The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn (Hardcover)

by Diane Ravitch (Author) "I DECIDED to write this book as a way of solving a mystery..." (more)
Key Phrases: social content guidelines, bias guidelines, sensitivity reviewers, United States, New York, African Americans (more...)

Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com Review
The impulse in the 1960s and ‘70s to achieve fairness and a balanced perspective in our nation’s textbooks and standardized exams was undeniably necessary and commendable. Then how could it have gone so terribly wrong? Acclaimed education historian Diane Ravitch answers this question in her informative and alarming book, The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn. Author of 7 books, Ravitch served as the U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education from 1991 to 1993. Her expertise and her 30-year commitment to education lend authority and urgency to this important book, which describes in copious detail how pressure groups from the political right and left have wrested control of the language and content of textbooks and standardized exams, often at the expense of the truth (in the case of history), of literary quality (in the case of literature), and of education in general. Like most people involved in education, Ravitch did not realize "that educational materials are now governed by an intricate set of rules to screen out language and topics that might be considered controversial or offensive." In this clear-eyed critique, she is an unapologetic challenger of the ridiculous and damaging extremes to which bias guidelines and sensitivity training have been taken by the federal government, the states, and textbook publishers.

In a multi-page sampling of rejected test passages, we discover that "in the new meaning of bias, it its considered biased to acknowledge that lack of sight is a disability," that children who live in urban areas cannot understand passages about the country, that the Aesop fable about a vain (female) fox and a flattering (male) crow promotes gender bias. As outrageous as many of the examples are, they do not appear particularly dangerous. However, as the illustrations of abridgment, expurgation, and bowdlerization mount, the reader begins to understand that our educational system is indeed facing a monumental crisis of distortion and censorship. Ravitich ends her book with three suggestions of how to counter this disturbing tendency. Sadly, however, in the face of the overwhelming tide of misinformation that has already been entrenched in the system, her suggestions provide cold comfort. --Silvana Tropea

From Publishers Weekly
Textbook publishers are guilty of self-censorship, argues Ravitch (Left Back: A Century of Battles Over School Reform) in this polemical analysis of the anti-bias and sensitivity guidelines that govern much of today's educational publishing. Looking at lawsuits, school board hearings and private correspondence between textbook editors, Ravitch, a professor of education at New York University, shows how publishers are squeezed by pressure from groups on the right (which object to depictions of disobedience, family conflict, sexuality, evolution and the supernatural) and the left (which correct for the racism and sexism of older textbooks by urging stringent controls on language and images to weed out possibly offensive stereotypes)-most publishers have quietly adopted both sets of suggestions. In chapters devoted specifically to literature and history texts, Ravitch contends that these sanitized materials sacrifice literary quality and historical accuracy in order to escape controversy. She also discusses how current statewide textbook adoption methods have undermined competition and brought about the consolidation of the educational publishing industry, leading to more bland, simplistic fare. There is no shortage of colorful examples: a scientific passage about owls was rejected from a standardized test because the birds are taboo for Navajos; one set of stereotype guidelines urges writers to avoid depicting "children as healthy bundles of energy"; editors of a science textbook rejected a sentence about fossil fuels being the primary cause of global warming because "[w]e'd never be adopted in Texas." Readers will likely disagree about whether, on balance, anti-bias guidelines do more harm than good, but Ravitch's detailed, concise, impassioned argument raises crucial questions for parents and educators. Appendixes include "A Glossary of Banned Words, Usages, Stereotypes, and Topics" as well as a recommended reading list for students.
Copyright 2003 Reed Business Information, Inc.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 272 pages
• Publisher: Knopf; 1 edition (April 15, 2003)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0375414827
• ISBN-13: 978-0375414824
• Product Dimensions: 9.5 x 6.6 x 1.2 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.3 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 4.5 out of 5 stars See all reviews (88 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #221,333 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

66 of 69 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars The Language Police, May 1, 2003

By	J. Martin Rochester (St. Louis, MO United States) - See all my reviews

Diane Ravitch's The Language Police shines a light on a dark secret in k-12 education, namely the scandalous undermining of content standards in k-12 textbooks due to a collusion between textbook publishers and censors aimed at shielding children from anything that even remotely could be considered harmful or offensive to potential educational consumers. I had heard a few "Ripley's Believe It or Not" stories about this phenomenon -- for example, a university colleague of mine who had written a widely used high school civics text told me recently how he was asked by a California textbook review board to eliminate a diagram depicting the classic "layer cake" model of American federalism, lest it encourage kids to eat junk food -- but only after seeing Ravitch's book did I realize just how far this sort of lunacy had gone. The book meticulously documents its argument with an enormous amount of scholarly evidence, and equally meticulously tries to demonstrate that both liberals and conservatives are at fault for this problem. Ravitch has no ideological axe to grind here. She takes shots at both political correct feminists and others on the left as well as religious conservatives and others on the right, and anyone in-between who would deny our children a subtantively strong, academically sound education. It is a must-read for anyone concerned about the dumbing down of American education and the movement away from serious, free inquiry in our schools.

23 of 24 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Too Many Chefs Spoil the Pot, February 28, 2007

By	!Edwin C. Pauzer (New York City) - See all my reviews (TOP 1000 REVIEWER)

just as too many critics spoil the textbooks as Diane Ravitich explains in this aptly titled book, "The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn."

Ravitch identifies how pressure groups try to change every book from literature to history to satisfy their agendas, at the sacrifice of the students. In the intensely competitive textbook market, publishers go out of their way to make learning as bland as possible so that it will not offend some group.

In my state, New York, there is a perfect example of textbook manipulation and historical revisionism that makes me bristle. Our history textbooks must include a passage thanking New York tribal Indians for their contribution to the creation of the US Consititution. The Iroquois and other tribes have insisted that this be added to textbooks used in our state. Actually, these tribes came together to solve inter-tribal issues. There was no representation as we know it. The supposed connection comes from a letter that Benjamin Franklin wrote to a friend venting his exasperation at the lack of progress in congress. He cited this confederation of Amerinds saying in effect, if savage Indians can resolve their differences, why not civilized, educated men? This was their contribution!

Other pressure groups of ethnic, religious, national, and political agendas have sanitized books to the point of uselessness. I have borne witness to history texts that I have read about the American Revolution. One passage said that we should thank the Hanseatic League for their contribution to...

The Hanseatic League?

Perhaps one day, people will recognize that not all groups contribute to our economy or our inventions in the same amounts or at the same time. When people realize that revisionism is no substitute for psychotherapy, as Arthur Schlesinger asserts, and they can put learning of our children above petty, personal agendas, our children may learn that Hiroshima is not in Vietnam, and that the Alamo is not a Latin word.

One of the Ravitch's descriptions shows grandpa reshingling the roof so that seniors are not stereotyped as incapable or lacking in energy. Old enough to be a grandfather, I may show just enough energy to reach for my wallet, and let a younger person shingle, while I chill under them.

I also recommend you reach for your wallet to buy this book.

50 of 57 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Censorship and politial correctness are everywhere, May 4, 2003

By	Richard Munro (Bakersfield, California) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

THE LANGUAGE POLICE is a good read and a fascinating read recommended to anyone who is interested in the "censorship" of style and content of the politically correct be they of special interest groups of the left or right. With the LANGUAGE POLICE, Diane Ravitch may have struck a powerful blow for education, common sense and freedom of expression in America a cherished first amendment right which could be eroded and undone word by word by unelected "committees" of political correctness.

The range of research and quotations is impressive covering a wide swath of famous authors present and past whose works have been banned or quietly bowdlerized or edited by testing companies and publishers without comment. Ravitch quotes an indignant Ray Bradbury who became aware of bowdlerized versions of his book Fahrenheit 451.I like the lists of censored books and the CENSORSHIP on the LEFT chapter particularly the quote on Mark Twain. Ravitch never wrote anything truer: "...Teachers and students alike must learn to grapple with this novel WHICH THEY CANNOT DO UNLESS THEY READ IT." Ravitch quotes Orwell " Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?" Has it every occurred to anyone that insipid dumbed down texts play a role in school house boredom and low achievement? Ravitch's well-researched APPENDIX of BANNED WORDS and PHRASES was great (but chilling). "Sportsmanship" and "lumberjack" are out -VERBOTEN- in favor of the gender neutral and extremely weak and uncommunicative "SPORTING CONDUCT" and "WOOD-CUTTER". As a language teacher I am concerned when words that are to found in HUNDREDS of classic literary tales and thousands if not millions of English-language books are not taught thus handicapping a generation of readers who will simply lack the vocabulary to read independently. If you think about on it, it just makes no sense and hurts the education of kids.
At the end of the book the sampler of classic literature compiled with Rodney Atkinson a well-respected teacher specialist in children's literature- was very well done not just another bloomin' list but commentaries to help remind us of the book or poem we may have forgotten or encourage us to read it or suggest others read these classics of cultural literacy a la E.D. Hirsch.

The bottom line is the LANGUAGE POLICE by DIANE RAVITCH is a good read, entertaining, informative, and worthy as a reference and a guide for the citizen, the reformer, parents and educators alike. Censored books mean bad books that suppress the truth. Untruthful, garbled text books make for bad scholars and bad teachers. Why should anyone care? Bored and low-achieving students could affect the survival and success of American democracy as well as our political and economic stability.