Critical Mass

Now, this doesn't exactly deal with "collegiate" conservatism per se, but it is yet another example of how many would like to make our schools a political playground instead a place of learning. Media Matters for America, a "progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media," announced on September 7 that ABC and Scholastic Inc. have teamed up to "inject[. . .] conservative misinformation into the classroom" by asking "100,000 high school teachers nationwide and their students to watch the controversial miniseries [ Path to 9/11] and then use Scholastic's 'discussion guide' in class." This is obviously a conservative attempt to brainwash our kids, as "The ABC/Scholastic material is deeply flawed because, in addition to omitting key information, it promotes conservative talking points," such as the following:

It tells students that the United States went to war in Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction -- but fails to note that, in fact, Iraq did not have WMD. Nor does it note the increasing evidence that the Bush administration knew this all along and manipulated intelligence in order to make a dishonest case for war.

Hmm, methinks perhaps the United States did go to Iraq at least in part because of weapons of mass destruction. That they were not found was certainly a complication, but the fact remains that WMD was, in fact, a justification. So the talking points tell the truth. And possibly the reason the discussion questions do not mention the "increasing evidence" of the Bush administration's intentional deception of America is that it is purely speculative. Could kids debate it? Sure. They probably will too. But it isn't fact, so it shouldn't be in there.

It falsely suggests a tie between Iraq and the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

This is what James Taranto refers to as the "Iraq-which-has-nothing-to-do-with-al-Qaeda-which-has-nothing-to-do-with-Iraq" argument. Unfortunately, it's probably not true - as has been evidenced by the number of al Qaeda operatives killed or captured in Iraq since the invasion. Even if it is true, and as some argue those terrorists who are in Iraq were never there before 2003, it was thought to be true at the time, and thus should be presented as a viewpoint, if not as fact.

It gives unjustifiably upbeat accounts of reportedly dire conditions on the ground in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Heaven forbid we let people think we're winning. Oh, and "reportedly dire conditions"? So you don't know either?

It suggests that military responses to Osama bin Laden by the Clinton administration could have "hinder[ed] the U.S. stance on the war on terror."

You're really going to deny this? Of course it did! Clinton's inaction in Somalia, after the embassy bombings in Africa, after the bombing of the USS Cole - all of these played into the way Osama bin Laden thought of and acted toward America. Now, I am not going to go so far as to say that Clinton was to blame for 9/11, because ultimately that onus falls on the people who perpetrated the act. I will say that previous administrations' handling of terrorism (and by this I mean going back to at least Carter) all affected the ideological stance of terrorists, and weakness in military response reflected weakness in the country, whether in fact or only in supposition.

It asks students to debate whether the media "hinder our national security."

Oh my goodness - asking students to "debate" ... in school? What has this world come to? Let's think about this: students have thinking brains (hopefully) and are learning civil discourse (hopefully) and should gain important skills in school like how to thoughtfully look at issues (hopefully). But then we are asking them to actually put those skills to practice? How dare we.

"High school students shouldn't be required by their teachers to listen to conservative lies." So asserts the Media Matters report. "[T]his egregious conservative misinformation," they argue, is both "irresponsible and morally repugnant," for it "create[s] a false picture of the Clinton administration's role in failing to prevent the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks while largely ignoring Bush administration failures." A big statement. But let's break this down a little bit: this report assumes two very important things. The first assumption is that teachers will be unwilling or unable to supplement the discussion questions with any type of outside information that might counter the "conservative lies" of this obvious propaganda. Therefore, our teachers are incompetent. The second assumption is that neither teachers nor high school students are capable of separating fact from fiction, and that they can in no way combat ideologies in opposition to their own. In other words, neither teachers nor students could use these discussion points as just that, debating both sides of the issue based on the assumed truths of five years ago. Therefore, our teachers and students are stupid cows who are willing to take anything fed to them without reflecting on its veracity for a moment. Media Matters paints quite the happy picture of the American school system.

This is all especially interesting in light of Cyrus Nowrasteh's assertion Monday that he did nothing wrong in writing the screenplay to Path to 9/11. The screenwriter says "My sin was to write a screenplay accurately depicting Bill Clinton's record on terrorism." Mr. Nowrasteh goes on to state the following:

I am neither an activist, politician or partisan, nor an ideologue of any stripe. What I am is a writer who takes his job very seriously, as do most of my colleagues: Also, one who recently took on the most distressing and important story it will ever fall to me to tell. I considered it a privilege when asked to write the script for "The Path to 9/11." I felt duty-bound from the outset to focus on a single goal--to represent our recent pre-9/11 history as the evidence revealed it to be. The American people deserve to know that history: They have paid for it in blood. Like all Americans, I wish it were not so. I wish there were no terrorists. I wish there had been no 9/11. I wish we could squabble among ourselves in assured security. But wishes avail nothing.

Furthermore, Nowrasteh argues:

"The Path to 9/11" was set in the time before the event, and in a world in which no party had the political will to act. The principals did not know then what we know now. It is also indisputable that Bill Clinton entered office a month before the first attack on the World Trade Center. Eight years then went by, replete with terrorist assaults on Americans and American interests overseas. George W. Bush was in office eight months before 9/11. Those who actually watched the entire miniseries know that he was given no special treatment.

Nevertheless, we have Media Matters for America watching our collective back. They'll keep our kids safe from 9/11. A little revisionist history never hurt anyone.