[Professor S]

While I agree with the spirit of having more balance in our public schools, I think this potentially goes too far. I think covering that more about Nixon's role with opening China needs to be explored and Reagan administration's contributions, but looking at what has been reported in the post above, this seems more like advocation/indoctrination than education. I don't like it when teachers indictrinate regarding global warming or distribution of wealth, and I don't like it if they do it for free enterprise either. People should be free to choose their own course based on facts, not opinion.

If done in terms of expressing facts, I think there is value in describing poltiical changes over time, such as the conservative resurgence (it did exist and is part of history), as long as it is taught in the correct context. I think this should be covered just as the The Great Society and the peace movement of the late 60's early 70's should be covered.

To be fair, I'd like to see these "conservative" items in the curriculum shown in comparison to the rest of the curriculum. Right now we're only seeing the changes/additions, not the full picture.

Renaming Capitalism? Really? Capitalism is not a dirty word, its the real name of a system of economics, and so far the only system thats ever worked. And I also don't agree with the Christian history portion, even though it COULD be done appropriately, I doubt it will. It will either be taught as truth or as fiction depending on the instructor's bias.

EDIT: Just to clarify I think positives and negatives should be explored for all governments and social movements (as long as they take place in the appropriate class). To give an example, when I was taught about the New Deal, all we learned was basically how wonderful it was, but there ius a whole school of very legitimate history that has sizeable criticisms of it. I was never exposed to that side until much later on.