WVMetroNews - WV News, Talk and Sports Network
WVMetroNews - WV News, Talk and Sports Network
WVMetroNews - WV News, Talk and Sports Network
Email: Password: Lost Password? | Register
MetroNews Mobile Get Our FREE RSS Feeds!
WVMetroNews - WV News, Talk and Sports Network
Current Jobs!
Friday, November 20 2009
WVMetroNews - WV News, Talk and Sports Network
Click here for the GameNight site!
WVMetroNews - WV News, Talk and Sports Network News Sports WVU Sports Outdoors All Access Audio/Video Affiliates Advertising About Jobs Contact Search
10/08/2009
Hoppy Kercheval
Print this story
Hoppy's Commentary for Thursday
Talkline Host Hoppy Kercheval
Tuesday night’s panel discussion on the Kanawha County Textbook Controversy of 35 years ago sponsored by the Kanawha Valley Historical Preservation Society was a rare opportunity to bring together many of the key players from one of the great and terrible episodes in the state’s history.

The hair is grayer, the waistlines a little bigger and the step a little slower now for many of those who squared off in the tumultuous 1974 debate.  But the tenor of Tuesday night’s panel, which included a number of audience members who were active in the controversy, showed that the arguments carry the same passion as they did 35 years ago.

For much of 1974, Kanawha County was divided over whether to allow certain textbooks in the classrooms.  Opponents argued that some of the books reflected immoral and un-American viewpoints.  Supporters said the books opened students to new and different ideas.

The controversy led to large demonstrations on both sides, schools being closed and, eventually, violence.  The national media descended on Kanawha County as did outside forces which, some argued, acted as provocateurs. 

The panelists were Alice Moore, a former Kanawha County School Board member;  Rev. Avis Hill, who led anti-textbook protests;  Rev. Jim Lewis, a leader of the pro-textbook movement; Dr. Kenneth Underwood who was the Kanawha County School Superintendent at the time; Connie Marshner, formerly of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank; Trey Kay who is producing a radio documentary about the controversy; and Calvin Skaggs who made the documentary “God is on our Side” which detailed the controversy.

I was the moderator, and I thought after researching the subject that we would be able to take a more detached view of the events of 1974.  After all, it had been more than three decades.  Ken Underwood told me before the panel began that he put the controversy behind him long ago.

I was wrong. 

The Historical Society’s Henry Battle opened saying, “We’re here to do history, not to open old wounds, reargue the points or get in some final blows.”

But quickly the familiar arguments resurfaced.  Often during the nearly two-and-one-half hours it felt as though we had all been transformed back 35 years and the great textbook battle was raging again.

Perhaps that was to be expected.  Those who lived through the ordeal were deeply affected by what happened.  It’s evident that for many the wounds have not healed.

The controversy was about more than just a few books.  The sixties and seventies were a tumultuous time.  Charleston Daily Mail Editor Jack Maurice wrote that there was “a vague sense that everything was coming apart at the seams.”

The textbook debate revealed an emerging chasm in this country between liberals and conservatives, Christian fundamentalism vs. secularism, rural against urban.  Some have offered that the seeds of the Christian conservative movement in this country were sewn in Kanawha County in 1974.

Tuesday night’s attempt to set the record straight about the textbook controversy was valiant and fascinating.  For that, the Historical Society and documentary producer Trey Kay deserve a tremendous amount of credit, as do the panelists for coming.  It will likely be the last time the principles of this landmark event will all be together.  

But we struggled with the question of, “What did it all mean?” 

Napoleon said, “History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon.”  If that’s true, then perhaps the history of the great Kanawha County Textbook Controversy is not yet ready to be written.


User Comments
Two kinds of people: those that, to a greater or lesser extent, value thinking and those that believe. You can never easily bridge the gap between these approaches to life. The first is skeptical about whatever they encounter and the other judges it against the template of their belief system. One acknowledges the gray areas and the other sees only black and white. One lives with ambiguity, the other eschews it for absolutisms.

BTW, I was married to the daughter of one of the principal characters in the Text Book Battles, so I heard all the stories from the inside. Her father was one of the finest men I ever met, and he was forced to live with a shotgun by every door of his house and arrested on a bogus warrant for 'corrupting the morals of children'. An absolute travesty.

In the end I have concluded it was a clash, not of values, but mindsets. Those that want textbooks to stimulate thought and those that hate having their belief system challenged. I have no doubt where men like Jefferson, Madison, Paine, Adams, etc. would have stood. They challenged every idea that every came their way. They were thinkers. They lived with and danced with the ambiguities of life every day and out of that dance America was born.

For myself, I've found the doubting Thomases of the world a heck of a lot more fun than their counterparts. As Jefferson once said, "My opinion is that there would never have been an infidel, if there had never been a priest. The artificial structures they have built on the purest of all moral systems, for the purpose of deriving from it pence and power, revolts those who think for themselves, and who read in that system only what is really there." -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Mrs. Samuel H. Smith, August, 6, 1816



I was an elementary school student in eastern Kanawha County during the protests. I do remember the fear I felt during the many bomb threats. I spent the first month or so of my 4th grade year with one other student. As a kid very near ground zero for the protests, I can tell you that from my perspective they became more about the protests than what they were protesting. I had a different point of view than the people at the panel discussion. As I look back at this, it almost seems that the text books were an excuse for a very intimidating class war.
One thing I haven't seen in the reporting on the textbook flap is just which textbooks were so controversial, and which passages were debated. I hope someone has kept copies of the books. Maybe they could go in the State History Museum. They'd make a great topic for a Social Studies Fair project.
When I first moved to west virginia this "battle" was going on in Kanawha County. I remember hoping that those who were opposing the textbooks in question would emerge victorious. To this day I don't know what the final deal was. But I wanted the knuckledraggers to win. I had been to the ivory tower and I saw the education classes being offered to the younguns in college and I knew what the outcome would have to be. Q has it right for a change. That's the way it happened. There were pointy headed intellectuals (ok, few and far between) in west virginia who laughed at the rednecks, thought they had things all figured out, wanted west virginia to enter the 21st century and so on. Well, they got what they wanted. Don't look so good to me. Most younguns I meet are dumber than a sled track.
Do you textbook critics actually read the texts or do you get your information from Fox News. Quoting from the textbook I'm using. " He (Kenneth Starr) learned that the president had had an improper relationship with a young White House intern. Furthermore,Clinton allegedly lied under oath about the affair. In August 1998, Clinton admitted in a national address that he had engaged in an improper realtionship with the intern." A section on Washington uses words to describe him such as "dignified, strenth of character, honest" Jefferson is called a man with "broad knowledge". It cites his attempts to include in the Declaration of Independence an attack on the "cruelty and injustice of the slave trade" I could go on and on. Do not get your knowledge from Talking Points, do what we teach students, investigate and make your own conclusion.
@CaptainQ

Have you actually read modern text books---I just pulled three current early US history textbooks in use throughout WV in front of me--- none of them portray Washington or Jefferson in a negative light. In fact only one mentions that Washington was a slave owner and nonee mention Jefferson as a slave owner.

Can't address Clinton's scandals, but remember (in spite of the fact that he caused the financial meltdown) society will always point out that he presided over the best economy since WWII (too bad it was all fake, and the US economy will never recover until we get back to making "stuff" in America).

Obama and China (perhaps you don't know that the majority of the money that was used to bailout AIG went directly to Saudi speculators) remain to be written, be an optimist for once and at least say it can't get anyworse.
Captain's post is the perfect example for this debate. George Washington was a brilliant soldier, a great President and without him this country probably would not exist. My 6th grade son has been taught all of that and seems to have been taught about the founding fathers pretty much the same way we were in the 60's and 70's. He has also been taught that Washington was a slave owner, that in one instance Washington had one of his slaves' teeth pulled to make false teeth for himself. That doesn't seem to have lessened his reverence for Washington, it's just that he knows more about him than we did. As for Darwin recanting his theory of evolution, although it has been repeated for decades throughout the Christian community, there is no evidence it ever happened. So the question remains, do we want textbooks that paint a rosy picture of history and present false evidence to fit our beliefs, or do we want to teach the facts as best we can? Which will produce better citizens and better people?
Hoppy, it's sad to say that modern school textbooks are loaded with Political Correctness reflecting the more liberal leanings of their writers. For example, in my day Christopher Columbus was a hero while in modern revisionist history, he was the 'vile villain' who singlehandedly destroyed all Native Americans. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson have gone from respected historical figures to corrupt slaveholding bigots. Such is the way of modern liberal revisionist history. Betcha no modern history book will tell the COMPLETE story of Bill Clinton's sex scandals just like they'll never tell how at the end of his life, Charles Darwin recanted his theory of evolution and declared that God created all life. Is it any wonder that all of our schools and universities are producing increasingly liberal leaning young people? Just wait till the history textbooks ten years from now will proclaim Barrack Obama as the greatest President ever, even if he bankrupts the country, China to foreclose on the United States and allows Iran to blow up Israel as well as half the Middle East with nukes.

Post Your Comments
All comments are moderated before showing up on the site. Comments are only reviewed for inappropriate language and libelous or damaging comments. Read full user policy here.

You must be a registered user to post commments. Please login or register to post a comment.
Click Here to simply send a private email to Hoppy about this article (comments will not be posted on the website).




WVMetroNews