Floor Play

Once upon a time (the time being February) I covered a Republican primary race in which a lobbyist was hoping to oust an incumbent. If your career goals include both lobbying and holding elected office, there’s a pretty clear order to do things: Get elected and do some stuff. Leave office. Become a lobbyist. I asked the lobbyist-cum-candidate if his timeline inversion wasn’t a big hurdle, and without a word, he handed me a magazine with Haley Barbour’s beaming face.

We will soon get the opportunity to see said face in the flesh. The Mississippi governor (that’s Barbour) will speak at the state GOP convention in June, and while he may not share the hair, he and Rick Perry have one thing in common: widespread speculation about presidential ambitions for 2012.

For the most part, Perry has successfully positioned himself with the Tea Party and against the federal government. He’s talked about secession and he told Evan Smith of the Texas Tribune (who interviewed the governor for Newsweek) explicitly that he will not run for president. But, you know, that’s what they all say.

Barbour’s a complicated case. In addition to overcoming his a girly first name and a last name that sounds suspiciously French (that “-our” ending came from somewhere), Barbour has also gotten past his lengthy lobbying career in Washington D.C. to become governor. As a lobbyist, his firm had some rather interesting clients—including the government of Mexico. He can’t claim Perry’s outsider appeal and, in fact, he campaigned for his current office by saying he would use D.C. connections to help Mississippi. He’s also been chair of the Republican National Committee and when South Carolina Gov. Mark Stanford stepped onto “the Appalachian trail” and out of his position as head of the Republican Governors’ Association (formerly headed by Perry), Barbour was the obvious pick to jump in.

With one foot in and one foot out, Barbour has a hokey-pokey appeal. Washington insiders like him and so do Mississippians. He’s defended the Tea Party movement and Confederate History month in Virginia, while also garnering raves for his handling of Hurricane Katrina. Chris Cilliza of the Washington Post wrote that Barbour “is that rare combination of effective politician and savvy strategist, popular in his home state and revered among the cadre of political operatives who comprise the Republican permanent political class in Washington.”

While both men claim they don’t intend to run for president, the convention is likely to swirl with speculation about the what their relationship will be like in a couple of years. Barbour endorsed Perry back in October, and the upcoming convention is, after all, about the 2010 elections. For now, Barbour and Perry are on the same team.

Maybe it will stay that way. Barbour’s a good complement to that handsome Perry grin—he’s called himself a “fat redneck” in stark contrast to our Rock Hudson governor. The ultimate insider and consummate outsider might be a great odd couple.

At any rate Barbour will have to find something to do: Unlike Perry, he can’t run for governor again. That’s right: Unlike Texas, Mississippi’s got term limits.

On Friday, as the State Board of Education got ready for the final vote on the social studies standard (and I got ready to have a life again,) social conservative member Ken Mercer suddenly turned to the cameramen and reporters who made up a large percentage of the audience.

“Jefferson was the biggest lie of all,” he said. “…You’re here across the nation because you heard we were so stupid that we deleted Thomas Jefferson everywhere.”

He’s right, of course. They never did delete Jefferson everywhere, and lots of articles accurately noted that he was deleted from the world history standards, not quite as many mentioned that Jefferson is explicitly required elsewhere. The SBOE has a pornographic quality for reporters—we can’t quite look away, and there’s so much fun, so much potential for readership that it’s easy to focus on the money shots (DOLORES HUERTA AND KARL MARX OUT) without really explaining the bigger point (What was in the package the delivery guy brought?)

In this case: what does it mean for teachers when we include more and more names on in the standards? Even if they are worthwhile names?

If you haven’t been reading this blog over the last week (in which case, I am mightily offended), the state board passed a new set of social studies standards in 9-5 party line votes for elementary, middle and high school. It was big news, ending a lengthy process which included The final standards came with a restored Thomas Jefferson in world geography and did not include the expected controversial amendments from Don McLeroy, the board’s most vocal social conservative. But that didn’t stop the blast of negative emails from lefty groups like the Texas Freedom Network, criticizing the new standards for who’s in and who’s out.

But there’s one thing that often goes unmentioned: the social studies standards are not equivalent to the social studies curriculum. The standards refer to the Texas Essential Knowledge Standards—essential, because they are not supposed to articulate everything taught. What the board approved, effectively, was a list of people, places and concepts that must be included in textbooks and those which can be tested.  Of the 15 board members, five Ds and ten Rs, there are the seven social conservatives who have been widely mocked for their efforts to “whitewash” history (as some protesting shirts read). The many public witnesses at who testified at Wednesday’s SBOE meeting, keeping it going for over twelve hours, often focused on a sort of historical figures Bingo.

For instance, when Katy Eyberg, one of the members of the anti-standards group Save Our History, got up to argue for including labor organizer Dolores Huerta in the third grade standards, board members pointed out that Huerta was already included in the high school standards where, said social conservative member Barbara Cargill, “where it’s more appropriate.” Aside from the question of why Huerta was taken out of third grade (according to Democratic member Rick Agosto it was “because she was a socialist”) Eyberg’s please also prompt another question: To what extent should the board mandate curriculum? Should teachers choose some of the historical figures they teach or should it be mostly required?

After all, the board’s job is to figure out what must be taught—not what might be. Throughout the week of meetings, Republican member Pat Hardy (who is not part of the social conservative bloc) tried to minimize the number of required persons and concepts, to allow teachers more flexibility. “I will not support this because it’s just another addition to our already overladen curriculum,” she adamantly stated in explaining why she did not support adding The Wealth of Nations to one part of the standards.

But despite those pleas, both sides seemed eager to include more names, whether it was John Calvin or Oscar Romero. The Dems argued they were simply trying to bring back the names that the expert review panel recommended, while the social conservatives often argued they were proposing common-sense changes that should be there. In any case, at the end of the day, there were more requirements for classroom teachers.

Christian conservative member Terri Leo said the Dems shouldn’t be complaining about the lack of minorities: “I just would ask that you would consider that we have really put in more minority figure than ever before, many more historical events that are [relevant] to minorities.”

That was good news, but not enough for Democrat Lawrence Allen, who often voted to put in more minority representation and include stories of oppression and institutional racism. But he sympathized with Hardy when conservatives injected the standards with other figures and concepts. “if we can admit something to ourselves, it is that we don’t know how to write curriculum,” he said.

Well, that’s effectively what they did. In the end, while the two sides debated whether the standards included the right people, the process ultimately resulted in more of them. Hardy, who voted for the curriculum, still says it’s going to a rough time for teachers to get through everything in some of the classes, let alone bringing in new examples or information. “I am not whistling Dixie when i say the teachers live and die by these [decisions],” Hardy told her colleagues during last Thursday’s debate.

Hopefully the teachers of Texas are good whistlers.

Imagine, if you will, that you are a social conservative on the State Board of Education. You have been criticized by everyone from Fox News to The Colbert Report, not to mention the state’s editorial boards. The board has a partisan split with ten Republicans and five Democrats—but only seven are part of the social conservative bloc. People write you guys off because you’re deemed too “right wing” as you argue for history to be taught in a fashion similar to the way you were taught decades ago. You’ve been derided for being ignorant because you’ve argued that the nation’s Judeo-Christian origins are a vital to the understanding of constitutional republic.

Still with me?

Now imagine that you have been asked to give today’s invocation at the final meeting, in which you may very well approve the social studies standards that have been the basis for this particular set of taunts. If you’re Cynthia Dunbar, you do something absolutely brilliant.

Dunbar read this aloud at this morning’s invocation:

As we look to our past to guide us, let us reflect on the convictions of those who have gone before us.
I believe no one can read the history of our country without realizing that the Good Book and the spirit of the Savior have from the beginning been our guiding geniuses. Whether we look to the first Charter of Virginia or the Charter of New England or the Charter of Massachusetts Bay or the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, the same objective is present—a Christian land governed by Christian principles. I believe the entire Bill of Rights came into being because of the knowledge our forefathers had of the Bible and their belief in it: freedom of belief, of expression, of assembly, of petition, the dignity of the individual, the sanctity of the home, equal justice under law, and the reservation of powers to the people I like to believe we are living today in the spirit of the Christian religion. I like also to believe that as long as we do so, no great harm can come to our country.

The crowd goes wild. Texas Freedom Network, a vocal SBOE critic, sends a damning press release and even the Observer’s own Steven Schaferman has some heated words. What kind of person would say such a thing at a public meeting?

Well, it turns out that the famous (and lefty) Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren would. Those are his words. Warren, for those of you who aren’t up on social studies, oversaw cases like Brown v. Board of Education, which ended segregation and Sherbert v. Verner which said if someone was fired because her job conflicted with her religion, the government must show a compelling interest before denying unemployment money. He wasn’t exactly a right-winger.

It was a stunning move. The rest isn’t quite as brilliant.

After three days of meetings, including one day full of public testimony, the social studies standards passed on 9-5, party-line votes for elementary, middle and high school. (Gail Lowe, the chair, did not vote). Today, the room was somewhat empty, with a lot of camera crews and folks from the education establishment (textbook lobbyists, teachers’ group reps etc). As was the case yesterday, the major fireworks did not come—Don McLeroy, a controversial social conservative who’d proposed some amendments sure to spark fights, for the most part seemed to stay out of the battle.

The most interesting debate came over the Enlightenment. Once again, it was Dunbar who mounted an offense after moderate Republican Bob Craig offered an amendment to reinstate Thomas Jefferson and his “Enlightenment ideals” in high school (while striking John Calvin). No one was against the Jefferson part—but the Enlightenment bit set off a fuse.

According to Dunbar, “the perversion that seems to happen with Enlightenment ideas” in the classroom means that the Enlightenment becomes equated with an anti-God, anti-religion type of rationalism. For Dunbar, that means neither Jefferson nor Locke would therefore be of the Enlightenment, since both held certain religious beliefs.

Who knew?

“I cannot support the deletion of John Calvin and I cannot support the adding of the language from the Enlightenment ideas,” she told the board. She got her wish—in the end Jefferson made it but cut were the Enlightenment ideas he did or did not profess. (Though I should note the Enlightenment is in the standards elsewhere.)

Karl Marx was also out—of the Economics class philosophers, that is.

As for the dreaded McLeroy amendments, they never came in quite the force you might’ve expected. Moderate Republican Bob Craig worked with him to craft language around McLeroy’s central point: that the founder’s never intended for a separation of church and state. Before the meeting, he proposed an amendment which asked students to “contrast the Founders’ intent relative to the wording of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause, with the popular term ‘Separation of church and state.’” As they say, them’s fightin’ words.

But the final amendment, brought forth by Craig, wasn’t quite so exciting (though it was long-winded.) “Examine the reasons the Founding Fathers protected religious freedom in America and guaranteed free exercise by saying that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, and compare and contrast this to the phrase ‘separation of church and state’.” Not as much to argue with there, I’m afraid.

But never fear! The tension remained thick and constant. The Democrats argued frequently that others on the board were editing the standards too quickly and too frequently—too many names, they said, and too little expert opinion. So you can imagine the joy the social conservative David Bradley took in pointing out the discrepancy when Democrat Mary Helen Berlanga asked that students learn the context behind creating groups like LULAC and the NAACP.

“I haven’t had any of the usual outrage about adding to the TEKS,” he said wryly. “The silence speaks volumes.”

The Dems had their chance for righteous indignation as well. When it came to the final vote, Berlanga got so swept up in emotion that she threw textbooks in the trash. “I feel i have let down the students in our state because we should have had a more perfect document,” she told her colleagues. (I might note, at this point, many of the social conservatives left the room.)

Democrat Mavis Knight said she was “ashamed” while Democrat Rick Agosto put it even more plainly: “This thing belongs in the trash. And that’s exactly where I’m gonna put it.”

Teachers, on the other hand, may not want to be quite so cavalier. It will be, after all, their guidelines for at least ten years.

Oh, and there’s one name that isn’t in them—Earl Warren.

Wanna know about the last few days? Check out Hot on the Trail Rounds 1-3. Or check out our livetweets from the last few days.

I once attended a Cubs-Padres game that went 14 innings. While it was long, it wasn’t particularly exciting—every time it looked like someone might score, an easy out would end the inning. In the middle of our second seventh-inning stretch, I remember thinking, Please, please, somebody do something. (In the end, a Padre did and the Cubs went down 4-3.)

If you have to ask what my little tale has to do with the State Board of Education, then clearly you were not watching when, at 12:10 am this morning, they finally decided to adjourn after a scoreless day.

Thursday was supposed to be the board’s chance to debate the social studies standards before it votes on the final product today and the squabbling was mind-numbing. It was clear things weren’t going to go smoothly when the board members began to debate whether slavery was the primary cause of the Civil War. Patricia Hardy, a Republican who’s not part of the board’s controversial bloc of social conservatives, has apparently become the board’s resident expert on the standards since she previously taught high school social studies. Hardy insisted that “sectionalism and states rights” were the central causes of—what to call it? The War Between the States?

In the end, the board compromised by including all three proposed reasons in the standards—sectionalism, states’ rights and slavery—with slavery as the last and least important.

Time marched on. Members got testy (or “toasty” as Democrat Rick Agosto called himself.) There were fights over whether to include historical figures this college history major had never heard of. And when Democrat Lawrence Allen made a motion to include President Obama in the standards. (Allen’s mother, former board member and current state Rep. Alma Allen, had threatened to take away his Sunday dinner privileges if he didn’t.)

Without missing a beat, Republican David Bradley moved to include the president’s middle name, Hussein. “Let’s give him the honor of his full name,” he said, grinning.

Bob Craig, a Republican who often votes with the Democrats on these kinds of issues, called him out: “The intent behind what you’re doing is pretty obvious.” Democrat Rene Nunez out and out pleaded. “Please don’t do this,” he said.

Bradley shrugged and withdrew his motion in order to “put an end to the whining.”

Don McLeroy, the most outspoken of the board’s Christian Right bloc, did push to include some specific standards around McCarthyism, saying it had nothing to do with “vindicating Sen. McCarthy.” (Earlier in the year, he’d made a note to colleagues that the legislator responsible for the 1950s Communist witchhunts had been “basically vindicated.”) He allowed the Dems to soften his language on some other amendments. Nothing of note on church-and-state walls, fences or shrubbery.

But hey, there’s still time for McLeroy to have his moment. Today, they must finish the standards’ second reading and then vote one last time to adopt them. At this point, these standards seem very likely to pass.

The most random moment on Thursday came when Republican Barbara Cargill, who spent the meeting sifting through every textbook seemingly known to man, introduced an amendment that the standards include Jules Lorenzo Cobb Bledsoe. Who’s that? you ask. She answers: “How could any of us forget his rendition of Ol ‘Man River in Showboat?” How indeed? “It’s for the kids,” she said.

Which is fitting, since those kids may well be old men before they finish today.

Friends, the last several hours have been quite exciting. You see, your friendly reporter got an upgrade from the overflow arena into the actual meeting. Imagine, if you will, a room bulging with people. Kids in different matching T-shirts jostling elderly veterans and ladies in nice suits. The place is crawling with reporters—national and statewide. With so many cameras on tripods, it’s hard to see. That is if you can even squeeze into the room.

And why not make a fuss? This is the last time the State Board of Education will take testimony on the social studies curriculum it has made internationally famous. The board is almost at the social studies finish line, and they’re scheduled to vote on the standards Friday. Tomorrow, watch for heaps of amendments, including some controversial ones from social conservative Don McLeroy. The main question among witnesses: vote, amend or delay. It’s not clear what will happen. The social conservatives have seven solid votes for the curriculum and based on today’s questioning, it looks like the Democrats will hang together against the current direction of the standards. That leaves the three moderate Republicans—Patricia Hardy, Bob Craig and Geraldine “Tincy” Miller. Tomorrow will likely give a better sense of how the vote will come down. But with over 200 people signed up to testify, today has been about slogging through the public testimony. We’ve still heard less than half of the over 200 witnesses who signed up.

Why the slow pace? Well, it would seem that the SBOE members wanted to question, argue with or comment on almost all the public testimony presented. It’s made for some decent political theater, but I would have preferred the serialized-episode approach.

The morning portion saw bigwigs like the president of the NAACP, former U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige and conservative state lawmakers Wayne Christian and Dan Flynn. The afternoon started in a similar manner. A roster of minority legislators, including reps. Alma Allen, Ruth McClendon-Jones and Dawnna Dukes, all arrived for the second part of the meeting, all of them pushing for a postponement for fear that the current standards don’t give enough information about the plight of minorities and the history of discrimination.

“As a proud Texan and as a proud American, I don’t run away from our history. It is what it is,” said Sylvester Turner, D-Houston. “There is nothing wrong with a delay if it gets it right.”

That’s not what the conservatives on the board are saying. “That punishes children if you delay a vote on a proclamation,”  board member Terri Leo told Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer, D-San Antonio, in a particularly barbed exchange. “This is a very transparent and public process unlike your [committee meetings],” she quipped when he argued the need for more public input.

“By delaying this process we’re doing nothing but increasing the amount of disagreement,” said Republican Barbara Cargill. “Because we’re never going to agree.”

Some of the most striking testimony came in written form. Six of the nine members of the social studies curriculum outside review board sent a damning letter about the standards the board is poised to adopt. “Texans should be outraged at the ways in which the SBOE rewrote the TEKS without regard to standard historical interpretations,” they wrote, saying they’d sent the letter to show their “collective disgust.”

Snap.

Written was probably the way to go. Board members didn’t go easy on witnesses, even when they were regular folk. When college student Katy Eyberg demanded that labor activist Dolores Huerta be returned to the third-grade curriculum, it took Cargill about 0.2 seconds to point out that Huerta is still in the high school curriculum, and, for the first time, she’s required material.

That prompted Rick Agosto, traditionally a swing vote on the board, to come to the student’s defense. “She was sideswiped,” Agosto said of Dolores Huerta’s absence from the third-grade standards. “She was replaced because she was a socialist.”

When witness Mary Bruner got up to speak, using the sweetest little-old-lady voice I’ve heard in a while, she spoke of her love of Davy Crockett. “Are people who are opposed to patriotism also opposed to school pride and a winning tradition?” she said.

Mary Helen Berlanga, treading carefully, tried to raise the point that modern research on Crockett isn’t quite so kind. She didn’t pursue the point too far, as Bruner repeated the importance of role models. But when Bruner decided to say that American slavery was not unique and other countries did it too, Democrat Lawrence Allen seemed to have had his fill.

Chattel slavery, he said, “has never happened” in other countries. “When we start playing with words, we minimize,” he said to Bruner’s earnest face.

These exchanges weren’t unique. In fact, they were the norm. Almost every witness seemed to warrant discussion or argument.

“I need chocolate,” said Terri Leo after she offered $1,000 if a witness could back up his claims about her.

Chair Gail Lowe had the world’s least enviable job—enforcing rules fairly and trying to maintain some level of decorum. The crowd was rowdy, and many of her colleagues were eager to engage. “This is not a debate between the member and the testifier,” she pleaded—more than once.

But hey, this is it for public testimony and tomorrow we’re on to the board’s debate. Soon we’ll be done—unless that is, they vote to postpone. And then, oy vey, you may be reading this post again next year.