September 8, 2006, - 1:29 pm
By Debbie Schlussel
**** SCROLL DOWN FOR UPDATE–Scholastic CEO’s Sad Cave & Outrageous New 9/11 Teaching Materials ****
ABC is not the only party to cower to liberals–including Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright–and their attempts to silence the upcoming docudrama, “The Path to 9/11.”
Now Scholastic is bowing to the Clintonistas, too, according to today’s Wall Street Journal (hidden in its Marketplace section for some strange reason). In many ways, Scholastic is more important than ABC because it creates classroom teaching materials to help children discuss issues, in this case the fifth anniversary of 9/11. Scholastic developed material to help teachers discuss “The Path to 9/11” with students.
But the WSJ reports that Scholastic is yanking those materials, under pressure from liberal websites, including liberal-turned-conservative-turned-liberal David Brock’s Media Matters for America, which attacked Scholastic materials for being anti-Clinton, among other things.
The Journal reports:
Kyle Good, a spokeswoman for Scholastic, said the publisher had acted swiftly on Wednesday after concluding that its material wasn’t up to its own standards. “We intend to have a new discussion guide complete with background information posted on Friday morning.
Ms. Good said Scholastic saw several online reports Tuesday morning that raised concerns about the material. “We immediately did a thorough review of the discussion guide and decided to redo it,” she said.
Incredibly, among Media Matters concerns was that the Scholastic materials asked students to debate whether the media hinder our national security.
It’s now “not up to standards” to debate the media’s role in sabotaging the war on terror? What ever happened to liberals’ demands for free speech and the free exchange of ideas?
Apparently, they don’t support those concepts when the ideas attack their behavior in weakening our national security.
**** UPDATE: Read Scholastic CEO Richard Robinson’s absurd apology to lefties and Clintonistas. Here are the outrageous new questions that will be “taught” with Scholastics “revised” teaching materials. Instead of questioning the press, they’re now questioning America’s Mid-East policies and the “root causes” of 9/11. Welcome to the Clintonized 9/11:
1. What are the matters of dispute in the docudrama? What are the scenes that were altered or did not happen? How do these scenes affect your understanding? Are the changes part of an effort by the producers to shape your beliefs about these events? In your view, is this an appropriate way to treat an event such as this?
2. What are the different views of the relationship between the attacks of 9/11, the Iraq War, the war in Afghanistan, and the unrest in the Middle East? Many people believe that there is no connection between Iraq and the events of 9/11. Others believe that the broadly defined “War on Terror” justified the invasion of Iraq. As you study the background of events leading up to and following 9/11, what do you think?
3. There is a long history of conflict in the Middle East. How well do you understand each of the countries involved and what influences their behavior?
We believe that the rewritten discussion guide presented herewith will help your students interpret the ABC docudrama, The Path to 9/11, and hope that you will find it helpful in understanding the relationship between facts and drama, and the background of the different views about 9/11 in the U.S. and around the world.
No, it does none of those things. But it does indoctrinate students in the ideology of the left on 9/11. Not good for America.
Tags: ABC, Afghanistan, America, Bill Clinton, CEO, David Brock, Debbie Schlussel, Iraq, Kyle Good, Madeleine Albright, Middle East, Richard Robinson, Scholastic CEO, spokeswoman, the fifth anniversary of 9/11, The Path to 9/11, United States, Wall Street Journal