1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/12175/hayek-joins-karl-marx-in-the-curriculum/

Hayek Joins Karl Marx in the Curriculum

March 14, 2010 by

It seems the Texas Board of Education has done the unthinkable.

{ 26 comments }

David C March 14, 2010 at 3:14 pm

HAHHHHAAA no wonder the liberal blogs were foaming at the mouth.

Daniel Hewitt March 15, 2010 at 9:58 am

Oh yeah. They are still ablaze, with Taliban and Madrassa comparisons. It’s quite amusing, actually.

Adam F March 14, 2010 at 3:21 pm

“They also replaced the word ‘capitalism’ throughout their texts with the ‘free-enterprise system.’”

I’m worried that, no matter what they call it, it’s going to continue as an excuse for blatant mercantilism.

htran March 14, 2010 at 3:36 pm

To be fair, they do play up some of the unsavory aspects of the neoconservative right: less discussion on separation of church and state, and downplaying the Enlightenment for, what else, more Christianity.

We should applaud more discussion of capitalism and the gold standard.

I have no idea why the the left is so up in arms about this. This is public education; there’s enough liberalism in the textbooks as is. Besides, in their democratic system, public education is the role of the states, not the federal government.

Eric M. Staib March 14, 2010 at 6:56 pm

“I have no idea why the the left is so up in arms about this.”

Because the public school system is [i]theirs[/i] and nobody else can touch it. Liberalism is for (mis-)educated voters, according to their pathetic talking points. Public schools belong to the teachers’ unions and the Democratic Party’s social campaigns.

When it comes to public property, the left suddenly acts quite possessive and anti-democratic.

Jeffrey Tucker March 14, 2010 at 3:55 pm

Meanwhile, our leaders at the national level are changing the Central Plan yet again http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/education/14child.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Speedmaster March 14, 2010 at 4:03 pm

I’d read about this controversy, but only saw general complaints, never saw anything specific. Is the addition of Hayek and Friedman a minor part of the controversy? Or a large part of it?

B March 14, 2010 at 5:00 pm

I don’t really care whether the revision causes controversy. The bottom line is that gets Hayek’s name out there and exposes students to his ideas. When it comes to good news, I’m easy to please.

Jack March 14, 2010 at 5:21 pm

I saw that Texas made the book say “constitutional republic” which made left-liberals REALLY mad. They wanted “democratic republic”.

Hopefully, some of the dissenters will realize this is what happens when you have a government school system. There is one decider, and not everyone is going to be happy. Why should everybody be forced to fund it?

Walt D. March 14, 2010 at 7:11 pm

It is all about controlling the source of information. The whole idea of a textbook is an anachronism. The key tactic is to divert people away from the original source. They don’t want people reading Herman Melville’s Moby Dick, lest people identify Barack Obama as Captain Ahab in self-destructive pursuit of his own white whale – universal healthcare. Or even worse, they could read George Orwell or Adolf Hitler and really understand what is going on.

Eric Parks March 14, 2010 at 7:18 pm

This same board decided to drop Thomas Jefferson a few notches in the curriculum, however:

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/texas-removes-thomas-jefferson-from-teaching-standard/19397481

Andras March 14, 2010 at 10:01 pm

The most frightening thing is that they teach the false “philosophy” and “economics” of Karl Marx… interesting thing is that Marx is not in a curriculum in Eastern Europe anymore (ex soviet block communist countries) so it is nothing short than unimaginable that he is on the curriculum in the US :(

Anthony March 15, 2010 at 9:44 pm

There is nothing wrong with teaching students about Marx. If we don’t learn about the mistakes of the past…

SirThinkALot March 14, 2010 at 10:05 pm

It is all about controlling the source of information. The whole idea of a textbook is an anachronism. The key tactic is to divert people away from the original source. They don’t want people reading Herman Melville’s Moby Dick, lest people identify Barack Obama as Captain Ahab in self-destructive pursuit of his own white whale – universal healthcare. Or even worse, they could read George Orwell or Adolf Hitler and really understand what is going on.

Meh Textbooks have a purpose for providing an overview of complex and diverse topics, especially in areas like scienes or mathmatics. ALthough I agree they are of questionable use for studying history, and downright useless(or possibly worse) for literary studies, especially when the whole subject area has become more about reading a collection of ‘diverse’ works(Ie, works that arent by white males) and less about reading works that are truely good and/or influecinal on history.

SirThinkALot March 14, 2010 at 10:43 pm

The most frightening thing is that they teach the false “philosophy” and “economics” of Karl Marx… interesting thing is that Marx is not in a curriculum in Eastern Europe anymore (ex soviet block communist countries) so it is nothing short than unimaginable that he is on the curriculum in the US

I actually dont have TOO much of a problem with schools teaching Marx, whatever you think of his ideas, theres no denying that they’ve had an enormous influence on the history of the 20th century. Of course theres a big difference between reading Marx to understand history and teaching his ideas as absolute fact, I hope that in this case we are talking about the former, but suspect we’re talking about something closer to the latter.

Slim934 March 14, 2010 at 10:54 pm

HAHAHAHA! This is fantastic.

And they replaced democratic republic with constitutional republic? Oh man, I can just imagine how pissed the leftists are to see their precious deceptive propaganda taken away from them, even if it is only a little bit.

Rocky March 15, 2010 at 2:46 am

A better headline would have been; “The State of Texas ignores the teachings of F.A. Hayek by forcing students to learn about F.A. Hayek.”

dewind March 15, 2010 at 5:09 am

@Rocky

I was thinking the same thing. Anytime our ideas are put forward using the education monopoly we’ll find ourselves feeling a little bit dirty. Unfortunately, the public education system is what we have right now; and it is better than discussing only Karl Marx, FDR, and Lincoln in history class.

Andras March 15, 2010 at 6:47 am

@SirThinkALot

I have wasted many hours with Marx in my youth days (I am from eastern Europe), and I even red Das Capital and it was quite clear to me at the time (even if I had no freedom to express my opinion at least not without consequences) what false and stupid it is. I mean if I use Karl Popper’s point of view, one has to be enormously naive without any critical reasoning to even begin to believe in those dogmas not to mention how ignorant one must be.

About the influence of Marx I can just tell you I know, I felt that on my own neck for many years, some of my ancestors lost their life because of his ideas and we in eastern Europe still feel his influence all over the place, 50+ years of destruction is not something you can make go away in a minute. So the only way I can imagine Marx in a curriculum is to tell the kids in what kind disaster and misery we found ourselves just because we was stupid enough to follow his stupid philosophy. But I am afraid George Will was right when he told us that there are more Marxist at US Universities than in eastern Europe… what a tragedy.

Dick Fox March 15, 2010 at 8:02 am

What amazed me is that “the five members of the other party voted against the measures as a whole.” 30% of the members wanted to censor out two of the most influential economists in the 20th Century. The loony left has moved from the UK to the US. And this is in Texas. I might understand Minn, MA, NY or CA, but Texas!!!

Eric M. Staib March 15, 2010 at 9:14 am

“And this is in Texas. ”

Don’t underestimate the importance of having the state capitol in Austin. Austin is the #1 hotspot for liberals living in the plains.

Masoud March 15, 2010 at 9:25 am

although hayek’s way of thinking is agaist of monopoly in education; these works is better than nothing. some economist are not familiar with Hayek. For example:
G.R,Steele in his preface to The Economics of Friedrich Hayek says: I graduated in economics in 1967, but another twenty years were to pass before i first read Hayek.

Walt D. March 15, 2010 at 11:20 am

How can you honesty teach Economics in California without running afoul of “the system”? What do you say about the teachers union, the Department of Education, the relationship between money spent on education and standardized test scores, the budget of the State of California, or socialism in general? The curriculum has to be manipulated so that these topics are not honestly discussed.

Eric M. Staib March 15, 2010 at 8:25 pm

Heh, you probably HAVE to home school.

Anthony March 16, 2010 at 11:30 pm

I’d have to disagree for less than obvious reasons. I had to go through the displeasure of Californian public school, and it was a harsh lesson in why the entire system was flawed. Most of my learning didn’t start until 3 pm when I neglected my homework to do something worthwhile.

Captain Costume August 17, 2010 at 4:14 pm

It was very surprising to hear that this happened in Texas, of all states.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: