Posted on 02/17/2014 2:37:26 PM PST by SeekAndFind
The authors of a textbook used at University of South Carolina earned an 'F' in Ronald Reagan 101, according to several 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
LOL. Guess they never heard the “Morning in America” speech.
To be far though, that last part could have easily been garnered simply from cruising any politically oriented site, that was not hardcore leftist, after the elections of 2008 and 2012. They would not really have found a whole lot of optimism, just to be fair here. They would not find a whole lot of optimism on any political oriented forum right now either unless it had Obama groupies for a majority of its posters.
wow. RR looked for the good in everybody.
Ronald Reagan was the best. He took the office and its trappings. He handled it and sent his critics begging for straws.
One person’s pessimist is another person’s realist...
It’s strangely amusing in a perverse way how when libs talk about “critical thinking” they mean precisely the opposite, where minds are locked into a ridged group-think dogma, and straying from their message of lies is tolerated like nazis tolerated jews.
have they asking any President Reagan former leading ladies in the movie business if he was sexist pig I doubt it
Some are still alive
Just what does 2008 and 2012 have to do with Reagan? Did you help write the Reagan portion of the book?
Didn’t Reagan appoint the first woman to the supreme court?
ping
Reagan was the most optimistic President ever, especially after 4 years of malaise
College textbook paints Ronald Reagan as sexist, conservatives as pessimistsBefore the 1920s, the term “liberal” applied to the political attitudes of people who would now be called “conservative.” According to Safire’s New Political Dictionary, the inversion of the meaning of the term “liberal,” in America only, occurred in the 1920s. This explains why FA Hayek, who learned English in America in the late 19 teens, was blindsided when by the change when he returned to America in 1945 for a book tour to promote his new book, The Road to Serfdom here.The fact that we were deprived of the only word which actually described us, before we were even born. in directly germane to this discussion. For in truth we are not conservatives - conservatives would be far more sympathetic to suspicion of such changes as the anthopogenic increase in global CO2 level - and environmentalism generally - than we so-called “conservatives” are. It is true that we want to “conserve" the Constitution - but the purpose of the Constitution is to “secure the blessings of liberty (which allows for change), and it explicitly assays to promote “the progress of science and useful arts.”
Most of what the book attributes to “conservatives” might make sense if discussing actual conservatives. But the people, such as Reagan, under discussion are not conservatives but actual liberals.
“Introduction to Social Work & Social Welfare: Critical Thinking Perspectives” …What a book title name. Screams “leftist propaganda” right at you, unapologetically.
“I was absolutely shocked and was tempted to throw the book away,” Anna Chapman, 19, a sophomore majoring in political science, told FoxNews.com. …That name caught my eye. Obviously not the “Anna Chapman” (aka Anna Kushchenko) . . .
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.