The Fora: A Higher Education Community

https://www.npr.org/2021/01/28/961511395/san-francisco-may-rename-schools-named-after-washington-lincoln-and-others

Discuss.

As one wit said, time to raze the pyramids.

In the noble tradition of the Taliban destroying the 1400 year old Buddhas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhas_of_Bamiyan).

Didn't realize that Lincoln was a "racist". Time to rewrite history and for re-education camps.

Quote from: Langue_doc on January 30, 2021, 06:03:48 AM
Didn't realize that Lincoln was a "racist". Time to rewrite history and for re-education camps.

From the article:

"Lincoln, known for his legacy of emancipation, is included "because of the Civil War president's treatment of American Indians, which included a mass hanging after an uprising," according to the San Francisco Chronicle."

Quote from: Langue_doc on January 30, 2021, 06:03:48 AM
Didn't realize that Lincoln was a "racist". Time to rewrite history and for re-education camps.

Don't know about the racist part, but he was gay. Maybe our first gay racist president?

Quote from: spork on January 30, 2021, 06:44:24 AM

Quote from: Langue_doc on January 30, 2021, 06:03:48 AM
Didn't realize that Lincoln was a "racist". Time to rewrite history and for re-education camps.

Don't know about the racist part, but he was gay. Maybe our first gay racist president?

That was based on a very bad book by a psychologist who didn't understand any of the historical context. Basically the evidence was that Lincoln shared a bed with a man for a number of years. Seems compelling, unless you know that was a very common practice for young men. Beds were expensive.

Also, the level of hyperbole here is pretty ridiculous, even by the standard of the posters engaging in it. Renaming a middle school in San Francisco is not exactly the same as the Taliban destroying ancient monuments or re-education camps...

Quote from: spork on January 30, 2021, 06:44:24 AM

Quote from: Langue_doc on January 30, 2021, 06:03:48 AM
Didn't realize that Lincoln was a "racist". Time to rewrite history and for re-education camps.

Don't know about the racist part, but he was gay. Maybe our first gay racist president?

I was being facetious. If we're dredging up past history, perhaps we should throw out the constitution (written by people who owned slaves) and denounce the pilgrims and other early settlers, and their descendants.

I wasn't aware of the gay part. If so then " first gay racist president" would be an apt description.

ETA Just saw Caracal's post. Yes, bed sharing was quite common in those days.

Quote from: Langue_doc on January 30, 2021, 06:03:48 AM
Didn't realize that Lincoln was a "racist". Time to rewrite history and for re-education camps.

Bill Maher, in his typically relentless style: time to cancel Jesus.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEw5xe4Ip0I

It's a well-established historical fact that Lincoln was gay (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IslF_EyhMzg&ab_channel=TheArkive). That doesn't make him a worse president than Andrew Jackson.

Quote from: Caracal on January 30, 2021, 06:54:27 AM

Quote from: spork on January 30, 2021, 06:44:24 AM

Quote from: Langue_doc on January 30, 2021, 06:03:48 AM
Didn't realize that Lincoln was a "racist". Time to rewrite history and for re-education camps.

Don't know about the racist part, but he was gay. Maybe our first gay racist president?

That was based on a very bad book by a psychologist who didn't understand any of the historical context. Basically the evidence was that Lincoln shared a bed with a man for a number of years. Seems compelling, unless you know that was a very common practice for young men. Beds were expensive.

Also, the level of hyperbole here is pretty ridiculous, even by the standard of the posters engaging in it. Renaming a middle school in San Francisco is not exactly the same as the Taliban destroying ancient monuments or re-education camps...

Really? Why should people honour someone who believed terrible things? Why should young people be expected to show "respect" for some historical figure who had ideas that they find offensive?
(Buddha said there were (depending on how you interpret it) many gods or no god at all! How can any monotheist listen to that kind of rubbish?)

Or is the argument that the Taliban didn't really believe the Buddha was evil; deep down they knew he was OK, whereas the school renamers are absolutely certain that they are morally right, so they are justified?

Quote from: Langue_doc on January 30, 2021, 06:59:44 AM

Quote from: spork on January 30, 2021, 06:44:24 AM

Quote from: Langue_doc on January 30, 2021, 06:03:48 AM
Didn't realize that Lincoln was a "racist". Time to rewrite history and for re-education camps.

Don't know about the racist part, but he was gay. Maybe our first gay racist president?

I was being facetious.

Sorry! I never know on this site.

Any idea why Feinstein is on the list for renaming? I was pretty surprised there was a Feinstein Elementary (or whatever it is).

Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 30, 2021, 08:46:24 AM
Sorry! I never know on this site.

Any idea why Feinstein is on the list for renaming? I was pretty surprised there was a Feinstein Elementary (or whatever it is).

More than Washington and Lincoln's, the explanation for Feinstein's inclusion gives a sense of the Blue Ribbon Panels sensitivity.

QuoteFeinstein, the longtime Democratic senator, is included "because as mayor in 1984 she replaced a vandalized Confederate flag that was part of a long-standing flag display in front of City Hall," The Associated Press reported. "When the flag was pulled down a second time, she did not replace it."

It is possible the this panel will be considered oversensitive by the Board of Education, which makes the final decision. They will also have recommendations from the public and from the schools themselves.

Quote from: marshwiggle on January 30, 2021, 08:25:20 AM

Quote from: Caracal on January 30, 2021, 06:54:27 AM

Quote from: spork on January 30, 2021, 06:44:24 AM

Quote from: Langue_doc on January 30, 2021, 06:03:48 AM
Didn't realize that Lincoln was a "racist". Time to rewrite history and for re-education camps.

Don't know about the racist part, but he was gay. Maybe our first gay racist president?

That was based on a very bad book by a psychologist who didn't understand any of the historical context. Basically the evidence was that Lincoln shared a bed with a man for a number of years. Seems compelling, unless you know that was a very common practice for young men. Beds were expensive.

Also, the level of hyperbole here is pretty ridiculous, even by the standard of the posters engaging in it. Renaming a middle school in San Francisco is not exactly the same as the Taliban destroying ancient monuments or re-education camps...

Really? Why should people honour someone who believed terrible things? Why should young people be expected to show "respect" for some historical figure who had ideas that they find offensive?
(Buddha said there were (depending on how you interpret it) many gods or no god at all! How can any monotheist listen to that kind of rubbish?)

Or is the argument that the Taliban didn't really believe the Buddha was evil; deep down they knew he was OK, whereas the school renamers are absolutely certain that they are morally right, so they are justified?

Yes, good point. Everything is like everything else. Renaming a random middle school is the same as blowing up a thousands year old monumental statue, and it also the same as moving a century old not particularly special statue from a town square to a museum.

Quote from: Hibush on January 30, 2021, 09:07:33 AM

Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 30, 2021, 08:46:24 AM
Sorry! I never know on this site.

Any idea why Feinstein is on the list for renaming? I was pretty surprised there was a Feinstein Elementary (or whatever it is).

More than Washington and Lincoln's, the explanation for Feinstein's inclusion gives a sense of the Blue Ribbon Panels sensitivity.

QuoteFeinstein, the longtime Democratic senator, is included "because as mayor in 1984 she replaced a vandalized Confederate flag that was part of a long-standing flag display in front of City Hall," The Associated Press reported. "When the flag was pulled down a second time, she did not replace it."

The inclusion of a contemporary political figure helps to put the whole thing in context. Is there really some important principle involved in the question of whether an elementary school is named for Dianne Feinstein? At some point, the school board presumably decided to name it after her as an honor, or, to associate themselves with her. If they now decide that they think she wasn't worthy of that honor, or that they don't want to be associated with her, who really cares if they rename the school? Is Dianne Feinstein going to be lost to history if this middle school is no longer named for her?

You can argue about the rights and wrongs involved, but there's not some dangerous precedent being set. It really isn't any different for more distant figures.

Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 30, 2021, 06:39:31 AM

Quote from: Langue_doc on January 30, 2021, 06:03:48 AM
Didn't realize that Lincoln was a "racist". Time to rewrite history and for re-education camps.

From the article:

"Lincoln, known for his legacy of emancipation, is included "because of the Civil War president's treatment of American Indians, which included a mass hanging after an uprising," according to the San Francisco Chronicle."

This was actually the largest mass execution in American history. Lincoln didn't exactly cover himself in glory (https://www.usdakotawar.org/history/aftermath/trials-hanging) in the Dakota War (itself the result of an American violation of treaty obligations resulting in a forced famine). In the aftermath, the Winnebago--who were not involved in the war--were kicked out of Minnesota because they were Native American and nearby, and their land was--surprise!--appropriated.




Generally speaking, I think that naming and public honours attach mostly to the primary constituents of a person's reputation. So since Lincoln is primarily known for being President, the civil war, and abolishing(ish) slavery, he's a perfectly fine candidate for having things named after him. But where such people are also responsible for atrocities (or lesser-but-still-bad-events-and-actions), they're also fine candidates for having their names removed from public buildings and monuments. It seems to me that it's up to the relevant communities to decide whom to honour and how. I think it's OK to have schools named after Lincoln; it's also OK to remove his name from schools, and the bad things he did are a perfectly good reason to do so. If that's what the district wants to do, that's just fine, and if in doing so they raise awareness in the district of the Dakota War, that seems like a good thing to me.

It's just a school, after all. Its name isn't some sacrosanct holy of holies.

QuoteIt's just a school, after all. Its name isn't some sacrosanct holy of holies.

I get that, but what I don't get is the sense of urgency attached to all of this. It's as though some deadline is coming and you'll be faulted for not having corrected the problem of letting something be named after a person we've decided (some of us, anyway) has been overrated. From the article:

'The San Francisco Board of Education passed the resolution on Tuesday in a 6-1 vote, prompting mixed reaction from parents and San Francisco Mayor London Breed. The resolution requires that the public submit alternative names by April 19, after which the panel will make its recommendations to the school board.

'"This is an important conversation to have, and one that we [sic] should involve our communities, our families, and our students," Breed said in a statement Wednesday. "What I cannot understand is why the School Board is advancing a plan to have all these schools renamed by April, when there isn't a plan to have our kids back in the classroom by then. Our students are suffering, and we should be talking about getting them in classrooms, getting them mental health support, and getting them the resources they need in this challenging time.'

Reasonable enough. Though I would also posit, anyone who wants to be Mayor of San Francisco, deserves to.

And of course, the statue of Jimi Hendrix in Seattle is not coming down, although he was both (1) a philanderer and (2) jealous in relationships and violent when drunk. Because some people are deified.

Quote from: mahagonny on January 30, 2021, 10:08:51 AM

QuoteIt's just a school, after all. Its name isn't some sacrosanct holy of holies.

I get that, but what I don't get is the sense of urgency attached to all of this. It's as though some deadline is coming and you'll be faulted for not having corrected the problem of letting something be named after a person we've decided (some of us, anyway) has been overrated.

For the record, this has been three years (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/san-francisco-renaming-schools/) in the making:

QuoteThe decision by the San Francisco Board of Education in a 6-1 vote Tuesday night affects one-third of the city's schools and came nearly three years after the board started considering the idea.

Honest Abe said some things that would not go over well today.  His sanitized hagiographies leave out those quotes.  I suppose we could just give each school a number or name it after inanimate objects like minerals and fungi.  A similar effort is going on now in Chicago where they identified over 30 schools named after people who owned slaves. 

Look into the Taliban's side of the story with regard to the statues.  From Mullah Omar:

I did not want to destroy the Bamiyan Buddha. In fact, some foreigners came to me and said they would like to conduct the repair work of the Bamiyan Buddha that had been slightly damaged due to rains. This shocked me. I thought, these callous people have no regard for thousands of living human beings—the Afghans who are dying of hunger, but they are so concerned about non-living objects like the Buddha. This was extremely deplorable. That is why I ordered its destruction. Had they come for humanitarian work, I would have never ordered the Buddha's destruction

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 30, 2021, 11:16:41 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on January 30, 2021, 10:08:51 AM

QuoteIt's just a school, after all. Its name isn't some sacrosanct holy of holies.

I get that, but what I don't get is the sense of urgency attached to all of this. It's as though some deadline is coming and you'll be faulted for not having corrected the problem of letting something be named after a person we've decided (some of us, anyway) has been overrated.

For the record, this has been three years (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/san-francisco-renaming-schools/) in the making:

QuoteThe decision by the San Francisco Board of Education in a 6-1 vote Tuesday night affects one-third of the city's schools and came nearly three years after the board started considering the idea.

And of course, in the meantime, George Floyd, which changes everything, doesn't it?
I was sympathizing with the black, female mayor, dealing with the pandemic and all, but there's no reason you have to.

Quote from: Anselm on January 30, 2021, 11:36:42 AM
Honest Abe said some things that would not go over well today.  His sanitized hagiographies leave out those quotes.  I suppose we could just give each school a number or name it after inanimate objects like minerals and fungi.  A similar effort is going on now in Chicago where they identified over 30 schools named after people who owned slaves. 

Look into the Taliban's side of the story with regard to the statues.  From Mullah Omar:

I did not want to destroy the Bamiyan Buddha. In fact, some foreigners came to me and said they would like to conduct the repair work of the Bamiyan Buddha that had been slightly damaged due to rains. This shocked me. I thought, these callous people have no regard for thousands of living human beings—the Afghans who are dying of hunger, but they are so concerned about non-living objects like the Buddha. This was extremely deplorable. That is why I ordered its destruction. Had they come for humanitarian work, I would have never ordered the Buddha's destruction

I see. A snit over other peoples' messed up priorities is a good reason to destroy things. He'd totally understand the riots last summer and Jan. 6.

BTW, what foreigners' actions were responsible for girls being forbidden to go to school?

I did not know it was three years in the making. Thanks for the info, Para.

Quote"This is an opportunity for our students to learn about the history of our school's names, including the potential new ones," Board President Gabriela López said. "This resolution came to the school board in the wake of the attacks in Charlottesville, and we are working alongside the rest of the country to dismantle symbols of racism and white supremacy culture. I am excited about the ideas schools will come up with."

Somehow, I doubt the folks in North Dakota, Texas and Wyoming would tell you they are working alongside the school board in San Francisco.

Quote from: Anselm on January 30, 2021, 11:36:42 AM
I suppose we could just ... name it after inanimate objects like ... fungi. 

This idea has merit. Such naming supports the study of the natural sciences and helps counteract the stunning blindness most kids have of the natural world.  It is workable as long as we can keep the taxonomists from changing the name of the fungus every few years.

Quote from: Hibush on January 30, 2021, 12:58:29 PM

Quote from: Anselm on January 30, 2021, 11:36:42 AM
I suppose we could just ... name it after inanimate objects like ... fungi. 

This idea has merit. Such naming supports the study of the natural sciences and helps counteract the stunning blindness most kids have of the natural world.  It is workable as long as we can keep the taxonomists from changing the name of the fungus every few years.

Here's my prediction for what would happen: Some mischevious online community ties the school board in knots by starting to use whatever name they've chosen as a euphemism for something else. "Aaardvark Elementary"? Aardvark will be used to refer to some weird sexual practice and then the board will desperately have to rename. Repeat and rinse.
When any hint of scandal is enough to get someone (on in this case, something) cancelled, the dust will never settle.

Quote from: Hibush on January 30, 2021, 12:58:29 PM

Quote from: Anselm on January 30, 2021, 11:36:42 AM
I suppose we could just ... name it after inanimate objects like ... fungi. 

This idea has merit. Such naming supports the study of the natural sciences and helps counteract the stunning blindness most kids have of the natural world.  It is workable as long as we can keep the taxonomists from changing the name of the fungus every few years.

I much prefer numbers, as was a naming convention for defense related factories in the former Soviet Union. This would make clear the collectivist nature of the undertaking as well as enhancing pupils' arithmetic proficiency.

Quote from: dismalist on January 30, 2021, 01:14:47 PM

Quote from: Hibush on January 30, 2021, 12:58:29 PM

Quote from: Anselm on January 30, 2021, 11:36:42 AM
I suppose we could just ... name it after inanimate objects like ... fungi. 

This idea has merit. Such naming supports the study of the natural sciences and helps counteract the stunning blindness most kids have of the natural world.  It is workable as long as we can keep the taxonomists from changing the name of the fungus every few years.

I much prefer numbers, as was a naming convention for defense related factories in the former Soviet Union. This would make clear the collectivist nature of the undertaking as well as enhancing pupils' arithmetic proficiency.

Oh, "Square root of 49 Public School"? I like that. The possibilities are endless.

If you think that it is no big deal to rename schools because Lincoln et al. were racist ("racist"), you literally cannot be reasoned with, only defeated. On the other hand, I suppose the school renamers would say the same thing about me.

Quote from: writingprof on January 30, 2021, 02:24:30 PM
If you think that it is no big deal to rename schools because Lincoln et al. were racist ("racist"), you literally cannot be reasoned with, only defeated. On the other hand, I suppose the school renamers would say the same thing about me.

I don't think it's a big deal to rename schools period. Why do you think it is?

Quote from: dismalist on January 30, 2021, 01:14:47 PM

Quote from: Hibush on January 30, 2021, 12:58:29 PM

Quote from: Anselm on January 30, 2021, 11:36:42 AM
I suppose we could just ... name it after inanimate objects like ... fungi. 

This idea has merit. Such naming supports the study of the natural sciences and helps counteract the stunning blindness most kids have of the natural world.  It is workable as long as we can keep the taxonomists from changing the name of the fungus every few years.

I much prefer numbers, as was a naming convention for defense related factories in the former Soviet Union. This would make clear the collectivist nature of the undertaking as well as enhancing pupils' arithmetic proficiency.

I was on the verge of writing something about numbers for school names like they do with some public schools in NYC and Parisian universities.  However, certain numbers have special meanings to extremist groups so basically you can't win. 

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 30, 2021, 02:26:45 PM

Quote from: writingprof on January 30, 2021, 02:24:30 PM
If you think that it is no big deal to rename schools because Lincoln et al. were racist ("racist"), you literally cannot be reasoned with, only defeated. On the other hand, I suppose the school renamers would say the same thing about me.

I don't think it's a big deal to rename schools period. Why do you think it is?

So names don't matter?

When will we have a Donald J. Trump Middle School?

Probably soon, in one or more of the boroughs. He has strong support from at least two separate communities neither of which believes in the virus or the need to take precautions.

Tempest in a teapot.

Who owns the symbols?

Quote from: dismalist on January 30, 2021, 02:41:38 PM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 30, 2021, 02:26:45 PM

Quote from: writingprof on January 30, 2021, 02:24:30 PM
If you think that it is no big deal to rename schools because Lincoln et al. were racist ("racist"), you literally cannot be reasoned with, only defeated. On the other hand, I suppose the school renamers would say the same thing about me.

I don't think it's a big deal to rename schools period. Why do you think it is?

So names don't matter?

That doesn't follow from what I said. If you were being charitable, you'd conclude (correctly) that I think names matter to communities of people, and that's why it's OK for them to change the names used to designate public edifices. It's precisely because names matter that it's not a big deal when a community wants to rename something.


I grew up relatively close to a river called the 'Niger River'. Turns out it was named after a Black family that lived there, and you can guess what the river was supposed to be called. The extra letter was added in the late eighties and removed again in the the mid-aughts. The name was changed because names matter. (It would have been better to rename it entirely, of course, but there you have it. I'm not in charge of the toponymic commission.)

./.

Silly, but I have can think of more important things to be outraged about

Quote from: writingprof on January 30, 2021, 02:24:30 PM
If you think that it is no big deal to rename schools because Lincoln et al. were racist ("racist"), you literally cannot be reasoned with, only defeated. On the other hand, I suppose the school renamers would say the same thing about me.

And they'd be wrong. I don't trust anyone who thinks white supremacy is permeating our culture.

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 30, 2021, 04:25:57 PM

Quote from: dismalist on January 30, 2021, 02:41:38 PM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 30, 2021, 02:26:45 PM

Quote from: writingprof on January 30, 2021, 02:24:30 PM
If you think that it is no big deal to rename schools because Lincoln et al. were racist ("racist"), you literally cannot be reasoned with, only defeated. On the other hand, I suppose the school renamers would say the same thing about me.

I don't think it's a big deal to rename schools period. Why do you think it is?

So names don't matter?

That doesn't follow from what I said. If you were being charitable, you'd conclude (correctly) that I think names matter to communities of people, and that's why it's OK for them to change the names used to designate public edifices. It's precisely because names matter that it's not a big deal when a community wants to rename something.


I grew up relatively close to a river called the 'Niger River'. Turns out it was named after a Black family that lived there, and you can guess what the river was supposed to be called. The extra letter was added in the late eighties and removed again in the the mid-aughts. The name was changed because names matter. (It would have been better to rename it entirely, of course, but there you have it. I'm not in charge of the toponymic commission.)

That might make sense: Locals should own the symbols. But what if I found sufficient local community members to rename the High School I live near from [Locale] High School to Benito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini High School? Would that be OK?

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 30, 2021, 04:49:00 PM
Silly, but I have can think of more important things to be outraged about

...than the fact that some of the people these schools were named for had noticeable flaws? Agreed. This is what is so funny about the loony left. Outrage as a pastime.

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 30, 2021, 04:25:57 PM

Quote from: dismalist on January 30, 2021, 02:41:38 PM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 30, 2021, 02:26:45 PM

Quote from: writingprof on January 30, 2021, 02:24:30 PM
If you think that it is no big deal to rename schools because Lincoln et al. were racist ("racist"), you literally cannot be reasoned with, only defeated. On the other hand, I suppose the school renamers would say the same thing about me.

I don't think it's a big deal to rename schools period. Why do you think it is?

So names don't matter?

That doesn't follow from what I said. If you were being charitable, you'd conclude (correctly) that I think names matter to communities of people, and that's why it's OK for them to change the names used to designate public edifices. It's precisely because names matter that it's not a big deal when a community wants to rename something.

So what amount of consensus from the "community" should be required? 50% +1? Does that only include people whose kids attend the school? With all of the recent stuff about confederate flags, is it OK as long as the majority is OK with it? If not, how many have to be "offended"?

I weary of the whole Whack-a-mole idea of every few years someone else wanting to rename the same place. Maybe they should just make jumbotron-type displays on buildings instead of signs so that each week they can change the name that displays according to how many Facebook likes it gets.

QuoteSo what amount of consensus from the "community" should be required? 50% +1?

The fundamental question is broader. If we had 98% consensus, I insist on asking if it's OK to rename my near High School to Benito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini High School? If not, why not?

Quote from: dismalist on January 30, 2021, 04:54:12 PM


That might make sense: Locals should own the symbols. But what if I found sufficient local community members to rename the High School I live near from [Locale] High School to Benito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini High School? Would that be OK?

Yes. And no.

If that's what the community wants, then it's entirely legitimate for the community to enact its will. That's a separate issue from whether it's morally acceptable for the community to enact the change it wants to enact. Mussolini was a bad man with few redeeming features, so I don't think it's appropriate to honour him or his memory by naming public edifices after him. In the United States, where his more or less only association is with fascism, it seems especially inappropriate to do so, since it seems like doing so would also involve making a particular kind of (bad, morally wrong) perlocutionary act.

Lincoln has more going for him than Mussolini, and it doesn't seem prima facie morally wrong to have public edifices named after him. Neither does it seem morally wrong to decide to cease to associate your edifice with his name, especially since he also did some pretty morally bad things. If your school is named after MLK and your community decides it doesn't want to have its school named after someone who was Black so it decides to name it after platypuses or chicken of the woods, well, even though those new names are perfectly inoffensive, the associated perlocutionary act seems like a bad (morally wrong) one to me. If, on the other hand, the community decides to go from    MLK --­> Platypus because they think we should no longer name schools after people, that seems fine.

Quote from: marshwiggle on January 30, 2021, 01:11:39 PM

Quote from: Hibush on January 30, 2021, 12:58:29 PM

Quote from: Anselm on January 30, 2021, 11:36:42 AM
I suppose we could just ... name it after inanimate objects like ... fungi. 

This idea has merit. Such naming supports the study of the natural sciences and helps counteract the stunning blindness most kids have of the natural world.  It is workable as long as we can keep the taxonomists from changing the name of the fungus every few years.

Here's my prediction for what would happen: Some mischevious online community ties the school board in knots by starting to use whatever name they've chosen as a euphemism for something else. "Aaardvark Elementary"? Aardvark will be used to refer to some weird sexual practice and then the board will desperately have to rename. Repeat and rinse.
When any hint of scandal is enough to get someone (on in this case, something) cancelled, the dust will never settle.

I love it. I'd start attending school board meetings just to enjoy the outrage, faux outrage, innuendo, and shibboleth testing.

To the particular example, aadrvark is an Afrikaans (oppressor) name for an African native species. That name clearly supports imperialist hegemony. The globalist name is Orycteropus. Much better. I have no doubt the second graders will say it easily, but the parents will be reduced to four letter words when they try.

Quote from: marshwiggle on January 30, 2021, 05:14:52 PM

So what amount of consensus from the "community" should be required? 50% +1? Does that only include people whose kids attend the school? With all of the recent stuff about confederate flags, is it OK as long as the majority is OK with it? If not, how many have to be "offended"?

I weary of the whole Whack-a-mole idea of every few years someone else wanting to rename the same place. Maybe they should just make jumbotron-type displays on buildings instead of signs so that each week they can change the name that displays according to how many Facebook likes it gets.

It seems to me that the toponymic processes which already exist and are in place are doing a fine job, at least in most cases. These decisions aren't made on a whim, they're made after a great deal of public consultation and with plenty of lead time, as the original case attests (it's been three years!).

Quote from: mahagonny on January 30, 2021, 04:54:48 PM

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 30, 2021, 04:49:00 PM
Silly, but I have can think of more important things to be outraged about

...than the fact that some of the people these schools were named for had noticeable flaws? Agreed. This is what is so funny about the loony left. Outrage as a pastime.

Better that than trying to destroy American democracy. How many threads have you kicked off about Republican efforts to overturn a free and fair election?

Factual errors made by those renaming the schools.

https://missionlocal.org/2021/01/the-san-francisco-school-districts-renaming-debacle-has-been-a-historic-travesty/

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 30, 2021, 05:28:55 PM

Quote from: mahagonny on January 30, 2021, 04:54:48 PM

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 30, 2021, 04:49:00 PM
Silly, but I have can think of more important things to be outraged about

...than the fact that some of the people these schools were named for had noticeable flaws? Agreed. This is what is so funny about the loony left. Outrage as a pastime.

Better that than trying to destroy American democracy. How many threads have you kicked off about Republican efforts to overturn a free and fair election?

what do you mean 'kicked off?' The thread is still there. Go express yourself.

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 30, 2021, 05:23:06 PM

Quote from: dismalist on January 30, 2021, 04:54:12 PM


That might make sense: Locals should own the symbols. But what if I found sufficient local community members to rename the High School I live near from [Locale] High School to Benito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini High School? Would that be OK?

Yes. And no.

If that's what the community wants, then it's entirely legitimate for the community to enact its will. That's a separate issue from whether it's morally acceptable for the community to enact the change it wants to enact. Mussolini was a bad man with few redeeming features, so I don't think it's appropriate to honour him or his memory by naming public edifices after him. In the United States, where his more or less only association is with fascism, it seems especially inappropriate to do so, since it seems like doing so would also involve making a particular kind of (bad, morally wrong) perlocutionary act.

Lincoln has more going for him than Mussolini, and it doesn't seem prima facie morally wrong to have public edifices named after him. Neither does it seem morally wrong to decide to cease to associate your edifice with his name, especially since he also did some pretty morally bad things. If your school is named after MLK and your community decides it doesn't want to have its school named after someone who was Black so it decides to name it after platypuses or chicken of the woods, well, even though those new names are perfectly inoffensive, the associated perlocutionary act seems like a bad (morally wrong) one to me. If, on the other hand, the community decides to go from    MLK --­> Platypus because they think we should no longer name schools after people, that seems fine.

Precisely. That's why and how what is merely disagreed upon is deemed immoral. Who does the deeming?

Meanwhile, given many of the arguments on this thread, I'm going with Benito High School!

Quote from: mahagonny on January 30, 2021, 05:34:38 PM
Factual errors made by those renaming the schools.

https://missionlocal.org/2021/01/the-san-francisco-school-districts-renaming-debacle-has-been-a-historic-travesty/

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 30, 2021, 05:28:55 PM

Quote from: mahagonny on January 30, 2021, 04:54:48 PM

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 30, 2021, 04:49:00 PM
Silly, but I have can think of more important things to be outraged about

...than the fact that some of the people these schools were named for had noticeable flaws? Agreed. This is what is so funny about the loony left. Outrage as a pastime.

Better that than trying to destroy American democracy. How many threads have you kicked off about Republican efforts to overturn a free and fair election?

what do you mean 'kicked off?' The thread is still there. Go express yourself.

Kicked off means started, genius. I'm just pointing out that you get outraged about trivial nonsense, while ignoring serious issues.

OK, Sun Worshiper, you're prodding, so... I will admit to being somewhat outraged by some recent rends. For example, in some circles if a person says the phrase 'white supremacy' often enough and with enough indignation, they automatically become regarded as someone of especially well-tuned moral sensibility and thus qualified to make decisions for the rest of us. Not only do they never explain what white supremacy they're referring to or how whatever it is they're thinking of (if anything) could be a threat to others, but they don't even get asked to.
I start threads because I'm interested in what people will write in response. The forum invites us to. Why don't you try it? You're a person too. I may disagree strongly but that's part of the experience.
On the old forum, 'The Fiona' had the reputation as 'the fora threadkiller.' There was much playful banter over it.

QuoteKicked off means started, genius.

Aw...the word 'genius' is overused.

Quote from: dismalist on January 30, 2021, 05:38:29 PM
Who does the deeming?

The other people who live around you.

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 30, 2021, 06:02:59 PM

Quote from: dismalist on January 30, 2021, 05:38:29 PM
Who does the deeming?

The other people who live around you.

Benito for Prez!

The reality is that buildings don't have some kind of inherent name, neutral or otherwise. You can't scrutinize their parts under a microscope to find the hidden name. There's always someone--or some group of people--who does the deciding. These are people invested with the legal authority to do so, and they follow whatever process has been elaborated for doing so. If other people follow the process and come up with a new name, well, them's the breaks. There's nothing inherently wrong about that.

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 30, 2021, 06:11:59 PM
The reality is that buildings don't have some kind of inherent name, neutral or otherwise. You can scrutinize their parts under a microscope to find the hidden name. There's always someone--or some group of people--who does the deciding. These are people invested with the legal authority to do so, and they follow whatever process has been elaborated for doing so. If other people follow the process and come up with a new name, well, them's the breaks. There's nothing inherently wrong about that.

Carl Schmitt could have said that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Schmitt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Schmitt)

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 30, 2021, 05:23:06 PM

Quote from: dismalist on January 30, 2021, 04:54:12 PM


That might make sense: Locals should own the symbols. But what if I found sufficient local community members to rename the High School I live near from [Locale] High School to Benito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini High School? Would that be OK?

Yes. And no.

If that's what the community wants, then it's entirely legitimate for the community to enact its will. That's a separate issue from whether it's morally acceptable for the community to enact the change it wants to enact.

Huh???? So should they be allowed to do this "morally unacceptable" thing or not? If not, who should overrule them? If so, who should defend their authority to do so?

My simple rule would be: the place gets a name when it's built. If it gets torn down and replaced, it can get a new name. If some information comes to light that makes the original name totally unacceptable, they can tear it down and replace it with something new.

You may not be old enough to remember the McDonald's in San Ysidro. It got dismantled at night and removed from the community.

It's really not very difficult:

• If you can name buildings, then you can rename them, too. This is a legal process. Who gets to name a thing, or decide what it's named, is a legal matter.
  
• You can also judge people for their naming decisions, and you can also judge that some names are inapt or offensive. These are moral processes. The people who get to exercise their moral faculties are the exact same people who get to do so when you call them a bad name, or when you punch them in the face, or when you take a shit on the sidewalk--i.e. everyone around you.

If your follow-up question is 'who decides what's moral?', then the answer is 'everyone, but nobody in particular'. If you want to follow up on that with 'what makes something morally good or morally bad', well, take a class in meta-ethics.

It's an ego boost for the school committee to imagine that the community needs them to name buildings, again. Gives them a chance to show how cool they are and how they are improving our minds. Whereas, they need them to do unglamorous tasks like figure out how and when to reopen, what the COVID testing rules and availability will be, etc. Mundane work that brings real consequences and the chance for things to go wrong. Not fun, but necessary.
That doesn't mean they should do it, if it were necessary. But it isn't, because the people they will name the schools after will not be more exceptional or virtuous than the people whose names they are removing.
I'm waiting for this kind of enlightenment to come to our neighborhood, and I'm waiting for the local academics to be there with bells on. The press too, but not all of them.

QuoteThat doesn't mean they should shouldn't do it, if it were necessary.

corrected

./.

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 30, 2021, 07:12:00 PM
It's really not very difficult:

• If you can name buildings, then you can rename them, too. This is a legal process. Who gets to name a thing, or decide what it's named, is a legal matter.
  
• You can also judge people for their naming decisions, and you can also judge that some names are inapt or offensive. These are moral processes. The people who get to exercise their moral faculties are the exact same people who get to do so when you call them a bad name, or when you punch them in the face, or when you take a shit on the sidewalk--i.e. everyone around you.

If your follow-up question is 'who decides what's moral?', then the answer is 'everyone, but nobody in particular'. If you want to follow up on that with 'what makes something morally good or morally bad', well, take a class in meta-ethics.

So what does meta ethics tell me about Benito?

Quote from: dismalist on January 30, 2021, 08:57:10 PM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 30, 2021, 07:12:00 PM
It's really not very difficult:

• If you can name buildings, then you can rename them, too. This is a legal process. Who gets to name a thing, or decide what it's named, is a legal matter.
  
• You can also judge people for their naming decisions, and you can also judge that some names are inapt or offensive. These are moral processes. The people who get to exercise their moral faculties are the exact same people who get to do so when you call them a bad name, or when you punch them in the face, or when you take a shit on the sidewalk--i.e. everyone around you.

If your follow-up question is 'who decides what's moral?', then the answer is 'everyone, but nobody in particular'. If you want to follow up on that with 'what makes something morally good or morally bad', well, take a class in meta-ethics.

So what does meta ethics tell me about Benito?

Nothing. It's meta-ethics, not applied ethics.

I wonder how these people would react if those opposed simply started going after their idols instead. If I had to guess who has the most number of named schools, street signs, monuments and other honors, MLK would probably be at or near the top from a numbers standpoint. What if some nutjob on the other side started trying to rename every MLK Blvd or King Middle School because he was a Reverend who engaged in serial infidelity or a scholar who engaged in massive plagiarism? Most people with a couple brain cells to rub together would not really care if these statements are factually accurate since they are disproportional in context to the reason the honors were given. If you're just trying to prove that a particular human being was imperfect, you can always do that.

Quote from: financeguy on January 30, 2021, 10:06:54 PM
I wonder how these people would react if those opposed simply started going after their idols instead. If I had to guess who has the most number of named schools, street signs, monuments and other honors, MLK would probably be at or near the top from a numbers standpoint. What if some nutjob on the other side started trying to rename every MLK Blvd or King Middle School because he was a Reverend who engaged in serial infidelity or a scholar who engaged in massive plagiarism? Most people with a couple brain cells to rub together would not really care if these statements are factually accurate since they are disproportional in context to the reason the honors were given. If you're just trying to prove that a particular human being was imperfect, you can always do that.

No one wants to talk about that. Still, I mentioned the Jimi Hendrix statue in Seattle. He is praised for writing peace and love songs like 'Power of Love' "Message of Love" "Machine Gun" (anti-Vietnam War) but then was also versatile enough to sing 'Hey Joe I heard you shot your woman down, down to the ground' which is followed by the guy celebrating his expected freedom by crossing the border into Mexico. Which seems a little more authentic given that he was violent with women when drinking, intensely jealous while anything but faithful in relationships. And then there's that anthem 'Are You Experienced' followed by, a few short years later, premature death from vomit asphyxiation, mixing barbiturates and alcohol, which, one would think, maybe, people who boast about experience while failing to learn from it are not great examples for our nation's youth. But you know, once the boomers deify someone, he's untouchable.

Quote from: mahagonny on January 30, 2021, 04:54:48 PM

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 30, 2021, 04:49:00 PM
Silly, but I have can think of more important things to be outraged about

...than the fact that some of the people these schools were named for had noticeable flaws? Agreed. This is what is so funny about the loony left. Outrage as a pastime.

Says a man posting on some forum about how he's outraged that some middle schools in San Francisco might get new names.

Quote from: Caracal on January 31, 2021, 04:53:48 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on January 30, 2021, 04:54:48 PM

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 30, 2021, 04:49:00 PM
Silly, but I have can think of more important things to be outraged about

...than the fact that some of the people these schools were named for had noticeable flaws? Agreed. This is what is so funny about the loony left. Outrage as a pastime.

Says a man posting on some forum about how he's outraged that some middle schools in San Francisco might get new names.

I haven't noticed mahagonny expressing outrage. In fact, here's his post to start the thread:

Quote from: mahagonny on January 29, 2021, 06:59:25 PM
https://www.npr.org/2021/01/28/961511395/san-francisco-may-rename-schools-named-after-washington-lincoln-and-others

Discuss.

In cancel culture, apparently suggesting certain issues be discussed counts as outrage.

Renaming of schools and other institutions is a slippery slope. Where does this end? Rename Yale? Other institutions of higher education?

The Sierra Club recently *expunged* John Muir's name out of a sense of misplaced outrage. Planned Parenthood of NY likewise *scrubbed out* Margaret Sanger's name from its building. Guess which two organizations are no longer getting any contributions from me? The Americal Ornithological Society renamed the McCown's Longspur. Did they really think that bird watchers would fondly remember the Confederate general after which the bird was named? Audubon has also been considered for being erased.

The purported 'racist" beliefs were typical of the era. It's outrageous that the accomplishments of people such as Muir and Sanger would be dismissed and their names erased from the organizations that they founded.

I'm surprised that people have the time and energy to rename schools and organizations. The schools would be better served if these people would spend their time and energy on tutoring the children in these schools or find ways to provide extra support for the children and teachers. They should be volunteering instead of virtue signaling.

Quote from: Langue_doc on January 31, 2021, 06:54:43 AM

I'm surprised that people have the time and energy to rename schools and organizations. The schools would be better served if these people would spend their time and energy on tutoring the children in these schools or find ways to provide extra support for the children and teachers. They should be volunteering instead of virtue signaling.

A hundred years from now, who's likely to be more remembered for helping oppressed people; Abraham Lincoln or the San Francisco School Board?

Wow, that's a toughie.

Quote from: marshwiggle on January 31, 2021, 05:24:38 AM

Quote from: Caracal on January 31, 2021, 04:53:48 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on January 30, 2021, 04:54:48 PM

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 30, 2021, 04:49:00 PM
Silly, but I have can think of more important things to be outraged about

...than the fact that some of the people these schools were named for had noticeable flaws? Agreed. This is what is so funny about the loony left. Outrage as a pastime.

Says a man posting on some forum about how he's outraged that some middle schools in San Francisco might get new names.

I haven't noticed mahagonny expressing outrage. In fact, here's his post to start the thread:

Quote from: mahagonny on January 29, 2021, 06:59:25 PM
https://www.npr.org/2021/01/28/961511395/san-francisco-may-rename-schools-named-after-washington-lincoln-and-others

Discuss.

In cancel culture, apparently suggesting certain issues be discussed counts as outrage.

Or asking why the left doesn't want to be consistent, whereas many things are named after MLK who was also far less than perfect in ways that one might think would offend feminists. Because, admit it please, this is not just committee in SF doing something routine, it's a response to a nationwide movement that has much outrage in it, as one of them explained, taking note of their solemn duty to keep pace with the new enlightened society. I already posted it upthread, but here it is again:

Quote"This is an opportunity for our students to learn about the history of our school's names, including the potential new ones," Board President Gabriela López said. "This resolution came to the school board in the wake of the attacks in Charlottesville, and we are working alongside the rest of the country to dismantle symbols of racism and white supremacy culture. I am excited about the ideas schools will come up with."

So: Dear Left People, if you're going to have a movement that we should all know about please be ready to explain it.

Still waiting for a definition of White Supremacy in 2021.

This is a city that reportedly has more drug addicts than high school students.  They've launched the nation's most intensive "harm reduction" drug program, with needle exchanges, emergency drugs to treat OD cases readily available, and virtually no enforcement of drug laws so that addicts won't be afraid to seek help.  And drug deaths have skyrocketed in the past year. 

They've got much more important problems to deal with than debating what to name their schools.

Quote from: apl68 on February 01, 2021, 08:13:28 AM
This is a city that reportedly has more drug addicts than high school students.  They've launched the nation's most intensive "harm reduction" drug program, with needle exchanges, emergency drugs to treat OD cases readily available, and virtually no enforcement of drug laws so that addicts won't be afraid to seek help.  And drug deaths have skyrocketed in the past year. 

As I understand it, this is to make drug addicts "safer".

Quote from: apl68 on February 01, 2021, 08:13:28 AM
This is a city that reportedly has more drug addicts than high school students.  They've launched the nation's most intensive "harm reduction" drug program, with needle exchanges, emergency drugs to treat OD cases readily available, and virtually no enforcement of drug laws so that addicts won't be afraid to seek help.  And drug deaths have skyrocketed in the past year. 

They've got much more important problems to deal with than debating what to name their schools.

El Chapo Elementary?

The Pablo Escobar Memorial High School?

Quote from: apl68 on February 01, 2021, 08:13:28 AM
This is a city that reportedly has more drug addicts than high school students.  They've launched the nation's most intensive "harm reduction" drug program, with needle exchanges, emergency drugs to treat OD cases readily available, and virtually no enforcement of drug laws so that addicts won't be afraid to seek help.  And drug deaths have skyrocketed in the past year. 

There's lots of evidence that these measures work. We have the same measures here, and have done for almost twenty years now. They've significantly reduced drug deaths, and increased treatment.

Our deaths have also skyrocketed this year--entirely because of COVID-19, which makes it harder for needle exchanges to run properly, which exacerbates the issues facing drug users, etc.

That "evidence" does not include a five minute walk through any portion of the wasteland formerly known as San Francisco. Needles everywhere on the ground. Human waste everywhere on the ground, to the extent there is a reporting app. Homeless encampments everywhere. Productive taxpayers (and businesses) leaving in huge numbers, such that the cost to get a Uhaul departing SF for Texas is several times the cost of the reverse direction. It's hard to overestimate how much the rest of the country sees SF (and other democrat cities such as Chicago and DC) as manuals for what not to do. You couldn't have a stronger example of abject failure in nearly ever possible way despite high tax base and great natural geography.

You're right, the evidence doesn't consist of made-up or exaggerated anecdotes.

Oh, San Francisco. I grew up in the Bay Area and so am familiar with these hothouse discussions that crop up there from time to time. I look forward to the list published by the School board of the saints that do qualify for school names.
    I now live in a city where Robert E Lee High will be playing basketball against Stonewall Douglas HS on Friday and the former Nathan Bedford Forrest HS the following week (that one got a name change 2 years ago after a decade+ fight). Believe me, I would LOVE to have a HS in the area named after Lincoln or the other so called "racists" on this list.
   I find it highly amusing that they want to rename Willie Brown middle school. SF hasn't had many mayors of color, so that's a slap. It's not because he's a womanizer, but because he contributed to gentrification! Which of course directly led to this exact panel.
   

Maybe a subsequent Slick Willie High can be named and opened by our new VP who can attest to the make work show up jobs provided by the former mayor in exchange for other "favors."

Regarding the "anecdotal" nature of my observations, guilty. When the anecdotes and personal experience are so unbelievably obvious, I don't need to read a study to tell me that SF is f'd in every possible way. You don't need data to determine this. Looking out the window and seeing a massive homeless encampment and needle deposit facility with many people relieving themselves wherever they want as businesses and residents flee pretty much speaks for itself.

Quote from: marshwiggle on February 01, 2021, 09:08:15 AM

Quote from: apl68 on February 01, 2021, 08:13:28 AM
This is a city that reportedly has more drug addicts than high school students.  They've launched the nation's most intensive "harm reduction" drug program, with needle exchanges, emergency drugs to treat OD cases readily available, and virtually no enforcement of drug laws so that addicts won't be afraid to seek help.  And drug deaths have skyrocketed in the past year. 

As I understand it, this is to make drug addicts "safer".

All the evidence suggests that this is the right approach. Putting people in jail doesn't do anything to reduce drug abuse. There's also plenty of research that shows that nobody is incentivized to use drugs because of Narcan. It does, however, keep people from dying of drug overdoses. Ditto needle exchanges.

I sometimes wonder why people believe this sort of moral hazard garbage. Do you really think there are people who would stop injecting drugs if they couldn't find clean needles? Or decide they want to keep doing drugs because they can get injected with narcan if they OD? If you think of addicts as actual human beings, it is immediately obvious that nobody would make decisions that way.

Quote from: Caracal on February 02, 2021, 11:14:58 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on February 01, 2021, 09:08:15 AM

Quote from: apl68 on February 01, 2021, 08:13:28 AM
This is a city that reportedly has more drug addicts than high school students.  They've launched the nation's most intensive "harm reduction" drug program, with needle exchanges, emergency drugs to treat OD cases readily available, and virtually no enforcement of drug laws so that addicts won't be afraid to seek help.  And drug deaths have skyrocketed in the past year. 

As I understand it, this is to make drug addicts "safer".

All the evidence suggests that this is the right approach. Putting people in jail doesn't do anything to reduce drug abuse. There's also plenty of research that shows that nobody is incentivized to use drugs because of Narcan. It does, however, keep people from dying of drug overdoses. Ditto needle exchanges.

I sometimes wonder why people believe this sort of moral hazard garbage. Do you really think there are people who would stop injecting drugs if they couldn't find clean needles? Or decide they want to keep doing drugs because they can get injected with narcan if they OD? If you think of addicts as actual human beings, it is immediately obvious that nobody would make decisions that way.

There was actually a story from Vancouver a couple of years back, where paramedics were being called back to the same adress more than once in the same evening. Basically because people knew that they could be rescued, they continued taking drugs after being revived. So yes, moral hazard is real.

Quote from: marshwiggle on February 02, 2021, 11:41:16 AM

Quote from: Caracal on February 02, 2021, 11:14:58 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on February 01, 2021, 09:08:15 AM

Quote from: apl68 on February 01, 2021, 08:13:28 AM
This is a city that reportedly has more drug addicts than high school students.  They've launched the nation's most intensive "harm reduction" drug program, with needle exchanges, emergency drugs to treat OD cases readily available, and virtually no enforcement of drug laws so that addicts won't be afraid to seek help.  And drug deaths have skyrocketed in the past year. 

As I understand it, this is to make drug addicts "safer".

All the evidence suggests that this is the right approach. Putting people in jail doesn't do anything to reduce drug abuse. There's also plenty of research that shows that nobody is incentivized to use drugs because of Narcan. It does, however, keep people from dying of drug overdoses. Ditto needle exchanges.

I sometimes wonder why people believe this sort of moral hazard garbage. Do you really think there are people who would stop injecting drugs if they couldn't find clean needles? Or decide they want to keep doing drugs because they can get injected with narcan if they OD? If you think of addicts as actual human beings, it is immediately obvious that nobody would make decisions that way.

There was actually a story from Vancouver a couple of years back, where paramedics were being called back to the same adress more than once in the same evening. Basically because people knew that they could be rescued, they continued taking drugs after being revived. So yes, moral hazard is real.

Narcan is apparently really unpleasant. It basically causes rapid withdrawal symptoms. If someone takes drugs after being revived it is because they are terribly addicted, not because they don't have to worry about dying.

What would you propose? Have less Narcan so people die?

Quote from: Caracal on February 02, 2021, 12:58:45 PM

Quote from: marshwiggle on February 02, 2021, 11:41:16 AM

Quote from: Caracal on February 02, 2021, 11:14:58 AM

All the evidence suggests that this is the right approach. Putting people in jail doesn't do anything to reduce drug abuse. There's also plenty of research that shows that nobody is incentivized to use drugs because of Narcan. It does, however, keep people from dying of drug overdoses. Ditto needle exchanges.

I sometimes wonder why people believe this sort of moral hazard garbage. Do you really think there are people who would stop injecting drugs if they couldn't find clean needles? Or decide they want to keep doing drugs because they can get injected with narcan if they OD? If you think of addicts as actual human beings, it is immediately obvious that nobody would make decisions that way.

There was actually a story from Vancouver a couple of years back, where paramedics were being called back to the same adress more than once in the same evening. Basically because people knew that they could be rescued, they continued taking drugs after being revived. So yes, moral hazard is real.

Narcan is apparently really unpleasant. It basically causes rapid withdrawal symptoms. If someone takes drugs after being revived it is because they are terribly addicted, not because they don't have to worry about dying.

What would you propose? Have less Narcan so people die?

I would much prefer statistics about how many people have completed drug treatment programs and are clean after a year (or whatever). Simply keeping people alive is a pretty low bar to aim for if they are still homeless, unemployable, etc. The most important goal has surely got to be improving their quality of life.

So yes, they need to be kept alive to be able to get treatment, etc. but the fewer who actually get off drugs the harder it is to make the case that this approach is the best available.

Quote from: Caracal on February 02, 2021, 11:14:58 AM

I sometimes wonder why people believe this sort of moral hazard garbage. Do you really think there are people who would stop injecting drugs if they couldn't find clean needles? Or decide they want to keep doing drugs because they can get injected with narcan if they OD? If you think of addicts as actual human beings, it is immediately obvious that nobody would make decisions that way.

I think some would, but I don't know how many. Many quit deliberately (not by dying or being jailed); some do even with no assistance. There are many good reasons to finally turn that corner and you named one. I recall years ago reading a thing that was designed to help people quit smoking. The method was, make a list of all the hazards and inconveniences of smoking. Expense, the labor involved in buying, carrying, disposing of your butts, the loss of taste sensation, coughing, bad breath, more frequents colds, burns on your clothing, smelly car and home etc. Then after quitting make a list of the benefits already noticed.
I had a former junkie friend. He would never have quit if he hadn't been busted. After prison he too obese and old to function on the street. He pretended to have schizophrenia so he could get drugs. He basically never learned anything from all his self-inflicted suffering. His forearms were purple. He would say 'my veins have had their use' and chuckle. Dull needles and haste. He was 300 pounds of stationary self-pity. He didn't care, but some people would. Some people quit meth when they notice teeth are about to fall out. You never know which one is that last straw.

Quote from: marshwiggle on February 02, 2021, 01:25:34 PM

I would much prefer statistics about how many people have completed drug treatment programs and are clean after a year (or whatever). Simply keeping people alive is a pretty low bar to aim for if they are still homeless, unemployable, etc. The most important goal has surely got to be improving their quality of life.

So yes, they need to be kept alive to be able to get treatment, etc. but the fewer who actually get off drugs the harder it is to make the case that this approach is the best available.

If they are dead, they can't get or keep clean. So, there's that.

I live in SF and we have a weekly needle exchange around the corner. It's not about "hey, let's make it easy for you to do drugs." It's about reaching people where they are at, letting them know there are services available for them when they are ready.

It takes a few tries before someone who has been using can build trust and decide to go with the nice people with the sandwiches and brochures instead of wandering off with their needles.

I will also say that the following day is the calmest around my neighborhood. It seems to attract the most civilized junkies.

Quote from: ciao_yall on February 02, 2021, 05:00:03 PM

Quote from: marshwiggle on February 02, 2021, 01:25:34 PM

I would much prefer statistics about how many people have completed drug treatment programs and are clean after a year (or whatever). Simply keeping people alive is a pretty low bar to aim for if they are still homeless, unemployable, etc. The most important goal has surely got to be improving their quality of life.

So yes, they need to be kept alive to be able to get treatment, etc. but the fewer who actually get off drugs the harder it is to make the case that this approach is the best available.

If they are dead, they can't get or keep clean. So, there's that.

I live in SF and we have a weekly needle exchange around the corner. It's not about "hey, let's make it easy for you to do drugs." It's about reaching people where they are at, letting them know there are services available for them when they are ready.

It takes a few tries before someone who has been using can build trust and decide to go with the nice people with the sandwiches and brochures instead of wandering off with their needles.

I will also say that the following day is the calmest around my neighborhood. It seems to attract the most civilized junkies.

Wishing them the best!

Quote from: Caracal on February 02, 2021, 11:14:58 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on February 01, 2021, 09:08:15 AM

Quote from: apl68 on February 01, 2021, 08:13:28 AM
This is a city that reportedly has more drug addicts than high school students.  They've launched the nation's most intensive "harm reduction" drug program, with needle exchanges, emergency drugs to treat OD cases readily available, and virtually no enforcement of drug laws so that addicts won't be afraid to seek help.  And drug deaths have skyrocketed in the past year. 

As I understand it, this is to make drug addicts "safer".

All the evidence suggests that this is the right approach. Putting people in jail doesn't do anything to reduce drug abuse. There's also plenty of research that shows that nobody is incentivized to use drugs because of Narcan. It does, however, keep people from dying of drug overdoses. Ditto needle exchanges.

I sometimes wonder why people believe this sort of moral hazard garbage. Do you really think there are people who would stop injecting drugs if they couldn't find clean needles? Or decide they want to keep doing drugs because they can get injected with narcan if they OD? If you think of addicts as actual human beings, it is immediately obvious that nobody would make decisions that way.

If drug deaths are skyrocketing despite all the "harm reduction" measures, then the strategy is clearly NOT working.  I'm not at all opposed to law enforcement and emergency responders using Narcan to revive overdose victims.  It's the common-sense thing to do.  There may even be a case for needle exchanges in some places.  But when a jurisdiction effectively eliminates enforcement of drug laws, and then experiences a massive increase in the number of addicts and the number of overdoses, it's hard to see how the policy has made things better. 

And it's certainly alarming to think that other jurisdictions may be considering following in their footsteps.  Oregon just effectively legalized everything.  This is precisely why I was always against the "medical" marijuana con.  It was clear all along that it was only the thin end of a wedge for policies that are now causing an already appalling problem to balloon.

Quote from: apl68 on February 03, 2021, 06:38:48 AM

Quote from: Caracal on February 02, 2021, 11:14:58 AM
I sometimes wonder why people believe this sort of moral hazard garbage. Do you really think there are people who would stop injecting drugs if they couldn't find clean needles? Or decide they want to keep doing drugs because they can get injected with narcan if they OD? If you think of addicts as actual human beings, it is immediately obvious that nobody would make decisions that way.

If drug deaths are skyrocketing despite all the "harm reduction" measures, then the strategy is clearly NOT working.  I'm not at all opposed to law enforcement and emergency responders using Narcan to revive overdose victims.  It's the common-sense thing to do.  There may even be a case for needle exchanges in some places.  But when a jurisdiction effectively eliminates enforcement of drug laws, and then experiences a massive increase in the number of addicts and the number of overdoses, it's hard to see how the policy has made things better. 

And it's certainly alarming to think that other jurisdictions may be considering following in their footsteps.  Oregon just effectively legalized everything.  This is precisely why I was always against the "medical" marijuana con.  It was clear all along that it was only the thin end of a wedge for policies that are now causing an already appalling problem to balloon.

The "harm reduction" principle sounds very odd when placed in other contexts.

In the US, there are many accidental firearms deaths every year. These include things like toddler finding gun in mom's purse and shooting self, mom, sibling,etc. One case involved the birthday child at a party shooting self with gun whuch had fallen out of a relative's pocket.
An obvious "harm reduction" measure would be to give out free trigger locks to anyone and everyone. Clearly, trigger locks would prevent the kinds of deaths I mentioned. Even if only a fraction of gun owners used them, it would still reduce those accidental shootings.

I imagine most people appalled at the number of gun deaths would be somewhat unsatisfied with this "harm reduction" measure, because it doesn't get at the fundamental problem of the casual attitude towards guns that is behind those deaths. A person who casually brings a gun in their pocket to a child's birthday party, and doesn't even notice when it falls out, is a menace.

Some people become addicted to drugs because of accidents or illness where they were prescribed painkillers. However, a large number of addicts just started using recreationally. As long as the recreational use of drugs is implicitly condoned, especially by those trying to "help", the fundamental problem is being completely ignored.

Quote from: marshwiggle on February 03, 2021, 06:57:07 AM

Quote from: apl68 on February 03, 2021, 06:38:48 AM

Quote from: Caracal on February 02, 2021, 11:14:58 AM
I sometimes wonder why people believe this sort of moral hazard garbage. Do you really think there are people who would stop injecting drugs if they couldn't find clean needles? Or decide they want to keep doing drugs because they can get injected with narcan if they OD? If you think of addicts as actual human beings, it is immediately obvious that nobody would make decisions that way.

If drug deaths are skyrocketing despite all the "harm reduction" measures, then the strategy is clearly NOT working.  I'm not at all opposed to law enforcement and emergency responders using Narcan to revive overdose victims.  It's the common-sense thing to do.  There may even be a case for needle exchanges in some places.  But when a jurisdiction effectively eliminates enforcement of drug laws, and then experiences a massive increase in the number of addicts and the number of overdoses, it's hard to see how the policy has made things better. 

And it's certainly alarming to think that other jurisdictions may be considering following in their footsteps.  Oregon just effectively legalized everything.  This is precisely why I was always against the "medical" marijuana con.  It was clear all along that it was only the thin end of a wedge for policies that are now causing an already appalling problem to balloon.

The "harm reduction" principle sounds very odd when placed in other contexts.

In the US, there are many accidental firearms deaths every year. These include things like toddler finding gun in mom's purse and shooting self, mom, sibling,etc. One case involved the birthday child at a party shooting self with gun whuch had fallen out of a relative's pocket.
An obvious "harm reduction" measure would be to give out free trigger locks to anyone and everyone. Clearly, trigger locks would prevent the kinds of deaths I mentioned. Even if only a fraction of gun owners used them, it would still reduce those accidental shootings.

I imagine most people appalled at the number of gun deaths would be somewhat unsatisfied with this "harm reduction" measure, because it doesn't get at the fundamental problem of the casual attitude towards guns that is behind those deaths. A person who casually brings a gun in their pocket to a child's birthday party, and doesn't even notice when it falls out, is a menace.

Some people become addicted to drugs because of accidents or illness where they were prescribed painkillers. However, a large number of addicts just started using recreationally. As long as the recreational use of drugs is implicitly condoned, especially by those trying to "help", the fundamental problem is being completely ignored.

It's more complicated than that.

Yes, some people become drug addicts because one day at a party they decided to try something new and whoosh, down that rabbit hole.

We know now that pharmacies were pushing the use of opioid painkillers, essentially turning people into drug addicts because of their physical pain instead of helping them with other, less profitable, pain management solutions.

More commonly, those with drug problems are self-medicating their mental health problems. Nicotine and alcohol are part of many cultures' ways of handling minor stress... and they can be abused. And some people try harder substances because they are embarrassed to seek help, don't know how to seek help, think that the drug is solving their problem and that they can control it.

And when the drugs get to be too much, instead of offering treatment we throw them in jail with a whole lot of other people suffering from mental health crises. And we wonder why this problem continues...

Quote from: ciao_yall on February 03, 2021, 08:24:23 AM

And when the drugs get to be too much, instead of offering treatment we throw them in jail with a whole lot of other people suffering from mental health crises. And we wonder why this problem continues...

If a school has a high dropout rate and/or a high failure rate, if the school "offers" tutoring, remedial help, etc. what matter is how many students actually avail themselves of it and profit by it. If no-one does, then it's not an effective solution, no matter how well intended.

Quote from: apl68 on February 03, 2021, 06:38:48 AM

If drug deaths are skyrocketing despite all the "harm reduction" measures, then the strategy is clearly NOT working.

Do we have any reason to believe this is true?

InSite Canada began operating in 2003, and we have reams of evidence from those 17 years indicating that it had a positive effect on drug deaths and treatment (as in: fewer and fewer deaths, more and more treatment). My understanding is that this evidence has been borne out at supervised injection sites elsewhere in the world.

Now, drug deaths in Vancouver have skyrocketed in 2020. But that's not because InSite sucks or isn't working; it's because the pandemic exacerbated conditions, and has made treatment--and supervised injection--much more difficult.

So: do we have reason to believe that the 'skyrocketing' of drug deaths in whichever context you're talking about--is it SF, or broader?--is due to the ineffectiveness of harm reduction measures, or might it be an artifact of the pandemic?

Quote from: marshwiggle on February 03, 2021, 06:57:07 AM

In the US, there are many accidental firearms deaths every year. These include things like toddler finding gun in mom's purse and shooting self, mom, sibling,etc. One case involved the birthday child at a party shooting self with gun whuch had fallen out of a relative's pocket.
An obvious "harm reduction" measure would be to give out free trigger locks to anyone and everyone. Clearly, trigger locks would prevent the kinds of deaths I mentioned. Even if only a fraction of gun owners used them, it would still reduce those accidental shootings.

I imagine most people appalled at the number of gun deaths would be somewhat unsatisfied with this "harm reduction" measure, because it doesn't get at the fundamental problem of the casual attitude towards guns that is behind those deaths. A person who casually brings a gun in their pocket to a child's birthday party, and doesn't even notice when it falls out, is a menace.

If giving out free trigger locks would be an effective way to reduce accidental shootings, I'd be all for it. If the person bringing a gun to a kid's birthday party is less likely to accidentally shoot someone there, that seems like a good thing, no?

Just because something doesn't completely fix a problem doesn't mean it isn't worth doing if it reduces some of the harms.

Quote from: marshwiggle on February 03, 2021, 08:47:39 AM

Quote from: ciao_yall on February 03, 2021, 08:24:23 AM

And when the drugs get to be too much, instead of offering treatment we throw them in jail with a whole lot of other people suffering from mental health crises. And we wonder why this problem continues...

If a school has a high dropout rate and/or a high failure rate, if the school "offers" tutoring, remedial help, etc. what matter is how many students actually avail themselves of it and profit by it. If no-one does, then it's not an effective solution, no matter how well intended.

The problem with this analogy is that in most places treatment resources for drug abuse are woefully inadequate.

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 03, 2021, 10:57:38 AM

InSite Canada began operating in 2003, and we have reams of evidence from those 17 years indicating that it had a positive effect on drug deaths and treatment (as in: fewer and fewer deaths, more and more treatment).

From http://www.vch.ca/public-health/harm-reduction/supervised-consumption-sites/insite-user-statistics (http://www.vch.ca/public-health/harm-reduction/supervised-consumption-sites/insite-user-statistics) for 2018.

• 189,837 visits by 5,436 individuals
• An average of 337 injection room visits per day
• For the fiscal year 2017/18 443 clients accessed Onsite, the adjoining detox treatment facility, with an average stay of 11 days. Note: Clients may have been referred to other detox or treatment services elsewhere.

So the number getting treatment  at Onsite is less than 10% of the annual visitors, or about 25% more than visit Insite in one day. (Since that is the closest, and related treament facility, it probably gets most of those seeking treatment.)

Quote from: Caracal on February 03, 2021, 12:23:18 PM

Quote from: marshwiggle on February 03, 2021, 08:47:39 AM

Quote from: ciao_yall on February 03, 2021, 08:24:23 AM

And when the drugs get to be too much, instead of offering treatment we throw them in jail with a whole lot of other people suffering from mental health crises. And we wonder why this problem continues...

If a school has a high dropout rate and/or a high failure rate, if the school "offers" tutoring, remedial help, etc. what matter is how many students actually avail themselves of it and profit by it. If no-one does, then it's not an effective solution, no matter how well intended.

The problem with this analogy is that in most places treatment resources for drug abuse are woefully inadequate.

And, it takes several tries with a person. The first time they may get clean, but relapse once or twice (or more) before finally pulling it together. That first or second time wasn't a failure, just a step in a very difficult journey.

Quote from: Caracal on February 03, 2021, 12:12:06 PM

Quote from: marshwiggle on February 03, 2021, 06:57:07 AM

In the US, there are many accidental firearms deaths every year. These include things like toddler finding gun in mom's purse and shooting self, mom, sibling,etc. One case involved the birthday child at a party shooting self with gun whuch had fallen out of a relative's pocket.
An obvious "harm reduction" measure would be to give out free trigger locks to anyone and everyone. Clearly, trigger locks would prevent the kinds of deaths I mentioned. Even if only a fraction of gun owners used them, it would still reduce those accidental shootings.

I imagine most people appalled at the number of gun deaths would be somewhat unsatisfied with this "harm reduction" measure, because it doesn't get at the fundamental problem of the casual attitude towards guns that is behind those deaths. A person who casually brings a gun in their pocket to a child's birthday party, and doesn't even notice when it falls out, is a menace.

If giving out free trigger locks would be an effective way to reduce accidental shootings, I'd be all for it. If the person bringing a gun to a kid's birthday party is less likely to accidentally shoot someone there, that seems like a good thing, no?

Just because something doesn't completely fix a problem doesn't mean it isn't worth doing if it reduces some of the harms.

Something tells me someone who would bring a gun to a child's birthday party doesn't have enough sense to use a trigger lock.

Quote from: marshwiggle on February 03, 2021, 12:40:30 PM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 03, 2021, 10:57:38 AM

InSite Canada began operating in 2003, and we have reams of evidence from those 17 years indicating that it had a positive effect on drug deaths and treatment (as in: fewer and fewer deaths, more and more treatment).

From http://www.vch.ca/public-health/harm-reduction/supervised-consumption-sites/insite-user-statistics (http://www.vch.ca/public-health/harm-reduction/supervised-consumption-sites/insite-user-statistics) for 2018.

• 189,837 visits by 5,436 individuals
• An average of 337 injection room visits per day
• For the fiscal year 2017/18 443 clients accessed Onsite, the adjoining detox treatment facility, with an average stay of 11 days. Note: Clients may have been referred to other detox or treatment services elsewhere.

So the number getting treatment  at Onsite is less than 10% of the annual visitors, or about 25% more than visit Insite in one day. (Since that is the closest, and related treament facility, it probably gets most of those seeking treatment.)

That's 443 lives saved. And a ripple effect on those in their lives who would otherwise not have a role model for recovery.

I would wonder how many supervised uses the visitors used before deciding to get treatment. Of the remaining users, how many will go for treatment the following year?

Quote from: ciao_yall on February 03, 2021, 12:42:26 PM


Something tells me someone who would bring a gun to a child's birthday party doesn't have enough sense to use a trigger lock.

That's exactly my point. The underlying issue is a much bigger factor than the "harm reduction" measure will affect to any great degree. See my post above, where Insite had less than 10% of its users go for treatment in 2018. That's not 10% who succeeded, (to address your earlier point), but less than 10% that even tried.

Quote from: ciao_yall on February 03, 2021, 12:46:00 PM
That's 443 lives saved. And a ripple effect on those in their lives who would otherwise not have a role model for recovery.

I would wonder how many supervised uses the visitors used before deciding to get treatment. Of the remaining users, how many will go for treatment the following year?

Doesn't help the statistics; since Insite had been in business for 15 years by that point, that 443 in that year includes all of the people who may have started going there any time in the previous 15 years. The proportion is likely to be constant over time.

Quote from: marshwiggle on February 03, 2021, 12:47:04 PM

Quote from: ciao_yall on February 03, 2021, 12:42:26 PM


Something tells me someone who would bring a gun to a child's birthday party doesn't have enough sense to use a trigger lock.

That's exactly my point. The underlying issue is a much bigger factor than the "harm reduction" measure will affect to any great degree. See my post above, where Insite had less than 10% of its users go for treatment in 2018. That's not 10% who succeeded, (to address your earlier point), but less than 10% that even tried.

I think you're missing the point. It makes sense to try to tie harm reduction measures to long term interventions. However, the harm reduction can be a big benefit in and of itself. In the case of drug injection facilities, you're avoiding not just deaths, but also 911 calls for overdoses. Clean needles keep people from not only getting diseases, but also from transmitting them to others.

It reminds me of new approaches to problems of homelessness. Many, Although not all, people who are homeless are dealing with mental illness and/or drug and alcohol abuse problems. Traditionally the approach has been for social service agencies to tie getting housing to rehab, treatment and mental health care. People who don't stay with programs can't stay in the housing. However, some places have tried just giving apartments in supervised building to people. The argument is that it actually ends up saving money as well as being more humane. A homeless person with an alcohol addiction is often going to end in jail or the hospital repeatedly. Being homeless and drunk is dangerous. Everyone is better off if the person can drink too much in a warm apartment. The same is true for lots of mental illnesses. That doesn't mean you give up on trying to help people long term, its just that you don't tie the immediate intervention which results in less harm to the long term one that deals with the problem.

The renaming is on hold. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/22/san-francisco-schools-renamed-lincoln-washington

So, wait, I'm sorry, but was Lincoln gay?   I saw it claimed, then refuted, then re-stated as having been well established.  I kept reading but never saw it addressed again.

Not stirring a pot, honestly asking.

I would like to offer another suggestion for school names.  Use the titles of movies filmed there like Vertigo and Pacific Heights.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Films_set_in_San_Francisco

Quote from: Anselm on February 25, 2021, 11:03:01 AM
I would like to offer another suggestion for school names.  Use the titles of movies filmed there like Vertigo and Pacific Heights.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Films_set_in_San_Francisco

Not a good idea: Now that DisneyPlus feels the need to add warnings and disclaimers to The Muppet Show for offensive content, any movie would certainly have something about it that would eventually make it unacceptable.

Quote from: Anselm on February 25, 2021, 11:03:01 AM
I would like to offer another suggestion for school names.  Use the titles of movies filmed there like Vertigo and Pacific Heights.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Films_set_in_San_Francisco

Several of them are close, but have some little problem.
If not for the pejorative, several schools could be in the running for "Fog Over Frisco Elementary School"
"Opium Eater Middle School" is archaic, but would have been good a few decades back.
The physical climate, if not the social one, is wrong for "Go Naked in the World Magnet School"
Possibly too accurate is "All About Evil High School"

Quote from: marshwiggle on January 30, 2021, 01:11:39 PM

Quote from: Hibush on January 30, 2021, 12:58:29 PM

Quote from: Anselm on January 30, 2021, 11:36:42 AM
I suppose we could just ... name it after inanimate objects like ... fungi. 

This idea has merit. Such naming supports the study of the natural sciences and helps counteract the stunning blindness most kids have of the natural world.  It is workable as long as we can keep the taxonomists from changing the name of the fungus every few years.

Here's my prediction for what would happen: Some mischevious online community ties the school board in knots by starting to use whatever name they've chosen as a euphemism for something else. "Aaardvark Elementary"? Aardvark will be used to refer to some weird sexual practice and then the board will desperately have to rename. Repeat and rinse.
When any hint of scandal is enough to get someone (on in this case, something) cancelled, the dust will never settle.

Many structures and buildings are named after people whose last names are synonymous with inanimate objects. For the longest time, I had assumed that "Outerbridge Crossing", the bridge between Staten Island and New Jersey was a geographical term, describing the outer reaches of NYC. The bridge is actually named after a Mr. Outerbridge. Whenever I drive over the bridge I still think of my trip as leaving the outer limits of the city.

Buildings named after corporations are kind of similar, too.

Resurrecting this thread.

The school board that decided to rename 44 schools because the schools were supposedly named after racists such as Lincoln, Jefferson, and Revere is in trouble again.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/29/us/san-francisco-schools-racism.html

Tweets by the VP of the board accusing Asians of sidling up to whites and assimilating have surfaced.

This is not unlike the situation in the New York school system, where egregious instances of bias against Asians and others have been overlooked. In one instance Jackie Cody, a member of the school board referred to Asians as "yellow folks" in an email thread. Cody subsequently apologized, after remaining silent for 8-10 weeks; the mayor referred to the terminology as "inappropriate".  There were no repercussions.
https://www.amny.com/education/manhattan-parents-pressure-brooklyn-education-advocate-to-resign-over-slur/
https://nypost.com/2019/11/13/protesters-demand-resignation-of-nyc-school-board-member-who-called-asians-yellow-folks/
https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/education/ny-asian-race-disrimination-school-20191115-6wa6krfxzbfixkwg4ggg3zpnny-story.html

In an earlier incident, a school principal in Queens had a giant mural of herself as a six-armed Hindu goddess painted on one of the walls in her school. She subsequently took down the mural but appears to have suffered no consequences professionally.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rU-3F4GVjvA
https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/education/outrage-mural-shows-queens-principal-hindu-goddess-article-1.2692037