Version classiqueVersion mobile
OpenEdition Books

Les censures dans le monde

 | 
Laurent Martin

Deuxième partie. Les censures dans les démocraties libérales xxe-xxie siècles

Textbook Conflicts and Legitimacy Production

La querelle des manuels scolaires et la production de la légitimité

Jan Blaauw

Résumé

This paper addresses conflicts about history education in contemporary democracies through an exploration of the link between censorship and educational legitimacy. Systematic education is ultimately a political enterprise responsible for not only selection of the right content but also the justification of this selection in terms of its objectives. Educational legitimacy as a paradigm offers opportunities to better separate educational power from the normativity which first sets and then judges its use. Though complex, educational legitimacy can provide a more comprehensive understanding of history textbook conflicts. A recent conflict from Arizona (US) is presented as an example.

Cet article traite des conflits liés à l’enseignement de l’histoire dans les démocraties contemporaines par une exploration du lien entre censure et légitimité éducative. L’enseignement systématique est en fin de compte une entreprise politique responsable non seulement de la sélection du contenu juste, mais aussi de la justification de cette sélection en termes d’objectifs. La légitimité éducative conçue comme un paradigme permet de mieux séparer le pouvoir éducatif de la normativité qui d’abord établit et ensuite évalue ses usages. Quoique complexe, la légitimité éducative peut fournir une compréhension plus complète des conflits liés aux manuels d’histoire. Un conflit récent dans l’État de l’Arizona aux États-Unis est présenté comme étude de cas.

Texte intégral

  • 2 Administrative Law Judge Decision No. 11F-002-ADE, Phoenix, December 27th 2011 cites under American (...)
  • 3 The TUSD No. 1 board issued a press release January 17th 2011 to counter censorship accusations und (...)

1In the blockbuster movie The Matrix main character Neo is offered a choice between two pills. The red pill has the power to reveal reality in its truest form. The alternative blue pill will have him wake up with the freedom to believe whatever he wishes. A Tucson pupil in the local Mexican American Studies (MAS) program referred to this scene a little before 2006. She stated that embracing the critical consciousness taught in these elective classes equaled Neo’s choice for the red pill: “Now we can’t go back, but this is better because now we see the matrix. They can’t fool us.” The sample of her work was finding of fact number 150 in a December 2011 Phoenix court decision. That case was an appeal by the Tucson Unified School District number 1 against the Arizona educational state authorities.2 The Superintendent of Public Instruction, Republican John Huppenthal, had asked for its termination because it promoted ethnic solidarity. The dismissal of the appeal sealed the program’s fate. January 4th 2012, the school district board voted 3-1 on a motion to suspend MAS. A number of books and textbooks, including Rodolfo Acuña’s History of the Oppressed, were taken from classrooms and shipped off to a district depot. Widespread accusations of censorship followed, for instance by the American Library Association.3

History education, censorship and educational politics

  • 4 M. Apple, Official Knowledge: Democratic Education in a Conservative Age, New York 2000.

2I deliberately chose this opening paragraph because it simultaneously raises important questions about related aspects of history education, censorship and educational politics. I will not answer these questions but intend to dwell on what they have in common. This, I believe, is situated in the legitimacy of history education. Even though educational legitimacy is, to quote sociologist Michael Apple, an incredibly complex phenomenon, I believe it must be confronted if history wars or textbook conflicts are to be explained comprehensively.4 As a paradigm, legitimacy can for instance help distinguish if a textbook conflict is foremost a problem of historical knowledge (cognition & interpretation), a problem of education (pedagogy or didactics) or a problem of democracy (how to combine cognition with social values). I argue that for instance formal textbook authorization constitutes a visible political moment in which authorization confirms the social purpose of (history) education as a systematic effort. This purpose will have consequences for educational content and its implementation can be censorious. To make this argument I approach educational legitimacy through censorship. I will explain this in three steps.

  • 5 A. De Baets, Censorship of historical thought: A world guide 1945-2000, Westport, CT, and London: G (...)

3First I will define censorship and explain why I believe that the occurrence of censorship in education can sensitize the reader to the explanatory potential of the legitimacy paradigm. This is perhaps particularly true for history education because of its potential to show how power over time has shaped the world into what it is. Censorship is understood in different ways. The term is often associated with a practice of deliberate deletion, omission or prohibition of available information. Motives, justifications or purposes of censorship have obvious importance but are not necessarily included in its definition. Usually, such aspects will be dealt with when specific censorship cases are contextualized. The fine definition by historian Antoon de Baets of the censorship of historical thought is no exception. “The systematic control over historical facts or opinions and their exchange–often by suppression–imposed by, or with the connivance of the government or other powers.”5 The definition shows a sensitivity to different ways in which power can be used to pursue control, but control has no normative orientation except for the possibility of being an end in itself. Thus censorship seems depoliticized and available to all brands of power.

  • 6 D. Beetham, The legitimation of power. Issues in Political Theory, Palgrave MacMillan, London 1991.

4Step two takes us to this power. Censorship requires power without which the desired degree of control cannot be established effectively. As legitimacy follows wherever power is exercised, censorship is linked to the legitimacy of the power involved. This link immediately raises the rather existential question if censorship can be legitimate. I understand legitimacy as defined by political theorist David Beetham.6 He stresses an importance difference between legitimacy as a claim and actual legitimacy. Quintessential is the role of active expressed consent on the part of those who receive power if legitimacy is to be more than a claim. This consent is not the only pillar of actual legitimacy, for legality, the invocation of sources of authority and moral justifiability are of equal importance. What matters is congruence in the social beliefs about power held by those who exercise power and the beliefs of those who are on power’s receiving end. Legitimacy is produced when and where those who “receive” power agree with those in power on the legitimacy of the power used. It will be clear why this definition of legitimacy is promising for analyses of the use of power in (liberal) democracies. Particularly where free speech is guaranteed, public procedures such as textbook authorization can be identified as sites and moments for legitimacy production. Thus any restrictions placed upon educational content there can be linked to legitimacy.

  • 7 An example of this exact point can be found in India with regard to the constitutionality of the na (...)

5As a third step I define history education as a systematic effort to teach the past as part of the socialization of the young in a polity. The word “polity” or political community must be included because the orientation of education as a systematic effort comes with a territory in which rules and choices have a validity and legitimacy that do not automatically exist outside of its borders. I explicitly understand an education system as a means to an end. Teaching the past takes on different forms depending on its purpose to help train patriots, responsible citizens, soldiers or nothing but young historians (the categories are not mutually exclusive). Thus the legitimacy of textbooks depends on the legitimacy of the chosen purpose for which education is developed as a means. If an entire curriculum is found to be illegitimate, how legitimate can a single textbook expect to be?7

6What if the formal objectives of education provide the normative purpose that censorship as a praxis does not have? Could not censorship be an effective part of the mechanisms of control that help an education system accomplish its objectives? When and where a polity considers this aid of censorship to be justified given the purpose of education (consider wartime education), the possibility of legitimate censorship is created. When and where a polity believes that censorship is never justifiable given the purpose of education (consider teaching democratic values) normal control will face a legitimacy problem when censorious interventions occur. It is hard to imagine “normal” control without at least connivance of the government or other powers. I argue that education has an intrinsic vulnerability to accusations of censorship precisely because it is an organized effort. Censorship discourse can be a weapon for those who seek to oppose or defend choices of inclusion or exclusion of historical data. Ultimately such contestations target the normality of control. Deliberate politicization of education often serves the same purpose: it attempts to change it through open challenge of its normality. The writing, production and authorization of history textbooks is hardly possible without the inclusion of “appropriate” historical data at the expense of all else. Who can be trusted to make such choices? Who is accountable for the use of power without which an education system gets empowered to pursue its aims? Elaborate procedures for textbook adoption or authorization seek educational legitimacy precisely because these questions cannot be dealt with separately.

  • 8 J. Moreau, Schoolbook Nation: Conflicts over American History Textbooks from the Civil War to the P (...)

7Next to inextricably social through its dependence on social beliefs, educational legitimacy is inextricably political as it follows the use of power. Even in liberal democracies that believe to offer public education in a depoliticized style, by trying to keep politicians “out of the schools,” the political has a strong presence in education through the successful rule of that depoliticized praxis and politics itself is still essential to maintain that depoliticized norm as a precondition for educational legitimacy. I argue that, as a paradigm, educational legitimacy offers an opportunity to better separate the use of power from the normativity which both sets and judges its use. In concrete educational situations power and normativity manifest themselves jointly, revealing their presence through control-related words such as “proper,” “normal,” “responsible” or “appropriate.” The observation that systematic education and censorship do not a priori completely exclude each other again is useful here. So is the observation that censorship and educational legitimacy do not a priori exclude each other, but can be believed to be mutually exclusive. Normal use of power is less likely to raise alarm. Educational censorship can be believed to be an abnormality and an illegitimate use of power at the same time. Yet where it is believed to be normal or justifiable in specific conditions, it can very well be regarded as legitimate. Educational professionals themselves are not immune to the contingency of social beliefs. Moreau provides intriguing reflection on the change of heart on the part of American history textbook authors during World War I in his erudite Schoolbook Nation. The authors, mostly professional historians, heeded the call by President Wilson that education should support the war effort. This resulted in more explicit pro-British and anti-German textbook narrative. Once the war was over, this development would backfire in the 1920s when American history textbooks were fiercely attacked for their pro-British bias.8 An equation of educational normality with freedom because no censorious interventions can be identified probably would indicate educational legitimacy to any observer. It is this very condition that blinds the observer to power.

8I will now present the Arizona case study. The case illustrates how educational censorship and educational legitimacy are related yet not identical.

The Arizona case study: to comply or not to comply?

  • 9 The April 3rd 2006 Huerta speech itself was retrieved at [http://quill.tusd.k12.az.us/doloreshuerta (...)
  • 10 The above is taken from “An open letter to the citizens of Tucson,” June 11th 2007, State of Arizon (...)

9A key aspect of the conflict about teaching and textbook use in the Tucson MAS program was the demand for compliance with educational standards. It is intriguing for at least two reasons. The Superintendent for Public Instruction already stated in 2007 that he believed the MAS program should be terminated, but half a decade was to pass before this actually happened. Secondly, during the conflict the standards changed decisively. The quarrel about the legitimacy of the MAS teaching did not just involve textbook content. It saw deployment of state authority, it mobilized Arizona legislators into tailor made action and it lingered its way into court. Identifying one starting point is arbitrary. I kick off here with the speech held by social activist Dolores Huerta at a rally on the Tucson school premises in April 2006. There she said that Republicans hate Latinos, a powerful one-liner that did not fail to spur local Republicans into energetic action.9 From then on, the MAS program was under intensified political scrutiny. In June 2007, Tom Horne, Republican and Superintendent for Public Instruction, warned the citizens of Tucson of dangerous developments in the schools in their constituency because children were being taught a destructive ethnic chauvinism. Horne quoted from several textbooks in use in MAS classes to provide evidence for his claims. He called upon Tucson citizens to stop the school board and save two million dollars of tax payers money in the process. The quoted textbook passages invoked the mythical Aztlan as an existing territory and recalled the Battle of the Alamo with, according to Horne, unacceptable sympathy for the Mexican side in that war.10

  • 11 The American Library Association adopted a resolution that firmly opposed the school board decision (...)
  • 12 “Reports of TUSD book ban completely false and misleading,” TUSD press release dated January 17th 2 (...)

10Within five years, January 10th of 2012, the TUSD school board voted 4-1 on a motion to suspend the MAS program in order to avert budget sanctions from the State of Arizona. The district faced losing millions of dollars in state funding if it had chosen not to comply. The very same day books were taken from classrooms. These books included Critical Race Theory by Richard Delgado, 500 Years of Chicano History in Pictures, edited by Elizabeth Martinez; Message to Aztlan by Rodolfo Corky Gonzales, Chicano! The History of the Mexican Civil Rights Movement by Arturo Rosales, Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Brazilian Marxist Paulo Freire; Rethinking Columbus: The Next 500 Years edited by Bill Bigelow and Bob Peterson and Occupied America: A History of Chicanos by Rodolfo Acuña. An online petition organized by teacher Norma Gonzalez generated over 15,000 signatures in February 2012 and a number of national organizations such as the Office for Intellectual Freedom formally protested the book ban.11 TUSD itself stressed in a press release that the seven books had not been banned but merely “had been moved to the district storage facility” because the classes had been suspended on orders of Arizona Superintendent for Public Instruction.12 The books, after all, were still available through the school library.

  • 13 An excellent introduction is H. Foerstel, Banned in the U.S.A.: A reference guide to book censorshi (...)
  • 14 Cambium Learning Curriculum Audit of the Mexican American Studies Department Tucson Unified School (...)
  • 15 Official statement of Superintendent of Public Instruction John Huppenthal on his determination reg (...)
  • 16 Administrative Law Judge Decision No. 11F-002-ADE, published December 27th 2011. Conclusions of Law (...)

11This addressed the restriction of textbook availability as well as the sovereignty to decide such restriction. The claim that textbook availability in school libraries and classrooms can legitimately be restricted differently draws support from an impressive volume of jurisprudence in support of this US praxis, though the very same evidence shows the resilience of its contestation.13 TUSD school board for a long time felt it was their sovereign responsibility to decide upon such restrictions. However, this responsibility did not equate full sovereignty, since the school board could not ignore Arizona state regulations with impunity. At that exact point the district would ultimately yield to the new rules. Spurred on by the controversy, Arizona Republican representatives legislated House Bill 2281, which created Arizona Revised Statutes 15.111 and 15.112. These statutes explicitly prohibited teaching ethnic chauvinism, the promotion of the overthrow of the US government, creating resentment towards a specific class or race as well as offering tailor made education for one ethnic group only. When Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (R) signed it into the law of the land, the new Superintendent John Huppenthal had a formidable weapon. His decision to use it echoed his election campaign promise to fix the Tucson situation. Huppenthal could even afford to ignore the conclusions of an independent audit into MAS which had been commissioned by his own office. The audit had concluded that no TUSD schools were out of compliance with the revised statutes, but Huppenthal insisted that the totality of the available evidence dictated a different conclusion.14 He ordered another independent investigation and even obtained a subpoena from now Attorney General Tom Horne to collect educational material from TUSD schools. In June Huppenthal notified TUSD he considered the district in violation of the revised statutes. In December 2011 a TUSD appeal against this state request to comply met defeat.15 The law showed its teeth. Judge Lewis Kowal explained that the state only needed to prove just one class in the program to be out of compliance to justify suspension of the entire program.16 A TUSD board majority then realized its defeat.

  • 17 Ibid.
  • 18 Ibid.

12The legitimacy of the used history in MAS classrooms was addressed directly by Judge Kowal in his conclusions of law. In number nine Kowal summarized the opposing positions. “The Department maintained that although historical oppression may be taught, it may not be taught in such a manner as to promote racial resentment or advocate ethnic solidarity. The District [TUSD–JB] argued that historical oppression can be taught regardless of whether it promotes racial resentment or advocates ethnic solidarity.”17 Conclusion number ten explores the complex relationship between law, historical objectivity and the active pursuit of unwelcome bias. “The Administrative Law Judge concludes that A.R.S. § 15-112(F) permits the historical (objective) instruction of oppression that may, as a natural but unintended consequence, result in racial resentment or ethnic solidarity. However, teaching oppression objectively is quite different than actively presenting material in a biased, political, and emotionally charged manner, which is what occurred in MAS classes. Teaching in such a manner promotes social or political activism against the white people, promotes racial resentment, and advocates ethnic solidarity, instead of treating pupils as individuals.”18 The “treating pupils as individuals” here is identified as the key norm that distinguishes good history education from bad history education.

  • 19 TUSD Governing Board January 10th 2012 special meeting Audio Recording, accessed on April 3rd on [h (...)

13Dr. Roberto Rodriguez, member of the MAS Advisory Board, made an opposing legitimacy argument at the 2012 board meeting preceding the vote to suspend. Romero claimed a legitimate collective grassroots ownership of content and direction of education. “It is very embarrassing for me as a scholar to come here and plead, week after week, month after month, for something that is naturally ours. The thing is, we have rights that we were born with, the right to culture, history, identity, language and education. Those rights are protected by every single human rights treaty in the world. And we are signatories to most if not all of them. So we are not here to plead, I wanted you to know that. They are ours and we are not asking.”19 The Board by then was too busy complying to worry about a full reply. It had decided it could no longer afford to be part of the Romero “we” and had to pledge compliance with the “we” as defined by the key norm of individuality.

Concluding remarks

14History education potentially finds itself strategically positioned between the social and the political. Historical training can help foster different societal goals. Historical awareness can help train dedicated soldiers, religious zealots, proud patriots as well as overly conscientious individuals. It can offer entire generations shared memories of a glorious or dark past. It has the capacity to explain the present in the light of the past as well as vice versa. The choice of its orientation as part of wider educational training therefore carries societal importance and the organization of its choices is important. The production, selection and authorization of history textbooks is organized differently across countries. The organization of political responsibility for its schooling, including the use of textbooks, shows great variety as well. In the highlighted Arizona case, multiple democratic mandates were involved. Elected school board members, elected state board of education, elected legislators and an elected superintendent tried to find a way out of the controversy. All discussed textbook use, textbook quality and textbook purpose in relation to each other. In the end the conflict was resolved through lawful enforcement of compliance. The strictness of tailor made legislation implied sincere conviction on the part of Arizona Republicans that they needed to address a serious problem. At the same time the result of this conviction brought stronger intolerance towards deviation from key norms with strong roots in political and social traditions.

15I pose that systematic educational efforts are ultimately political enterprises whose decision-makers invariably and continuously must consider restrictions of freedom if the enterprises are to stay the course. Those in authority do so either because of political volition or out of necessity, in response to a conflict or controversy. Of course conflicts over matters of “just” pedagogy do exist, but wider textbook controversies usually indicate the involvement of contested social values and political norms. Textbooks are right in the middle of all this. As tangible educational artefacts, textbooks cannot escape contestation. Nor are they expected to escape attention, I am inclined to say, for are they not produced for the very purpose of promotion of their content? As both instruments and symbols of socialization, textbooks attract attention and concern because of what they are hoped or feared to contribute to society. Textbooks can be edited, revised, withdrawn and prohibited. The specific motives for such restrictive interventions vary, but it is a tough call that disqualifies an intervention just for being politically motivated. Education as a systematic effort is so firmly rooted in the political that a better tool is needed for a comprehensive diagnosis. Legitimacy can help here, if only for its quality to shadow power use everywhere.

16When is a censorious effect of intervention or restriction also deemed illegitimate? Any answer invokes reflection on the use of power that seeks to maintain, protect or create educational normality. I do not argue that educational censorship does not exist, for it does. Censorious effects can even be said to be present in the most ‘normal’ selection and editorial phases of textbook production. I argue that this is not so much a problem of censorship or no censorship. It shows us the complexity of what we consider normality in education as an organized effort and the fundamentally political questions with which that type of concerted action starts and ends. The Arizona interventions in Tucson schooling can be qualified as censorious. Yet that sentence only starts a more difficult assessment. To qualify these interventions as illegitimate use of power however is harder to do. It is relevant to wonder why that is. Assessment of any abuse of power in education requires awareness of what exactly constitutes legitimate use of power that enables systematic or organized education in the first place. Scrutiny of what we call “abuse” and “censorship” in education thus can help us to gain pervasive insights in what it is that we call educational normality.

Bibliographie

REFERENCES LIST

Apple M., Official Knowledge: Democratic Education in a Conservative Age, New York, Routledge, 2000.

Apple M., “Regulating the Texts: the Socio-Historical Roots of State Control,” P. Altbach (ed.), Textbooks in American Society: Politics, Policy and Pedagogy, State University of New York Press 1991.

Beetham D., The Legitimation of Power. Issues in Political Theory, Palgrave MacMillan, London 1991.

De Baets A., Censorship of Historical Thought: A World Guide 1945-2000, Westport, CT, and London: Greenwood Press, 2002, online updated version of 2010.

De Baets A., “Taxonomy of Concepts related to the Censorship of History,” in S. Maret (ed.), Government Secrecy: Research in Social Problems and Public Policy, vol. 19, 2011.

Foerstel H., Banned in the U.S.A.: A Reference Guide to Book Censorship in Schools and Public Libraries Revised and Expanded Edition, Westport, Greenwood Press, 2002.

Moreau J., Schoolbook Nation: Conflicts over American History Textbooks from the Civil War to the Present, Ann Harbor MI, University of Michigan Press, 2004.

Nelson J. and Roberts G., The Censors and the Schools, Boston & Toronto, Praeger, 1963.

Pingel F., “Can Truth be negotiated? History Textbook Revision as a Means to Reconciliation,” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 2008, p. 617-181.

Pingel F., “Geschichtsdeutung als Macht? Schulbuchforschung zwischen wissenschaftlicher Erkenntnis-und politischer Entscheidungslogik,” Journal of Educational Media, Memory and Society, vol. 2:2, Autumn 2010, p. 93-112.

Schneider C., “The Japanese History textbook Controversy in East Asian Perspective,” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 2008, 617, p. 113.

Wertsch J., “Narrative Tools of History and Identity,” Culture & Psychology, 1997, 3, p. 5-20.

Notes

2 Administrative Law Judge Decision No. 11F-002-ADE, Phoenix, December 27th 2011 cites under American Government/Social Justice: “One MAS student’s work describes her experience with the MAS program as analogous to the popular movie, the ‘Matrix.’ According to this student, she ‘took the pill.’ […] Now we can’t go back, but this is better because now we see the matrix. They can’t fool us.” MAS Director Arce/Dr. Romero explains that this “Matrix” analogy is one that is used in MAS classes: “Our students came to understand that if they took the pill of critical consciousness they, like Neo, who took the red pill, would be able to see the world in the most critical or truest form. However, if they did not take the pill of critical consciousness, they would remain in their naïve or magical realities.”

3 The TUSD No. 1 board issued a press release January 17th 2011 to counter censorship accusations under the title “Reports of TUSD book ban completely false and misleading.” The release gave a list of seven books that were taken to a school storage facility but stressed that all of these remained available to pupils in the school library. Director Morada expressed regret that in one case books were removed during ongoing classes.

4 M. Apple, Official Knowledge: Democratic Education in a Conservative Age, New York 2000.

5 A. De Baets, Censorship of historical thought: A world guide 1945-2000, Westport, CT, and London: Greenwood Press, 2002, online updated version of 2010.

6 D. Beetham, The legitimation of power. Issues in Political Theory, Palgrave MacMillan, London 1991.

7 An example of this exact point can be found in India with regard to the constitutionality of the national curriculum framework (NCF) that was endorsed by the previous BJP led coalition government. The NCF legitimacy was challenged by a wide range of opponents on grounds that the federal government had illegitimately bypassed a national advisory council (CABE). In Original Civil Jurisdiction Writ Petition (Civil) No. 98 of 2002 (Ms. Aruna Roy and others) the Indian Supreme Court ruled that the curriculum was constitutional. This boosted the governmental legitimacy claim but never stopped civil and political opposition to censorious interventions with several history textbooks as produced by the federal education body NCERT.

8 J. Moreau, Schoolbook Nation: Conflicts over American History Textbooks from the Civil War to the Present, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press 2004.

9 The April 3rd 2006 Huerta speech itself was retrieved at [http://quill.tusd.k12.az.us/doloreshuertaaddress]. The quoted one-liner was made at approximately 14.30 minutes.

10 The above is taken from “An open letter to the citizens of Tucson,” June 11th 2007, State of Arizona, Department of Education, by Tom Horne, Superintendent of Public Instruction.

11 The American Library Association adopted a resolution that firmly opposed the school board decision. See [http://www.oif.ala.org/oif/?p=3157]. The Gonzalez petition was found here: [http://www.change.org/petitions/tucson-school-board-dont-lock-up-knowledge-return-books-to-students-now].

12 “Reports of TUSD book ban completely false and misleading,” TUSD press release dated January 17th 2012. Accessed on March 29th 2012 at [http://www.tusd1.org/contents/news/press1112/01-17-12.html].

13 An excellent introduction is H. Foerstel, Banned in the U.S.A.: A reference guide to book censorship in schools and public libraries Revised and Expanded Edition, Greenwood Press, Westport CT, 2002.

14 Cambium Learning Curriculum Audit of the Mexican American Studies Department Tucson Unified School District Tucson, Arizona (May 2nd 2011) p. 50-63.

15 Official statement of Superintendent of Public Instruction John Huppenthal on his determination regarding the Tucson Unified School District’s violation of A.R.S. $ 15-112, June 15th 2011.

16 Administrative Law Judge Decision No. 11F-002-ADE, published December 27th 2011. Conclusions of Law 4 and 20 are essential on this point.

17 Ibid.

18 Ibid.

19 TUSD Governing Board January 10th 2012 special meeting Audio Recording, accessed on April 3rd on [http://www.tusd.k12.az.us/contents/govboard/gbmeetings.html]. Dr Rodriguez’statement starts at 10.00 minutes into the recording. Rodriguez has since published a blog about “Censored news” about the ongoing TUSD developments and maintains a listed of what he calls “censored books” as a consequence of the TUSD MAS controversy that includes over fifty titles.

Auteur

I am a PhD candidate in contemporary history and my project is part of a wider project on the censorship of historical thought, under supervision by prof. Antoon de Baets of the University of Groningen.

© Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2016

Conditions d’utilisation : http://www.openedition.org/6540