September 8, 2006, - 1:29 pm

Scholastic Follows ABC’s Lead: Outrageous “Revisions” to 9/11 Docudrama Teaching Materials

**** 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?

Robinson claims:

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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

14 Responses

“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.”
By that “lie parading around as an excuse”, then what other materials that Scholastic publishes isn’t up to “standards”? What other books, magazines, videos, booklets, study guides are wrought with errors?
You can add Scholastic to Seventeen Magazine, The NY Times, The Washington Post, and al-Jazeera.

Thee_Bruno on September 8, 2006 at 2:12 pm

This is why we need to bring back the DRAFT! SO these whiny ass liberals will see the true face of Islam.
If they want to be a pansy-ass concientious objector, fine! Social services will be the job for you in backwoods Afghanistan building houses. There you get to see the ROP in action. Arranged marriages with children, acid being thrown in the faces of wives suspected of adultery, women self-emoliating themselves because they don’t want to stay in their disgusting arranged marriage with their 40 years older third cousin, yep great people.
In Iraq you will meet a few nice people not quite as backwards but you get to see the terrorists hang children for taking candy from soldiers.
Yep these are people that need to be “understood”. Liberals can then reach out all they want in Iraq.
These teachers, congressmen, the ex-president, have no idea what it is to be an American nor do they have any clue what type of enemy we face. I’ll be prepared though.
You can correlate the degredation of American society directly to when they started handing out college deferments for military service.

Minnie Mouse on September 8, 2006 at 4:48 pm

Even George W. got into the fray and was upset about this. He said to show the truth. Deb, I think it isn’t just a liberal thing, because, CBS bowed to the conservatives after the Ronald Reagan Story. When the Ronald Reagan movie was going to be shown, the Republican party went ape-shit. Now the Liberals are going ape-shit and ABC is kowtowing to them. Don’t blame the liberals, they didn’t censor the show. Blame ABC for sucking the dicks of the libs. The same can be said to CBS. Are liberals that powerful that ABC would take the show off the air? Ha! No way. So lets not give the liberals that much credit. The more complaints there are, the stronger they become.
Take a page from the Howard Stern Show. Stern is: racist, sexist, offensive, anti: black, white, Jew, Asian, Native American, he’s a liberal nutcase, he’s a conservative neo-Con, he’s all this and a lot more. But what does he do?
And he is still popular. Hell, Deb did a show on Sirius. So let Libs say what they want, but write to ABC and tell them you support them.

KOAJaps on September 8, 2006 at 5:42 pm

Debbie, Riehl World and I (in that order) salvaged what we believe are most of the “old” materials out of Google cache and HTML versions of PDF docs at Google.
Riehl’s post is here:
I have also saved the docs but have not posted links to them.

Tom at BizzyBlog on September 8, 2006 at 7:16 pm

Looks like the DemonRats have been taking police state lessons from InFidel Castro. The Clinton’s are giving Adolf and Eva a run for their money. They don’t call Mrs. Clintoon, Hitlery for nothing. Next they’ll be expecting us to practice the Hitler salute for when Hitlery becomes Madame President.

FreethinkerNY on September 8, 2006 at 7:43 pm

So the Left can censor, but not the Right?

Craig C on September 8, 2006 at 8:48 pm

Does my heart good to see the left exposed as the power hungry anti First Amendment commies they truly are.
Where’s the Roger Eberts, Oliver Stones, and other Hollywood elite defending “art”?

The_Man on September 9, 2006 at 11:23 am

Where’s the ACLU? Too busy defending illegal invaders and every domestic enemy of America to stand up for free speech?

FreethinkerNY on September 9, 2006 at 2:33 pm

As a conservative I STRONGLY urge ABC to correct the falsehoods and misrepresentations in the upcoming ìPath to 9/11î before it is shown. And I am not the only conservative saying this.
John Podhoretz, conservative columnist and Fox News contributor says: The portrait of Albright is an unacceptable revision of recent history and an unfair mark on a public servant who, no matter her shortcomings, doesnít deserve to be remembered by millions of Americans as the inadvertent (and truculent) savior of Osama bin Laden. Samuel Berger, Clintonís national security adviser, also seems to have just cause for complaint.
James Taranto, editor says: The Clintonites may have a point here. A few years ago, when the shoe was on the other foot, we were happy to see CBS scotch “The Reagans.”
Dean Barnett, conservative commentator posting on Hugh Hewittís blog says: One can (if one so chooses) give the filmmakers artistic license to [fabricate a scene]. But if that is what they have done, conservative analysts who back this movie as a historical document will mortgage their credibility doing so.
Chris Wallace, Fox News Sunday anchor says: When you put somebody on the screen and say thatís Madeleine Albright and she said this in a specific conversation and she never did say it, I think itís slanderous, I think itís defamatory and I think that ABC and Disney should be held to account.
Captainís Quarters blog says:If the Democrats do not like what ABC wants to broadcast, they have every right to protest it ó and in this case, they had a point.
Bill Bennett, conservative author, radio host, and TV commentator says: Look, “The Path to 9/11” is strewn with a lot of problems and I think there were problems in the Clinton administration. But thatís no reason to falsify the record, falsify conversations by either the president or his leading people and you know it just shouldnít happen.

ClearwaterConservative on September 9, 2006 at 4:32 pm

This is why we need to bring back the DRAFT! SO these whiny ass liberals will see the true face of Islam.
Posted by: Minnie Mouse [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 8, 2006 04:48 PM
Amen, the voice of reason! BTW, here’s a few sites you could visit, and I recommend you apply quickly:
They’re waiting and if you’re in the military, you have to defend these sick-o liberals as you swore to defend the Consitution of the United States of America and free speech is one of the things you will die for so these commie-pinko can spew their stupidity.

KOAJaps on September 9, 2006 at 8:57 pm

omggggggg ur so pretty
i wish i looked like u
OMG can we be friends please!
YOUR SO AWSOME!! ur like the
greatest ever! i hope iam flattering
u! cuz ur sooo awsome!
woot woot!

farah=) on September 9, 2006 at 11:20 pm

Where’s the ACLU? Too busy defending illegal invaders and every domestic enemy of America to stand up for free speech?
Posted by: FreethinkerNY [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 9, 2006 02:33 PM
Protecting Rush Limbaugh from the Bush administraton because of his drug addiction

KOAJaps on September 10, 2006 at 5:34 am

This is somewhat off topic but I’ll put it here for future reference.
Homeland Security Insanity Continues:
One would naturally think that Muslim countries, whose people hold the very religious beliefs held by those that produced the 9/11 attacks would be completely disallowed from further immigration into the U.S.. Imagine if at the height of World War II, Nazis were allowed to immigrate into the U.S.. The idea would have been considered absurd to say the least. Yet, the New York Times reports (Sep. 10th, 2006) that five years after the 9/11 attacks:
“Immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries in the Middle East, North Africa and Asia are planting new roots in states from Virginia to Texas to California. In 2005, more people from Muslim countries became legal permanent United States residents, nearly 96,000, more than in any year in the previous two decades.
More than 40,000 of them were admitted last year, the highest annual number since the terrorist attacks, according to data on 22 countries provided by the Department of Homeland Security. Many have made the journey unbowed by tales of immigrant hardship, and DESPITE THEIR OWN OPPOSITION TO AMERICAN POLICY IN THE MIDDLE EAST [emphasis mine].”
It seems the seeking out of gullible Western females in order to get Green Cards is really not necessary after all. Are we, like Europe, sowing the seeds of our own cultural destruction? Remember also that Muslim population demographics (number of children born per couple) is MUCH higher than our ever declining rate.
Bush’s Insanity Continues:
I have also talked about Bush’s direct involvement in increasing our internal insecurity by his ridiculous and foolish views on Muslims (likewise with the Mexican illegal aliens) as some “oppressed” minority in need of special protections and care.
Here is the Sep. 10th, 2006, headline from
Saudi Students Pour Into U.S. Colleges
Schools Compete For Saudi Students In Educational Exchange Program
And why might this be? President Bush personally set up a deal with Saudi King Abdullah to allow thousands of students from Saudi Arabia (from where nearly all of the 9/11 hijackers came) to enroll on college campuses across the United States this semester under a new educational exchange program.
CBS News states that:
“The program will quintuple the number of Saudi students and scholars here by the academic year’s end. And big, public universities from Florida to the Kansas plains are in a fierce competition for their tuition dollars.”
Again, this was all set up by our very own “war on terror” President Bush. If this does not convince you yet that Mr. Bush has some serious personal issues with regard to the “new America” he envisions for all of us, then I don’t know what will. No country that I am aware of has ever declared war on a religious ideology held by certain people then allowed those very same people to immigrate in large unprecedented numbers into their own country.

Phoenix on September 10, 2006 at 11:05 pm

Been there done that. I already served in the Army, Iraq and Kosovo too.

Minnie Mouse on September 11, 2006 at 1:23 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field