Shocked students say college text shows Reagan as sexist.

[powderman]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/02/17/college-textbook-paints-reagan-as-sexist-conservatives-as-pessimists/
 
          College textbook paints Reagan as sexist, conservatives as pessimists Published February 17, 2014 FoxNews.com     

•  
•   A page from the textbook "Introduction to Social Work & Social Welfare: Critical Thinking Perspectives" falsely accuses President Ronald Reagan of not appointing women to prominent policy-making positions (Campus Reform)
•   Another section of the book paint conservatives as having a general contempt for the public, claiming that they view most people as "corrupt, sefl-centered, and lazy." (Campus Reform)

  Next Slide Previous Slide   The authors of a textbook used at University of South Carolina earned an 'F' in Ronald Reagan 101, according to a group of conservative Gamecock students.
 
“Introduction to Social Work & Social Welfare: Critical Thinking Perspectives” portrays the 40th president as a sexist who was insensitive to minorities and whose main accomplishments were cutting taxes, jacking up defense spending and "slashing" social programs. The book states that conservatives like Reagan "take a pessimistic view of human nature.”
“I was absolutely shocked and was tempted to throw the book away,” Anna Chapman, 19, a sophomore majoring in political science, told FoxNews.com. “I would even write comments in the actual textbook next to some of the offensive things that I read. I didn’t know that this is what I had signed up for.”
 
The sexist comments are particular difficult to square with The Gipper's record. Although the book states that he "ascribed to woman ‘primarily domestic functions’ and failed to appoint many women to significant positions of power during his presidency,” history shows Reagan appointed the first woman, Sandra Day O'Connor, to the Supreme Court.
Reagan also appointed the first woman ambassador to the United Nations, Jeane Kirkpatrick. And among some 1,400 women Reagan appointed to policy-making positions during his two terms in office were Secretary of Transportation Elizabeth Dole, Secretary of Health and Human Services Margaret Heckler and Secretary of Labor Ann Dore McLaughlin. The textbook makes no mention of any of these appointments, Chapman noted in a post for education blog Campus Reform.
 
 

"This book goes out of its way to glorify liberalism and demonize conservatism”

- Anna Chapman, 19, University of South Carolina student According to the book, Reagan "discounted the importance of racism and discrimination, and maintained that, if they tried, African-Americans, Hispanics and Native Americans could become just as successful as whites." But the policies he implemented, which were continued by President George H.W. Bush, increased homelessness and the number of people living in poverty, according to the book.
 
“The way it describes conservatives as viewing people as “lazy, corrupt, and incapable of true charity” is extremely offensive and beyond not true, granted the fact that conservatives believe that people are capable of succeeding without government interference,” added Chapman, who is secretary of the school's College Republicans. "I come from a middle class, conservative family, with extremely giving parents, so it really hit home for me.”
In the subsection of the text, titled “Conservatism,” the authors list three concepts as characterizing conservatives:
 
 

• As opposing change and prefer tradition due to the fact that, “They believe change usually produces more negative than positive consequence.”
• As usually having a pessimistic view of human nature.
• That they usually “conceive of people as perfectly capable of taking care of themselves.”

The textbook also goes after wealthy people, arguing that they “find that having a social class of poor people is useful.
Officials for the University of South Carolina did not immediately return a request for comment.
 
The book offers a much kinder assessment of President Clinton, saying whatever failures the two-term Democrat suffered were due to the GOP opposition.
"Liberals had high hopes for Bill Clinton, but he had a House and Senate dominated by Republicans as early as 1994, so most of his proposals were squelched," the book states.
"This book goes out of its way to glorify liberalism and demonize conservatism,” Chapman said. “I don’t think it can get much more in-your-face than that.”

[barabbas]

My first presidential election to vote in was Carter/Ford.  With the Nixon era problems (except for ending Vietnam), and the Watergate mess, I thought what was needed was a fresh start, I considered Carter.  I was young, idealistic, Christian, and liked the sound of Carter's rhetoric.  I asked my Bible studies teacher what he thought and he said he could was not sure about voting Dem.  I went ahead anyway.  Boy, was I ever disappointed for the next 4 yrs.  I could not believe the incompetence.  I don't believe my generation could wait until a new President was elected to get us out of Carter's debacle.
Reagan was a breath of fresh air and brought the winds of change with it.  No one, I repeat, no one, will ever make me feel sorry for voting for him twice.  He reversed the inanity of Carter's presidency and brought back prosperity and hope.  I will never regret voting Rep. from then on since I learned the hard way what the Dem. Party was all about.  Its too bad that historic revisionism is rampant in our nation.  The younger generations are growing up clueless and will swallow what is fed them from the complacent and compliant media who have become mere advocates, instead of true journalists.  They too will learn the 'hard way', as I did.  I just hope they do before it is too late.

[powderman]

BARABBAS. God post Sir. I liked Ron. Texts like that college is where liberals and democrats go to finishing school. POWDERMAN. 

[williamlayton]

No party has a lock on correctness--or individual, for that matter.
Looking back I can see myownself as being un-thinking in my voteing habits. Boy, hindsight is a great view.
 We try and that is a good thing.
Blessings

[magooch]

Liberals believe they know what's best and they'll use any and every means to advance their cause; they never quit and they are never dissuaded.  Their mission is to shove it down everyone's throat no matter what it takes.

[gypsyman]

I wonder how those college students would react, if in fairness, all grade's would be split. Anybody with an A, would automatically be reduced to a C, and a person of the opposite sex, would get their grade points. Or race, or whatever. College kids, brains in transformation, being taught by people that have never had a job in the real work force! Blind leading the blind!! gypsyman

[buck460XVR]

If one looks at why the Republicans have been shut out of the Whitehouse the last two elections it basically comes down to two factions of the voting public. Woman and people of race other than  Caucasian.  The major reason John McCain picked a female running mate and the Democrats nominated a black candidate was to appeal to those factions. What worked 30 years ago does not always work today and living in the past is just that. Odds are, if Reagan was alive and ran today, he too would be defeated because of his stance on women and race. It isn't that there are that many more of either now than there was back then, just that the Democrats have been successful in getting them out to vote.  It should not be surprising that a book that promotes Social Welfare writes negatively of someone that openly opposed Social Welfare.

[Conan The Librarian]

Sexist, huh? I don't suppose the book mentioned anything about Kennedy, Johnson, or Clinton in that context?

[magooch]

If one looks at why the Republicans have been shut out of the Whitehouse the last two elections it basically comes down to two factions of the voting public. Woman and people of race other than  Caucasian.  The major reason John McCain picked a female running mate and the Democrats nominated a black candidate was to appeal to those factions. What worked 30 years ago does not always work today and living in the past is just that. Odds are, if Reagan was alive and ran today, he too would be defeated because of his stance on women and race. It isn't that there are that many more of either now than there was back then, just that the Democrats have been successful in getting them out to vote.  It should not be surprising that a book that promotes Social Welfare writes negatively of someone that openly opposed Social Welfare.

There's just one little problem with your theory and that is that it is not the "Party" who actually chooses the respective candidates.  It is the primary voters who make that choice and it is highly unlikely that their choices are coordinated in any way, shape, or form.  Just because one votes in primary elections, it does not mean that that person is any part of a political party.  I think the primary systems have not served this country well.  Maybe I'm just kidding myself, but I would hope that if it was truly up to the party activists to choose the candidates, we would never have seen McCain nor Romney on the ballot.  As far as the Dumycrat party is concerned it probably doesn't matter anymore, because they are all commies and have no regard for the Constitution, or anything else that once pertained to our lawful form of government.

[buck460XVR]

There's just one little problem with your theory and that is that it is not the "Party" who actually chooses the respective candidates.  It is the primary voters who make that choice and it is highly unlikely that their choices are coordinated in any way, shape, or form.  Just because one votes in primary elections, it does not mean that that person is any part of a political party.  I think the primary systems have not served this country well.  Maybe I'm just kidding myself, but I would hope that if it was truly up to the party activists to choose the candidates, we would never have seen McCain nor Romney on the ballot.  As far as the Dumycrat party is concerned it probably doesn't matter anymore, because they are all commies and have no regard for the Constitution, or anything else that once pertained to our lawful form of government.

If the party does not choose it's respective candidates,  who does?  Are you saying it was the Democrats that nominated McCain and Romney? It was Republicans that nominated Obama, just so they could lose? I was under the impression that the majority of primaries in this country were closed primaries...thus one can only vote in the primary that they affiliate with. Same goes for caucuses. It's not the primary system that is broken, it's the two party system. That's why  most of the Presidential elections over the last coupla decades have been determined not by those that vote along their party lines, but by those that do not affiliate themselves with either party......independent voters. The party that does the best job of convincing them and getting them out to vote......wins. If there's anything that needs to be changed, its that we need to go to popular vote for President and do away with the archaic Electoral College system.