A colleague of mine wondered about the ideology of an edition like the one Alan is doing. I don't know, but speculate that it may be "textbookery" at work. This edition has something of the "textbook"-ideology behind it. In other words, the idea that what is put in writing and presented to students ought to have been vetted by committee and be "approved by the [in this case, moral] authorities."
In English departments we don't use "textbooks" in the sense I mean, at least not exclusively, and I've wondered whether history, sociology, science, mathematics, and so on might not be better taught without so much reliance on "textbooks." In other words, teach from the documents, notebooks, case reports, etc. that make up the real literature of a discipline. Of course I realize this is impractical for some purposes, but it does seem to me that if students were not so habituated to getting their course materials "sanitized," they might be better prepared to read literature....and a lot of other things.
This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of
the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
information. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution
or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
If you have received this message in error, please contact
the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the
original message (including attachments).