What I DON'T Like About Texas!

Garry P. Nunn wrote and sang a great song: "What I Like About Texas." State Senator Elliott Shapleigh (D-El Paso — District 29) has supplied a report that paints a gloomy, dismal picture of the Lone Star State. Governor Goodhair, who will be replaced by the Kinkster in 2006, has said that he doesn't want Texas to look like Mississippi. Guess what, Goodhair? Texas looks WORSE than Mississippi! This past Sunday, at brunch with friends, I skirted at the edge of ruining a nice meal when the talk turned to Texas and taxes. All of the geezers at the table (except me) were — I am certain — Republicans who worship at the altar of tax relief (for themselves). What none of them (including me) knew is that Texas is the least taxed — except for the sales tax — major state (in terms of population) in the Union. Living in Texas now is an exercise in masochism. The Kinkster needs a new campaign slogan: "How much worse can it get?" Read 'em and weep, Texans. If this is (fair & balanced) horror, so be it.


Texas on the Brink: How Texas Ranks Among the 50 States

You get what you pay for. In Texas, we do not get much because we do not pay for much. Compared to other states, Texas ranks near the bottom in spending for education, health care, environmental protection, workforce development, public safety, and other services and protections. Our failure to invest in ourselves puts our children at risk and our future in jeopardy. In tough times, families tighten their belts and take long, hard looks at their budgets. But even in tough times, families still find ways to buy food and clothing, to put a roof over their heads, and to send their children to school. Texas should do no less for its citizens and it must not further tighten its belt around the necks of those most in need.

Some assert that Texas has engaged in a spending spree. A review of the dismal numbers below will substantiate that this is clearly untrue. For Texas’ and our children's future to be prosperous, we must reverse past patterns and begin to invest in ourselves. Texas does indeed have a problem, but it is in how we invest, not how much we spend. In a misguided effort to be frugal, we are starving the Texas dream.

State Spending + Per Capita Tax Rankings (50^th=lowest, 1^st=highest)
Tax Revenue Raised¹—49^th
Sales Tax Dependency²—2^nd
Total General Expenditures³—50^th
Public Health⁴—45^th
MentalHealth⁵ 47^th
Educations⁶—37^th
Highways⁷—42^nd
Public Welfare and Medicaid⁸—46^th
Parks and Recreation⁹—48^th
Police Protection¹⁰—49^th
Government Administration¹¹—50^th
Environmental Protection¹²—46^th

Education (50^th=lowest, 1^st = highest)
Percentage of Population Graduated from High School¹³—46^th
High School Completion Rate¹⁴—45^th
State Aid per Pupil¹⁵—41^th
Secondary Teachers with Degrees in the Subjects they Teach¹⁶—45^th
Average Teacher Salaries¹⁷—30^th
Percent of Adults with at Least a Bachelo's Degree¹⁸—27^th
Scholastic Achievement Test (SAT) Scores¹⁹—47^th

Health Care (50^th=lowest, 1^st=highest)
Percentage of Population without Health Insurance²⁰—1^st
Percentage of Poor Covered by Medicaid²¹—44^th
Physicians per Capita²²—40^th
Dentists per Capita²³—41^st
Pharmacists per Capita²⁴—44^th
Psychiatrists per Capita²⁵—36^th
Number of Women Receiving Prenatal Care²⁶—45^th
Rate of Disease per 100,000 People²⁷—9^th
Risk for Heart Disease²⁸—12^th
Percentage of Obese Adults²⁹—10^th
Percentage of People with Access to Dental Care³⁰—48^th
Rate at which Citizens Receive Treatment for Drug and Alcohol Abuse Problems³¹—45^th
Overall Health of the State³²—37^th

Access to Capital (50^th=lowest, 1^st=highest)
Percentage of home refinance loans that are subprime-mortgage loans (generally 3 to 4 percentage points or more higher than a comparable prime market loan)³³—1^st
The total assets of banks, trust companies, and savings institutions located in the state³⁴—38^th
The amount of money that banks located in the state collect through deposits in relation to the amount of money the banks re-channel back into local communities through loans³⁵—48^th

Environment (50^th=lowest, 1^st=highest)
Amount of Toxic Emissions from Manufacturing Facilities³⁶—1^st
Amount of Toxic Release Inventory Chemicals Used by Manufacturing Industries³⁷—1^st
Number of Clean Water Permit Violations³⁸—1^st
Number of Environmental Civil Rights Complaints³⁹—1^st
Number of Hazardous Waste and Spills⁴⁰—1^st
Amount of Ozone Pollution Exposure⁴¹—2^nd
Park Spending and Acreage⁴²—49^th
Per Capita Spending on Water Quality⁴³—47^th
Open Space Protection⁴⁴—46^th
Per Capita Consumption of Energy⁴⁵—5^th

State of the Child (50th=lowest, 1^st=highest)
Percentage of Uninsured Children⁴⁶—1^st
Percentage of Fully-Immunized Two-Year Olds⁴⁷—50th
Percentage of Population Under Age 18 who are Living in Poverty⁴⁸—9th

Welfare (50^th=lowest, 1^st=highest)
Poverty Rate⁴⁹—6^th
Percentage of Population that goes Hungry⁵⁰—2^nd
Percentage of Population that is Malnourished⁵¹—3^rd
Amount of Welfare and Food Stamp Benefits Paid⁵²—47^th
Teenage Birth Rate⁵³—2^nd

Workforce (50^th= lowest, 1^st=highest)
Unemployment Rate⁵⁴—10^th
Average Hourly Earnings⁵⁵—44^th
Workforce Education⁵⁶—43^rd
Income Gap Between Rich and Poor⁵⁷—8^th
Number of Job-Discrimination Lawsuits⁵⁸—3^rd
Percentage of Adults with Internet Access⁵⁹—39^th

Cost of Living (50^th= worst, 1^st=best)
Homeowners as Percentage of Population⁶⁰—45^th
Homeowners Insurance Affordability⁶¹—50^th
Auto Insurance Affordability⁶²—39^th
Residential Electric Bills Affordability⁶³—50^th

Public Safety (1^st=most, 50^th=least)
Number of Executions⁶⁴—1^st
Number of Adults in the Criminal Justice System⁶⁵—1^st
Number of Adults Incarcerated⁶⁶—2^nd
Number of Firearm Deaths⁶⁷—2^nd
Number of Registered Machine Guns⁶⁸—1^st
Number of Traffic Fatalities⁶⁹—1^st
Number of Alcohol-Related Traffic Fatalities⁷⁰—1^st
Number of Road-Rage Traffic Fatalities⁷¹—2^nd
Highway Expenditures, per Vehicle-Mile Traveled⁷²—44^th
Highway Expenditures, per Capita⁷³—45^th

Democracy (50^th=lowest, 1^st=highest)
Percentage of Eligible Voters that are Registered⁷⁴—46^th
Percentage of Eligible Voters that Go to the Polls⁷⁵—47^th

Texas Facts
Children
• Over 1 million Texas children are without health insurance.⁷⁶
• 1 in 5 Texas children are poor.⁷⁷
• Nine percent of Texas children were in extreme poverty (income below 50% of the poverty level) in 1999.⁷⁸
• Maximum Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) cash assistance for a family of three is $201.⁷⁹
• Although nearly 1.3 million children are potentially eligible for child care in Texas, only 8% of these children will receive a subsidy.⁸⁰
• In 2001, Children's Protective Services (CPS) staffing and projected expenditures were $576,031,456.⁸¹
• In 2002, 297 children were placed into CPS custody as a last resort for mental health services .⁸²
• In 2001, about 43,000 Texas children were victims of abuse and neglect.⁸³
• In 2001, the average CPS worker had a caseload of 27 children.⁸⁴

Education
• The high school dropout rate for Texas is 40 percent. Whites drop out at a rate of 27 percent, whereas Blacks dropout at a rate of 46 percent and Hispanics at 52 percent .⁸⁵
• 71% of Texas fourth grade students read below the proficiency level in 2000.⁸⁶
• 23% of Texas fourth grade students scored below the basic math level in 2000.⁸⁷
• 32% of Texas eighth grade students scored below the basic math level in 2000.⁸⁸
• Texas has an average combined SAT score lower than the national average. In 2002, the national combined score was 1,020, whereas for Texas it was only 991.⁸⁹
• While the national SAT average has been slowly but steadily rising since 1995, the Texas average has been slowly dropping. In 1995, the US average SAT score was 1,010, and now, it has risen to 1,020. The Texas average in 1995 was 996 and has now dropped to 991.⁹⁰
• While California has six public universities ranked in the top 50 nationwide, Texas has only one, the University of Texas at Austin (47).⁹¹

Income Disparity
• The average income in the top fifth of income distribution in Texas was at least ten times greater than the average income in the bottom fifth.⁹²
• Middle and low-income Texas families did not share equally in the economic boom of the eighties and nineties. Families that made $36,000 and under only gained four percent, while families who made $84,500 or more gained 33%.⁹³
• In 2000, the United States was the world's wealthiest nation and leading economic power, as well as the western industrialized nation with the greatest gap between the rich and poor.⁹⁴

Taxation
• Middle and low-income Texas families have a higher tax rate than wealthy families.⁹⁵
• Texas' tax system is listed as one of the "Terrible Ten" most regressive states in the nation.⁹⁶
• Texas asks poor families, those in the bottom 20% of the income scale, to pay more than three times as great a share of their earnings in taxes as the wealthy.⁹⁷
• Middle income families pay more than twice as high a share of their income in taxes as the wealthiest families.⁹⁸
• Tax regressivity has worsened since 1998. Overall, low and middle income taxpayers saw their burden grow, while the top-fifth wealthy Texans primarily received tax reductions.⁹⁹

Transportation
• About 25,000 lane miles need rehabilitation, and over 12,000 bridges are classified as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. Only 70% of bridges in Texas are in good condition.¹⁰⁰
• Rough roads in Texas are increasing annual vehicle operating costs by $163 per motorist.¹⁰¹
• Traffic delays cost Texas urban drivers about $5.5 billion per year.¹⁰²
• Traffic volume is growing 16 times faster than lane miles are added.¹⁰³
• Every 2.5 hours there are 75 vehicular crashes in Texas, someone dies, and two people are injured, with an economic loss of about $9 billion annually.¹⁰⁴

Health Care
• Texas has 162 physicians per 100,000 population; the national average is 198 per 100,000 population.¹⁰⁵
• Texas has only 633 Registered Nurses per 100,000 population, significantly fewer than the national average of 798.¹⁰⁶
• Five of the 15 cities deemed to be the "Fattest Cities in America" are in Texas, with Houston ranked number one.¹⁰⁷

---

Endnotes
1.U.S. Census Bureau, Governments Division, 2000.
2.Federation of Tax Administrators: “1998 State Government Finance Data,” online database. Website: www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/98taxdis.html.
3.U.S. Census Bureau, Governments Division, 2000. For Total Per Capita Expenditures Texas is ranked 49^th.
4.Texas Association of Health Plans, “Healthy Families, Healthy Texas, Medicaid Managed Care: Legislative Overview,” January 17, 2003.
5.Texas Association of Health Plans, “Healthy Families, Healthy Texas, Medicaid Managed Care: Legislative Overview.”
6.Texas Association of Health Plans, “Healthy Families, Healthy Texas, Medicaid Managed Care: Legislative Overview.”
7.Texas Association of Health Plans, “Healthy Families, Healthy Texas, Medicaid Managed Care: Legislative Overview.”
8.Texas Association of Health Plans, “Healthy Families, Healthy Texas, Medicaid Managed Care: Legislative Overview.”
9.Texas Association of Health Plans, “Healthy Families, Healthy Texas, Medicaid Managed Care: Legislative Overview.”
10.U.S. Census Bureau, Governments Division, 2000.
11.U.S. Census Bureau, Governments Division, 2000.
12.Council of State Governments, Resource Guide to State Environmental Management, 5th Edition, 1999.
13.Morgan Quitno, “State Rankings, 2002, A Statistical View of the 50 United States.”
14.U.S. Census, 2000.
15.National Education Association, 2001-2002 data.
16.Quality Counts 2003, Education Week.
17.Nationa Education Association, 2001-2002 data.
18.U.S. Census, 2000.
19.Morgan Quitno, “State Rankings, 2002, A Statistical View of the 50 United States.”
20.United Health Foundation, “State Rankings, 2002,” Website: www.unitedhealthfoundations.org.
21.U.S. Centers for Disease Control, National Center for Health Statistics, “Health, United States, 2000, Hyattsville, MD, Table 144.
22.Bureau of Health Professions, “State Health Workforce Profiles, Texas,” Website: ww://bhpr.hrsa.gov.
23.Bureau of Health Professions, “State Health Workforce Profiles, Texas.”
24.Bureau of Health Professions, “State Health Workforce Profiles, Texas.”
25.Bureau of Health Professions, “State Health Workforce Profiles, Texas.”
26.Women’s Health and Family Planning Association of Texas, “Health Crisis in Texas,” Website: www.whfpt.org/facts/crisis.html.
27.Centers for Disease Control, “Summary of Notifiable Diseases, 1998, “Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 47, Mo.53, Atlanta, GA, December 31, 1999.
28.United Health Foundation, “State Rankings, 2002."
29.United Health Foundation, “State Rankings, 2002."
30.“Health Care State Rankings 2000,” Morgan Quitno Prss, Lawrence, KS, 2000, pp. 439&486.
31.U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, “Health, United States, 2000,” Hyattsville, D, 2000, Table 86, data cover 1998.
32.United Health Foundation, “State Rankings, 2002."
33.Center for Community Change, “Risk or Race? Racial Disparities and the Subprime Refinance Market”, July 2002.
34.Hovey, Kendra A. and Harold A. Hovey, ed.. CQ’s State Fact Finder, 2001. CQ Press, Washington, DC. 2001.
35.Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, U.S. Department of Treasury, “2002 Host-State Loan-to-Deposit Ratios”, June 30,2001. Website: www.occ.treas.gov
36.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1998 Toxic Release Inventory data. Website: http://www.epa.gov/tri/tri98/data/rlme98atold2.pdf.
37.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1998 Toxic Release Inventory data.
38.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Enforcement, Planning, Targeting, and Data Divsion, Washington D.S., data cover 1999.
39.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Title VI Complaints filed as of October 1, 1999.
40.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Emergency Response Notification System database. Website: www.epa.gov/ERNS/docs/toc.htm.
41.Mardock, Jayne, and Gina Porreco, Smog Watch 2000, “Dirty Smog Spots and Clean Air Solutions,” Clean Air Network, Washington, D.C., June, 2000, p.11. Website: www.cleanair.net/smogwatch2000.htm.
42.Bureau of Census, “Statistical Abstract of the United States 1999,” Washington D.C., 1999 p.263.
43.Council of State Governments, Resource Guide to State Environment Management, 5th Edition, 1999.
44.Sierra Club, “Solving Sprawl,” San Francisco October 1999, Website: www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/reports99/openratings.asp.
45.Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, 1999, Website: www.eia.doe.gov.
46.Kids Count Data Book, State Profiles of Child Well-Being, The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2002.
47.Kids Count Data Book, State Profiles of Child Well-Being.
48.United Health Foundation, State Profiles, 2002.
49.U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. Census Bureau. March Current Population Survey (CPS); Carole Keeton Rylander, Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, Bordering the Future: Challenge and Opportunity in the Texas Border, January 2001 Update; Texas Department of Health.
50.Center for Public Policy Priorities. “Food and Hunger Fast Facts,” March 27, 2002. Website: www.cppp.org/products/fastfacts/food.html.
51.“Prevalence of Food Insecurity and Hunger by State, 1996-1998,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Economic Division, Washington, D.C., September 1999, p.3. Website: www.ers.usda.gov/epubs/pdf/fanrr2/fanrr2.pdf.
52.U.S. House Ways and Means Committee, “1998 Green Book,” WMCD-105-7, Washington, D.C., May 19, 1998, Section 7, Table 7-8, data cover 1995.
53.U.S. Centers for Disease Control, “National Vital Statistics Reports,” Vol. 48, No. 6, Hyattsville, MD, April 24, 2000, p.8. Website: www.cdc.gov.nchs/fastats/teenbrth.htm.
54.U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. Census Bureau. March Current Population Survey (CPS); Carole Keeton Rylander, Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, Bordering the Future: Challenge and Opportunity in the Texas Border, January 2001 Update; Texas Department of Health.
55.Hovey, Kendra A. and Harold A. Hovey, ed.. CQ’s State Fact Finder, 2001. CQ Press, Washington, DC. 2001.
56. A weighted measure of the educational attainment (advanced degrees, bachelor's degrees, associate degrees, or some college course work) of the workforce. The Progressive Policy Institute, “The 2002 State New Economy
Index, Benchmarking Economic Transformation in the States,” Website: www.ppionline.org.
57.“Pulling Apart, A State-by-State Analysis of Income Trends,” Center for Budget and Policy Priorities and Economic Policy Institute, Washington, D.C., January 2000, pp.9, 16. Website:www.cbpp.org .
58.Equal Employment Opportunity Office cases covering October 1, 1996 to May 15, 2000.
59.Equal Employment Opportunity Office
60.U.S.Census Bureau, “Housing and Homeownership, Annual Statistics 1999,” Washington, D.C., Table 13. Website: www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/hvs/annual99/ann99t13.html.
61.National Association of Insurance Commissioners, “1997 Dwelling Fire...Owners Insurance,” Kansas City, MO, January 2000.
62.National Association of Insurance Commissioners, “State Average Expenditures and Premiums for Personal Auto Insurance in 1998,” Kansas City, MO, April 2000.
63.Edison Electric Institute, “Statistical Yearbook of the Electric Utility Industry,” 1999 Edition, Washington, D.C., Tables 67-68.
64.Death Penalty Information Center, Washington, D.C., Data as of April 200. Website: www.essential.org/dpic/DRUSA-ExecBreakDwn.html.
65.Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin: “Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 1999,” NCJ 181643, April 2000. Website: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pu/pdf/pjim99/pdf.
66.Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin: “Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 1999.”
67.Violence Policy Council, “Who Dies? A Look at Firearms Deaths and Injuries in America,” Washington, D.C., February, 1999. Website: www.vpc.org.
68.Violence Policy Center, “Gunland U.S.A.” 69.U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, “Traffic Safety Facts 1998,” DOT HS 808 983, Washington, D.C., October 1999. Website: www.nhtsa.dot/gov/people/ncsa/tsf-1998.pdf.
70.U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, “Traffic Safety Facts 1998,”
71.Surface Transportation Policy Project, “Aggressive Driving: Are You at Risk?” Washington, D.C., 1999, Chapter 1, Figure 2, data cover 1996.
72.Surface Transportation Policy Project, “Aggressive Driving: Are You at Risk?”.
73.Surface Transportation Policy Project, “Aggressive Driving: Are You at Risk?”.
74.Federal Elections Commission, “Voter Registration and Turnout-1998.” Web Site: www.fec.gov/pages/reg&to98.htm.
75.Federal Elections Commission, “Voter Registration and Turnout-1998.”
76.CPS data from March 1996-1998 and HHSC data http://www.hhsc.state.tx.us/chip/WeeklySumRpt.htm.
77.U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 2000, Census of Population and Housing, Summary File 3, unpublished data. Calculations by the Children’s Defense Fund.
78.Kids Count Data Book, State Profiles of Child Well-Being, The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2002.
79.Maximum cash assistance for a three-person family with no other income. U.S. Congress, Congressional Research Service, “TANF Benefits and Earninga Limits.” Calculations by Children’s Defense Fund.
80.The Texas Child Care Experience Since 1996: Implication for Federal and State Policy, Center for Public Policy Priorities; Jason Sabo, Patrick Bresette, Eva DeLuna Castro.
81.“Protecting the Unprotected,” 2001 Data Book of the Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services, September 1, 2000-August 31, 2001.
82.Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services, 1/30/03.
83.“Protecting the Unprotected,” 2001 Data Book of the Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services, September 1, 2000-August 31, 2001.
84.“Protecting the Unprotected,” 2001 Data Book of the Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services.
85.Intercultural Development Research Association, “Attrition Rates in Texas Public Schools By Race-Ethnicity, 2000-01," Website: www.idra.org.
86.U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, NEAP 1998 Reading Report Card for the Nation and the States (March 1999), Table 5.3; and U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, NEAP 1998 Reading, Summary Data Tables, Table T068101, in XSRITCH.pdf, Website: http://nces.ed.gov,
Calculations by Children’s Defense Fund.
87.Kids Count Data Book, State Profiles of Child Well-Being, The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2002.
88.Kids Count Data Book, State Profiles of Child Well-Being.
89.Texas Public Policy Foundation, Website: www.tppf.org.
90.Texas Public Policy Foundation.
91.U.S. News and World Report, “America’s Best Colleges,” 2001, Website: www.usnews.com.
92.Economic Policy Institute, “Despite Past Boom Times, Income Gaps Have Widened in 45 States Over the Past Twenty Years, New York State Shows Biggest Jump in Inequality”, April 23, 2002, Website: www.epinet.org.
93.ProTex, Website: www.ProTex.org.
94.Phillips, K. Wealth and Democracy: A Political History of the American Rich. Broadway Books, 2002.
95.ProTex, Website: www.ProTex.org.
96.The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, Who Pays? A Distributional Analysis of the TaxSystems in All 50 States. January 2003. Website: http://www.itepnet.org/whopays.htm.
97.The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, Who Pays? A Distributional Analysis of the Tax Systems in All 50 States.
98.The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, Who Pays? A Distributional Analysis of the TaxSystems in All 50 States.
99.The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, Who Pays? A Distributional Analysis of the Tax Systems in All 50 States.
100.Transportation Working Group report; FHWA; RLN presentation to Urban Texas Conference, November, 2002; Comptroller.
101.Transportation Working Group report; FHWA.
102.Transportation Working Group report; FHWA.
103.Transportation Working Group report; FHWA.
104.Transportation Working Group report; FHWA.
105.Bureau of Health Professions, “State Health Workforce Profiles, Texas,” Website: www://bhpr.hrsa.gov.
106.Bureau of Health Professions, “State Health Workforce Profiles, Texas.”
107.Men’s Fitness online, America’s Fattest Cities 2002. Online: http://www.mensfitness.com/magazines/magViewer/FitnMagArt.asp?
Catid=234&Objid.

Edited by Andrea Varnell, Director of Projects
Research Assistants: Emilia Guerin, Mack McCullough, Eric Muñoz, Andrea Pérez, Marisol Sánchez-Castillo, Annie Shepard, and Clinton Yu

Misunderstood?

If this blog is one thing, it is objective. While the guffawing quiets, let me say that religion, race, and objectivity are obvious to me as slippery topics. Inertia is less obvious, but as one who stayed at the Collegium Excellens for 32 years, I am an excellent example of inertia in action. Oxymoron? Active inertia? If this is (fair & balanced) stupidity, so be it.

[x CHE]
THE SHORT LIST: Misunderstood Concepts

We asked four scholars to discuss the most misunderstood concepts in their fields.

Religion

Kent Greenawalt, a professor of law at Columbia University School of Law and author of Does God Belong in Public Schools? (Princeton University Press, 2005):

The most misunderstood, and manipulated, concepts in discussion of the free-exercise and establishment clauses of the First Amendment are religion itself and teaching religion. One problem is that saying just what makes something religious is very hard. The best one can do is look for features that characterize major religions -- such as belief in a spiritual domain, a comprehensive view of the world and human purposes, ritual acts of worship, the use of sacred texts, and corporate aspects of religious practice -- and ask how closely debated instances resemble the undisputed religions.

Another problem with the legal concept of religion is how it should relate to nonlegal understanding. What counts as religious for constitutional purposes need not be exactly the same as what a philosopher, a theologian, or an anthropologist would consider religious. But a legal approach to religion should connect fairly closely to its ordinary meanings.

These genuine perplexities cannot explain, or excuse, blatant misuses of the concept of religion. Evolution is not religion, teaching it is not religion. The theory of evolution does conflict with some religious views, but it is based on scientific data. Science is an independent field of inquiry that does not even address most major questions that concern religions.

When other subjects, such as history and government, are treated without reference to religion, teachers are not propounding "the religion of secular humanism." Few American public-school teachers tell students that God does not exist, and that human beings are the measure of all things. (And, in any event, the ideas of secular humanism are not themselves a religion.) Religion is not everything about which people care deeply. One may contrast these various expansive notions of religion with ideas that are much too narrow -- for example, that religion in law should be limited to belief in a supreme being.

Developing a constitutional approach to the concept of religion is difficult, but we could think more clearly about that problem if people restrained themselves from putting forward whatever labels will serve the immediate practical consequences they seek.

***

Inertia

John S. Rigden, an adjunct professor of physics at Washington University in St. Louis and author of Einstein 1905: The Standard of Greatness (Harvard University Press, 2005):

Anumber of physics concepts are misunderstood by both students and the general public. The spooky "field" concept is an example: A field exists where there appears to be nothing. However, the concept of inertia is so contrary to our experiences and common sense that I would put it right up there at the top.

The concept of inertia equates what seem to be opposites: motionlessness and motion. Standing still and moving uniformly (with no acceleration) are physically equivalent. Since moving and standing still are equivalent, once an object is moving, it would, according to the dictates of inertia, have no reason to stop and would continue moving forever. However, our environment is replete with a variety of forces that conspire to bring moving objects to rest. Thus endless motion is foreign to our experience.

A ride on a roller coaster thrills our senses as the rider is subjected to a variety of stomach-wrenching accelerations. By contrast, our much faster ride on planet Earth, as it simultaneously orbits the Sun and spins on its axis, provides no thrill at all because this motion is almost acceleration-free, and thus we think we are at rest. Inertia underlies an understanding of motion and, since it violates common sense, is often the source of confusion.

***

Race

Mica Pollock, an assistant professor of education in human development and psychology at the Harvard Graduate School of Education and author of Colormute: Race Talk Dilemmas in an American School (Princeton University Press, 2004):

I think that in education (a field made up of many intersecting disciplines -- mine is anthropology), race is the most misunderstood concept. More precisely, it's the fuzziest concept, the vaguest, the most broadly used, and the least openly wrestled with, though it is a concept that we in education must (and do) use daily.

The number of researchers who believe in biological differences between races is thankfully dwindling. We understand increasingly that race categories are social realities built upon biological fictions -- that race categories have been constructed and thus organize our daily experiences and life trajectories. But too few of us study how race categories are rebuilt daily in American life.

Particularly in education, we tend to treat racial identities as if they are fixed rather than in flux. We also often treat the racially inequitable opportunity system surrounding students as static, rather than as a living structure of opportunity-denial that Americans reproduce and allow on a daily basis. We also tend too often to treat race as a topic that we can simply go ask research subjects about and so get easy answers to our questions, when Americans actually struggle quite actively with both talking and not talking about race.

Many educational researchers are particularly concerned with racial patterns of achievement, but often oversimplify the concept of race. First, they often use race in research comparisons as a kind of simple difference, as if different "kinds" of kids have fundamentally different ways of talking and acting and thinking about school, and that if we can just compare each group's behaviors, we'll understand the "achievement gap."

Relatedly, too few of us examine racial achievement patterns as orders produced jointly by intertwined adult and young players both inside and outside of schools. Finally, in examining racial inequality, some of us treat race as if it can be neatly delinked from other variables, like class, when class itself is racially organized in the United States, and race involves class dynamics.

I think that openly struggling over such complexities of race analysis is essential for producing good research and helping children.

***

Objectivity

Robert J. Norrell, a professor of history at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville and author of The House I Live In: Race in the American Century (Oxford University Press, 2005):

The most misunderstood concept in history is objectivity. I entered the academic world in the aftermath of 1960s idealism with the faith that the truth would set me, and society, free. I thought, "Let's study the past, identify the wrongs done, and correct them" -- an idea that presumed confidence in both human authority in the world and our ability to objectively establish what was wrong in society.

Objectivity as an ideal for historians, however, soon lost favor. In the 1970s, historians began a quest to include those who had been left out of our typical narratives: blacks, women, the working class. Influenced by the countercultural influences of the 60s, those practicing this "new history" often dismissed old history as biased in favor of white, male elites in the West, and tended to celebrate those forgotten people without subjecting them to the same tough-minded criticism that they were applying to the old elites.

Postmodernist thought in the 80s continued to undermine historians' notions of objectivity, and for many younger historians, the pursuit of truth held about the same importance as looking for the Loch Ness monster. They presumed instead that all reality is constructed according to internal or group perspective, mainly by class, race, or gender. With reality so fractured by our limited perspectives, they felt, it is therefore impossible to determine an objective truth -- and is, in fact, misguided to even try.

The problem was that the academy's dismissal of objectivity set us against the larger public that likes to read history and think historically. The average nonacademic person believes that historical truth can be established, or at least approximated, and that the value of history is its ability to teach us actually what our experience has been. This divide between academic history and what the public understands about the past has resulted from the intellectuals' too-casual dismissal of the human capacity to seek truth, which has undermined our ability to shape understandings of the past outside the academy.

Copyright © 2005 by The Chronicle of Higher Education