The NYC DOE Word Ban: Diane Ravich Writes About "The Cowardly Censors at Tweed"

The cowardly censors at Tweed 

Why they banned 50 words

Comments (6)

BY DIANE RAVITCH / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Sunday, April 1, 2012, 4:15 AM

LINK

After the news broke last week that the New York City Department of Education had effectively banned a long list of topics that might appear on its citywide standardized tests, our city’s school system became a national laughing stock. Department spokesman Matthew Mittenthal lamely defended the long list of taboos by saying that any mention of them “could evoke unpleasant emotions in the students.”

For a school system that never worries about the “unpleasant emotions” caused by its harmful focus on relentless testing, it’s an outrageous and ironic response.

It is also, as I’ll soon explain, a misleading explanation of why such word bans so commonly happen in our schools.

First, let’s understand exactly what’s going on here. The city is planning to create a lot of new tests in science, social studies and other subjects, and based on the request for proposals it sent to prospective test development companies, it’s clear that the tests will be dumbed down by clumsy censorship.

How can a good science test forbid reference to evolution, dinosaurs, geological history, vermin, alcohol, tobacco, drugs, disease and bodily functions? Beats me.

How can a good social studies test avoid asking about war, terrorism, nuclear weapons, politics, poverty, religion, disasters, crime or loss of employment? Beats me.

Anyone who does not work at the DOE’s Tweed headquarters can quickly see that such tests will be stripped of much of their meaningful educational content.

But more importantly, the DOE has no understanding of why it is banning so many common topics from its tests. This is less about the sensitivity of children than it is about the influence of powerful political lobbies. And generally speaking, these lobbies don’t even reside in New York City.

In 2003, I published a book called “The Language Police,” which exposed how interest groups from across the political spectrum had compelled publishers to censor their textbooks and their tests. The publishers knew that if religious fundamentalists or feminists or seniors made noise, then big states would not buy their products.

So, to avoid any possible controversy, the publishers made lists of words, topic
s and pictures that might offend anyone at all. To appease the critics, the publishers even created committees to review textbooks and test questions to make sure that nothing remotely controversial remained.

I combined the publishers’ lists and found nearly 1,000 verboten words, phrases, topics and images. After my book appeared, the censorship regime was so thoroughly ridiculed in the national media that I felt sure publishers would extricate themselves from their embarrassing dilemma.

Imagine my surprise when I discovered that our city’s educrats, who present themselves as bold reformers, are mindlessly endorsing generation-old bans that were shaped by textbook battles in Texas, California and other states.

Why is evolution taboo? Because fundamentalists don’t want to see it mentioned. Fundamentalists also oppose any reference to dinosaurs — because that implies evolution.

And our city will ban any mention of Halloween, parapsychology, the occult and witchcraft because fundamentalists long ago objected to anything that hints of paganism, deities or Satanism. In fact, any reference to religion is taboo because whatever is referred to will be sure to annoy someone.

Expensive gifts, vacations and prizes can’t be mentioned because some children might feel bad reading about others who have more than they do.

Birthday parties can’t be mentioned because some children don’t have birthday parties, and some religious groups object to birthdays. Nor should students ever encounter a reference to a home computer or a home swimming pool because many are likely to feel bad to see that other people have such items but they don’t.

Then there are topics excluded — like death, disease, terrorism, divorce, homelessness, violence, war, slavery and loss of employment — because sensitivity reviewers fear that students will be upset just to see such concepts mentioned on a test.

It’s bad enough that the purposeful exclusion of ideas and social realities that students encounter in their daily lives and see on television will make the exams bland and boring. Worse is the possible effect on what’s taught every day in classrooms across the city. Will social studies classes avoid discussions of war, terrorism and poverty? Will English classes omit books like “The Great Gatsby” (too many luxuries), or books by Elie Wiesel (disasters and religion in the same book), or the Harry Potter series (witchcraft), or the speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr. (too many references to slavery, poverty and politics)?

Why should pressure groups who won battles a generation ago in other states and regions determine what appears on the tests of New York City?

Ravitch is a historian of education at New York University.