Cancelling Dr. Seuss

[Kron3007]

IHE: Biology Professor Reportedly Told to Stop Teaching Gender

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and PEN America are demanding answers from Valdosta State University over reports that it told a professor of biology to change how she teaches sex and gender following a parent complaint. Jeremy C. Young, senior manager of free expression and education at PEN, said in a statement, "Most college students are adults, and parents should not be controlling what their adult children can learn, let alone what a professor can teach to a whole class. Faculty must be free to explore academic topics with their students, including those that are controversial or make some uncomfortable, without fear of repercussions. Doing so is at the core of universities' academic mission."

The sword cuts both ways.

As it should. Right now it seems more of the time it's the left talking about "weaponizing free speech".

'It's not that your ideas are uncomfortable to hear because they challenge established beliefs that people are emotionally invested in. It's that your ideas are painful to hear because they are so idiotic.' - Peterson

Is he talking to himself here? 

[Wahoo Redux]

The Atlantic: Free Speech for Me but Not for Thee. The American right has lost the plot on free speech.

The American right has lost the plot on free speech. The passage of Florida's House Bill 1557, which bans "classroom instruction" on "sexual orientation and gender identity" in kindergarten through third grade and in a manner that isn't "age appropriate or developmentally appropriate" in all grades, K–12, is merely the latest in a string of what the free-speech-advocacy organization PEN America has called "education gag orders" that have been proposed by Republicans and passed by red-state legislatures from coast to coast.

To understand the transformation of Republican legal priorities, one need not turn back the clock very far. For more than 20 years, the dominant conservative mantra in education could be summed up in two words: free speech. The reason for the emphasis on free speech was crystal clear—college campuses had enacted speech codes at a breathtaking rate.

In the effort to make campuses more welcoming to historically marginalized communities, colleges promulgated speech regulations that were designed to eliminate hate speech and other communications that members of university communities deemed offensive.

Although the impulse behind these codes was virtuous, their legal application was profoundly problematic. University speech codes tended to possess three salient characteristics. First, they were aimed directly at the suppression of words and ideas. Second, they were usually broad and vague, leaving teachers and students with little guidance as to the law's true meaning. And third, they typically relied on the subjective feelings of community members for enforcement.

Sword goes both ways.

Conservative efforts to protect free speech extended to public employees as well, including public-school teachers. My last two significant cases before I became a full-time journalist were successful lawsuits on behalf of public-university professors who had faced reprisal and retaliation for their protected speech.

In one case, a professor was denied a promotion because of his politics. In the other, a professor was forced out of his job after he questioned the scientific research of his colleagues and blew the whistle on unlawful appointments to a state environmental board.

[Wahoo Redux]

The conundrum. 

CBS News: Supreme Court again confronts case pitting free speech against LGBTQ rights

[Anon1787]

K-12 public schools are a distinct case since state governments determine the content of the curriculum for minors. State governments may forbid teaching students about astrology, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc. Public school teachers have no 1A right to override those decisions. As Prof. Volokh notes,

While teachers have considerable rights, for instance, to say what they want outside class, when they are teaching on behalf of the school, their speech in class is the government's speech, and they have no special First Amendment right to dictate what that speech would be. To quote some federal appellate courts,
    "Teachers do not have a protected First Amendment right to decide the content of their lessons or how the material should be presented to their students.... '[N]o court has found that teachers' First Amendment rights extend to choosing their own curriculum or classroom management techniques in contravention of school policy or dictates.'" "The right to free speech protected by the First Amendment does not extend to the in-class curricular speech of teachers in primary and secondary schools made 'pursuant to' their official duties."
    "[P]ublic-school teachers must hew to the approach prescribed by principals (and others higher up in the chain of authority).... [A teacher does] not have a constitutional right to introduce his own views on the subject but must stick to the prescribed curriculum—not only the prescribed subject matter, but also the prescribed perspective on that subject matter."
        "[T]he concept of academic freedom ... has never conferred upon teachers the control of public school curricula."
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/04/18/floridas-supposed-dont-say-gay-law/

[marshwiggle]

The conundrum. 

CBS News: Supreme Court again confronts case pitting free speech against LGBTQ rights

Interesting contrast with the issue of censorship in social media. The argument made for "content moderation" has traditionally been that, as a private company, an organization could arbitrarily decide what is acceptable or not. Cases like this one have people making the argument that private companies cannot decide what is acceptable.

At some point these two arguments have to come up against each other.

[Anon1787]

Interesting contrast with the issue of censorship in social media. The argument made for "content moderation" has traditionally been that, as a private company, an organization could arbitrarily decide what is acceptable or not. Cases like this one have people making the argument that private companies cannot decide what is acceptable.

At some point these two arguments have to come up against each other.

Good point. If a firm that hosts content created by others is concerned about how user content will affect the public's perception of the hosting firm, then a hosting firm would have an even greater concern with being identified with the content if the hosting firm itself is creating the content for others.

[pondering]

The Atlantic: Free Speech for Me but Not for Thee. The American right has lost the plot on free speech.

The American right has lost the plot on free speech. The passage of Florida's House Bill 1557, which bans "classroom instruction" on "sexual orientation and gender identity" in kindergarten through third grade and in a manner that isn't "age appropriate or developmentally appropriate" in all grades, K–12, is merely the latest in a string of what the free-speech-advocacy organization PEN America has called "education gag orders" that have been proposed by Republicans and passed by red-state legislatures from coast to coast.

To understand the transformation of Republican legal priorities, one need not turn back the clock very far. For more than 20 years, the dominant conservative mantra in education could be summed up in two words: free speech. The reason for the emphasis on free speech was crystal clear—college campuses had enacted speech codes at a breathtaking rate.

In the effort to make campuses more welcoming to historically marginalized communities, colleges promulgated speech regulations that were designed to eliminate hate speech and other communications that members of university communities deemed offensive.

Although the impulse behind these codes was virtuous, their legal application was profoundly problematic. University speech codes tended to possess three salient characteristics. First, they were aimed directly at the suppression of words and ideas. Second, they were usually broad and vague, leaving teachers and students with little guidance as to the law's true meaning. And third, they typically relied on the subjective feelings of community members for enforcement.

Sword goes both ways.

Conservative efforts to protect free speech extended to public employees as well, including public-school teachers. My last two significant cases before I became a full-time journalist were successful lawsuits on behalf of public-university professors who had faced reprisal and retaliation for their protected speech.

In one case, a professor was denied a promotion because of his politics. In the other, a professor was forced out of his job after he questioned the scientific research of his colleagues and blew the whistle on unlawful appointments to a state environmental board.

https://news.wgcu.org/2022-10-15/a-federal-judge-weighs-arguments-against-floridas-stop-woke-act

A district judge has issued an injunction temporarily blocking that house bill (the "Stop WOKE Act") and we as faculty have been told it no longer applies, for now. The state of Florida is appealing to the federal circuit court.

The extracts included in the article are quite revealing:

Walker questioned the state's approach, asking whether it could also result in students' inculcation into certain beliefs. He said it could allow the Legislature to decide what viewpoints should be taught.

"You (the government) can pick and choose what viewpoint you like and, under the guise of stopping indoctrination, you promote indoctrination. Why is that not so?" he asked.

"The government, again, is the one who decides," Cooper said, adding "the state embraces academic freedom."

"So long as you say what we like," Walker said.

The state's rationale leads to a "dystopian" conclusion, he said.

"We believe in academic freedom, so long as you say what we want you to say. That sounds like something George Orwell wrote," the judge chided.

Walker also peppered Cooper with a series of hypothetical circumstances to test what would be considered violations of the law.

For example, Walker asked if a professor would be espousing or advancing one of the prohibited concepts if she invited Cornel West, a high-profile academic who has written extensively about race, to speak to a class about his book.

"I think you may well be advancing one of the concepts if you bring in Dr. West ... and he articulates any of these concepts," Cooper said.

Walker asked if a professor could bring in a "countervailing" speaker to offset West, who has called the U.S. a "racist patriarchal" nation.

"Those events would be analyzed apart from each other, not necessarily in conjunction with each other," Cooper said.

Walker also tangled with Cooper over how much power the government has over instructors' speech, asking whether universities "literally can control every word" professors say and provide transcripts to be read in class.

"The autonomy of professors ... can never, never overcome the university's decision about what can and cannot be taught," Cooper said.

Walker, who has frequently clashed with the state's lawyers in other cases, also posed a scenario involving a teacher who uses a racial epithet, noting that, under federal law, the instructor could not be fired for saying such a word.

"Using the N-word one time by a teacher would not be actionable, but if they mention affirmative action" they could be sued under the Florida law, Walker said.

"Maybe affirmative action is more abhorrent in the new age than the N-word. ... It's shocking if that's the new values that we embrace," he added.

[Anon1787]

The conundrum. 
CBS News: Supreme Court again confronts case pitting free speech against LGBTQ rights

Framing it as free speech v. LGBT rights may not be the best way to frame the issue:

"Much of the commentary on today's argument in 303 Creative starts from the premise that the case pits free speech (or maybe religious freedom) against LGBTQ rights...One thing is clear from the argument: 303 Creative is not about whether protections for LGBT people will be dampened. The decision will apply across the board. The question is whether civil rights protections properly include the suppression of speech that disagrees with legal norms, or compels speech that celebrates those norms. Alternatively: do artists (including web designers) have the freedom to depict what subjects they wish, and how—even if they take money for doing it, and even if their perspective is hurtful (to some people)?

One of the most telling exchanges during the argument involved a hypothetical from Justice Barrett, who asked...what would happen if the shoe were on the other foot—i.e., what if a gay web designer declined to create a custom website for a Christian organization that advocates for traditional marriage? Could the state compel such a person to design such a website?

Remarkably, [the Deputy Solicitor General] responded that the two cases should come out differently. That is, Colorado can compel a Christian to design a custom website celebrating a same-sex marriage, but cannot compel a gay person to design a custom website advocating for traditional marriage. His reasoning for this answer reveals the fundamental flaws in the government's position.

According to the Deputy Solicitor General, declining to design a website for a same-sex marriage is inherently a form of "status discrimination," which the government can treat as a form of "conduct" (not speech) and therefore compel or suppress as it sees fit. But declining to design a website promoting traditional marriage is discrimination based on the message (not status) and is therefore protected speech.

There are several problems with this argument. First, it embraces a blatant form of viewpoint discrimination. Whether an expressive activity is "conduct" that discriminates based on "status," or instead is "speech" on the basis of "message," and thus protected, cannot depend on which side of the issue you are on. It is hard to imagine a regime more antithetical to the principle that the government must not favor or disfavor speech based on its viewpoint.

Second, as Justices Barrett and Gorsuch noted, declining to design a website promoting traditional marriage can easily be deemed "status discrimination," too. Built into Justice Barrett's hypothetical was the fact that the organization promoting traditional marriage was doing so based on its Christian beliefs about marriage. Religious beliefs are no less central to the status of "religion" than beliefs about marriage are to the status of being gay. So refusing to design the Christian website discriminates not only based on the message, but also based on the religious beliefs of the person seeking to express it. In other words, the message (celebrating traditional marriage) is inextricably intertwined with the religious beliefs of the customer requesting it, just as the government claims a message celebrating a same-sex marriage is inextricably intertwined with the status of the individuals requesting it."
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/12/06/prof-michael-mcconnell-stanford-on-303-creative-the-web-site-designer-same-sex-wedding-case/#more-8214270

[Wahoo Redux]

One of the most telling exchanges during the argument involved a hypothetical from Justice Barrett, who asked...what would happen if the shoe were on the other foot—i.e., what if a gay web designer declined to create a custom website for a Christian organization that advocates for traditional marriage? Could the state compel such a person to design such a website?

Sword cuts both ways.

What's just too bad is that we cannot voluntarily convince homophobes that what they believe is one of the last partially acceptable (in some circles, anyway) bigotry.

There are reasons that church membership is steadily dropping in this country.

[marshwiggle]

One of the most telling exchanges during the argument involved a hypothetical from Justice Barrett, who asked...what would happen if the shoe were on the other foot—i.e., what if a gay web designer declined to create a custom website for a Christian organization that advocates for traditional marriage? Could the state compel such a person to design such a website?

Sword cuts both ways.

What's just too bad is that we cannot voluntarily convince homophobes that what they believe is one of the last partially acceptable (in some circles, anyway) bigotry.

Is it bigotry for a denomination to refuse to marry previously-divorced people?

Is it bigotry to require anyone desiring membership to be a vegan?

Is it bigotry to require people joining a religious order to divest themselves of property?

Why does a religious community, which is a voluntary organization), need to have the rules required for membership vetted by some non-religious authority?

(Just to be clear, I used those examples since they are all things that would be bars for entry to me, but I totally support religious communities' right to create and uphold such rules. My exclusion isn't relevant, since I can choose to belong to a community whose rules do not restrict me. And there are  a huge diversity of denominations, so it's easy to find one (or more) that would accept me.)

By the way:

In addition to Protestants, declines in church membership are proportionately smaller among political conservatives, Republicans, married adults and college graduates. These groups tend to have among the highest rates of church membership, along with Southern residents and non-Hispanic Black adults.

In other words, the wokest denominations are declining the fastest.

[Wahoo Redux]

One of the most telling exchanges during the argument involved a hypothetical from Justice Barrett, who asked...what would happen if the shoe were on the other foot—i.e., what if a gay web designer declined to create a custom website for a Christian organization that advocates for traditional marriage? Could the state compel such a person to design such a website?

Sword cuts both ways.

What's just too bad is that we cannot voluntarily convince homophobes that what they believe is one of the last partially acceptable (in some circles, anyway) bigotry.

Is it bigotry for a denomination to refuse to marry previously-divorced people?

Is it bigotry to require anyone desiring membership to be a vegan?

Is it bigotry to require people joining a religious order to divest themselves of property?

Why does a religious community, which is a voluntary organization), need to have the rules required for membership vetted by some non-religious authority?

(Just to be clear, I used those examples since they are all things that would be bars for entry to me, but I totally support religious communities' right to create and uphold such rules. My exclusion isn't relevant, since I can choose to belong to a community whose rules do not restrict me. And there are  a huge diversity of denominations, so it's easy to find one (or more) that would accept me.)

By the way:

In addition to Protestants, declines in church membership are proportionately smaller among political conservatives, Republicans, married adults and college graduates. These groups tend to have among the highest rates of church membership, along with Southern residents and non-Hispanic Black adults.

In other words, the wokest denominations are declining the fastest.

Ha!  I knew you'd respond to this one.

None of the above.

We know what bigotry is.  Your church may be a voluntarily bigoted organization, but it is still comprised of bigots.

Sounds like "wokism" (whatever that is) is winning.

[marshwiggle]

One of the most telling exchanges during the argument involved a hypothetical from Justice Barrett, who asked...what would happen if the shoe were on the other foot—i.e., what if a gay web designer declined to create a custom website for a Christian organization that advocates for traditional marriage? Could the state compel such a person to design such a website?

Sword cuts both ways.

What's just too bad is that we cannot voluntarily convince homophobes that what they believe is one of the last partially acceptable (in some circles, anyway) bigotry.

Is it bigotry for a denomination to refuse to marry previously-divorced people?

Is it bigotry to require anyone desiring membership to be a vegan?

Is it bigotry to require people joining a religious order to divest themselves of property?

Why does a religious community, which is a voluntary organization), need to have the rules required for membership vetted by some non-religious authority?

(Just to be clear, I used those examples since they are all things that would be bars for entry to me, but I totally support religious communities' right to create and uphold such rules. My exclusion isn't relevant, since I can choose to belong to a community whose rules do not restrict me. And there are  a huge diversity of denominations, so it's easy to find one (or more) that would accept me.)

By the way:

In addition to Protestants, declines in church membership are proportionately smaller among political conservatives, Republicans, married adults and college graduates. These groups tend to have among the highest rates of church membership, along with Southern residents and non-Hispanic Black adults.

In other words, the wokest denominations are declining the fastest.

Ha!  I knew you'd respond to this one.

None of the above.

We know what bigotry is. Your church may be a voluntarily bigoted organization, but it is still comprised of bigots.

Sounds like "wokism" (whatever that is) is winning.

I have no clue how you define "bigotry" so that those things don't count, while other things do. Please explain, particularly when in each case the question is always about what people are allowed to do, not about what they prefer to do. I'm not aware of any denomination that tries to police peoples' preferences, (which would be pretty much impossible in practice, among other things).

And I have no clue how you can infer anything about what kind of organization my church is from what I've said. Unless it's a cult, most churches are composed of a variety of people with a range of opinions on all kinds of things.

[Wahoo Redux]

I'm not aware of any denomination that tries to police peoples' preferences, (which would be pretty much impossible in practice, among other things).

Seriously?

[marshwiggle]

I'm not aware of any denomination that tries to police peoples' preferences, (which would be pretty much impossible in practice, among other things).

Seriously?

Do you have an example of a denomination that rejects people for their thoughts, rather than their actions? For instance, any denomination I know of that does not support gay marriage doesn't prevent people from being members based on their orientation specifically.

[Wahoo Redux]

I'm not aware of any denomination that tries to police peoples' preferences, (which would be pretty much impossible in practice, among other things).

Seriously?

Do you have an example of a denomination that rejects people for their thoughts, rather than their actions? For instance, any denomination I know of that does not support gay marriage doesn't prevent people from being members based on their orientation specifically.

You can pretend the issue is preventing people from joining, but it is not just that.  And then sometimes it is:

https://apnews.com/article/us-news-religion-gay-rights-west-virginia-fairmont-60c889951eb742e797c65523a2d379f3

A church in West Virginia has been voted out of its local Baptist association because its pastor says gays and lesbians should be welcomed.

Then there is the most well-known Christian bigotry:

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2012/12/07/religious-groups-official-positions-on-same-sex-marriage/

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/15/977415222/illicit-for-catholic-church-to-bless-same-sex-marriages-vatican-says

https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2021/03/15/210315b.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-56402096

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-religion-gaymarriage/presbyterian-church-rejects-gay-marriage-proposal-idUSBRE86600220120707

https://www.metroweekly.com/2022/11/gay-couple-rejected-31-times-while-seeking-out-church-wedding/

https://abc7news.com/supreme-court-gay-marriage-same-sex-jubilee-christian-center/819770/

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/religion/2019/02/26/united-methodist-church-general-conference-same-sex-marriage-lgbt-clergy-division-splitting/2989179002/

And after that you will need to use Google yourself.

You may try to hide behind vague terms such as "wokism" (which I only see conservatives using) or try to limit your scope to some strawman about preventing "people from being members based on their orientation specifically" while ignoring the rejection of basic human rights, but the onus is on good people like you, Mahag, to reject the bigotry the same way you would reject, I assume, bans on interracial marriage or public denouncements of race base on dubious readings of Scripture.