republican Texas House Speaker Joe Straus.

“It shows you how much QAnon may not be an outlier in the Republican Party," Espinoza said. “Some people are very susceptible to conspiracy theory, and that appears to be a higher percentage the deeper you go into the Republican Party of Texas.”

Copyright 2022 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

Texas GOP officially comes out against critical thinking

Who needs book larnin': the texas gop’s platform is explicitly opposed to critical thinking skills in education..

It’s not a shock that the Republican Party of Texas’ official platform, announced and adopted this month, is a seething morass of racism and homophobia . Republicans: That’s how we do! Nor is it surprising that the platform comes out in favor of employee discrimination and corporal punishment in schools, and opposed to comprehensive sex education, environmental protections, affirmative action, and the Voting Rights Act. Yawn, really. But get ready to hand your $10 to Nick Fury, because they actually managed to pull out something so blatant that it surprised even jaded old me: The Texas GOP’s platform is explicitly opposed to critical thinking skills .

Here’s the relevant text:

We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

To be fair, I guess Texas is willing to grandfather in people who already use critical thinking skills — as long as those skills don’t cause them to support things like marriage equality, voter enfranchisement, environmental responsibility, social justice of any kind, or not hitting children. They just don’t want this stuff to SPREAD. Don’t pass your dirty Communist “logic” on to OUR children, buster, or by god we will have you drinking hemlock.

Grist thanks its sponsors. Become one .

To support our nonprofit environmental journalism, please consider disabling your ad-blocker to allow ads on Grist. Here's How

According to Talking Points Memo , the party is now backpedaling the whole “brain thoughts are for homogays” approach, claiming that it was “not the intent of the subcommittee” to come out against critical thinking and that they “regret” the oversight. But they don’t regret it all that damn much, apparently, because they also say what’s done is done: The convention approved the platform, so it can’t be changed until the next state convention in 2014. By which time, if Texas Republicans had their druthers, there would be nobody left who even knew how to read the thing.

A message from   

Your support matters

Grist is the only award-winning newsroom focused on exploring equitable solutions to climate change. It’s vital reporting made entirely possible by loyal readers like you. At Grist, we don’t believe in paywalls. Instead, we rely on our readers to pitch in what they can so that we can continue bringing you our solution-based climate news.

Grist is the only award-winning newsroom focused on exploring equitable solutions to climate change. It’s vital reporting made entirely possible by loyal readers like you. At Grist, we don’t believe in paywalls. Instead, we rely on our readers to pitch in what they can so that we can continue bringing you our solution-based climate news.  

Here’s why the prettiest tomatoes taste the worst

The quick, quiet death of biden’s natural gas export pause, biden admin unveils first-ever heat protections for workers. here’s what to know., these supreme court decisions just made it harder to solve climate change, the biden administration is inching closer to a heat standard for workers — if the election doesn’t doom it, when is it safe to burn fields in thailand, farmers can turn to a new app to check., the $1.7 billion bet on american-made evs, explained by the secretary of energy, timeline: the georgia public service commission’s key decisions  , meet the jacked vegan strength athletes defying stereotypes, modal gallery.

Texas' ban on critical race theory in schools proves the GOP still doesn't understand MLK's message

Texas this week became the latest state to ban the teaching of critical race theory. The author of the bill, Republican state Rep. Steve Toth, has insisted that the measure was wholly in keeping with the vision of Martin Luther King Jr.

Civil rights activists like King called their protests “demonstrations” because they sought to demonstrate the realities of segregation and discrimination in undeniable terms.

“It echoes Dr. King’s wish that we should judge people on the content of their character, not [the color of] their skin,” Toth told a reporter this month.

This talking point is apparently the new Republican orthodoxy. At a campaign rally last year, then-President Donald Trump claimed that “critical race theory is a Marxist doctrine that rejects the vision of Martin Luther King Jr.” Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis likewise asserted that critical race theory was “basically teaching kids to hate our country and to hate each other based on race,” adding: “It puts race as the most important thing. I want content of character to be the most important thing.”

In making such comments, Republican officials reveal that they don’t really understand critical race theory — and don’t really understand Martin Luther King Jr., either.

Despite the moral panic from conservative politicians that it was designed with “kids” in mind, critical race theory has largely been limited to law schools and advanced graduate programs. (As many joked on social media, if your “kids” are really being taught critical race theory, you should be proud they’re in law school.)

Moreover, far from stressing that race is “the most important thing,” critical race theory challenges the idea that race is a thing at all. It starts with the premise that there is no biological or scientific justification for racial categories and that race was a socially constructed invention — a fiction, but one that has nevertheless been written into our laws and legislation.

Those who work on critical race theory are baffled by the seemingly deliberate mischaracterizations of their work.

Those who work on critical race theory are baffled by the seemingly deliberate mischaracterizations of their work. Kimberlé Crenshaw, the noted law professor at UCLA and Columbia and a pioneering scholar in the field, dismissed Trump’s and DeSantis’ specific claims as “false and slanderous.” As she explained in a recent interview , “Critical race theory just says let's pay attention to what has happened in this country and how what has happened in this country is continuing to create differential outcomes, so we can become that country that we say we are.”

Contrary to Republican cries that this scholarship is “ un-American ,” Crenshaw asserts that “critical race theory is not anti-patriotic.”

“In fact, it is more patriotic than those who are opposed to it, because we believe in the 13th and the 14th and the 15th Amendment,” Crenshaw says. “We believe in the promises of equality. And we know we can't get there if we can't confront and talk honestly about inequality.”

Talking honestly about inequality, it turns out, was a special point of emphasis for Martin Luther King Jr. He devoted a considerable amount of his activism and authorship doing it. But the limited knowledge that Trump, DeSantis and Toth all have of King’s work apparently begins and ends with that one line about “character.”

To appreciate this reality, and to see how wrong those are who see MLK and critical race theory as diametrically opposed, look no further than two iconic moments the Texas law encourages teachers to use: “Martin Luther King Jr.'s ‘Letter from a Birmingham Jail’ and ‘I Have a Dream’ speech.”

In his landmark address at the March on Washington in August 1963, King did note his hope that “one day” his children would be judged by their character and not the color of their skin, but that was only one line in a more nuanced address.

While King looked ahead to that day, his vision remained firmly fixed on the realities of racism and discrimination in his own time.

More important, while King looked ahead to that day, his vision remained firmly fixed on the realities of racism and discrimination in his own time; he devoted the bulk of his address to identifying and articulating them. King chronicled the ways African Americans faced systemic patterns of discrimination and inequality, from “the unspeakable horrors of police brutality” to the discriminatory public and private policies that put African Americans on “a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity.”

“We’ve come here today,” King patiently explained again, “to dramatize a shameful condition.”

In his famous Letter from a Birmingham Jail , which he wrote four months before the March on Washington, King had already sounded out these same things, in greater length.

The letter, which was King’s response to chiding from moderate white ministers, patiently explained that the first “basic step” in his activism was the “collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist.”

Asserting that “privileged groups” fail to see how others often lack the same privileges and therefore dismiss their complaints, King rattled off for them — and us — a litany of the systemic and structural inequalities that faced African Americans, including police brutality, voting discrimination and an unequal economy that locked “the vast majority of your 20 million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society.”

Notably, King spent a great deal of the letter outlining how “the unjust law” — which he defined as “a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself” — worked to prop up those racial and economic inequalities. The racist intent or racial impact of such legislation might not be overt, King noted. “Sometimes a law is just on its face,” he wrote, “and unjust in its application.”

Civil rights activists like King adopted the word “demonstrations” to characterize their protests, because they sought to demonstrate the realities of segregation and discrimination in undeniable terms. In the letter, King explained that he sought to expose the hypocrisies in Jim Crow laws and demonstrate the inequalities they obscured.

“We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive,” he wrote. “We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.”

King’s summons to identify and illuminate the racial, economic and political inequalities in American life runs counter to the conservative culture war against critical race theory and related publications like The 1619 Project. (In full disclosure, I am one of several historians who have written chapters for the project’s forthcoming book .)

Politicians like Trump, DeSantis and Toth are certainly welcome to believe that we should not, in fact, acknowledge the deep roots of racism in American society and how that shaped the nation around us, but they shouldn’t invoke the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. when they do so.

At the very least, they should follow their own recommendations and study what the civil rights icon actually wrote and actually said. It seems they might be in for an education of their own.

Kevin M. Kruse is a professor of history at Princeton University. A specialist in modern American political, social and urban/suburban history, he is the author and editor of several books, including "White Flight" (2005), "One Nation Under God" (2015) and "Fault Lines: A History of the United States since 1974" (2019). He grew up in Nashville, Tennessee, and earned his bachelor's degree from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and his master's and doctoral degrees from Cornell University.

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Photography
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• Auto Racing
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

Texas GOP’s swing to far right cemented with party platform

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick poses for photos with supporters during the first day of the Republican Party of Texas convention at George R. Brown Convention Center on Wednesday, June 15, 2022 in Houston. (Elizabeth Conley/Houston Chronicle via AP)

A Donald Trump cutout stands at Patriot Mobile display at the Republican Party of Texas convention at George R. Brown Convention Center on Thursday, June 16, 2022, in Houston. (Elizabeth Conley/Houston Chronicle via AP)

Elaine Wilmore of Cleburne, poses for a photo with Tex, a longhorn, at a display for Texas Agriculture Commissioner, Sid Miller, during the first day of the Republican Party of Texas convention at George R. Brown Convention Center on Thursday, June 16, 2022, in Houston. (Elizabeth Conley/Houston Chronicle via AP)

• Copy Link copied

WASHINGTON (AP) — Ten years ago, the Texas Republican Party used its platform to oppose teaching critical thinking in schools. In 2014, it declared homosexuality a chosen behavior contrary to God and endorsed “reparative therapy” to reverse it. By 2020, the party was ready to remind the world that “Texas retains the right to secede from the United States.”

But now the GOP platform in the country’s largest red state — long an ideological wish list that even the most conservative Texans knew was mostly filled with pipe dreams that would never become policy — has broken new ground in its push to the far right.

Approved by 5,000-plus party delegates last weekend in Houston during the party’s biennial convention, the new platform brands President Joe Biden an “acting” commander-in-chief who was never “legitimately elected.”

It may not matter who the president is, though, since the platform takes previous language about secession much farther — urging the Republican-controlled legislature to put the question of leaving the United States to voters next year.

The platform also says homosexuality is “an abnormal lifestyle choice” and rejects bipartisan legislation in Congress seeking to raise the minimum age to buy assault weapons from 18 to 21, saying Texans under 21 are “most likely to be victims of violent crime and thus most likely to need to defend themselves.”

Though non-binding, the platform illustrates just how far Texas Republicans have moved to the right in the past decade — from championing tea party ideals in 2012 to endorsing former President Donald Trump’s continued lies about nonexistent widespread fraud costing him an election he actually lost by more than 7 million votes.

“The platform reflects the direction that party activists believe the party should take,” said Matt Mackowiak, a Republican strategist based in the Texas capital of Austin. He said that, rather than deciding elections or dictating legislative action, the platform is more relevant as a signal of “where primary voters are and what they care about.”

Mackowiak said items like considering succession won’t be taken seriously, but “Trump’s policy agenda is here to stay.” He said that, as the former president continues to question 2020 election results, he will continue to find a receptive audience in the Texas GOP.

“Are people really in doubt that Republicans have concerns about how the election was conducted?” Mackowiak asked.

Matt Rinaldi, a former state lawmaker who now chairs the Texas GOP, said state Republicans “rightly have no faith in the 2020 election results and we don’t care how many times the elites tell us we have to.”

“We refuse to let Democrats rig the elections in 2022 or 2024,” Rinaldi said in a statement.

Democrats haven’t rigged anything. An Associated Press r eview of every potential case of voter fraud in the six battleground states disputed by Trump has found fewer than 475 — a number that would have made no difference in the 2020 presidential election.

Meanwhile, Texas’ 2020 election was a romp even by the standards of Republicans who have dominated the state for decades . The party’s candidates topped Democrats in key congressional and statehouse races as Trump easily carried its electoral votes.

But that didn’t stop the former president from praising the party’s 2022 platform, posting Tuesday: “Look at the “Great State of Texas and their powerful Republican Party Platform on the 2020 Presidential Election Fraud.”

“Such courage,” he wrote, “but that’s why Texas is Texas.”

Trump was cheering language declaring, “We reject the certified results of the 2020 presidential election, and we hold that acting President Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. was not legitimately elected.” That was a departure from as recently as 2014, when the Texas GOP platform questioned Barack Obama’s “commitment to citizens’ constitutional rights,” but at least recognized him as president.

This year’s platform also says that “Texas retains the right to secede from the United States, and the Texas Legislature should be called upon to pass a referendum consistent thereto.”

Ed Espinoza, executive director of the advocacy organization Progress Texas, said some of the adherence to open discriminatory language might have receded if not for the rise of Trump — who has demonstrated “he could double down on the crazy and not suffer a consequence yet.”

“Normally what happens is, when there’s crazy in a party, people try to soften it,” said Espinoza, former Western States Director of the Democratic National Committee. “In this case, they saw it worked for Trump so they think it’ll work for them.”

Texas was an independent republic for nearly a decade until 1845. With the coronavirus pandemic raging, the 2020 Texas Republican Party convention was held virtually and degenerated into a leadership struggle. But it also featured platform language declaring, “Texas retains the right to secede from the United States should a future president and congress change our political system from a constitutional republic to another system.”

That caveat about governmental system was dropped in the 2022 edition, which seeks a referendum for voters “to determine whether or not” their state “should reassert its status as an independent nation.”

Texas’ rightward push was clear in ways beyond the party platform. Delegates booed Republican Sen. John Cornyn — who has held his seat for 20 years and got more 2020 votes statewide than Trump did — for working on bipartisan legislation seeking to impose modest limits on guns. Those efforts began following last month’s mass shooting in the Texas town of Uvalde, which killed 19 elementary students and two teachers.

Still, such state convention outbursts also aren’t new. Republican Gov. Rick Perry was booed in 2012 for praising fellow GOPer and Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, who was then locked in a primary battle for an open Senate seat with Ted Cruz. Some delegates also in the past walked out of a speech by then-Republican Texas House Speaker Joe Straus.

“It shows you how much QAnon may not be an outlier in the Republican Party,” Espinoza said. “Some people are very susceptible to conspiracy theory, and that appears to be a higher percentage the deeper you go into the Republican Party of Texas.”

• Quick Takes

Texas GOP vs. Critical Thinking

By  Scott Jaschik

You have / 5 articles left. Sign up for a free account or log in.

The 2012 platform of the Texas Republican Party contains a number of provisions raising eyebrows among Texas academics. For instance, the platform says, "We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning), which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority." With regard to college tuition, the platform wants to end the policy (endorsed by Governor Rick Perry in the Republican primaries) of granting in-state tuition rates to some students who lack the legal documentation to live in the United States. And the platform wants "merit-based" admissions for all public colleges, and seeks to eliminate the "10 percent" plan -- which admits students from the top 10 percent of high school classes and which has helped to diversify Texas colleges.

Some Community Colleges See Level Funding Despite Lean State Budgets

In some states, community college systems have seen wins this budget season even when lawmakers were looking to cut c

Share This Article

More from quick takes.

‘Satanic’ Sculpture Beheaded at University of Houston

GOP Platform: ‘Make Our College Campuses Safe and Patriotic Again’

Qatar Foundation Pushes Back on House Republicans’ Accusations

• Become a Member
• Sign up for Newsletters
• Learning & Assessment
• Diversity & Equity
• Career Development
• Labor & Unionization
• Shared Governance
• Academic Freedom
• Books & Publishing
• Financial Aid
• Residential Life
• Free Speech
• Physical & Mental Health
• Race & Ethnicity
• Sex & Gender
• Socioeconomics
• Traditional-Age
• Adult & Post-Traditional
• Teaching & Learning
• Artificial Intelligence
• Digital Publishing
• Data Analytics
• Administrative Tech
• Alternative Credentials
• Financial Health
• Cost-Cutting
• Revenue Strategies
• Academic Programs
• Physical Campuses
• Mergers & Collaboration
• Fundraising
• Research Universities
• Regional Public Universities
• Community Colleges
• Private Nonprofit Colleges
• Minority-Serving Institutions
• Religious Colleges
• Women's Colleges
• Specialized Colleges
• For-Profit Colleges
• Executive Leadership
• Trustees & Regents
• State Oversight
• Accreditation
• Politics & Elections
• Supreme Court
• Student Aid Policy
• Science & Research Policy
• State Policy
• Colleges & Localities
• Employee Satisfaction
• Remote & Flexible Work
• Staff Issues
• Study Abroad
• International Students in U.S.
• U.S. Colleges in the World
• Intellectual Affairs
• Seeking a Faculty Job
• Advancing in the Faculty
• Seeking an Administrative Job
• Advancing as an Administrator
• Beyond Transfer
• Call to Action
• Confessions of a Community College Dean
• Higher Ed Gamma
• Higher Ed Policy
• Just Explain It to Me!
• Just Visiting
• Law, Policy—and IT?
• Leadership & StratEDgy
• Leadership in Higher Education
• Learning Innovation
• Online: Trending Now
• Resident Scholar
• University of Venus
• Student Voice
• Academic Life
• Health & Wellness
• The College Experience
• Life After College
• Academic Minute
• Weekly Wisdom
• Reports & Data
• Advertising & Marketing
• Consulting Services
• Data & Insights
• Hiring & Jobs
• Event Partnerships

4 /5 Articles remaining this month.

Sign up for a free account or log in.

• Sign Up, It’s FREE

• terms of use
• site status

Texas GOP’s 2012 Platform Opposes Teaching Of ‘Critical Thinking Skills’

The Republican Party of Texas’ recently adopted 2012 platform contains a plank that opposes the teaching of “critical thinking skills” in schools. The party says it was a mistake, but is now stuck with the plank until the next state convention in 2014.

The plank in question, on “Knowledge-Based Education,” reads as follows:

We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

Elsewhere in the document, the platform stipulates that “[e]very Republican is responsible for implementing this platform.”

Contacted by TPM on Thursday, Republican Party of Texas (RPT) Communications Director Chris Elam said the “critical thinking skills” language made it into the platform by mistake.

“[The chairman of the Education Subcommittee] indicated that it was an oversight of the committee, that the plank should not have included ‘critical thinking skills’ after ‘values clarification,'” Elam said. “And it was not the intent of the subcommittee to present a plank that would have indicated that the RPT in any way opposed the development of critical thinking skills.”

Elam said the members of the subcommittee “regret” the oversight, but because the mistake was part of the platform approved by the convention, “it cannot be corrected until the next state convention in 2014.”

TPM asked Elam what the intent of subcommittee had been in including the “Knowledge-Based Education” plank.

“I think the intent is that the Republican Party is opposed to the values clarification method that serves the purpose of challenging students beliefs and undermine parental authority,” he said.

Here are some other notable planks for the RPT’s 2012 platform:

On the Patriot Act:

We urge review and revision of those portions of the USA Patriot Act, and related executive and military orders and directives that erode constitutional rights and essential liberties of citizens. Emergency War Powers and Martial Law Declarations – We strongly urge Congress to repeal the War Powers Act and end our declared state of emergency. Any Declaration of Martial law should be approved by Congress.

On “Livestock and Pet Locations”:

We oppose a mandatory animal identification system.

On the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA):

We oppose this act through which the federal government would coerce religious business owners and employees to violate their own beliefs and principles by affirming what they consider to be sinful and sexually immoral behavior.

On Campaign Contributions:

We support full disclosure of the amounts and sources of any campaign contributions to political candidates, whether contributed by individuals, political action committees, or other entities.

On the “Voter Rights Act” [sic]:

We urge that the Voter Rights Act of 1965 codified and updated in 1973 be repealed and not reauthorized.

On Homosexuality:

We affirm that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society and contributes to the breakdown of the family unit. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle, in public policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We believe there should be no granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin. Additionally, we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction or belief in traditional values.

On the UN Treaty on the Rights of the Child:

We unequivocally oppose the United States Senate’s ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Read the whole thing here .

A new Tennessee law undercuts the Supreme Court’s 2015 landmark, closely divided decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide, and marks a…

The true believers were buzzing. 

One of the biggest potential spoiler candidates in next year’s presidential race is having trouble getting his 2024 campaign off…

Fulton County DA Fani Willis sorted Trump’s attempt to reverse his 2020 election loss into several distinct categories, or schemes,…

Start the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

• Josh Marshall
• David Kurtz
• Nicole Lafond
• Josh Kovensky
• Hunter Walker
• Emine Yücel
• Khaya Himmelman
• John B. Judis
• Millet Israeli
• Joe Ragazzo
• Derick Dirmaier
• Matt Wozniak
• Jackie Wilhelm
• Jacob Harris
• Christine Frapech

Texas GOP’s swing to far right cemented with party platform

The Associated Press

June 21, 2022, 2:58 PM

• Share This:
• share on facebook
• share on threads
• share on linkedin
• share on email

WASHINGTON (AP) — Ten years ago, the Texas Republican Party used its platform to oppose teaching critical thinking in schools. In 2014, it declared homosexuality a chosen behavior contrary to God and endorsed “reparative therapy” to reverse it. By 2020, the party was ready to remind the world that “Texas retains the right to secede from the United States.”

But now the GOP platform in the country’s largest red state — long an ideological wish list that even the most conservative Texans knew was mostly filled with pipe dreams that would never become policy — has broken new ground in its push to the far right.

Approved by 5,000-plus party delegates last weekend in Houston during the party’s biennial convention, the new platform brands President Joe Biden an “acting” commander-in-chief who was never “legitimately elected.”

It may not matter who the president is, though, since the platform takes previous language about secession much farther — urging the Republican-controlled legislature to put the question of leaving the United States to voters next year.

The platform also says homosexuality is “an abnormal lifestyle choice” and rejects bipartisan legislation in Congress seeking to raise the minimum age to buy assault weapons from 18 to 21, saying Texans under 21 are “most likely to be victims of violent crime and thus most likely to need to defend themselves.”

Though non-binding, the platform illustrates just how far Texas Republicans have moved to the right in the past decade — from championing tea party ideals in 2012 to endorsing former President Donald Trump’s continued lies about nonexistent widespread fraud costing him an election he actually lost by more than 7 million votes.

“The platform reflects the direction that party activists believe the party should take,” said Matt Mackowiak, a Republican strategist based in the Texas capital of Austin. He said that, rather than deciding elections or dictating legislative action, the platform is more relevant as a signal of “where primary voters are and what they care about.”

Mackowiak said items like considering succession won’t be taken seriously, but “Trump’s policy agenda is here to stay.” He said that, as the former president continues to question 2020 election results, he will continue to find a receptive audience in the Texas GOP.

“Are people really in doubt that Republicans have concerns about how the election was conducted?” Mackowiak asked.

Matt Rinaldi, a former state lawmaker who now chairs the Texas GOP, said state Republicans “rightly have no faith in the 2020 election results and we don’t care how many times the elites tell us we have to.”

“We refuse to let Democrats rig the elections in 2022 or 2024,” Rinaldi said in a statement.

Democrats haven’t rigged anything. An Associated Press r eview of every potential case of voter fraud in the six battleground states disputed by Trump has found fewer than 475 — a number that would have made no difference in the 2020 presidential election.

Meanwhile, Texas’ 2020 election was a romp even by the standards of Republicans who have dominated the state for decades. The party’s candidates topped Democrats in key congressional and statehouse races as Trump easily carried its electoral votes.

But that didn’t stop the former president from praising the party’s 2022 platform, posting Tuesday: “Look at the “Great State of Texas and their powerful Republican Party Platform on the 2020 Presidential Election Fraud.”

“Such courage,” he wrote, “but that’s why Texas is Texas.”

Trump was cheering language declaring, “We reject the certified results of the 2020 presidential election, and we hold that acting President Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. was not legitimately elected.” That was a departure from as recently as 2014, when the Texas GOP platform questioned Barack Obama’s “commitment to citizens’ constitutional rights,” but at least recognized him as president.

This year’s platform also says that “Texas retains the right to secede from the United States, and the Texas Legislature should be called upon to pass a referendum consistent thereto.”

Ed Espinoza, executive director of the advocacy organization Progress Texas, said some of the adherence to open discriminatory language might have receded if not for the rise of Trump — who has demonstrated “he could double down on the crazy and not suffer a consequence yet.”

“Normally what happens is, when there’s crazy in a party, people try to soften it,” said Espinoza, former Western States Director of the Democratic National Committee. “In this case, they saw it worked for Trump so they think it’ll work for them.”

Texas was an independent republic for nearly a decade until 1845. With the coronavirus pandemic raging, the 2020 Texas Republican Party convention was held virtually and degenerated into a leadership struggle. But it also featured platform language declaring, “Texas retains the right to secede from the United States should a future president and congress change our political system from a constitutional republic to another system.”

That caveat about governmental system was dropped in the 2022 edition, which seeks a referendum for voters “to determine whether or not” their state “should reassert its status as an independent nation.”

Texas’ rightward push was clear in ways beyond the party platform. Delegates booed Republican Sen. John Cornyn — who has held his seat for 20 years and got more 2020 votes statewide than Trump did — for working on bipartisan legislation seeking to impose modest limits on guns. Those efforts began following last month’s mass shooting in the Texas town of Uvalde, which killed 19 elementary students and two teachers.

Still, such state convention outbursts also aren’t new. Republican Gov. Rick Perry was booed in 2012 for praising fellow GOPer and Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, who was then locked in a primary battle for an open Senate seat with Ted Cruz. Some delegates also in the past walked out of a speech by then-Republican Texas House Speaker Joe Straus.

“It shows you how much QAnon may not be an outlier in the Republican Party,” Espinoza said. “Some people are very susceptible to conspiracy theory, and that appears to be a higher percentage the deeper you go into the Republican Party of Texas.”

Copyright © 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, written or redistributed.

Related News

The collapse of a school in northern Nigeria leaves 22 students dead, officials say

Police say 22 students were killed when a school collapsed during morning classes in Nigeria

US appeals court says some NCAA athletes may qualify as employees under federal wage-and-hour laws

Recommended.

1 killed, 1 injured after shooting breaks out after vigil for former Prince George's Co. students killed in car crash

Lingering showers before partly sunny Saturday afternoon

Historic DC church for sale in Dupont Circle at $5M asking price

Related categories:.

Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

Texas GOP Educational Platform Opposes Teaching Critical Thinking Skills 734 --> 734

Texas gop educational platform opposes teaching critical thinking skills more login, texas gop educational platform opposes teaching critical thinking skills.

• Informative
• Interesting

Beat them don't teach them! ( Score: 5 , Informative)

Re:Beat them don't teach them! ( Score: 5 , Insightful)

How about letting teachers beat parents instead? It might actually be more effective.

Re: ( Score: 3 )

"We recommend that local school boards and classroom teachers be given more authority to deal with disciplinary problems. Corporal punishment is effective and legal in Texas. "

Note that this is almost directly in contradiction to their other stated belief:

Juvenile Daytime Curfew - We strongly oppose Juvenile Daytime Curfews. Additionally, we oppose any official entity from detaining, questioning and/or disciplining our children without the consent of a child’s parent.

The "American Identity Patriotism and Loyalty" part is also somewhat at odds with their notion of parental rights always trumping the state's.

Re:Beat them don't teach them! ( Score: 4 , Informative)

It is unpatriotic not to consent to state workers detaining and disciplining your child?

No. Their support of corporal punishment shows that they support the State in physically disciplining children, which may be against the parents wishes and/or beliefs. Then, in the Juvenile Daytime Curfew clause they say they oppose "any official entity from . . . disciplining our children without . . . consent." It is either hypocritical or just plain stupid.

Other language in the document implies that they favor parental rights over State rights (except for the corporal punishment). Then, in the Patriotism clause, they say that all students should swear fealty to both the United States and Texas. They don't specifically say that legal resident non-citizen children should be exempt from this, and it's possible that some Republican's may believe as much, but it is conspicuously absent. Furthermore, as a non-native Texan (who lived in Texas for several years), I'm not sure I would want my child to have to pledge allegiance to the Texas flag, and even if I did, I think that given the rest of the language in the document, I find the idea of the State compelling such a pledge somewhat (but not totally) incongruous.

Gov't for you ( Score: 4 , Funny)

That's just one more reason (as if more were needed) that government shouldn't be allowed in business, education, health care, money, etc., oh well, eventually the society will be so dumb, it wouldn't care about anything but their daily bowl of cheese grits or whatever they eat and a 12 hours of American Football on all channels daily. Eventually... oh wait.

Re:Gov't for you ( Score: 4 , Interesting)

The failure on your part to understand that the Romans only became as wealthy as they did because they allowed ... free trade.

In the reality that the rest of us live in, the Romans became filthy rich when they conquered the rich civilized nations of the eastern Mediterranean.

That influx of ill-gotten gain played a key role in the downfall of the Republic. (Private armies aren't cheap.)

I understand your confusion, you have been taught that and you believe that an empire can be successful by stealing from others, this is consistent with your believe that in the capitalism 'rich steal from the poor', none of it makes any sense, but I understand your believe structure, which is what you have been taught. You should try and research this subject a bit.

it's easier to think what someone telks you to ... ( Score: 5 , Interesting)

“ Sometimes when faced with problems that are confusing and troubling it is easier to think what someone tells you to think , particularly something that touches a deep and dark nerve in your nature, rather than carry the burden and ambiguity of struggling with the facts and thinking for yourself. Repeating a party line is a shorthand way of avoiding real thought. And the predators are always there to take advantage of it. They welcome trouble and often foment crisis in order to advance their agendas.”

“Anyone can be misled by a clever person, and no one likes to readily admit that they have been had. It is a sign of character and maturity to realize this, and admit you were deceived, and to demand change and reform. But some people cannot do this, even when the facts of the deception are revealed. It seems as though the more incorrect that the truth shows them to be, the louder and more strident they become in shouting down and denying the reality of the situation. And anyone who denies their perspective becomes 'the other,' someone to be feared and hated, shunned and eliminated, one way or the other.”

This was cited here http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article35340.html from another website...

Totally understandable. ( Score: 5 , Insightful)

Re:totally understandable. ( score: 5 , insightful).

not a troll; the poster speaks the raw truth. hard to swallow if you are on the other side, but it really is true.

current republicans are the poster children of doublespeak.

clinging to 2000 year old mythology does not help their case, either. its part of the problem, in fact.

modern man needs to pull himself out of this religious stupor. the more you try to keep this myth and 'us vs them' mentality going, the more you set us all, collectively, back.

the word 'progress' is in progressive. note that progressive movement is 100% opposite of the current republican and so-called conservative movements. some of us want to move forward while quite a lot of americans are hell-bent (heh) on keeping us back in the middle ages.

Of course. If one is able to embrace the nonsense of religion, any other lie is second nature.

Re:Totally understandable. ( Score: 4 , Informative)

Critical thinking ( score: 5 , insightful).

It's that ability to look beyond dogma, hyperbole, straw-man arguments, etc. and make your own decisions. Small wonder anyone in political power would rigorously fight people learning to think for themselves, they may find their beliefs change over time and switch party affiliation or (horrors) become independents - evaluating candidates based upon their ability to get things done, rather than what they like to talk about at campaign events.

Re:Critical Thinking ( Score: 5 , Insightful)

It's that ability to look beyond dogma, hyperbole, straw-man arguments, etc. and make your own decisions.

And, you know, read a paragraph.

Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

Re:Critical Thinking ( Score: 5 , Informative)

Funny that, you didn't highlight the other part of it which is just as much relevant if not more.

Re:Critical Thinking ( Score: 4 , Insightful)

We oppose the teaching of [..] programs [..] have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

That is what the paragraph says when you cut away the jargon, so let's discuss the substance, not terms.

Lacking faith in their faith? ( Score: 5 , Interesting)

They clearly don't have much faith in their faith if they fear that something as simple as thinking would put it in danger.

LOL! ( Score: 5 , Insightful)

Misleading summary ( score: 5 , insightful).

The actual quote is:

It sounds like "Outcome-Based Education" is that you aren't graded by how many hours you spend learning or working, but by the output you can produce. So they're saying you could use this to brainwash students based on the teacher's political agenda? IE, at the end of the class you will show you understand his views, and why everyone else is wrong. When you put it like that, it doesn't seem so bad...

Of course, what they're really saying is don't challenge our creationist views with your fancy logic. And that's sad.

Re:Misleading Summary ( Score: 5 , Insightful)

Real learning begins when the children leave off what they are fed and begin research of their own, "Why does this work/not work? Where do I find the information." Critical Thinking opens that door.

Re:Misleading Summary ( Score: 5 , Informative)

Alarmingly, they openly state that they oppose schools teaching critical thinking, on the grounds that it may challenge 'student's fixed beliefs'

The PDF you quoted (ellipses and emphasis mine) :

We oppose the teaching of...programs...which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs

The Texas GOP does not oppose "critical thinking skills" that may challenge religious beliefs, they oppose things named "critical thinking skills" but are really just a packaged curriculum designed specifically to challenge religious beliefs. Basically all they're saying in this quote is they don't want schools teaching that there is no Jesus. They do not oppose critical thinking skills, just things called critical thinking skills so their opponents can create headlines just such as this. This article is an alarmist red herring. Spun back around, it would be like the Texas GOP creating a program called "Fluffy Cuddly Bunnies" that uses Outcome Based Education, and tests students to make sure they've achieved the outcome of professing their faith in Jesus. Then you came along and say, "I oppose this program" they can write articles with the summary "Myrdos2 wants to impose atheism on all students, hates fluffy cuddly bunnies and is so ignorant that he opposes rigorous testing to make sure our kids are learning!" Disclaimer: I am an agnostic atheist and not a Republican. But I don't like misleading articles that use linguistic games to make people look like they said things they didn't.

wow. ( Score: 5 , Insightful)

I barely made it through the first page of that thing. If I didn't know better, I would call it a poe's law prank.

Seriously, how does insanity like that shit (really "sanctity of life crom fertilization to grave"? The authority of the family "defined as a man and a woman", and all that rhetoric? Wow. Heil hitler fuckers. Oh wait, this is the us. "Praise jesus!". My bad.) Manage to get taken seriously in a country *FOUNDED* on independent thought and the outright refusal of state sponsored religion?

Holy fuck batman, joker's got a jackhammer jesus dildo!

Seriously. What. The. Fuck.

Re:wow. ( Score: 5 , Insightful)

"sanctity of life crom fertilization to grave"

Actually, it's only from the moment of conception to the moment of birth. After that, tough shit if you starve, die from a treatable disease, get shot by someone from a higher social class, die in a war for the benefit of the rich and powerful, or get executed for a crime you didn't commit.

Trollish summary ( Score: 5 , Insightful)

If you actually look at the platform, the Texas Republicans' opposition is to the Outcome Based Education [wikipedia.org] philosophy. Proponents of this methodology sometimes label it "critical thinking skills" since after all, who doesn't favor that? The summary submitter (and about half of the comments at this point) fall into the same logical fallacy as "If you oppose the PATRIOT Act, you must oppose patriotism!", ironically due to a lack of critical thinking skills...

Summary is more accurate than parent's response ( Score: 5 , Informative)

If you actually look at the platform, the Texas Republicans' opposition is to the Outcome Based Education philosophy.

If one were to actually read the platform, one would note that the Texas Republicans -- and this is a direct quote -- "oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs".

They claim -- as justification -- that all those things are "simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning)", which is factually incorrect (OBE is essentially an approach to the management of education, while critical thinking skills are a skill area; the two are completely orthogonal) but independently of their justification , they do, in fact, state that they oppose teaching critical thinking skills.

And, looking beyond that, their further reason for opposing teaching all those supposed relabellings of OBE -- the potential to threaten students "fixed beliefs" -- is something that does not make sense for OBE at all (since OBE is content-neutral), but directly relevant to critical thinking skills (actual critical thinking skills, not any that would be a relabelling of OBE.)

You've eliminated an awful lot of the actual sentence that you are quoting without any indication that you have done so. The rest of that sentence contains "which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student's fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority."

Why did you stop reading in the middle of the sentence? You're deliberately ignoring a large part of the entire statement. A part that contains significant meaning, I would add. In other words, your claim that it is

Re:Trollish summary ( Score: 5 , Insightful)

They are explicitly saying that they oppose this HOTS/OBE/whatever because, I quote, it "have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority." I don't care what OBE is. It may well be that it can and should be challenged on common sense grounds. But these dicks are saying that they're challenging it because it doesn't let them indoctrinate their kids.

I want kids, not pets ( Score: 5 , Insightful)

Alarmingly, they openly state that they oppose schools teaching critical thinking, on the grounds that it may challenge 'student's fixed beliefs' and undermine 'parental authority.'

As a parent, I don't want complete unquestioned authority over my kids' thoughts. I've made a long-standing habit of flat out lying to my kids and getting them to catch me in it. When one of them says, "Dad, I think you just made that up", then I think I've done my job as a parent.

That doesn't mean I want complete, unquestioned disrespect. To channel my dad, it's my house and my rules. But I fully expect to have to defend my opinions to my kids. Even if they ultimately disagree with my point of view, at least I've taught them why I believe the way I do. And if I'm not able to satisfactorily explain and defend those opinions, maybe I need to reconsider them.

You people are missing the forest for the trees! ( Score: 5 , Interesting)

Keep reading! You can find the PDF here [amazonaws.com] via the Texas GOP Convention site [texasgop.org]. I had to track it down myself because it was so unbelievable; it seemed like Huff Po had fallen for a juvenile prank.

We affirm that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society and contributes to the breakdown of the family unit. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle, in public policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We believe there should be no granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin. Additionally, we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction or belief in traditional values.

I just goes on

Voter Rights Act – We urge that the Voter Rights Act of 1965 codified and updated in 1973 be repealed and not reauthorized.

We urge amendment of the Internal Revenue Code to allow a religious organization to address issues without fear of losing its tax-exempt status. We call for repeal of requirements that religious organizations send the government any personal information about their contributors.

We support adoption of American English as the official language of Texas and of the United States.

It covers everything from banning red light cameras, opposing mandatory animal identification, and opposing Federal highways through Texas to rubbing salt in wounds like the restoration of plaques honoring the Confederate Widow’s Pension Fund to the Texas Supreme Court building. No wonder these people are so upset. They're beset on all sides by people who want to speak Spanish or burn American flags or say that gay bashing is bad or let African Americans and Hispanic Americans vote. You know, people who don't want to say "under god" in the pledge of allegiance, or who think that religious monuments shouldn't be erected on Federal land. Maybe they should feel under assault, people who think like they do are dying off because they just don't make bigots like they used to.

Re:You people are missing the forest for the trees ( Score: 5 , Informative)

I've never understood why divorce gets so much less attention than gay marriage from these people. It's an order of magnitude more "threatening" to marriage, yet the platform gives divorce all of 2 lines. The gay bits total 26 lines--actually more than that if you include things like an oblique Boy Scouts reference.

Anyway, you some of the best parts (emphasis mine):

Immunizations All adult citizens should have the legal right to conscientiously choose which vaccines are administered to themselves or their minor children without penalty for refusing a vaccine. We oppose any effort by any authority to mandate such vaccines or any medical database that would contain personal records of citizens without their consent.

Sex Education – We recognize parental responsibility and authority regarding sex education. We believe that parents must be given an opportunity to review the material prior to giving their consent. We oppose any sex education other than abstinence until marriage.

Controversial Theories – We support objective teaching and equal treatment of all sides of scientific theories. We believe theories such as life origins and environmental change should be taught as challengeable scientific theories subject to change as new data is produced. Teachers and students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind.

Traditional Principles in Education – We support school subjects with emphasis on the Judeo-Christian principles upon which America was founded and which form the basis of America’s legal, political and economic systems. We support curricula that are heavily weighted on original founding documents, including the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, and Founders’ writings.

Judeo-Christian Nation – As America is a nation under God founded on Judeo-Christian principles, we affirm the constitutional right of all individuals to worship in the religion of their choice. [ed: note the non sequitur]

Traditional Military Culture – To protect our serviceman and women and ensure that America's Armed Forces remain the best in the world, we affirm the timelessness of those values, the benefits of traditional military culture and the incompatibility of homosexuality with military service .

To be fair it's not universally awful; some of their positions are somewhat reasonable:

Internet Access - We support a free and open internet -- free from intrusion, censorship, or control by government or private entities. Due to the inherent benefit of anonymity, the anonymity of users is not to be compromised for any reason, unless consented by the user; or by court order. We also oppose any mandates by the government to collect and retain records of our internet activity.

Still, there's sure a lot of crazy in there.

A "different" Critical Thinking Skills ( Score: 4 , Insightful)

Re:breathless summary by the clueless ( score: 4 , insightful).

As usual Slashdot puts up any and all propaganda that makes anyone but radical leftists look like lunatics.

The liberals did take a good page out of 1984 by learning how to warp and manipulate language to fit their own agenda. For example, relabel the same old provably ineffective (or intentionally worse than ineffective) teaching techniques as "logic" or "critical thinking". Now all of the sudden anyone who opposes the twisted and mangled brainwashing that is labeled "logic" or "critical thinking" is instantly a right-wing extremist Nazi who needs to be "volunteered" for a good liberal "reeducation sensitivity training course".

Re: ( Score: 3 , Informative)

Propaganda? The summary comes straight from the policy guideline document.

Knowledge-Based Education - We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student's fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

Re:Breathless summary by the clueless ( Score: 5 , Insightful)

"We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) "

So, class, do "they" oppose all Higher Order Thinking Skills or just those that are relabeled Outcome Based Education? Where do you suppose "they" would have put the period if the goal of the sentence was to portray opposition to all HOTS?

Use your critical thinking skills and reading comprehension. Once you figured it out and come to terms with the fact that it's doesn't actually say what the trolls want you to think it says, you may go to recess.

As a bonus, you can write a few paragraphs discussing what it says about Slashdot that most everyone is so ready to believe what the original poster wanted them to believe.

Only to a neanderthal are "higher order thinking skills" considered "bullshit"

Re: ( Score: 3 , Insightful)

If by "neanderthal" you mean "genius on the level of Albert Einstein", then perhaps you'll begin to understand what he's saying.

What he's saying is that "Higher Order Thinking Skills" (note the capital letters and cute initialism) are not actually higher order thinking skills, much like the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" is neither democratic nor a republic.

Re:Breathless summary by the clueless ( Score: 5 , Interesting)

he doesn't mean that "higher order thinking skills" are bullshit.. he said that the terms "higher order thinking skills" "logic" "critical thinking" and others have been coopted by the left as compliance with their ideology. largely, he's correct, but the neocon right does this too in their institutions. it's too bad really.. having real, age appropriate logic and critical thinking skills classes in every grade would go a long way to fix the problems we have. they would give a higher level bullshit filter to every citizen for use in detecting propaganda.

Funny thing is, I think the far right would have just as much a problem with "higher order thinking skills" as they appear to have with "Higher Order Thinking Skills", especially given the part at the end, "... and have the purpose of challenging the student's fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority." I think that last part is why anyone more towards the middle of the political spectrum might misinterpret what the GOP was explicitly saying and might legitimately believe that between the lines, the GOP really is opposing critical thinking skills. Can't have the littl'uns questionin' authority or back-talkin' their Momma and Daddy.

Comment removed ( Score: 5 , Insightful)

i'm a liberal and i agree with your point. it's just impossible to codify "critical thinking," even before you add the realities of education: overworked, underpaid and sub-meritorious teachers (btw, i think these problems are endemic to our society; privatization/voucherification will mostly just let parents choose among desired flavors of substandard nutjobbery) who will inevitably use a mix of personal biases and bureaucratic checklists to evaluate "criticalness."

unfortunately, the gop rejects science pretty much as an axiom (science != engineering, though they're both great), and this isn't new, see e.g. hayek's why i am not a conservative . i think that doing a good job of teaching science is the almost the only way to get to real critical thinking. it's not easy, and i don't think the Ds could manage it either, but from what i can see the gop just throws it out immediately.

i can't help thinking that we're just fucked.

and i recommend that everyone read the linked gop pamphlet. it's hilarious in its populist pandering; lines like ``We strongly oppose the listing of the dune sage brush lizard either as a threatened or an endangered species." are almost onion-like. yes, i'm sure that the dems' pamphlets are also full of silliness, but this is the exhibit of the day.

Re:Breathless summary by the clueless ( Score: 4 , Funny)

Down with the dune sage brush lizard!

Not sure why you managed to veer off in to global warming but lets get all scientific and start out really simply.

Would you conceed that there is a possibility that there might be consequences to releasing significant amounts of CO2 in to Earth's atmosphere, or Methane, another even worse green house gas. I'm not saying they are even bad effects but would you conceed there might be effects.

"Bush spent roughly the same amount of money that Clinton did on NASA."

NASA hasn't been particularly about "scientific

Questioning everything is merely the beginning of the journey of scientific knowledge.

The point of the process is that every acting theory should have a well-defined set of failure criteria, result data from previous experiments, and steps to reproduce the results should anyone care to challenge the theory. Anyone is free to question the body of results so far, but to be taken seriously at all, he/she must provide a new body of result data which contradicts the theory and steps to reproduce it so others can verify it.

The problem is that most of the time you see a scientific theory in the news, the GOP stops at the first step - questioning anything that conflicts with their worldview. If global warming or evolution or gravitation or relativity or radioactive decay rates or whatever else have holes, I'm sure at a loss in finding the experimental data from people trying to disprove them. Sure, in some cases, it's a specialized- or trivial- enough spec of the natural world that no one bothers to exert much effort to discount existing theory, but are you suggesting global warming is without challengers?

I don't think I can go longer than a few months without seeing some new finding that "disproves" global warming, only to be discredited later. The reason public discourse has now shifted to how severe the results of global warming may be is because the (very well-funded) groups trying to disprove global warming have nothing to show for their work, and perhaps they have thrown in the towel.

READ MY POST ( Score: 3 , Insightful)

Someone disagrees or misunderstands you and your immediate reaction is to should obscenities and abuse. What sort of education did you get? You obviously weren't taught any manners.

Re:READ MY POST ( Score: 5 , Insightful)

I'm guessing he was taught who George Washington was and how to find the US, but little about applying critical thinking to a discussion. And he clearly prefers it that way.

Maybe he's right about "higher order thinking skills" being broadly applied as a label for general (and not well tested) education reforms; I wouldn't know. But encouraging children to challenge their fixed beliefs is crucial in my books, even if it potentially undermines parental authority (speaking as a parent myself). Any party that explicitly discourages that should be kept well away from positions of authority.

Re:READ MY POST ( Score: 4 , Interesting)

I agree, if my kids don't rebel when they become teenagers, I'm doing something wrong.

Besides, school will teach my kids how to read and write. I will teach them how to communicate.

School will teach my kids how to add and multiply and I will teach them how to calculate.

School will teach my kids about the past. I will teach them about the future.

And school will teach my kids about natual history and science. Maybe not, I will have to teach my kids science.

Re:Breathless summary by the clueless ( Score: 5 , Informative)

Sadly, what you just said has nothing to do with the actual platform document. They say quite explicitly that they oppose the teaching of "critical thinking skills". That's not the name of some taxpayer funded propaganda campaign, nor is it some modern "left-wing pseudo-intellectual" idea. That's a standard, widely used term that has been around for many many decades, and simply refers to the idea that you shouldn't accept whatever someone tells you without considering it carefully. The fact that they consider it "a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education" shows just how wacky they are. There is nothing novel or experimental about it. Teaching children to think critically and question beliefs is exactly what good teachers have been doing for centuries, and has long been considered to be one of the essential goals of education.

And that is exactly what they don't want people doing, as they state very clearly. They say these curricula "have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs", and they consider that a very bad thing. They want students to believe whatever they're told to believe, and never question it. In short, they support "a policy of teaching children to have a pavlovian "yessum massa!" response" to whatever the authority figures in their lives tell them, and how you can possibly twist that around in your mind and claim the complete opposite is a mystery to me.

They want students to believe whatever they're told to believe, and never question it.

I doubt it. I imagine they very much want Muslim students to question their beliefs. What you probably mean is that they want students to believe whatever Christian and conservative doctrine they're told and never question it.

slavewashing ( Score: 3 )

You are mostly right. The OP is also right. HOTS really is a left wing movement to indoctrinate the youth. If you research the idea it makes sense, its just the socratic method. If you look at the material privided, the training given teachers, and the example socratic questions (ironic that the teachers don't come up with them really), it really is a scheme to brainwash the public school worker bees towards the left. For instance one series of questions walks the students down the path to find (obviou

That explains your "Score:5, Informative". Good old Slashdot. I wonder why I even visit here anymore.

Because you replying to his signature and not to his actual actual content is a real hall mark for /. discussion culture? With your low numeric id, you're the living proof that /. always had it's share of idiots; sad as it is.

I just said that terms like "Higher order thinking skills" are a bunch of linguistic BULLSHIT attached to what is effectively a policy of teaching children to have a pavlovian "yessum massa!" response to politically correct buzzwords.

If you had bothered to consult any of the literature pertaining to the concepts you are so quick to condemn, you'd know that your entire take on higher-order thinking skills is incorrect. To elaborate, in the past, psychologists and educational specialists have found it meaningful to partition thought into two groups, referred to as higher and lower, both of which have been rather well characterized. For instance, N. R. F. Maier ("An aspect of human reasoning", British Journal of Psychology, vol. 24, pp. 144-155, 1933; "Reasoning in rats and human beings", The Psychological Review, vol. 44, pp. 365-378, 1937), who used the terms learned behavior and reproductive learning in lieu of lower-order thinking, found that learned behavior came from contiguous experiences with previous repetitions of the relationships involved in the learned behavior pattern, e.g., memorization of multiplication tables via repeated practice. In contrast, behavior integrations that are made up of two or more isolated experiences are qualitatively different, as they arise without previous repetition, and hence constitute "reasoning" or higher-order thinking. To phrase this in a slightly different manner, "reasoning", is used to solve problems that arise when behavior is blocked because a desired end is not immediately attainable. A good example of "reasoning", that is in line with this description, is when a student that knows how to compute the area of simple geometric shapes, e.g., triangles and squares, and can see how to apply that knowledge, without guidance, to solve for the area of general polygons; in that scenario, the student has happened upon a combination of events that may have never been previously associated. As a second instance, F. M. Newman ("Higher order thinking in teaching social studies: A rationale for the assessment of classroom thoughtfulness", Journal of Curriculum Studies, vol. 22, 41-56, 1990) defined higher- and lower-order thinking, in virtually the same manner as Maier, based upon observations in classrooms and interviews with teachers and department chairs. That is, lower-order thinking demands only routine or mechanical application of previously acquired information, e.g., inserting numbers into established formulas or regurgitating lists of facts. On the other hand, higher-order thinking "challenges the student to interpret, analyze, or manipulate information". Furthermore, he pointed out that since individuals differ in the kinds of problems they find challenging, higher-order thinking is relative: what one person finds challenging another may find elementary; as such, to determine the extent to which the individual is involved in higher-order thinking, one would presumably need to know something about that individual's background. Beyond the above two examples, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of articles in education and psychology journals that touch on higher-order thinking and critical thinking (which are sometimes used interchangeably). In all of the ones that I have skimmed over, the overwhelming consensus is that higher-order thinking skills are critical, logical, reflective, metacognitive, or creative processes activated when one encounters unfamiliar problems, uncertainties, questions or dilemmas, and certainly are not, as you erroneously stated, "linguistic bullshit" designed to indoctrinate students. Oh, and before you fly off the handle and claim that I'm some brainwashed, leftist moron, let me state that all of the higher-order thinking skills I learned when I was in primary school and at university prepared me rather well for publishing papers in the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Journal of the American Statistical Society, Biometrics, Biometrika, and Annals of Statistics, i.e., the top statistics journals.

Re: ( Score: 3 , Funny)

Clearly, you're not a "leftist moron," but I would like to know why you hate America and want the terrorists to win.

All you liberal communists are always exactly the same by brutally purging all dissent marching in rabid lockstep to the beat of the Kenyan Stalinist Nazi Pretender's jackboots against the empty hollow shell of the Consintution with everyone shouting: War is peas. Freedum is slavery. Ingorunts is strangth.

I"LL NEVER SUBMIT TO BEING FORCED TO MARRY ANOTHER MAN BECAUSE PRESIDENT HUSSEIN HAS YOUSERP

The liberals did take a good page out of 1984 by learning how to warp and manipulate language to fit their own agenda. For example, relabel the same old provably ineffective (or intentionally worse than ineffective) teaching techniques as "logic" or "critical thinking".

OBE isn't a teaching technique, its a system for evaluating educational systems and students within them (obviously, how you assess effectiveness will, in an ideal world, inform what approaches you take down the line, but OBE is not in itself a teaching technique.)

Critical thinking skills also aren't a teaching technique, they are a subject matter that is taught. They can be taught within a system that uses traditional input-based methods of system evaluation and traditional relative-performance based evaluations students, or within a system that uses objective outcomes-based measures for both systems and students, and by any of a variety of teaching techniques independently of the system of evaluation.

The only relation between the two is that OBE is an application of critical thinking skills to education, rather than equivalent to teaching critical thinking skills.

(OBE, incidentally, isn't particularly a liberal thing; its more of a "run education like an efficient business" thing. Ideologues on the left and right both often oppose it, because it threatens to reveal that practices driven by ideology that are sold as effective actually, objectively, are ineffective.)

Danger - Thoughtcrime Scene ( Score: 5 , Funny)

Don't you realize how dangerous it would be to have your fixed beliefs changed by:

a) A changing situation or

b) Your changing level of knowledge of the situation.

There is no telling where that could lead. It could lead to DANCING, for God's sake!

Maybe we should try to frame the problem here better and get out of this massive exercise in left wing/right wing trolling and counter trolling. This is not an interesting discussion so far. I often wonder is this deterioration in discourse:

A) Deterioration of /. discourse B) Deterioration and polarization of American discourse C) Deterioration of global discourse, and this Internet things is actually not all good D) Discourse has always sucked, its just getting really obvious thanks to the Internet

One problem with education is we've turned our system in to a bunch of monoliths where state school boards, political parties and ivory tower liberal intellectuals get to dictate cirriculum and teaching methods to millions of unfortunate kids who are locked in to public schools in a particular state and cant afford to escape to private schools with cirricula of their choice.

Believe it or not all of those kids are actually different. Some of them would probably thrive in Montessori schools learning higher order thinking skills (lower case since using HOTS is apparently trolling). They might go on to found Amazon and Google and become global leaders.

Some kids will be lucky to manage memorizing crap for 12 years, make it out with a diploma, and find a high paying career in factory work, burger flipping or roughnecking.

We do actually need more people with higher order thinking skills, intense creativity and the ability and willingness to challenge entrenched thinking. Competing for low wage factory jobs with the Chinese is not something to aspire to.

One solution I wish could happen would be to move education entirely online and let parents and, gasp!, children gravitate to the curricula and methodologies that work for them. The one key benefit is kids wouldn't be locked in to the rigid ideologies of the school boards and communites they happen to be stuck living in, whether it be left or right wing. The coolness of the Internet is people from all over the world can get together and do interesting things together, and escape the trap of locality.

The reason this wont work is, face it, public schools today are primarily to provide subsidized day care since the new economy demands both parents work full time unless they are affluent. The affluent then go to private schools. Schools are also there to socialize kids and you kind of need to lock them all in rooms together with authority figures dictating societal doctrine to do that. Actual dducation is at least third on the list if not lower.

And since this comment is already too long part II will be in a different post

The really fascinating issue in this submission to me is the part about schools doing things which challenge "'student's fixed beliefs' and undermine 'parental authority'"

Do we have to conceed that parents should have some control over the things their children are taught in public education?

Do we have to conceed that students should be allowed to have fixed beliefs which should go unchallenged by educators?

There is so much essence of civilization in these questions. On one hand you want to have some continuity in belief systems because they are an anchor for civilizations. If you completely throw them out and start over every generation it will be chaos. The Texas Republicans are advocating this continuity and its not totally unreasonable.

On the other hand, what happens when parents and students have belief systems that have gone totally rigid to the point of being dead or worst case gone, completely off the rails. Using education to maintain bad belief systems just because they are the prevailing belief system seems like a truly horrible idea.

I personally wrankle at the concept that this party platform seems to advocate locking children in to the belief system of their parents until they are 18. You ever wonder why kids tend to veer hard left when the hit college. Its because they are compensating for being locked in to the usually conservative belief systems of their aging parents, along with churches they were compelled to attend, and schools many of which are idealogically suffocating due to the often conservative tendencies of state and local school boards.

Seems to me there is a chance the idealogy being promoted in Texas might produce two divirgent sets of children.

A) Reactionary automatons who are going to go through life locked in to the ideaology they were indoctrinated in to as children and fear or hate everyone not adhering to it

B) Radicals who are going to reject everything the system attempted to indoctrinate in to them and probably try to blow up that system every chance they get.

The two group will eventually land on /. and proceed to troll the crap out of each other, like tonight.

Re:Breathless summary by the clueless ( Score: 5 , Funny)

an intolerant monoculture as the tenured elite in their ivory towers

Achievement unlocked: buzzword combo!

Has anyone ever actually seen a tower made of ivory? Where did that come from? The "tenured elite" at my small school with only 50,000 students worked in some pretty shitty offices. It would have been pretty sweet to go to class inside an ivory tower instead of the crappy linoleum-tiled brick cages we had the privilege of occupying. As long as they also had ivory elevators.

Good question. "In Judeo/Christian tradition, the term Ivory Tower is a symbol for noble purity. It originates with the Song of Solomon (7,4) ("Your neck is like an ivory tower") ....... From the 19th century it has been used to designate a world or atmosphere where intellectuals engage in pursuits that are disconnected from the practical concerns of everyday life. As such, it usually carries pejorative connotations of a wilful disconnect from the everyday world; esoteric, over-specialized, or even useless research" - wikipedia

Do not fool yourself: through the tenuring process your values will change and you will feel you are special (and by special I mean 'better' than the rest of 'normal' people).

Frankly, that sounds a lot like Wall Street, and the "financial elite". I'm trying to figure out how being valued for your knowledge and wisdom became a bad thing in this country.

LIBERALS! History's greatest monsters. Hitler was a liberal. Satan, too, is a liberal. As we all know since Hussein Obama was elected, Liberals (or "progressives" as they like to be called) sacrifice babies and drink their blood during the weekly satanic rituals they hold in the new, official, Sovereign Kenyan room of the white house. And that, folks, is why critical thinking skills need to be eliminated. Anything less, and you will let the Kenyan baby eating liberal progressives rule over you forever more. LIBERALS!

My problem is not liberal ideals (which are mostly good). It's the fact they don't live up to them. They claim "We are a pro-choice party," and then turn around and take away freedom of choice by banning sodas (New York), movie theater popcorn (effective 2013), and catastrophic insurance plans (under obamacare).

Hmmm. Or they say, "We oppose the killing of our fellow human beings in foreign wars," and then turn round and start new wars in Yemen, Libya, Syria. (I'm confused.)

and then turn round and start new wars in Yemen, Libya, Syria. (I'm confused.)

Damn, the liberals did that? I thought that was the Arabs. Wait.. unless the Arabs.. are liberals! We're all doomed!

Oh, please. If we're going to judge political parties based on their extremist fringes they both look equally absurd.

I think you attach too much meaning to ideology. It doesn't work that way. You can be a dweeb and nail everybody to the wall for being "hypocritical" but it's completely unproductive and ignores the fact that laws are passed by people who are elected by people, and are meant to address political demands. They know they're not being consistent and they don't care. Consistency is for restaurants and Nazis.

I'm sorry if you've misappropriated one slogan on one issue ("pro-choice") and decided to use it as some sort of predicate to judge every policy objective leftists have. There are any number or rightist slogans ("limited government", "fiscal responsibility", "sacredness of life") that are similarly fraught. That's just how it works -- healthy people don't join political movements for ideology, they join them to accomplish common goals through collective action.

And since when was Michael Bloomberg a liberal?

As a leftie, I still see some logic behind what the OP mentioned. Even though I do not agree with it (in fact, I find the last two paragraphs of attacks a bit offensive), I still find it odd that it was modded down as a troll.

Without context, it will sound like a red-team vs blue-team fight. I may need to read more to see where the specific contentious issues would be.

A bit OT, but some radical experiments in education are happening on the tech side -- udacity, coursera, etc. Not sure if they fall under 'progressive' (more like cool-techie-engineering solutions), and would be extremely disruptive to established interests both on the red and blue teams :)

And this is why the left in the US is completely being clobbered by the right. Too often insults, redefinitions and logical fallacies by the conservatives are met by "well, if I can figure out what they're really saying, we can maybe come to an agreement" by what amounts to the left. In other words, they're being nice in response to what is basically bullying.

Here's the problem: anyone who argues like the initial poster is not looking for a rational discourse, for an enlightening discussion, or even for a solution to a problem. They are merely looking to get enough people onto their side.

Definitely read up on the issue. But don't mistake the original post for an opening in a an honest discussion. It isn't.

The dems need to bring on a few bulldogs. Young people, millenial age maybe, who really couldnt give a damn about who they piss off. Who will call bull shit what it is, right to the faces that spew it. I mean congress would be mildly better than ones parents basement, so we dont have anything to lose.

a neo-statist approach

Actually, a statist approach would be a conservative approach. After all, that's exactly what conservative means.... conserving the current state, sticking to historical habits, etc. And again, you illustrate my point beautifully: no one's calling you on your bullshit redefinition of what it means to be conservative.

The left's intellectual foundation is the universities where most social science profs and their students have for four decades or more been left-leaning if not Marxist.

1) What's wrong with working at universities? 2) What's wrong with being left? 3) You're employing a tautology to imply a negative connotation with being left-leaning. In other words, you're demonizing your opposition as not even being able to have a valid opinion. 4) You have no idea what a Marxist is. As a matter of fact, you don't even know what a political center is.

Obama represents that tradition; he comes from the ivory tower culture, he thinks of the rural whites as "clinging to their guns and religion", and he brooks no disagreement.

Argument from assertion. Not to mention that "he brooks no disagreement" is a hilarious position to take after George "I'm the decider" Bush was never once challenged on anything by the conservative "small government" people.

, but if you spend some time in the Southwest and the western states, except for the Pacific coastal region, you find a persistent culture of leave me alone and I'll leave you alone.

Is that what you call people who fire gays for being gay, who try to tell people what to do in the bedroom, and who will also consider you a lesser human if you believe in the wrong book? There's a big difference between an economical and a social laissez-faire position.

Rightly or wrongly, this is what they want whether they admit it or not.

Now you're implying you know someone's "true" mind, even if it contradicts what they're saying or doing. In other words, you are making shit up about a person, just so that you can lump them in a particular group.

Some of our greatest thinkers in decades past came off the farm, grew up going to a one room schoolhouse, spent more time out of doors than in a library, and so forth, yet this didn't seem to hold them back.

Argument from example. For every Abe Lincoln, there was a Ben Franklin.

They developed a uniquely American kind of independent thinking relatively free from the peer pressure of the eastern university environment.

Argument from myth. American exceptionalism is just like English, German, French, Chinese, or even Icelandic exceptionalism: a post-hoc justification for uniqueness based on a mythical interpretation of an abstract origin story and national character creation.

Yeah. The only thing you're missing is the common insults. Although at this point, for some people, calling someone Marxist is exactly that.

Finally....

The opening post is an expression of anger and frustration at elements of our society who want to reprogram children to be more "open" to their particular world views.

I'm amazed that teaching critical thinking, as opposed to memorization, is now "reprogramming". Not to mention that I find your implication hilarious: that they were already programmed. In other words, you're just complaining that your programming is being overwritten with someone else's program.

To a hard-working academic, the last paragraph is deeply offensive, and serves no purpose in this debate other than provoking angry reactions.

As a hard-working academic, I recognize the people to whom he refers, and know that it is an accurate statement for a large and growing segment of academia. That they might be offended is fine, and I'm not because I know he's not talking about me. There is no constitutional right against being offended.

I've seen too many people get fired for not having the politically correct attitude of the day to not realize that if I don't agree with the majority I just keep my mouth shut, or speak anonymously.

I read the Wikipedia article you linked to and your depiction of it seems awfully far from what the article actually says. The tldr version of it is OBE=standardized testing. Where do you get the idea it is in any way related to kids not knowing where the US is on a map? Teachers could neglect to teach basic geography using traditional education systems just as easily.

Now go hit the 'ol Wikipedia on "Outcome Based Education".... I'll wait. For the impatient I'll summarize: This is just a re-run of the long running battles in the late '80s and early '90s over new age teaching methods/using our teachers and kids as lab animals to try radical 'progressive' new ideas in teaching how to be a good progressive doubleplus good thinker that knows everything about stopping mom from putting the trash in the wrong recycling bin but can't locate the US on a map or tell you who George

Explain away this one:

"Controversial Theories – We support objective teaching and equal treatment of all sides of scientific theories. We believe theories such as life origins and environmental change should be taught as challengeable scientific theories subject to change as new data is produced. Teachers and students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind."

There is no scientific controversy regardin

Where do you suggest ( Score: 3 )

That's easy. jmorris42 is using the false correlation that students being taught to question everything is leading to students not learning to an adequate skill level, ignoring the huge lack of education spending and censored, jingoistic misinformation being taught. Thus he is proposing instead that students are taught to never question anything told to them, no matter what that might be, or how correct or not it may be, to accept at face value everything they see, and to never make up their own mind on anything.

You get it all the time because your lack of actual logic and rational thinking makes it look like a troll.

I mean, you're argument almost always have come down to ad hom attacks.

No, it's the inflammatory language in your post that makes you a troll. It's obviously going to invoke hostile responses, which was possibly your intention.

If you have a valid point learn to make it like a reasonable grown-up. Otherwise your point will be discarded. Ever wonder why nobody listens to you IRL except those in your echo chamber? Well now you know.

I get this all the time. The definition of 'troll' seems to be 'anyone disagreeing with progressives' except it is also used on occasion to mod down the GNAA and other crap.

Except that you seem to seem to think that just because one stupid wave of "progressives" was wrong, no progressive approach is possible and teaching has to revert to the 19th century model of cramming bookfuls of facts mindlessly for the greater good of all. (If that's not what you have in mind, you failed to make it obvious, what with all those trolly references to "lefties" and "indoctrinating" etc.) You still haven't pointed out how having critical thinking skills is wrong for a student. Knowledge of informal logic, e.g, and proper reasoning skills to spot logical fallacies are immensely useful. The same goes for having an idea as to *how* science works, as opposed to just cramming the high-school digest of the results of past scientific works.

Uh, no.... Fascism arose as the opposition to communism. That's why a whole lot of commie-hating, good ole boys even thought it was a great idea at first.

Fascism arose as

competition

to communism.

It competed by co-opting some of the appealing economic ideas from communism, while promising to save the national ethnic identities that communism wished to erase.

Fascism and communism are both totalitarian ideologies that still have much in common despite their differences.

Think of the difference between the Catholicism and Protestantism. Similar theologies, yet still different enough that they waged many a war with each other.

Hey, another ad hom lie from CPU6502

Re:Religious fundamentalism ( Score: 5 , Insightful)

Re:religious fundamentalism ( score: 5 , informative).

The truth is, many in the GOP say they are disgusted by the neocons but they don't do anything to discourage or oppose them. Talk is cheap.

The fracture in the Republican party is between those who support the views of the "American Taliban" and the traditional plutocrats who merely want to exploit them to get elected. Neither group has any motivation to tell them to fuck off.

Are the summary and the title trolling? Or in other words RTFA. While the Texas Republican party isn't exactly an example of honesty and intelligence, in this case they are taking a stand against a particular unproven set of educational reforms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outcome-based_education [wikipedia.org] The buzz-words they are objecting to are so ill-defined, and in practice so slippery, that I would instead read this article as an attempt to claim the middle ground and portray the Democrats as out of touch with reality.

What's interesting about the platform is that they are using outcome-based education to smear critical thinking.

Especially interesting since OBE (in the form of NCLB) was one of their proud accomplishments a decade or so ago.

But a smart move, since everyone despises it now.

Re:Standing in the corner found effective. ( Score: 4 , Interesting)

Make them explain what they've done wrong and why it's wrong in writing. A 1-on-1 session too easily becomes a coddling session, especially if the kid is clever and emotionally manipulative. Forcing them to write essays critiquing their own behavior and only returning privileges when the essay is not only complete, but of sufficient quality, teaches critical thinking skills, morality, and grammar all at once.

It amazes me how many schools think that a fifteen minute detention is an effective form of discipline, how many parents who think that a time-out in the corner will teach their children right and wrong. Of course, this nonsensical form of discipline extends to adults, too; just look at the prison system.

What they're opposing are a specific series of programs that they claim don't teach real critical thinking.

"Critical thinking skills" are not a program, they are subject area of education. They falsely claim that that subject area of education is (and a number of other things, one or more of which may be a program, are) a relabelling of Outcome Based Education (which is a content-neutral approach to managing education.)

They claim further that they oppose all those supposed relabellings of Outcome Based Educ

There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.

Related Links Top of the: day , week , month .

• 392 comments 2024 is the Biggest Election Year in History
• 293 comments Political Polarization Toned Down Through Anonymous Online Chats
• 283 comments Trump Promises He'd Commute the Life Sentence of 'Silk Road' Founder Ross Ulbricht
• 267 comments US Conservatives Are Trying To Kill Government's Top Cyber Security Agency
• 265 comments US Presidential Candidate RFK Jr. Announces Plan to Back Dollar With Bitcoin, End Bitcoin Taxes

Slashdot Top Deals

I don't have any use for bodyguards, but I do have a specific use for two highly trained certified public accountants. -- Elvis Presley

Get the Reddit app

/r/philosophy: the portal for public philosophy

Texas critical of critical thinking

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

round table

‘The Justices Dropped This Bomb’: Three Legal Experts on a Shocking Supreme Court Term

By Kate Shaw ,  William Baude and Stephen I. Vladeck

Ms. Shaw is a Times contributing Opinion writer. Mr. Baude is a professor at the University of Chicago Law School. Mr. Vladeck is a professor at Georgetown University Law Center.

Kate Shaw, a contributing Opinion writer, hosted a written online conversation with Will Baude, a law professor at the University of Chicago, and Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at Georgetown and the author of “ The Shadow Docket : How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic,” to reflect on the remarkable end to the Supreme Court term. This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Kate Shaw: This Supreme Court term ended on a shocking note with Trump v. United States . I didn’t expect Trump to win this case, and I definitely didn’t expect the court to issue such a sweeping opinion, broadly insulating ex-presidents from criminal liability and fundamentally reshaping the relationship of the presidency to the law.

We’ve now had a week to digest the opinion — what are you still puzzling over, and what most stands out to you?

William Baude: I don’t think the outcome was a surprise, given the arguments and the breadth of the D.C. Circuit opinion , which rejected any claim of executive immunity rather than focusing on the specifics of the Trump case. But I remain confused about what the difference is between Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s quite sensible opinion and the much more sprawling majority opinion — Justice Barrett claims to agree with most of the majority opinion, but I don’t know if we should take that at face value.

Stephen Vladeck: I continue to be baffled by both the really problematic discussion of which evidence can and can’t be used even for prosecutable conduct and more generally the remarkable endorsement not just of broad executive power but of preclusive executive power (those not subject to any limitations by other branches, a variation of which was known as the commander in chief override during the George W. Bush administration).

Shaw: Steve, I’m wondering what remains of United States v. Nixon . Almost exactly 50 years ago, the court unanimously ruled against the president in that case. How do you think Nixon’s arguments against producing the Oval Office tapes would have fared under the logic of this opinion?

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Trump teases his VP pick timing and names 4 finalists

Former President Donald Trump on Friday said that he'd like to announce his vice presidential running mate next week, potentially during the Republican National Convention, and named four key allies as potential picks.

"I’d love to do it during the convention, which would be you know, or just slightly before the convention, like Monday, love to do it on Tuesday or Wednesday, actually, but for a lot of complex reasons that you people understand, pretty much don’t do that," Trump told "The Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Show."

Trump has been in no rush to reveal his running mate , more than happy to cede the spotlight to the Democratic Party, which is embroiled in the fallout of President Joe Biden's rough debate performance. The former president has a rally scheduled for Saturday evening in western Pennsylvania.

Trump indicated, as NBC News has reported previously, that his VP short list includes GOP Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida and JD Vance of Ohio and North Dakota GOP Gov. Doug Burgum. He also named Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., as having been "fierce and great" during a recent television appearance.

"We have a very good bench,” the former president said.

He also shed light on the vetting process, calling it a "highly sophisticated version of 'The Apprentice,'" referring to the popular reality TV show Trump hosted in the 2000s.

Still, Trump described his decision-making process as, "ultimately ... more of an instinct."

The former president also reiterated his belief that Biden will continue to forge ahead with his re-election bid despite calls from some congressional Democrats for him to drop out.

He added that Vice President Kamala Harris would be a weaker opponent to defeat in the general election than Biden, saying, “I think that in many ways, she may be easier than him. And perhaps I’m wrong, but I’ve been pretty good at this stuff over the years."

"I think you’d have a very big problem in the Democrat Party if it was somebody other than her,” Trump added.

Eighteen Democratic lawmakers in the last two weeks have called for Biden to drop out of the presidential race following a poor debate performance against Trump last month.

His appearance on the radio show comes just days before Republicans are set to host their national convention and formally nominate Trump to be the GOP presidential nominee in Milwaukee.

Alexandra Marquez is a politics reporter for NBC News.

Jillian Frankel is a 2024 NBC News campaign embed.

5 House Democrats have called for Biden to drop out of the 2024 race. What we know.

U.S. Rep. Angie Craig, D-Minn., became the fifth House Democrat to call for President Joe Biden to exit the 2024 race Saturday, joining Texas Rep. Lloyd Doggett , Massachusetts Rep. Seth Moulton, Illinois Rep. Mike Quigley and  Arizona Rep. Raúl Grijalva .

Biden has faced growing pressure to end his reelection campaign since his first debate against former President Donald Trump June 27. His raspy voice, verbal stumbles and sinking poll numbers prompted panic within his party the president has tried to calm over the last week. But after his defiant post-debate interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos aired Friday, even more Democrats are questioning his viability as a candidate.

Earlier this week, Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey became the first Democratic governor to ask Biden to reevaluate his 2024 campaign and Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., reportedly began organizing a group of Democratic senators to  ask Biden to drop out .

More: 'I'm the nominee': Biden calls out Democrats pushing for him to withdraw from election

The Democratic representatives who have already publicly asked the president to bow out of the race hail from different parts of the country. Here is what we know about them:

Lloyd Doggett of Texas

Doggett, 77, became the first Democratic lawmaker to break with the president and party line when he called for Biden to make way for a "new generation of leaders" Tuesday.

"President Biden saved our democracy by delivering us from Trump in 2020," he said in a statement Tuesday. "He must not deliver us to Trump in 2024."

The progressive Democrat is the most senior member of the Texas congressional delegation and has represented parts of Austin for nearly three decades since assuming office in 1995.

Raúl Grijalva of Arizona

The day after Doggett's call for Biden to step aside, Grijalva told The New York Times that Democrats need to "put up a fight" against Trump and that Biden should exit the 2024 race.

“What he needs to do is shoulder the responsibility for keeping that seat — and part of that responsibility is to get out of this race,” Grijalva said in an interview with the Times.

Grijalva, 76, is a progressive Arizona Democrat who represented the state's third district for 20 years. In 2022, he won election to serve its seventh district, which includes parts of Tucson, Yuma, Nogales and Phoenix.

Seth Moulton of Massachusetts

Moulton, 45, questioned Biden's ability to beat Trump this November in a statement released Wednesday, but went a step further when he called on Biden to end his bid for the White House Thursday.

"President Biden has done enormous service to our country, but now is the time for him to follow in one of our founding father, George Washington's footsteps and step aside to let new leaders rise up and run against Donald Trump," Moulton said in an interview with WBUR .

Moulton is a former Marine Corps officer and a moderate member of the Democratic party. He has represented parts of Massachusetts's north shore since 2015.

Mike Quigley of Illinois

After Biden's interview on ABC News Friday, Quigley spoke on air with MSNBC's Chris Hayes and called for Biden to bow out of the race.

“Mr. President, your legacy is set. We owe you the greatest debt of gratitude. The only thing that you can do now to cement that for all time and prevent utter catastrophe is to step down and let someone else do this," Quigley said.

Quigley, 65, has represented the north side of Chicago and the city's western suburbs since winning a special election in 2009. He is known for his ardent support of Ukraine and has been described as a moderate with a "progressive bent."

Angie Craig of Minnesota

Craig's statement Saturday followed Biden's ABC interview that aired the night prior. She said while she respected Biden's decades of public service, the stakes are too high in the election against Trump for him to remain in the race.

"If we truly believe that Donald Trump and MAGA Republicans must be stopped, there is only a small window left to make sure we have a candidate best equipped to make the case and win," Craig said. "This future of our country is bigger than any one of us. It’s up to the President from here.”

Craig, 52, is a former journalist and businesswoman. She is the state's first openly LGBTQ+ member of the state's legislature. Craig has represented Minnesota's Twin Cities suburbs and southwest rural areas since 2019.

Rachel Barber is a 2024 election fellow at USA TODAY, focusing on politics and education. Follow her on X, formerly Twitter, at @rachelbarber_

• KSAT Insider
• KSAT Connect
• Entertainment

Trump heads to Pennsylvania for pre-convention rally as VP announcement looms

Jill Colvin

Associated Press

NEW YORK – Donald Trump will have one last chance Saturday to unveil his vice presidential pick on a rally stage before the Republican National Convention kicks off in Milwaukee next week.

Trump's rally in western Pennsylvania, at the Butler Farm Show just outside Pittsburgh, comes as the former reality TV star and tabloid hound continues to tease his pick, working to drum up maximum attention and hype.

Recommended Videos

With President Joe Biden's reelection campaign and the Democratic Party engulfed in crisis over a dismal debate performance that has sparked calls for him to step aside, Trump has been keeping mostly out of the spotlight , making only a few public appearances over the last two weeks.

But that hasn't stopped him from feeding speculation.

“It’s like a highly sophisticated version of ‘The Apprentice,’” he said in a radio interview Friday afternoon, referring to the show he once hosted that featured him firing contestants on camera.

Trump has made clear in recent days that his preference is to dramatically reveal his pick live at the convention — something the ratings-obsessed former president has said would make the proceedings more “interesting” and “exciting.”

“I’d love to do it during the convention ... or just slightly before the convention, like Monday,” he said in an interview Friday on “The Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Show.”

Other opportunities have come and gone.

At a rally Tuesday night at his Doral golf club , he at one point marveled at the number of reporters in attendance.

“I think they probably think I’m going to be announcing that Marco is going to be vice president,” he said of Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, a top contender, who was sitting in the front row.

Excerpts of his speech released by his campaign that night included the line, “So tonight, I am officially” — ending the sentence there. And his campaign has sent frequent fundraising emails like one with the subject line “Will I announce my VP pick in 60 mins?” before he spoke.

Saturday’s venue, in a critical battleground state, sits about an hour from the border with Ohio, home to Sen. JD Vance, one of the presumptive nominee’s top contenders — which had sparked another round of speculation.

But none of the men who are considered Trump's top contenders — Vance, Rubio and North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum — are expected to attend the rally, according to two people familiar with the schedule who, like others, spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the plans.

Could he reenact ‘The Apprentice’ on a convention stage?

Most presumptive major party nominees have chosen their running mates before their respective conventions began. But both Ronald Reagan in 1980 and George H.W. Bush in 1988 waited to announce their picks at the party gatherings.

Trump has repeatedly acknowledged the challenges of waiting until the last possible moment, saying, “it makes it easier" to break the news ahead of time. But he has also spoken wistfully of the “old days" and the attention a grand unveiling would bring.

There are logistical challenges that come with a late announcement. The future pick will need to deliver the most important speech of their career at the convention Wednesday night as they accept the party's nomination. They'll also need to clear their schedule for rallies, events and debate preparations.

Some Trump allies have been encouraging him to wait until the convention nonetheless.

“RNC should make first night of the convention an Apprentice," former Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal posted on X. “VP live show. Trump could fire each contender not chosen one at a time.”

To that end, the RNC made a change to its rules Thursday, which is expected to be adopted Monday, that will make it easier for Trump to announce at the last minute.

Trump has also raised the idea of waiting until later in the week and pushing the announcement, he told the hosts, to Tuesday or Wednesday.

Trump has spent months now testing the field, assessing how they perform on television, at fundraisers and on rally stages. Several, including Burgum and Vance, joined him at his criminal hush money trial in New York. Others were there at the debate last month, where Biden's disastrous performance upended his campaign, leading to widespread calls for him to step aside in favor or a younger candidate.

The crisis embroiling Democrats has given Trump little incentive to announce his pick early since it would inevitably draw attention away from Biden.

He also suggested the possibility of Biden being replaced had weighed on his thinking.

“A little bit, you know, we wanted to see what they’re doing, to be honest. Because, you know, it might make a difference,” he said in an interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity earlier this week.

Trump has offered conflicting answers since the primaries on whether he has made up his mind, but said Friday he had four or five top contenders.

"I have some really, really good candidates. And you know, I may be leaning one way and that changing sometimes — you know all of a sudden you see something that you like or you don’t like and you lean a little bit differently ... but we have a very good bench," he said.

Trump dishes on his reported top contenders

Each of the finalists has pluses and drawbacks.

Earlier this week, Trump was quizzed on some in a Fox News Radio interview.

Was Vance's beard a strike against him, he was asked, following a report in The Bulwark that that was a concern?

“No, never heard that one,” the clean-shaven Trump said with a laugh. Vance “looks good. He looks like a young Abraham Lincoln.”

What about the highly restrictive limits that Burgum signed in law North Dakota banning nearly all abortions ?

“Well, it’s a little bit of an issue. It’s a pretty strong ban,” said Trump. "You know, I think Doug is great, but ... the state has. So it’s an issue. Everything’s an issue.”

And what about Rubio’s “Florida problem”? Would the fact that Rubio would likely have to move stop Trump from picking him?

“No, but it does make it more complicated,” he said. “There are people that don’t have that complication. Now it’s fairly easily fixed, but you have to do something with delegates or there has to be a resignation, you know, etc., etc. So it’s not like picking some people where it’s very easy, where there is none of that."

Associated Press writers Michelle L. Price and Will Weissert contributed to this report.

Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.