论文部分内容阅读
最近,有一则新闻报道令我吃惊不少,骨鲠之语。不吐不快。报道大的意是:现行中学历史教科书中有469处差错(包括明显的“硬伤”和尚有争议的问题);主管部门认为这些差错在规定的比例之内;其原因是编审体制问题(据2000年10月30日中央人民广播电台《新闻和报纸摘要》节目)。笔者吃惊之一是:中学历史教科书的差错竟有如此之多,不是三处五处或十处八处,也不是几十处,而是几百处。更令人感到震惊的是,这并不是学生可以看后扔掉的“小人书”,也不是可看可不看的“街头小报”,而是非看不可、非记住不可并要接受考核的中学课本。呜呼!这究竟是“传道、授业、解惑”的教科书呢,还是误人子弟、谬种流传的“教唆书”呢?有关人员的工作责任心又跑到哪里去了呢? 吃惊之二是:主管部门认为这些差错在规定的比例之内,言下之意是不必大惊小怪。笔者不以为然,这种草率的态度岂不是“五十步笑百步”吗?更令人感到忧患的是,在当今社会上,类似的现象已经屡见不鲜了。比如,你批评他产品合格率只有百分之七十多,他会说“别人
Recently, there was a news report that surprised me a lot. Do not spit it off Reportedly, the major implication was that there were 469 mistakes in the current history textbooks for secondary schools (including obvious “flawed” monk controversial issues); the authorities considered these mistakes to be within the prescribed proportions; the reason for this was the question of the editorial system Central People’s Radio “News and News Digest” program, October 30, 2000). One of the authors is surprised: There are so many mistakes in history textbooks in secondary schools, not three or five or ten or eight, nor dozens, but hundreds. What is even more shocking is that this is not a “villain book” that students can throw away after watching, nor is it a “street tabloid” that can be seen and seen. Middle school textbook. Woohoo! Is this a textbook of “preaching, teaching, and doubting”, or is it a “solicitation book” that misrepresents children and fallacies? Where are the responsibilities and responsibilities of the personnel involved? Yes: The competent authorities think that these errors are within the stipulated proportion, and the implication is that no fuss is required. Is not this sloppy attitude “a hundred steps to laugh”? What is even more troubling is that in today’s society, a similar phenomenon is not uncommon. For example, you criticize his product pass rate of only 70%, he would say "others