WHEREAS pro-Islamic/anti-Christian bias has tainted some past Texas World History textbooks, such as:

• In one instance, devoting 120 student text lines to Christian beliefs, practices, and holy writings but 248 (more than twice as many) to those of Islam; and dwelling for 27 student text lines on Crusaders' massacre of Muslims at Jerusalem in 1099 yet censoring Muslims' massacres of Christians there in 1244 and at Antioch in 1268, implying that Christian brutality and Muslim loss of life are significant but Islamic cruelty and Christian deaths are not (see documentation in Appendix I-A);*
• In another instance, allotting 82 student text lines to Christian beliefs, practices, and holy writings but 159 (almost twice as many) to those of Islam; describing Crusaders' massacres of European Jews yet ignoring the Muslim Tamerlane's massacre of perhaps 90,000 co-religionists at Baghdad in 1401, and of perhaps 100,000 Indian POWs at Delhi in 1398; thrice charging medieval Christians with sexism; and saying the Church "laid the foundations for anti-Semitism" (see documentation in Appendix I-B);*
• In a third instance, spending 139 student text lines on Christian beliefs, practices, and holy writings but 176 on those of Islam; claiming Islam "brought untold wealth to thousands and a better life to millions," while "because of [Europeans' Christian] religious zeal … many peoples died and many civilizations were destroyed;" and contrasting "the Muslim concern for cleanliness" with Swedes in Russia who were "the filthiest of God's creatures" (see documentation in Appendix I-C);* and,

WHEREAS pro-Islamic/anti-Christian half-truths, selective disinformation, and false editorial stereotypes still roil some Social Studies textbooks nationwide, evidenced by:

• Patterns of pejoratives towards Christians and superlatives toward Muslims, calling Crusaders aggressors, "violent attackers," or "invaders" while euphemizing Muslim conquest of Christian lands as "migrations" by "empire builders" (see documentation in Appendix II);*
• Politically-correct whitewashes of Islamic culture and stigmas on Christian civilization, indicting Christianity for the same practices (e.g., sexism, slavery, persecution of out-groups) that they treat non-judgmentally, minimize, sugarcoat, or censor in Islam (see documentation in Appendix II);*
• Sanitized definitions of "jihad" that exclude religious intolerance or military aggression against non-Muslims – even though Islamic sources often include these among proper meanings of the term – which undergirds worldwide Muslim terrorism (see documentation in Appendix II);* and,

WHEREAS more such discriminatory treatment of religion may occur as Middle Easterners buy into the U.S. public school textbook oligopoly, as they are now doing; and,
WHEREAS Texas' elected State Board of Education (SBOE) is a principal democratic check and balance on otherwise often-unresponsive editors and -unaccountable authors, making the SBOE the premiere venue for Texans' effective exercise of the constitutional right of petition to redress curricular grievances; therefore, be it

RESOLVED by the SBOE, that diverse reviewers have repeatedly documented gross pro-Islamic/anti-Christian distortions in Social Studies texts; that Social Studies TEKS cannot provide relief, because they tell what a course should cover, not all it should avoid; that under Texas Education Code §28.002(h)&(i), the SBOE must enforce "the basic democratic values of our state and national heritage;" that chronic partiality to one of the world's great religions, and animus against another, flout democratic values and the letter and spirit of this rule; and that Texas Administrative Code §66.66(c)(4) provides, "[N]o instructional material may be adopted that contains content that clearly conflicts with the stated purpose of the Texas Education Code, §28.002(h)" (emphasis added); and be it further

RESOLVED that the SBOE will look to reject future prejudicial Social Studies submissions that continue to offend Texas law with respect to treatment of the world's major religious groups by significant inequalities of coverage space-wise and/or by demonizing or lionizing one or more of them over others, as in the above-cited instances.