The MacNeil/Lehrer Report; The Texas Textbook Debate

ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. A very interesting event happens in Texas tomorrow with implications for young children all over the nation. The Texas Board of Education will hold hearings in Austin to decide what textbooks to adopt for the state's public schools for the coming year. And what they decide will be the result of a tremendous moral and political tug of war between conservative and liberal groups over what's proper for children to read in their school textbooks. At tomorrow's hearing they'll be arguing over interpretations over of such sensitive subjects as evolution, family life, drugs and sex education. Many educators say that what Texas decides is important because it often sets the tone for textbooks used across the nation by some 40 million public school students in total. Tonight, the Texas textbook debate: censorship or right-minded concern for the minds of America's children. Jim?

JIM LEHRER: Robin, there are several reasons Texas exercises much national clout on school textbooks. It is one of 22 states which buys and selects at the state level for its entire public school system rather than on a district-by-district basis. It's a big customer. Of the $1 billion that will be spent this year on textbooks nationwide, $60 million of that will be spent by the state of Texas. The other reason is actually two reasons, named Mel and Norma Gabler. They live in the East Texas city of Longview, and each year for 21 years they've been going to Austin about this time of year to raise questions and objections about specific textbooks under consideration for adoption. They are known as the most aggressive of the conservative watchdogs over textbook content, not only in Texas but the entire country, and as such have been the subject of much abuse and much praise, depending on how others view their efforts. They now head a non-profit organization called Educational Research Analysts, and will be testifying at tomorrow's hearings. Tonight Mr. Gabler is with us from the studios of public station KLRU in Austin. Mr. Gabler, generally, what are you trying to accomplish with your textbook efforts? What's the overall purpose, in other words?

MEL GABLER: I would say that we're trying to get textbook adoption out from behind closed doors, out in the open where the public can see what their money will purchase before the books are bought. Now, in Texas we have such a process. But outside of Texas citizens have very little impact. That's probably why we receive more requests for help and information from outside of Texas than we do within Texas. And what we try to do is point out errors of facts and particularly in the area of the academics. Many of the books are very light on the academic side, and very on the affective education side, that is, the feelings, the emotions and the thinking of the students. And we see that as one of the very basic reasons why the SAT scores have been dropping and why businessmen complain about the fact that they can't hire people who can make change for a five- or 10-dollar bill, or they complain about the fact that so many of the young people cannot read properly. In fact, nationwide we have a serious problem of people with reading problems -- that have a difficult time understanding the instructions on a medicine bottle or safety signs and so forth. In fact, Senator George McGovern entered in the Congressional Record that at present about 62 million are in that category. And he mentioned earlier that we were conservatives against liberals. Well, in this area we find a lot of liberal support because they're concerned also. In fact, I don't think there's any question about the fact that we have a problem in education. For instance, 40 years ago the problem then as far as a student was concerned were such things as not putting waste paper in the wastepaper basket, or getting out of turn in line or speaking in class. Now what do you have in the classrooms? You have a great amount of violence and abuse and drug problems and so forth, and something has caused that change, and we feel it's because the textbooks have totally abandoned, or almost totally abandoned, the basic traditional American values on which our nation was founded. And this is what we point out, the fact that the textbooks have been censored, and we're pointing out this censorship. Therefore, we cannot be censored. We're pointing out the censorship that has been done by someone -- whether it's the publisher or not, that's not our concern. We point this out to the public. We furnish reviews for the public, including textbook selection committee members. Now, whether or not they use them, that's their choice. For instance, if we furnish a review this is just exactly like the reviews for films and books that you see in magazines or newspapers. If that's censorship, then of course we're censored. But, no, we furnish this as our freedom of speech. And everyone has the choice as to whether to accept our material or not. They don't have to use it.

LEHRER: Is it you and your wife's view that textbooks are slanted toward a liberal point of view in many cases?

Mr. GABLER: I would say almost 100%. And one good example of that is the fact that my opposition here wants to take up for the books. That's proof positive to us that the books are slanted, because if they were totally balanced, they would have just as many things to point out that they think are wrong as we have to point out, that it's getting outside of the academic area.

LEHRER: What do you say to your critics who accuse you and your wife of being censors?

Mr. GABLER: Well, I mentioned that just a little bit earlier, that we're only pointing out the fact that the textbooks have been censored of much --

LEHRER: So you don't --

Mr. GABLER: -- that should be in the textbooks.

LEHRER: Yeah, but I mean, you don't see what you all are doing as censorship at all?

Mr. GABLER: Oh, absolutely not. We're pointing this out as a public service.

LEHRER: I see. Well, thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: Last year a liberal organization called People for the American Way was formed by television producer Norman Lear to counter the efforts of conservative groups like the Gablers'. Michael Hudson is the Texas representative for the Lear organization, and he's also with us in Austin. Mr. Hudson, why do you object to what the Gablers are trying to do?

MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, first of all, let me make it absolutely clear that we do not object to the Gablers taking part in the process and appearing before the state textbook committee. In fact, the majority of our efforts here are trying to encourage a broader participation by a broader segment of Texas citizens in the process. We encourage that completely. What we do object to, and where we violently [dis]agree with the Gablers is what we see them trying to do, the substance of their work. And I think it's important to put that in the proper perspective. First of all, this effort by the Gablers is not just a couple from Longview who is involved in the educational process. As they have said, they've been involved in this for some 20 or 21 years now, and their operation has grown from a Mom and Pop operation in Longview to a corporate entity that employs admittedly eight staff persons and a budget of $120,000 a year to review textbooks. And beyond that --

MacNEIL: What is the harm in bringing their efforts to bear on the system?

Mr. HUDSON: There's no harm per se in bringing efforts to bear on the system. What we're concerned with is the specifics of what they're trying to do to the system. We believe that the testimony is beyond doubt that what they're attempting to do is restrict access to ideas and points of view that do not conform to their particular view of the world. And all it takes is a reading of their 600 pages of objections that they submitted to this textbook committee this year to document that. Let me give you a couple of specific examples. For example, in a world geography book where it was suggested that the golden rule should be compared to other East Asian religions for similarities, the Gablers objected in saying -- and said that students should be taught that the significance of religions is their difference, not their similarities. Likewise in the area of women's rights: where there was a discussion of equal pay for equal work, the Gablers objected and said such equality is not possible so long as -- until -- excuse me -- would be possible only if women abandoned their highest profession as molders of young lives. Now, we see these as examples not of offering balance, not as fighting prior censorship, but as efforts to make the textbooks in the schools conform to the particular view of the world that the Gablers and their new-right allies hold.

MacNEIL: Well, what do you say to the argument we just heard from Mr. Gabler that, far from being censors themselves, what they're trying to do is restore balance to textbooks they see as already having been censored, and as he put it, slanted nearly 100% in the liberal direction?

Mr. HUDSON: Well, first of all, there is, I think, absolutely no evidence that the books have been slanted in one particular direction or the other. For example, here in Texas the people that select the textbooks and, I think, the publishers represent a broad cross section of citizens -- certainly that's true here in Texas -- and all different points of view. And, again, if you go to the specifics of what they submitted in their official protest this year, you will find that in most cases they're arguing against balance. That is, in the examples that I cited before and many other examples, they are arguing that only their point of view should be presented, and not a balanced approach.

Mr. GABLER: That's not so.

MacNEIL: Mr. Gabler and Mr. Hudson, we have a couple of examples here which we'd like you each to comment on. The first example is from an eighth-grade civics textbook published by Coronado Publishers entitled We the People: Civics in the United States. The paragraph in question read this way: "Ask your students to briefly list things their neighbors do that bother them. Then have them list things they do that might bother a brother or sister or their parents. Discuss: are these different? Do you need more tolerance to be a better citizen?" That entire paragraph was deleted. Now, Mr. Gabler, what was wrong with that paragraph in your view?

Mr. GABLER: Well, we called it invasion of privacy, but I think a more accurate term would be spying, because that is actually what it'd be teaching the children. But the main thing is, anytime that you spend time on these type of subjects, you're taking time away from teaching academics. And then there's no reason to wonder why the academic skills of our nation are lowering. Now, Mr. Hudson mentioned something about the fact we want our own views put in. Absolutely not. When the views are stacked nearly -- well, I'd say 90% at least, against the mainstream of American life, then there's reason that the rest -- that the majority should be represented. And I know that we represent the mainstream because survey after survey show that most Americans still believe in the traditional, basic values on which our nation was founded --

MacNEIL: Well, let's ask --

Mr. GABLER: -- whether you call --

MacNEIL: -- let's give Mr. Hudson a chance to comment on that paragraph. Mr. Hudson, what do you think about having that paragraph deleted?

Mr. HUDSON: Well, first of all, I think it's important to look at the result, and as you see, what the publishers were forced to do was delete the whole discussion of tolerance as it relates to citizenship.As a parent of three children in the public schools here in Austin, I would be quite alarmed if my children were not allowed to participate in a discussion of tolerance as it relates to citizenship. That relates to the remedy. Secondly, I think it's important to put this invasion of privacy facade, or the smokescreen in its proper perspective. Time and time again, throughout the Gablers' objections this year, this word "invasion of privacy" was thrown out as an objection. For example, in a discussion of a married couple who both work and both produce income, the Gablers objected, saying, this is undermining the traditional role of the family. In other examples where segregation was discussed and the question was asked, what types of segregation might or should be prohibited in our society, again the Gablers throw out the objection "invasion of privacy," and say that that topic should be striken from the books.

MacNEIL: Well, we have another example here which relates to the question of family and attitudes to it. Let's look at this one. It's from a homemaking textbook, grades six through eight, published by Ginn and Company, entitled Living, Learning and Caring. The paragraph in question read: "A family is a unit or group which includes all those who live in the home. This group may include a father, mother and one or more children. It may be a mother or father and one or more children. Sometimes relatives are part of the family group living together. Unrelated people can also form a family group." That last sentence -- "Unrelated people can also form a family group" -- was dropped. Mr. Gabler, what was wrong with that?

Mr. GABLER: Well, that is certainly instilling in the children the idea that the traditional family is passe. In other words, the traditional family was either related through blood, marriage or guardianship. Now, that has been the traditional family, but this would make it that any two people -- same sex or otherwise -- could live together and be a family. And this concerns us to have children indoctrinated with that one type of idea for this reason. If what the women's lib has been using as their reason for getting thousands of textbooks changed -- in fact, they've had far more changes accomplished than any other group in the nation. And because they say that this causes the children to become what they read or see in the textbooks. And so, if that is true about a little girl wearing ribbons in her hair or wearing a dress -- whichhave to be deleted in most cases from textbooks -- if that is true, then this presenting the family as just any two people living together is certainly an attack on the traditional family.

MacNEIL: What's your comment, Mr. Hudson?

Mr. HUDSON: Well, first of all, that seems to us -- the original text to have been a very balanced approach, and Mr. Gabler is contradicting himself, I think. But beyond that, it is very important to understand this in its proper context. The fact of the matter is, the Gablers have a very narrow, almost Pollyanna view of what a family should be, or American family should be. That is, a father that goes off to work and a mother that stays home and mothers the children and does the housework, and two children, a dog and cat that live in a house in a white community. The fact of the matter is that their view just doesn't correspond with the reality in the world.

MacNEIL: Let's ask Mr. Gabler --

Mr. HUDSON: And by --

MacNEIL: Let's ask Mr. Gabler about that.

Mr. GABLER: Well, that would, of course, be the ideal family, but we're not saying that is the typical family today. But, for instance, one of the objections that -- or rather, one of the rebuttals that came back to us was on the fact where a single-parent family was given as the example in the book, and the excuse was that since 20% of children today live in single-parent families, it had to be shown that way. It goes back to what I said earlier. Four-fifths of the children still live in a traditional family; that is, mother, father; whether the mother is working or not, doesn't -- is immaterial at this time. So --

MacNEIL: Mr. Hudson?

Mr. GABLER: -- we see this as a definite attack on the family.

MacNEIL: Mr. Hudson?

Mr. HUDSON: I think it is important, as I said, to take this in its proper context, and if you look at those 600 pages of objections, time and time again the Gablers throw out this objection -- an attack on the traditional role of the family -- in an effort to promote or limit discussion to their particular, narrow point of view as to what a family should be. I mentioned --

Mr. GABLER: Now, what this actually accomplished --

Mr. HUDSON: I would appreciate it if you'd let me finish it, sir. Yes.

Mr. GABLER: I thought you were.

MacNEIL: Actually, gentlemen, I think we've heard these points, and we'd like to move on to another one.Jim?

LEHRER: A Texas education official who has been on the receiving end of the Gabler-Hudson type debate over textbook content is Grace Grimes, deputy state education commissioner for professional development. She chaired an initial set of textbook hearings in August. Ms. Grimes, you're a professional educator, is this kind of debate that we've just heard between Mr. Gabler and Mr. Hudson a healthy thing from your point of view?

GRACE GRIMES: Yes, I believe it is. I think we have an opportunity to hear from the citizens of the state as to what they feel should be included in the textbooks for the students that are served by this state.

LEHRER: You don't see it as a battle between two different types of political censors?

Ms. GRIMES: Not really, because I think you're not taking into account the fact that the state board of education, which is a body of elected officials, develops a proclamation in which they specify the major content of the books that they want and what they want in those books, and then we do have opportunity for publishers to bid if they feel that they have a book that meets this particular need. They can bid those books, and then we invite comment from those who wish to discuss it.

LEHRER: Mr. Gabler says that 90% of the textbooks are stacked against mainstream American thought. Do you agree with that?

Mr. GABLER: I say it's absolutely true, and the reason I say --

LEHRER: No, no, no, Mr. Gabler, I'm asking Ms. Grimes whether she agrees with you. Okay?

Ms. GRIMES: Whether I agree? I think that's immaterial -- well, it isn't immaterial. It is not my place to answer it. I respond as an official of the state to a proclamation that's established by the state board of education, and they prepare the proclamation, and I implement the policies and rules as they establish them. I think it's not up to me to make that decision.

LEHRER: How much influence do the Gablers have on textbook selection in Texas?

Ms. GRIMES: I doubt that it would be possible in any way to determine how much influence they or any other sigle protester or petitioner has who appears before not only the state board of education but the state textbook committee. And when you take into account the fact that the state textbook committee has at least, well, up to five advisers in each of the subject areas that give them advice; that they do use this advice; they use their own expertise in these areas; they listen to the protesters; they certainly read and study the books on their own; they hear the presentations made by the publishers and expert witnesses that they might have. I think it would be almost impossible to determine how much influence any single person or perhaps even the total group of petitioners has on the final selection process.

LEHRER: So I take what you're saying then is that you do not believe that the Gablers have any kind of untoward influence over the textbooks that are selected in Texas, right?

Ms. GRIMES: I don't think any one single person or group does.

LEHRER: Let me ask you this. Do you buy this argument that so goes Texas, so goes the nation in terms of influencing textbooks nationally?

Ms. GRIMES: Not completely. I do know that it is an influence, but I also know that textbooks that are bid and adopted in other states are presented for adoption here, and we accept the book as it is bid in other states. Otherwise it would become a Texas edition, and very few of the publishers are willing to do just that.

LEHRER: So, in a word, Ms. Grimes, you think the process that your state uses works well and you wouldn't change a thing, right?

Ms. GRIMES: I think it works well. I'm not sure that it could not be improved upon. I don't know of anything that's perfect, but I do think that it works well.

LEHRER: Thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: As we've said, many educators do believe that textbook decisions made in Texas are likely to set the standard for other schools around the country. That doesn't sit well with education officials in some other states. One of them is Tom Giblin, assistant superintendent for educational services for the Widefield School District in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Before this, Mr. Giblin taught high school English in New York State. Mr. Giblin, how does what Texas decides affect textbooks available in your state?

TOM GIBLIN: Well, the Texas decision is a major economic decision for textbook publishers. And a decision in Texas really basically does make a textbook. So if there's an exclusion of a paragraph or a sentence because of something that Texas asked the publishers to do, we suffer that exclusion also in Colorado.

MacNEIL: Because what Ms. Grimes said, that publishers don't like to make separate editions for Texas and the rest of the country?

Mr. GIBLIN: Today they just can't economically afford that, no.

MacNEIL: I see. What difference do you see in the textbooks that have been influenced by the Texas process -- do you as a school official see?

Mr. GIBLIN: Well, the textbooks are becoming, I think, more balanced.I like Mr. Gabler's word of "balance." My concern is that the balance begins to go almost in the opposite direction. Recent books in science, for example -- we've been documenting the number of words devoted to evolution; it's down dramatically because the Gablers have been very concerned about evolution. And we can go on -- I could list you numbers of examples where textbooks have changed, but it's almost more than just the textbooks. It's kind of what they were talking about before. It's the issue of, what is our public school going to be? And Mr. Gabler seems to believe it's an overly affective -- very concerned about the emotion of children; it's overly concerned about the human growth and development of children, and at the expense almost of the intellectual part. Mr. Gabler, if he were to have his way, I believe, though, would turn out a series of textbooks that deal -- they deal directly with facts. He's even quoted that, that concepts should not be in textbooks, that values should not be in textbooks. He's promoting a type of what I would call intellectual, almost, malnutrition.

MacNEIL: How do you assess Mr. and Mrs. Gabler's influence?

Mr. GIBLIN: It's profound. I wouldn't -- I don't want to disagree with my professional colleague in Texas, but in terms of her perception, it may be valid from her point of view, but I'm convinced nationally that the Gablers and the people who follow the Gablers are impacting this country daily. Public schools in this country need to be forums for multiple points of view. We need to have a balance. I agree with that. And --

MacNEIL: Was it very much unbalanced the other way, as Mr. Gabler suggests, and 90%, as he said, stacked against the traditional American values?

Mr. GIBLIN: Well, we could argue all night about the percentage. I think that the error that Mr. Gabler makes is to suggest that the textbook is the sole source of education in most of the public schools in this country.Some textbooks may have a slant or they may have an emphasis, but the effective teacher in this country -- and we have thousands of them -- bring other dimensions to the classroom.

MacNEIL: If there is a fault, where is the fault, in your view: with the Gablers' and the Hudsons' groups, who are fighting this out; with the Texas authorities, because of the system they have; or that American textbook publishers cave in?

Mr. GIBLIN: Yes, yes, yes. I think that it's certainly a complicated question. It's a series of -- the publishers are maybe the most at fault right now for what I would say, bending over backwards to appeal on an economic issue for Texas. But I think Texas has some responsibility also. In my case in Colorado, and I think a lot of the other states -- as you know, there are only 22 states that have a process as this one. We have a responsibility at the local level to involve our citizenry, and let them begin to define what they want their public school to be. And that's the constituency that I think we ought to be paying attention to.

MacNEIL: Thank you. Jim?

LEHRER: Ms. Grimes, why does Texas do it statewide?

Ms. GRIMES: We do it statewide, but we also do it locally, and that's something that has not been taken into consideration, that the development of the proclamation is done over a period of three months. Input is received by members of the state board of education as they approve and work on this proclamation in their monthly meetings, and they are elected officials with constituents that cover the entire state. And they certainly hear from those people. At the same time, then, the proclamation is issued, and once the adoption occurs at the state level, there are five or no more than five books in each of those categories, and then the process goes on again in the local level --

LEHRER: What's wrong with that, Mr. -- yeah, go ahead. Excuse me.

Ms. GRIMES: A local textbook committee is charged with the responsibility of selecting which of those five they will use in the local district.

LEHRER: What's wrong with that, Mr. Giblin?

Mr. GABLER: Well, I think it's a very, very good --

LEHRER: No, excuse me, Mr. Giblin. I'll get to you in a minute, Mr. Gabler. Mr. Giblin?

Mr. GIBLIN: I think the process is a valid one. The difficulty is that the emphasis that the Gablers or even -- the pressure they're putting on publishers right now is to screen out information. We are gradually seeing a dilution of books. And I think that the kids born today in this week and this month are going to be the class of the year 2000 in this country. Eighteen years from now they'll be graduating from high school. And they're going to need some very different kinds of skills than we're providing today, and the textbook publishers should not be the sole source of their information, and that seems to be what's happening now. We're focusing way too much on the textbooks.

LEHRER: Mr. Gabler, how do you respond to that, that you all are concentrated only on one aspect, and, remember, there's a teacher that goes with that textbook?

Mr. GABLER: Well, to begin with, many, many teachers have told us that we're doing exactly what they'd like to do, but in the position they're in, they cannot speak up -- that they're just as concerned as we are, but that they themselves, in the position, cannot speak up. Now, I would say this, that when the changes are made, that's not our decision. That's the decision of professional educators, and then of course our board has to vote on those suggested changes. But the changes are recommended by professional educators, so it's not just Norma and I out here saying the books are going to be changed and that they're changed. That's just not true.

LEHRER: Mr. Hudson, Mr. Gabler is right, is he not, that the final decision isn't left with Mr. and Mrs. Gabler?

Mr. HUDSON: No, he's very right in that, and the final decision, we think, is made in the proper place -- that is, an open, democratic process that involves teachers, administrators and citizens and parents. Our concern about the Texas process -- we think it will be a fine process, and as soon as it is reformed to allow other citizens, such as our memberships, to take part. And at that time we wouldn't be sitting outside of the state board meeting tomorrow, having asked to appear, but our group and other citizens who would want to defend ideas or defend books would have a chance to be heard, too, and both sides could be heard. And then I think the process would proceed to work very well.

Mr. GABLER: But both sides are already being heard because if citizens were permitted to bring in their views of the books like in the books, that would just turn our textbook hearings into just a sales convention. That's all it would be. The textbook publishers would have a heyday at state expense.

LEHRER: Mr. Gabler, thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: Yes, we have to leave it there. Ms. Grimes, thank you and Mr. Hudson and Mr. Gabler for joining us in Austin; and Mr. Giblin in Washington, thank you. That's all for tonight. We will be back tomorrow night. Good night, Jim.

LEHRER: Good night, Robin.

MacNEIL: We'll be back tomorrow night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.