Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 90

Thread: Anti-Anti-Racist Legislation for Classrooms to Stifle Free Speech

  1. Top | #1
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    11,078
    Archived
    17,741
    Total Posts
    28,819
    Rep Power
    82

    Anti-Anti-Racist Legislation for Classrooms to Stifle Free Speech

    A quick review--the Juneteenth thread, meant to discuss celebration and positive things quickly got derailed several times, one time including an attack on Joy Reid for mentioning anti-anti-racist legislation across some dozen of states. The legislation chills teaching in states like Texas and Oklahoma because the legislation goes too far and has terrible wording. The purported intent is to go after Critical Race Theory that the right-wing is propagandizing but the true effect is to remove teaching about modern racism, which in some instances can only be seen through a lens of counter-whitesplaining back at teachers and professors. In one case, nothing can be taught that might make a white person uncomfortable. In another case, nothing can be taught that might use a concept of one race being superior in a current event...so you can't talk about racism producing George Floyd's murder, for example.

    Conservatives are free to argue with me on any of these points, but the reason I have put this review in is because of a recent news story.

    [Professor Melissa] Smith learned her fully enrolled class at Oklahoma City Community College was canceled for the summer. It’s been her primary course for several years.

    “[After] learning more about HB/SB 1775 and how it essentially revokes any ability to teach critical race theory, including discussions of white privilege, from required courses in Oklahoma … we recognized that HB/SB 1775 would require substantial changes to the curriculum for this class particularly,” Erick Worrell, a spokesman for the college, wrote in an email Friday to The Washington Post.

    Worrell said the course is not gone, but “paused.” The college believes in teaching about racism, he said. But administrators wanted “more time to get this right — or to let the legal issues play out with other universities and colleges before we teach it again in its current form.”
    To be clear, the class does NOT teach critical race theory, does NOT teach white people that they are guilty of crimes against humanity, does NOT use the phrase critical race theory, but DID teach about racism and discrimination.

    [The former] syllabus DID ask students to learn about racial inequality in the United States — from health to criminal justice to housing — and to “recognize the extent of privilege, prejudice, and discrimination in our society.”
    Emphasis added.

    ...Smith, who is White, said Friday it is “just ridiculous” that her course apparently cannot teach about White privilege if Oklahoma’s law remains in place.

    She said she typically tackles the subject with lots of questions: “What is your definition of privilege? What does that mean?” She also remembered giving students example of privilege from her own life and seeing “the lightbulb go off.”

    “That is what I’m sad won’t be happening,” she said.
    BUT, the new law states:
    No teacher, administrator or other employee of a school district, charter school or virtual charter school shall require or make part of a course the following concepts:
    ... any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex, ...
    There are too many conservatives who will make the jump that any mention of a concept of privilege or white privilege is there to make all white people bad or to create white guilt. And the fact that it may make some students uncomfortable, even if the idea of privilege is taught factually, creates tremendous financial risk to the school.

    Therefore, this school is taking an innocuous course offline to see how things play out and what the resolutions will be. So much for "free speech advocates."

  2. Top | #2
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    19,686
    Archived
    41,943
    Total Posts
    61,629
    Rep Power
    88
    And, if anyone thinks that this is very thing some of the legislatures were aiming for, they are mistaken.

  3. Top | #3
    Contributor Trausti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Northwest
    Posts
    8,810
    Archived
    372
    Total Posts
    9,182
    Rep Power
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by Don2 (Don1 Revised) View Post
    .so you can't talk about racism producing George Floyd's murder, for example.
    Probably OT, but how was it racism? The guy was trying to pass counterfeit money. There was probable cause to arrest him. They tried to put him in the police car; he resisted because he could not breath. Then he is placed on the ground. Where’s the racism? Was the death of Tony Timpa also racism? If not, why not?

  4. Top | #4
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    11,078
    Archived
    17,741
    Total Posts
    28,819
    Rep Power
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by Trausti View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Don2 (Don1 Revised) View Post
    .so you can't talk about racism producing George Floyd's murder, for example.
    Probably OT, but how was it racism? The guy was trying to pass counterfeit money. There was probable cause to arrest him. They tried to put him in the police car; he resisted because he could not breath. Then he is placed on the ground. Where’s the racism? Was the death of Tony Timpa also racism? If not, why not?
    Yes, this would be an off-topic derail to discuss specifics because the conversation is more abstract.

    Consider a modern example of racism you will accept. Let's call it r. r is in the set R where R is the set of all modern racist events, whereby modern I mean current and very recent events in news as opposed to official terminology like the Modern Era or the Post-Modern Era. Whether you consider George Floyd or some other person to be examples is irrelevant and will create a derail on issues of fact.

    r in R

    If a professor is to discuss r and its mechanisms, they cannot because a discussion of the concept that one race is superior is forbidden. Likewise, a discussion that might make someone feel uncomfortable or guilty is risky because that person can claim that is the intent of the lesson which conservatives like yourself are already claiming.

  5. Top | #5
    Contributor Trausti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Northwest
    Posts
    8,810
    Archived
    372
    Total Posts
    9,182
    Rep Power
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by Don2 (Don1 Revised) View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trausti View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Don2 (Don1 Revised) View Post
    .so you can't talk about racism producing George Floyd's murder, for example.
    Probably OT, but how was it racism? The guy was trying to pass counterfeit money. There was probable cause to arrest him. They tried to put him in the police car; he resisted because he could not breath. Then he is placed on the ground. Where’s the racism? Was the death of Tony Timpa also racism? If not, why not?
    Yes, this would be an off-topic derail to discuss specifics because the conversation is more abstract.

    Consider a modern example of racism you will accept. Let's call it r. r is in the set R where R is the set of all modern racist events, whereby modern I mean current and very recent events in news as opposed to official terminology like the Modern Era or the Post-Modern Era. Whether you consider George Floyd or some other person to be examples is irrelevant and will create a derail on issues of fact.

    r in R

    If a professor is to discuss r and its mechanisms, they cannot because a discussion of the concept that one race is superior is forbidden. Likewise, a discussion that might make someone feel uncomfortable or guilty is risky because that person can claim that is the intent of the lesson which conservatives like yourself are already claiming.
    Well, your reply doesn’t actually explain how racism caused Floyd’s death. I mean, at no point during the Chauvin trial was it shown or even argued that racism had anything to do with it. Hence, the central problem with CRT: it is anti empirical evidence. This is not too surprising, as the progenitors of CRT openly reject objectivity. So why would we want to inculcate children into this mendacity?

  6. Top | #6
    Aethiopian Gospel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,757
    Archived
    138
    Total Posts
    1,895
    Rep Power
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by Trausti View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Don2 (Don1 Revised) View Post
    .so you can't talk about racism producing George Floyd's murder, for example.
    Probably OT, but how was it racism? The guy was trying to pass counterfeit money. There was probable cause to arrest him. They tried to put him in the police car; he resisted because he could not breath. Then he is placed on the ground. Where’s the racism? Was the death of Tony Timpa also racism? If not, why not?
    Absolutely yes, Tony Timpa's death was a result of racism. It's the low standard established in the police department since its founding that is leaking over and affecting everyone. The police were formed to control "people not like us" and have been allowed to get away with a lot of things as long as it hurts "people not like us". Qualified immunity itself was established to protect X from "people not like us" and has, you guessed it, become a tool used by the police against "people not like us". Just because there is an increase in the number of people like X getting buttfucked by the police doesn't mean their purpose to fuck"people not like us" has ended.

  7. Top | #7
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    11,078
    Archived
    17,741
    Total Posts
    28,819
    Rep Power
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by Trausti View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Don2 (Don1 Revised) View Post

    Yes, this would be an off-topic derail to discuss specifics because the conversation is more abstract.

    Consider a modern example of racism you will accept. Let's call it r. r is in the set R where R is the set of all modern racist events, whereby modern I mean current and very recent events in news as opposed to official terminology like the Modern Era or the Post-Modern Era. Whether you consider George Floyd or some other person to be examples is irrelevant and will create a derail on issues of fact.

    r in R

    If a professor is to discuss r and its mechanisms, they cannot because a discussion of the concept that one race is superior is forbidden. Likewise, a discussion that might make someone feel uncomfortable or guilty is risky because that person can claim that is the intent of the lesson which conservatives like yourself are already claiming.
    Well, your reply doesn’t actually explain how racism caused Floyd’s death. I mean, at no point during the Chauvin trial was it shown or even argued that racism had anything to do with it. Hence, the central problem with CRT: it is anti empirical evidence. This is not too surprising, as the progenitors of CRT openly reject objectivity. So why would we want to inculcate children into this mendacity?
    This thread isn't about either George Floyd or CRT, but instead how the legislation is concretely affecting schools.

    Even if racism has absolutely nothing to do with George Floyd's death, a technical discussion of reasons why it is NOT related to racism would require analysis and explanations of what racism is and how it plays into society. Racism will include the concept that one race is superior to another. And this is a current event, not an historical event from decades past. Ego, BANNED.

    By Free Speech Advocates.

  8. Top | #8
    Contributor Trausti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Northwest
    Posts
    8,810
    Archived
    372
    Total Posts
    9,182
    Rep Power
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by Don2 (Don1 Revised) View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trausti View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Don2 (Don1 Revised) View Post

    Yes, this would be an off-topic derail to discuss specifics because the conversation is more abstract.

    Consider a modern example of racism you will accept. Let's call it r. r is in the set R where R is the set of all modern racist events, whereby modern I mean current and very recent events in news as opposed to official terminology like the Modern Era or the Post-Modern Era. Whether you consider George Floyd or some other person to be examples is irrelevant and will create a derail on issues of fact.

    r in R

    If a professor is to discuss r and its mechanisms, they cannot because a discussion of the concept that one race is superior is forbidden. Likewise, a discussion that might make someone feel uncomfortable or guilty is risky because that person can claim that is the intent of the lesson which conservatives like yourself are already claiming.
    Well, your reply doesn’t actually explain how racism caused Floyd’s death. I mean, at no point during the Chauvin trial was it shown or even argued that racism had anything to do with it. Hence, the central problem with CRT: it is anti empirical evidence. This is not too surprising, as the progenitors of CRT openly reject objectivity. So why would we want to inculcate children into this mendacity?
    This thread isn't about either George Floyd or CRT, but instead how the legislation is concretely affecting schools.

    Even if racism has absolutely nothing to do with George Floyd's death, a technical discussion of reasons why it is NOT related to racism would require analysis and explanations of what racism is and how it plays into society. Racism will include the concept that one race is superior to another. And this is a current event, not an historical event from decades past. Ego, BANNED.

    By Free Speech Advocates.
    Err, okay. But you understand that the provisions against teaching that one race is superior to another is not to exclude historical events? It’s to stop schools from making children identify by racial groups and segregating by “oppressor” and “oppressed.” Teachers should be teachers not political activists.

  9. Top | #9
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    11,078
    Archived
    17,741
    Total Posts
    28,819
    Rep Power
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by Trausti View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Don2 (Don1 Revised) View Post

    This thread isn't about either George Floyd or CRT, but instead how the legislation is concretely affecting schools.

    Even if racism has absolutely nothing to do with George Floyd's death, a technical discussion of reasons why it is NOT related to racism would require analysis and explanations of what racism is and how it plays into society. Racism will include the concept that one race is superior to another. And this is a current event, not an historical event from decades past. Ego, BANNED.

    By Free Speech Advocates.
    Err, okay. But you understand that the provisions against teaching ...
    *FULL STOP*

    As discussed numerously, the law does not state the concept ought not be "TAUGHT" but instead that it ought not be INCLUDED. No one is TEACHING racism by teaching that one race is factually superior to another...but as a discussion of current events will inevitably turn up, a review or a technical discussion of elements of racism that INCLUDES the concept of one race being superior is going to happen. Don't change around the wording of the law.

    As shown in the op, it states "...make part of a course the following concepts...." which means INCLUDE, not TEACH as a truth.

    ...that one race is superior to another is not to exclude historical events? It’s to stop schools from making children identify by racial groups and segregating by “oppressor” and “oppressed.” Teachers should be teachers not political activists.
    Strawman. The wording of the statute allows conservative politicians to be activists and disallows teachers from teaching factual subjects or critically examining current events that could be caused by racism.

  10. Top | #10
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    5,363
    Archived
    4,797
    Total Posts
    10,160
    Rep Power
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by Don2 (Don1 Revised) View Post
    And the fact that it may make some students uncomfortable, even if the idea of privilege is taught factually, creates tremendous financial risk to the school.
    Has anyone ever actually taught the idea of privilege factually?

    Therefore, this school is taking an innocuous course offline to see how things play out and what the resolutions will be. So much for "free speech advocates."
    When I was in junior high, we had a substitute teacher in Latin class one day who explained to us that the story of Deucalion and Pyrrha was the result of the ancient Greeks misremembering the actual events of Noah and the Ark. If that public school classroom had been in the U.S., telling us what she told us would have been illegal -- our government is not supposed to be in the business of teaching one segment of society's religion as fact. Hypothetically, if that teacher had been in the U.S. and had gotten swatted for breaking the law about what the government authorized her to teach, would you regard that as "stifling free speech"?

    Why do so many people equate having the right to say what you want with having the right to be paid to say what you want by the taxpayers?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •