Reagan biases?

College textbook paints Reagan as sexist, conservatives as pessimists

Published February 17, 2014
FoxNews.com

• 
• 
  A page from the textbook "Introduction to Social Work & Social Welfare: Critical Thinking Perspectives" falsely accuses President Ronald Reagan of not appointing women to prominent policy-making positions (Campus Reform)
• 
  Another section of the book paint conservatives as having a general contempt for the public, claiming that they view most people as "corrupt, sefl-centered, and lazy." (Campus Reform)

Next Slide Previous Slide
The authors of a textbook used at University of South Carolina earned an 'F' in Ronald Reagan 101, according to several conservative Gamecock students.
“Introduction to Social Work & Social Welfare: Critical Thinking Perspectives” portrays the 40th president as a sexist who was insensitive to minorities and whose main accomplishments were cutting taxes, jacking up defense spending and "slashing" social programs. The book states that conservatives like Reagan "take a pessimistic view of human nature.”
“I was absolutely shocked and was tempted to throw the book away,” Anna Chapman, 19, a sophomore majoring in political science, told FoxNews.com. “I would even write comments in the actual textbook next to some of the offensive things that I read. I didn’t know that this is what I had signed up for.”
The sexist comments are particular difficult to square with The Gipper's record. Although the book states that he "ascribed to woman ‘primarily domestic functions’ and failed to appoint many women to significant positions of power during his presidency,” history shows Reagan appointed the first woman, Sandra Day O'Connor, to the Supreme Court.
Reagan also appointed the first woman ambassador to the United Nations, Jeane Kirkpatrick. And among some 1,400 women Reagan appointed to policy-making positions during his two terms in office were Secretary of Transportation Elizabeth Dole, Secretary of Health and Human Services Margaret Heckler and Secretary of Labor Ann Dore McLaughlin. The textbook makes no mention of any of these appointments, Chapman noted in a post for education blog Campus Reform.

"This book goes out of its way to glorify liberalism and demonize conservatism”​

- Anna Chapman, 19, University of South Carolina student
According to the book, Reagan "discounted the importance of racism and discrimination, and maintained that, if they tried, African-Americans, Hispanics and Native Americans could become just as successful as whites." But the policies he implemented, which were continued by President George H.W. Bush, increased homelessness and the number of people living in poverty, according to the book.
“The way it describes conservatives as viewing people as “lazy, corrupt, and incapable of true charity” is extremely offensive and beyond not true, granted the fact that conservatives believe that people are capable of succeeding without government interference,” added Chapman, who is secretary of the school's College Republicans. "I come from a middle class, conservative family, with extremely giving parents, so it really hit home for me.”
In the subsection of the text, titled “Conservatism,” the authors list three concepts as characterizing conservatives:

• As opposing change and prefer tradition due to the fact that, “They believe change usually produces more negative than positive consequence.”
• As usually having a pessimistic view of human nature.
• That they usually “conceive of people as perfectly capable of taking care of themselves.”

The textbook also goes after wealthy people, arguing that they “find that having a social class of poor people is useful.
Officials for the University of South Carolina did not immediately return a request for comment.
The book offers a much kinder assessment of President Clinton, saying whatever failures the two-term Democrat suffered were due to the GOP opposition.
"Liberals had high hopes for Bill Clinton, but he had a House and Senate dominated by Republicans as early as 1994, so most of his proposals were squelched," the book states.
"This book goes out of its way to glorify liberalism and demonize conservatism,” Chapman said. “I don’t think it can get much more in-your-face than that.”

 

Teflon Ron the forerunner to the Tea Party's perfection of being impervious to grammar. They done good:

"This sediment (sic) that all men are is equal is evidenced in the Republican Party's current platform of equal taxes on all, and opportunity for all regardless of race, gender, or age ... Contrast that with the tenants (sic) of the (sic) Barack Obama and the Democrat (sic) party ... "

Guess first then google, or, do it your way.

 

Only a couple liberal blogs, but what does that have to do with Reagan?

 

The point is that they yak and yak as if what they spew is true, as if the mere passing it over their lips magically makes it gospel, regardless the tripe put forth. It all shed of Ron as if he were made of Teflon, now a days, things are stickier. THAT era is OVER.

 

No it is not. Just listen to the news today.

 

The real point should be... Why would they need someone like Frank Luntz if they were being honest? Why would they have to call a bill something like "Restore Our Waterways Act" when the real impact of the bill actually gives the coal industry carte blanche to pollute as much as they want? That is a fictional bill of course but you get the idea. Lie, lie again, and then reinforce the lie with more lies. I don't think the textbook goes nearly far enough in describing Republicans like Reagan that sold weapons to the Iranians and funded a covert war in Central America against the laws of the land he swore to uphold. I think the textbook is actually kind to Reagan. Wait until they write about Bush.

 

+

So do you really have a point you're trying to make here?

Let's see. People write books and people buy them. Sometimes it's required reading. (Good if you wrote the book).

It would seem you don't agree with this possible "required reading" because President Reagan is not made out to be as wonderful as you see him.

Fox "News" seems to agree with this. It's where you saw it after all. Apparently.

I was in college when Ronald Reagan was elected President.

I had a history course that required 3 different books to read. Different viewpoints.

U.S. history actually but President Reagan was not involved because he was not President.

We studied earlier times naturally and were encouraged to form our own opinions.

We did.

Now Ronald Reagan is past history. Somewhat like I read some years ago as a college student.

Again.

Do you have a point?

Hell,

I voted for Ronald Reagan.

 

I am sorry you feel that way, Dan. When I went to school, the history we studied was facts. Granted, it can be weighted one way or another, but statements such as “Conservatives ‘tend to take a basically pessimistic view of human nature. People are conceived of as being, self-centered, lazy and incapable of true charity,’” do not belong in history classes. Similarly saying Reagan felt women should be ascribed to primarily domestic jobs belies his record. It fails to mention make no mention of Reagan’s appointment of Sandra Day O'Connor, the first female Supreme Court Justice; his appointment of the first female U.S. Representative to the United Nations, Jeane Kirkpatrick; Elizabeth Dole, the first female appointed to Secretary of the Department of Transportation; or that over 1,400 women were chosen by Reagan to fill powerful, policy-making positions. That is not history, but indoctrination. I firmly believe that has no place in any college history required reading.

 

So sad that your best play left in the book is ron

 

So Conservatives DON'T disparage the poor as lazy taker? They DON'T characterize all immigrants as criminals? They DON'T see gays as disease spreading sinners? They DON'T see women second class citizens who shouldn't make their own decisions about their own bodies. Riiiiiight?

The problem for conservatives is that they DON'T like being called out for the things that they actually do. They would rather the rest of us view them as they view themselves. But we are at a disadvantage in that we live in reality.

 

I know that you like "facts" at least you like the facts that fit your narrative so here is a little email exchange between Scott Walker's chief of staff and a deputy chief of staff both conservatives...

In the nightmare ... I am a homosexual, and on top of that with a Mexican boyfriend. Oh, my God ... Black, Jewish, disabled, gay with a Mexican boyfriend, drug addict, and HIV-positive!!! ...
Say it isn't so!!! I can handle being a black, disabled, one armed, drug-addicted, Jewish homosexual on a pacemaker who is HIV positive, bald, orphaned, unemployed, lives in a slum, and has a Mexican boyfriend, but please, Oh dear God, please don't tell me I'm a Democrat.​

The correspondence from Thomas Nardelli, then Walker's chief of staff, to his deputy Kelly Rindfleisc.

 

And the racist liberals! Remember this? “They’re going to put y’all back in chains.”

 

He was talking about bankers on Wall Street and economic chains you dolt . Nice attempt to change the subject though. Maybe you should research your talking points BEFORE you spew them for a change. I guess the facts I posted must have bothered you.

Remember, it's not so much what is said as it is the policies they push. It's your policies stupid.

 

And Nardelli was describing a dream.

 

Dreams.... The window to the soul.

What's your point? I have lots of dreams. I don't describe them in glowing racist terms to my co-workers in emails because most people would think I was a head case if I had some racist dream and started sharing it. He describes it as "nightmare" not a dream. His anti-Semitic, homophobic, racists, and of all things prejudice against the disabled is pretty obvious but please go ahead and defend him. I don't think of YOU as really any different than him anyway.

 

So now you are shooting the messenger because of his dreams? You need to come back to earth.

BTW, since you " don't describe them in glowing racist terms", that apparently means you describe them in dark and desolate terms.

 

Have you ever used a cliche correctly in your entire life? I'm still waiting.

 

So far you have managed to turn lies about Reagan into Governor Walker's assistant to his assistant's dream. Keep going and we will turn it into college dorm resident watching girls get raped.

 

Nutz and sick.

 

Yes he is and yes he did.