Cancelling Dr. Seuss

[marshwiggle]

I think people believe that the social function (for non-religious people) is the conferring of social approval.

Not necessarily.

Some people simply see hypocrisy or prejudice and say so.

So non-religious people get married just to point out hypocrisy? Seems like a lot of effort and expense simply to make a point.

T'ain't nuthin' I said, hombre.  Strawman, my brother.

I was trying to figure out what "Not necessarily" was referring to. Care to elaborate?

[Wahoo Redux]

NBC News: A Texas superintendent ordered school librarians to remove LGBTQ books. Now the federal government is investigating.

Lower Deck:

The Education Department has opened what appears to be the first-of-its-kind investigation into Granbury Independent School District after it pulled library books dealing with sexuality and gender.

The U.S. Education Department's civil rights enforcement arm has launched an investigation into a North Texas school district whose superintendent was secretly recorded ordering librarians to remove LGBTQ-themed library books.

Education and legal experts say the federal probe of the Granbury Independent School District — which stemmed from a complaint by the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas and reporting by NBC News, ProPublica and The Texas Tribune — appears to be the first such investigation explicitly tied to the nationwide movement to ban school library books dealing with sexuality and gender.

[kaysixteen]

Irrespective of the ethics of ordering removal of gay-themed literature from school libraries, what exactly would the federal offense be in so doing, such that a US govt investigation would be warranted?  Think very carefully about the proper answer to this question...

[Wahoo Redux]

Irrespective of the ethics of ordering removal of gay-themed literature from school libraries, what exactly would the federal offense be in so doing, such that a US govt investigation would be warranted?  Think very carefully about the proper answer to this question...

Well, according to the article which cited the ACLU...

...the district's subsequent decision to remove dozens of library books pending a review, fostered a "pervasively hostile" environment for LGBTQ students, the ACLU wrote in its complaint. Chloe Kempf, an ACLU attorney, said the Education Department's decision to open the investigation into Granbury ISD signals that the agency is concerned about what she described as "a wave" of anti-LGBTQ policies and book removals nationally.

<snip>

An Education Department spokesperson confirmed the investigation and said it was related to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits schools from discriminating on the basis of sex, gender and sexual orientation.

Remember that many, perhaps most, of us are not alarmed by the presence of LGBTQ people-----and remembering that the vast majority of abusers are family members and straight men (a majority married men)----can you expound on what your issues with a federal investigation are?

[ciao_yall]

I read through some of the complaints linked to the article. These are depicting issues that happen in the real lives of young people! The way you protect young people is letting them know these things can happen, that they are not alone, and give them some anticipatory coping skills. Pretending they don't exist is what leaves them vulnerable.

Go Ask Alice is surprising. Yes, she is on drugs, and she enjoys it. But things don't end up so well for her so it's a good cautionary tale of what can happen when you have a little too much enjoyment of things you should stay away from.

[kaysixteen]

Random points:

1) On what planet is it a good idea to offer reading material depicting sexual material/ behavior, to elementary school children?
2) How is it discriminating against homosexuals to refuse to place homosexual literature (i.e., literature depicting homosexual sex acts/ sex dialog or commentary) in such a school library, esp if said library does not also include similar literature depicting heterosexual content?
3) 'Censorship' is the usual cry of libertarians, leftie and rightie, when things like this happen.   Sadly, however, censorship exists *all the time* in any library, and the only time librarians decry it is when they themselves do not get to do the censoring ( I had many discussions on this theme in library school myself).  IOW, what the librarians want is the sole right to decide what books and other materials to buy (or even accept as donations) and thus enter into their collections, and what not to so include.   When a librarian has a choice of books a and b, he can buy a but not be, buy both a and b, buy b and not a, or buy neither.   And whatever choice he makes, he is the one censoring out any books he does not choose to include.   For whatever reasons he decides to do so.  And school librarians are not public libraries either-- school librarians are like teachers, employed by a school under the overall authority of a school board, according to law.   Those librarians have no more absolute right to choose whatever books for their librarians they want than the Latin teacher has to choose whatever textbook he wants.
4) Now let'd discuss the actual percentage of contemporary American adults who favor active equality and social promotion of homosexuality.   I submit that this number is still very much lower, in reality, than the polling data suggests, simply because, well, ahem... people will lie in polls of this sort.  IOW, this seems to be a similar case to the fact that in both 2016 and 2020, Trump got more votes in many places than his polling data suggested he was going to get, because, esp in 2020, many (especially white working class flyover country Trump supporters, feared that the pollsters would look down on them, even in an anonymous polling situation, if they fessed up to voting for Trump, so they lied.  Similarly, until very recently (in historical terms) more or less all Americans were opposed to the equal promotion of homosexuality, but, for a whole host of reasons, this attitude has changed rapidly amongst our cultural elites, to the point where continuing to evince such opposition is increasingly seen as the mark of Neanderthal status, which many folks who still hold to such opposition, will not want to seem to be, even in anonymous situations, and certainly in situations where their names can be known, and, as such, will lie.

[Wahoo Redux]

Random points:

1) On what planet is it a good idea to offer reading material depicting sexual material/ behavior, to elementary school children?

Do these books show sexual material to children?  Or did you make that up because it would be convenient for you?

2) How is it discriminating against homosexuals to refuse to place homosexual literature (i.e., literature depicting homosexual sex acts/ sex dialog or commentary) in such a school library, esp if said library does not also include similar literature depicting heterosexual content?

Ditto above.  What titles are you talking about?

3) 'Censorship' is the usual cry of libertarians, leftie and rightie, when things like this happen.   Sadly, however, censorship exists *all the time* in any library, and the only time librarians decry it is when they themselves do not get to do the censoring ( I had many discussions on this theme in library school myself).  IOW, what the librarians want is the sole right to decide what books and other materials to buy (or even accept as donations) and thus enter into their collections, and what not to so include.   When a librarian has a choice of books a and b, he can buy a but not be, buy both a and b, buy b and not a, or buy neither.   And whatever choice he makes, he is the one censoring out any books he does not choose to include.   For whatever reasons he decides to do so.  And school librarians are not public libraries either-- school librarians are like teachers, employed by a school under the overall authority of a school board, according to law.   Those librarians have no more absolute right to choose whatever books for their librarians they want than the Latin teacher has to choose whatever textbook he wants.

Well, apparently the librarians in question wants a certain number of titles, and bigots lost their minds.

4) Now let'd discuss the actual percentage of contemporary American adults who favor active equality and social promotion of homosexuality.   I submit that this number is still very much lower, in reality, than the polling data suggests, simply because, well, ahem... people will lie in polls of this sort.

Never heard that myself. 

Can you prove that?  Where do you get that information? 

Or do polls present a reality that you do not want to accept? 

IOW, this seems to be a similar case to the fact that in both 2016 and 2020, Trump got more votes in many places than his polling data suggested he was going to get, because, esp in 2020, many (especially white working class flyover country Trump supporters, feared that the pollsters would look down on them, even in an anonymous polling situation, if they fessed up to voting for Trump, so they lied. 

Where did you hear that?  Cite your source.  Most Trumpees I've known proudly beat their chests and howl about their Glorious Leader.

Similarly, until very recently (in historical terms) more or less all Americans were opposed to the equal promotion of homosexuality, but, for a whole host of reasons, this attitude has changed rapidly amongst our cultural elites,

The attitude toward homosexuality has changed in all American classes, further disenfranchising the bigots.  No wonder you are so mad.

to the point where continuing to evince such opposition is increasingly seen as the mark of Neanderthal status,

Who says Neanderthals were homophobic bigots?  As far as we know, they were cool with LGTBQ cave-people.   

which many folks who still hold to such opposition, will not want to seem to be, even in anonymous situations, and certainly in situations where their names can be known, and, as such, will lie.

Good.  Things are looking up.  Social justice works.  Someday America will be a place without mindless prejudice.  I really believe this.  Maybe the world will follow.

[kaysixteen]

I do not know what is in these books.  Neither do you.

What I do know is that the relevant authorities in the school districts in question, or the state supervisors thereof, who had he lawful authority to exclude such books, determined that they ought to be excluded because of inappropriate sexual content.  I suspect that people like you think that there really could not have been any such inappropriate content, because there is no such inappropriate content to possibly be had.  We, methinks, will just have to agree to disagree on this point.

Those mind-numbed bigots are the taxpayers who employ those librarians.   The bigots in question do not want sexual content, even innuendo, being fed to their children.   Tough.

You cannot possibly argue the point that people can and will lie in polls-- in the case of Trump supporters having done this two years ago, there seems to have been great evidence I have read about in various places, that this occurred.   And someone like you, an actual academic, knows that one cannot prove someone is lying in an opinion poll, and also knows that polls can be phrased or presented in such a way as to strongly lead the pollees into giving the answers sought by the pollsters or those paying them.   If you need a good laugh at showing how this can be done, fire up youtube and enter 'Sir Humphrey explains polling'...

[Wahoo Redux]

I do not know what is in these books.  Neither do you.

Riiiiiiiight.  That's what I thought.  So you are just mad because...well, there is no "because" because you don't know what you are talking about.

Do you really, truly, honestly think there is "sex" in these books?  Or are you confabulating more problems to bolster your prejudices?

What I do know is that the relevant authorities in the school districts in question, or the state supervisors thereof, who had he lawful authority to exclude such books, determined that they ought to be excluded because of inappropriate sexual content. 

And those relevant authorities are now under investigation from more relevant authorities because it appears they may have broken the law.

I suspect that people like you think that there really could not have been any such inappropriate content, because there is no such inappropriate content to possibly be had.  We, methinks, will just have to agree to disagree on this point.

Methinks you need a reason to get mad and self-righteous.  I highly doubt that a school librarian in the Lone Star State stocked a book with overt sexual content.  So you confabulate.  What we know is that they are "LGBTQ-themed" books.  You don't think that our sensationalist press wouldn't jump on a book in a school library with naked boys having sex?

Oh, but wait!  With just a tiny bit of searching online we can find the actual ACLU complaint with the list of banned books in it:

• Aristotle and Dante Discover the Secrets of the Universe, by Benjamin Alire Sáenz
• Being Jazz: My Life as a (Transgender) Teen, by Jazz Jennings
• In Our Mothers' House, by Patricia Polacco
• Queer, There and Everywhere: 23 People Who Changed the World, by Sarah Prager

I suppose people like you would rather not know the facts of the matter.  That way you can stay mad.

Those mind-numbed bigots are the taxpayers who employ those librarians.   The bigots in question do not want sexual content, even innuendo, being fed to their children.   Tough.

Not sure that actually makes sense.  I think it is sarcasm.  But yeah, they are bigots who are perhaps obsessed with sex like some people we know and will not mention here.

You cannot possibly argue the point that people can and will lie in polls-- in the case of Trump supporters having done this two years ago, there seems to have been great evidence I have read about in various places, that this occurred.   

So?  Quote your sources.  What evidence do we have that "people can and will lie in polls?" 

And someone like you, an actual academic, knows that one cannot prove someone is lying in an opinion poll,

Sooooooooo no.  You have no proof.  You just don't want to accept what the polls, which reflects what society believes, tell you. 

and also knows that polls can be phrased or presented in such a way as to strongly lead the pollees into giving the answers sought by the pollsters or those paying them.   If you need a good laugh at showing how this can be done, fire up youtube and enter 'Sir Humphrey explains polling'...

Sorry Charlie, you are on the fringes now with your hate.   Rationalize however you will.

I predict that you will now disappear like you did last time.

[jimbogumbo]

I do not know what is in these books.  Neither do you.

Well, yes we do. I have read several of the books which were tossed out. They have been books that mentioned kids having gay parents, or books about being okay to be different. That was all the "evil" that was in the content.

If you want read the articles that mention titles (I've posted links to at least two) how can you possibly consider your opinion to be informed?

[kaysixteen]

If I wanted to go ahead and lose my lunch, I might read the homosexualist propaganda books in question.

But the question remaineth-- do parents, via their elected representatives and the educators hired thereby, have the right to prevent indoctrinative material fundamentally hostile to the values of said parents from appearing in their children's school library, or do they not?  Why or why not?

As to lying in polls, one would just have to be a dunce to disbelieve that such actions occur.  Hell, I read several articles in objective news sources just around this fall's elections, lamenting this problem, something which has apparently become increasingly problematic to pollsters, who do not know what if anything they could do about it.   If I knew the solution, I would share it... but perhaps the better solution is to eliminate polls altogether, which on a whole host of issues and political races really do not seem to do much good, to have anything worthwhile to offer.

[jimbogumbo]

If I wanted to go ahead and lose my lunch, I might read the homosexualist propaganda books in question.

Heather has Two Mommies will do that to you?

[marshwiggle]

If I wanted to go ahead and lose my lunch, I might read the homosexualist propaganda books in question.

Heather has Two Mommies will do that to you?

I think the bigger, and more important, issue is the casting of parents who don't have the same ideology as the educational decision-makers as hostile bigots. A decade or two back, there was a push to deal with school bullying, which was long overdue. It is appropriate for students to learn to treat everyone with respect.  This does not require any specific ideological view about all kinds of matters of personal identity. The change since then has been to try to root out wrongthink, rather than to regulate behaviour. This is not only worrying, but it is extremely arrogant to suggest that educators or administrators, who don't necessarily even have children of their own, know more about what is in childrens' best interests than their own parents.
Furthermore, given the less--than-stellar educational outcomes in schools, students need much more focus on academic skills as it is; time spent on political indoctrination is only going to make their academic development suffer.

[jimbogumbo]

Please. It is a book. In the library. Not a curriculum, not required reading.

[marshwiggle]

Please. It is a book. In the library. Not a curriculum, not required reading.

If teachers ever read to their classes, and anything in the library is fair game, then being in the library does, in effect, make it "required reading" or "curriculum".