Cancelling Dr. Seuss

[jimbogumbo]

Branches of government are major topics in US History and Government courses, especially AP. Two cases that would not be allowed to be discussed that are topical involve same sex marriage and abortion access. The current case under consideration involving the abortion drug access will be a discussion point in high school upper level classes throughout the US.

That's off the top of my head. It is also unclear whether or not Florida students will be able to discuss Loving v Virginia next year due to other new legislation (which appears to be in conflict with existing Florida law.

I'll ask. dismalist, what are your thoughts on this post? I already know marshwiggle won't respond, but do you have any concerns about high school government classes being barred from discussing the court cases? I don't mean from  right or wrong perspective, rather from a perspective of the opinions reasoning of the court and the basis for the suit in the first place.

I'd love them to be discussed! I would have sent my daughter to a school in which such is discussed.

But I don't care to impose my views on other parents. If they don't want something discussed, hell, if they want creationism taught and evolution not taught, let them have their way!

As I said, this is a political question, it's about interests, not about truth or falsehood, science or anything else, nothing more. Thus, a political solution is called for, namely school choice.

So, in your opinion the concept of an electorate which learns certain basic facts and principles of US government and laws in all public schooling is unnecessary? I consider that to be part of the bedrock of our country, and not a matter to be decided in public school choice.

[dismalist]

Branches of government are major topics in US History and Government courses, especially AP. Two cases that would not be allowed to be discussed that are topical involve same sex marriage and abortion access. The current case under consideration involving the abortion drug access will be a discussion point in high school upper level classes throughout the US.

That's off the top of my head. It is also unclear whether or not Florida students will be able to discuss Loving v Virginia next year due to other new legislation (which appears to be in conflict with existing Florida law.

I'll ask. dismalist, what are your thoughts on this post? I already know marshwiggle won't respond, but do you have any concerns about high school government classes being barred from discussing the court cases? I don't mean from  right or wrong perspective, rather from a perspective of the opinions reasoning of the court and the basis for the suit in the first place.

I'd love them to be discussed! I would have sent my daughter to a school in which such is discussed.

But I don't care to impose my views on other parents. If they don't want something discussed, hell, if they want creationism taught and evolution not taught, let them have their way!

As I said, this is a political question, it's about interests, not about truth or falsehood, science or anything else, nothing more. Thus, a political solution is called for, namely school choice.

So, in your opinion the concept of an electorate which learns certain basic facts and principles of US government and laws in all public schooling is unnecessary? I consider that to be part of the bedrock of our country, and not a matter to be decided in public school choice.

Relax, Jimbo!

I'm not insisting anything be taught because it's probably done wrong.

I doubt many teachers appreciate the principles of the US government and laws. If some parents do, the schools they send their kids to will survive.

Take climate change. I'm quite certain the consequences of climate change are not properly appreciated. So, I don't care to have it talked about by teachers following the crowds.

I don't even care to have economics taught in High School. Someone else may heartily disagree.

But this can always happen. Therefore, it can never be about what's scientifically right and what's wrong, or the bedrock du jour.

What we do have is pressure to teach a secular religion in schools and even in colleges. Choice will put paid to universalizing that.

[jimbogumbo]

I've been in Cabo for a week, so actually am pretty chill.

I don't really want econ or psych taught in hs as the teachers don't have a good grounding in the subjects. Government and History are very different in terms of teacher prep, and especially if they happen to be AP subjects. I further see those two subjects as much more fundamental in nature to US schooling than subjects (even thing as important as) climate change.

Guess we'll have tp disagree.

[dismalist]

I've been in Cabo for a week, so actually am pretty chill.

I don't really want econ or psych taught in hs as the teachers don't have a good grounding in the subjects. Government and History are very different in terms of teacher prep, and especially if they happen to be AP subjects. I further see those two subjects as much more fundamental in nature to US schooling than subjects (even thing as important as) climate change.

Guess we'll have tp disagree.

The issue is never the issue. The issue is the revolution.

[marshwiggle]

If you're talking to the child being bullied, you need to be able to explain what was wrong about the other person's behaviour and reassure the bullied child that there's nothing wrong with them.

OK, we have a fundamental disagreement here. The value of a democratic society is that, as long as we can agree on rules of how we interact with one another, we are all free to believe whatever we want. This is vitally important for young people to learn; there will always be people you disagree with, but as long as you treat each other civilly, no-one has to try and force the other to change.

It's vastly more important for students to understand the importance of civil behaviour in society than it is for them to try and figure out what they're supposed to believe about everything under the sun.

Since so much bullying is about non-conformity, you need to be able to address that. If you simply say "Stevie shouldn't have called you names", you're just saying that Stevie's words are bad; it should be obvious that saying "Not only shouldn't Stevie have called you names, but there's nothing wrong with liking boys in the first place" is far more effective, because it directly addresses what Stevie was saying, and what he was trying to do to the kid. One of those strategies is going to be a lot more comforting than the other.

As above, "comfort" isn't as important as insisting on the kind of civil behaviour that allows everyone to peacefully coexist, despite their differences.

If you're talking to the bully, you need to be able to show them why what they did was wrong. And you can't do that without addressing the content of their actions, and why it is that they think the names they called the other child are bad, etc. You want to address the roots of the bully's behaviour, not just the way it manifests itself.

Ibid. There may be all kinds of different reasons for a bully's bad behaviour. (Among others, the bully could have questions about his own orientation.) But, the behaviour is the problem, regardless of the motivation. (By focusing on the motivation, it's entirely possible that the bully, knowing that his motivation in this case is not what you think, wil be able to ignore all you say because you don't understand.)

Branches of government are major topics in US History and Government courses, especially AP. Two cases that would not be allowed to be discussed that are topical involve same sex marriage and abortion access. The current case under consideration involving the abortion drug access will be a discussion point in high school upper level classes throughout the US.

That's off the top of my head. It is also unclear whether or not Florida students will be able to discuss Loving v Virginia next year due to other new legislation (which appears to be in conflict with existing Florida law.

I'll ask. dismalist, what are your thoughts on this post? I already know marshwiggle won't respond, but do you have any concerns about high school government classes being barred from discussing the court cases? I don't mean from  right or wrong perspective, rather from a perspective of the opinions reasoning of the court and the basis for the suit in the first place.

I'd love them to be discussed! I would have sent my daughter to a school in which such is discussed.

Actually, I agree with Dismalist. Discussion in that objective context would be welcome! (Unfortunately, many teachers would be unable to do that.)

[Parasaurolophus]

If you're talking to the child being bullied, you need to be able to explain what was wrong about the other person's behaviour and reassure the bullied child that there's nothing wrong with them.

OK, we have a fundamental disagreement here. The value of a democratic society is that, as long as we can agree on rules of how we interact with one another, we are all free to believe whatever we want. This is vitally important for young people to learn; there will always be people you disagree with, but as long as you treat each other civilly, no-one has to try and force the other to change.

It's vastly more important for students to understand the importance of civil behaviour in society than it is for them to try and figure out what they're supposed to believe about everything under the sun.

Since so much bullying is about non-conformity, you need to be able to address that. If you simply say "Stevie shouldn't have called you names", you're just saying that Stevie's words are bad; it should be obvious that saying "Not only shouldn't Stevie have called you names, but there's nothing wrong with liking boys in the first place" is far more effective, because it directly addresses what Stevie was saying, and what he was trying to do to the kid. One of those strategies is going to be a lot more comforting than the other.

As above, "comfort" isn't as important as insisting on the kind of civil behaviour that allows everyone to peacefully coexist, despite their differences.

If you're talking to the bully, you need to be able to show them why what they did was wrong. And you can't do that without addressing the content of their actions, and why it is that they think the names they called the other child are bad, etc. You want to address the roots of the bully's behaviour, not just the way it manifests itself.

Ibid. There may be all kinds of different reasons for a bully's bad behaviour. (Among others, the bully could have questions about his own orientation.) But, the behaviour is the problem, regardless of the motivation. (By focusing on the motivation, it's entirely possible that the bully, knowing that his motivation in this case is not what you think, wil be able to ignore all you say because you don't understand.)

Branches of government are major topics in US History and Government courses, especially AP. Two cases that would not be allowed to be discussed that are topical involve same sex marriage and abortion access. The current case under consideration involving the abortion drug access will be a discussion point in high school upper level classes throughout the US.

That's off the top of my head. It is also unclear whether or not Florida students will be able to discuss Loving v Virginia next year due to other new legislation (which appears to be in conflict with existing Florida law.

I'll ask. dismalist, what are your thoughts on this post? I already know marshwiggle won't respond, but do you have any concerns about high school government classes being barred from discussing the court cases? I don't mean from  right or wrong perspective, rather from a perspective of the opinions reasoning of the court and the basis for the suit in the first place.

I'd love them to be discussed! I would have sent my daughter to a school in which such is discussed.

Actually, I agree with Dismalist. Discussion in that objective context would be welcome! (Unfortunately, many teachers would be unable to do that.)

And so we end up with a bunch of adults who know what the rules are, but not why they are what they are, who can name rules but not deliberate about their actions, who cannot identify the consequences of their actions beyond their direct impact on them, who cannot deliberate about conflicting rules, and who believe that moral relativism is coherent. Great.

I see hundreds of adults like this in my intro ethics classes every year. It's both profoundly sad and terrifying that they have never bothered to reflect on why the rules we have are the rules we have, and whether they're just, how their actions impact people other than themselves, or what consistently applying their avowed standards entails. My stupid elective should not be the first and only time they're asked to do so.

Their evaluations regularly report that their minds were blown. But that really shouldn't be the case. (And it's certainly not down to my piss-poor teaching skills!)

[ciao_yall]

If you're talking to the child being bullied, you need to be able to explain what was wrong about the other person's behaviour and reassure the bullied child that there's nothing wrong with them.

OK, we have a fundamental disagreement here. The value of a democratic society is that, as long as we can agree on rules of how we interact with one another, we are all free to believe whatever we want. This is vitally important for young people to learn; there will always be people you disagree with, but as long as you treat each other civilly, no-one has to try and force the other to change.

It's vastly more important for students to understand the importance of civil behaviour in society than it is for them to try and figure out what they're supposed to believe about everything under the sun.

Since so much bullying is about non-conformity, you need to be able to address that. If you simply say "Stevie shouldn't have called you names", you're just saying that Stevie's words are bad; it should be obvious that saying "Not only shouldn't Stevie have called you names, but there's nothing wrong with liking boys in the first place" is far more effective, because it directly addresses what Stevie was saying, and what he was trying to do to the kid. One of those strategies is going to be a lot more comforting than the other.

As above, "comfort" isn't as important as insisting on the kind of civil behaviour that allows everyone to peacefully coexist, despite their differences.

If you're talking to the bully, you need to be able to show them why what they did was wrong. And you can't do that without addressing the content of their actions, and why it is that they think the names they called the other child are bad, etc. You want to address the roots of the bully's behaviour, not just the way it manifests itself.

Ibid. There may be all kinds of different reasons for a bully's bad behaviour. (Among others, the bully could have questions about his own orientation.) But, the behaviour is the problem, regardless of the motivation. (By focusing on the motivation, it's entirely possible that the bully, knowing that his motivation in this case is not what you think, wil be able to ignore all you say because you don't understand.)

Branches of government are major topics in US History and Government courses, especially AP. Two cases that would not be allowed to be discussed that are topical involve same sex marriage and abortion access. The current case under consideration involving the abortion drug access will be a discussion point in high school upper level classes throughout the US.

That's off the top of my head. It is also unclear whether or not Florida students will be able to discuss Loving v Virginia next year due to other new legislation (which appears to be in conflict with existing Florida law.

I'll ask. dismalist, what are your thoughts on this post? I already know marshwiggle won't respond, but do you have any concerns about high school government classes being barred from discussing the court cases? I don't mean from  right or wrong perspective, rather from a perspective of the opinions reasoning of the court and the basis for the suit in the first place.

I'd love them to be discussed! I would have sent my daughter to a school in which such is discussed.

Actually, I agree with Dismalist. Discussion in that objective context would be welcome! (Unfortunately, many teachers would be unable to do that.)

At the same time, what behavior can appear "civil" but really should be called out, even rudely? When I was in college we had an obscene phone caller to my sorority house. The other girls didn't want to answer the phone. I finally answered it and chewed the guy out.

The others said "OMG that's so ruuuuudeee! What if he was someone's friend?"  I responded "You don't have to be polite to an obscene phone caller."

So to say we should always behave civilly and ignore or otherwise let others be, even when it apparently shouldn't bother us, may not be the answer either.

We should discuss what differences are okay, and which need to be addressed as a sign of abuse or mental, physical or other illness.

Someone being gay or wearing a headscarf is none of my business. Someone walking around naked is kind of a problem.

[marshwiggle]

If you're talking to the child being bullied, you need to be able to explain what was wrong about the other person's behaviour and reassure the bullied child that there's nothing wrong with them.

OK, we have a fundamental disagreement here. The value of a democratic society is that, as long as we can agree on rules of how we interact with one another, we are all free to believe whatever we want. This is vitally important for young people to learn; there will always be people you disagree with, but as long as you treat each other civilly, no-one has to try and force the other to change.

It's vastly more important for students to understand the importance of civil behaviour in society than it is for them to try and figure out what they're supposed to believe about everything under the sun.

Since so much bullying is about non-conformity, you need to be able to address that. If you simply say "Stevie shouldn't have called you names", you're just saying that Stevie's words are bad; it should be obvious that saying "Not only shouldn't Stevie have called you names, but there's nothing wrong with liking boys in the first place" is far more effective, because it directly addresses what Stevie was saying, and what he was trying to do to the kid. One of those strategies is going to be a lot more comforting than the other.

As above, "comfort" isn't as important as insisting on the kind of civil behaviour that allows everyone to peacefully coexist, despite their differences.

If you're talking to the bully, you need to be able to show them why what they did was wrong. And you can't do that without addressing the content of their actions, and why it is that they think the names they called the other child are bad, etc. You want to address the roots of the bully's behaviour, not just the way it manifests itself.

Ibid. There may be all kinds of different reasons for a bully's bad behaviour. (Among others, the bully could have questions about his own orientation.) But, the behaviour is the problem, regardless of the motivation. (By focusing on the motivation, it's entirely possible that the bully, knowing that his motivation in this case is not what you think, wil be able to ignore all you say because you don't understand.)

And so we end up with a bunch of adults who know what the rules are, but not why they are what they are, who can name rules but not deliberate about their actions, who cannot identify the consequences of their actions beyond their direct impact on them, who cannot deliberate about conflicting rules, and who believe that moral relativism is coherent. Great.

I see hundreds of adults like this in my intro ethics classes every year. It's both profoundly sad and terrifying that they have never bothered to reflect on why the rules we have are the rules we have, and whether they're just, how their actions impact people other than themselves, or what consistently applying their avowed standards entails. My stupid elective should not be the first and only time they're asked to do so.

This is like the "excused absences" issue that comes up a lot. Vetting every proferred excuse for an absence is exhausting; having uniform objective rules for everyone simplifies things.

Furthermore, if the person rejects your basis for moral choice, then they can completely sidestep the discussion about their behaviour. Having objective, universal rules cuts to the chase. If someone wants to delve into the morality behind the rules, that's fine, but making it the focus of the discussion is time-consuming and potentially fruitless.

Also, it's much easier to get broad buy-in for rules than it is to get agreement on all of the justification for the rules. Probably just about all parents will agree about what kind of bullying behaviour is unacceptable, regardless of how they feel about all kinds of social issues.

At the same time, what behavior can appear "civil" but really should be called out, even rudely? When I was in college we had an obscene phone caller to my sorority house. The other girls didn't want to answer the phone. I finally answered it and chewed the guy out.

I can't see how an obscene phone call is "civil". If it was a call that was intended for a specific individual, who would have appreciated it, then that doesn't make it OK to be directed to anyone. Civil behaviour is precisely what is within the bounds of acceptable to basically everyone.

The others said "OMG that's so ruuuuudeee! What if he was someone's friend?"  I responded "You don't have to be polite to an obscene phone caller."

So to say we should always behave civilly and ignore or otherwise let others be, even when it apparently shouldn't bother us, may not be the answer either.

So is this to suggest that bullying might be OK sometimes? This is kind of turning the bullying discussion upside down.

We should discuss what differences are okay, and which need to be addressed as a sign of abuse or mental, physical or other illness.

Someone being gay or wearing a headscarf is none of my business. Someone walking around naked is kind of a problem.

Even for the person walking around naked, spraying them with a fire hose is probably pretty uncivil. The point of "civil" behaviour is that it, like the assumption of innocence in court, prevents having to establish cause for behaviour in order to deal with it.

[little bongo]

"Furthermore, if the person rejects your basis for moral choice, then they can completely sidestep the discussion about their behaviour. Having objective, universal rules cuts to the chase. If someone wants to delve into the morality behind the rules, that's fine, but making it the focus of the discussion is time-consuming and potentially fruitless."

They might reject your basis for moral choice. they could sidestep the discussion about their behavior. And they might not. Welcome to teaching.

[Wahoo Redux]

This is like the "excused absences" issue that comes up a lot. Vetting every proferred excuse for an absence is exhausting; having uniform objective rules for everyone simplifies things.

Furthermore, if the person rejects your basis for moral choice, then they can completely sidestep the discussion about their behaviour. Having objective, universal rules cuts to the chase. If someone wants to delve into the morality behind the rules, that's fine, but making it the focus of the discussion is time-consuming and potentially fruitless.

"fruitless"??

At one point it was a universal rule that women not own property or be allowed to vote.

Who makes up these "objective, universal rules" that cut to the chase, anyway?

[marshwiggle]

This is like the "excused absences" issue that comes up a lot. Vetting every proferred excuse for an absence is exhausting; having uniform objective rules for everyone simplifies things.

Furthermore, if the person rejects your basis for moral choice, then they can completely sidestep the discussion about their behaviour. Having objective, universal rules cuts to the chase. If someone wants to delve into the morality behind the rules, that's fine, but making it the focus of the discussion is time-consuming and potentially fruitless.

"fruitless"??

At one point it was a universal rule that women not own property or be allowed to vote.

Who makes up these "objective, universal rules" that cut to the chase, anyway?

So you don't think it's possible to come up with rules about what kind of behaviour constitutes bullying that would be widely accepted?  (That's what I mean by "objective, universal rules"; ones that are easy to get broad consensus on that are a vast improvement on no rules and/or ad hoc reactions.)

[ciao_yall]

This is like the "excused absences" issue that comes up a lot. Vetting every proferred excuse for an absence is exhausting; having uniform objective rules for everyone simplifies things.

Furthermore, if the person rejects your basis for moral choice, then they can completely sidestep the discussion about their behaviour. Having objective, universal rules cuts to the chase. If someone wants to delve into the morality behind the rules, that's fine, but making it the focus of the discussion is time-consuming and potentially fruitless.

"fruitless"??

At one point it was a universal rule that women not own property or be allowed to vote.

Who makes up these "objective, universal rules" that cut to the chase, anyway?

So you don't think it's possible to come up with rules about what kind of behaviour constitutes bullying that would be widely accepted?  (That's what I mean by "objective, universal rules"; ones that are easy to get broad consensus on that are a vast improvement on no rules and/or ad hoc reactions.)

Define "bullying."

[Wahoo Redux]

This is like the "excused absences" issue that comes up a lot. Vetting every proferred excuse for an absence is exhausting; having uniform objective rules for everyone simplifies things.

Furthermore, if the person rejects your basis for moral choice, then they can completely sidestep the discussion about their behaviour. Having objective, universal rules cuts to the chase. If someone wants to delve into the morality behind the rules, that's fine, but making it the focus of the discussion is time-consuming and potentially fruitless.

"fruitless"??

At one point it was a universal rule that women not own property or be allowed to vote.

Who makes up these "objective, universal rules" that cut to the chase, anyway?

So you don't think it's possible to come up with rules about what kind of behaviour constitutes bullying that would be widely accepted?  (That's what I mean by "objective, universal rules"; ones that are easy to get broad consensus on that are a vast improvement on no rules and/or ad hoc reactions.)

We do have rules against bullying.  They are not necessarily enforced.

And the problem with "broad consensus" is that this is where we end up with institutionalized prejudice. 

[marshwiggle]

This is like the "excused absences" issue that comes up a lot. Vetting every proferred excuse for an absence is exhausting; having uniform objective rules for everyone simplifies things.

Furthermore, if the person rejects your basis for moral choice, then they can completely sidestep the discussion about their behaviour. Having objective, universal rules cuts to the chase. If someone wants to delve into the morality behind the rules, that's fine, but making it the focus of the discussion is time-consuming and potentially fruitless.

"fruitless"??

At one point it was a universal rule that women not own property or be allowed to vote.

Who makes up these "objective, universal rules" that cut to the chase, anyway?

So you don't think it's possible to come up with rules about what kind of behaviour constitutes bullying that would be widely accepted?  (That's what I mean by "objective, universal rules"; ones that are easy to get broad consensus on that are a vast improvement on no rules and/or ad hoc reactions.)

We do have rules against bullying.  They are not necessarily enforced.

And the problem with "broad consensus" is that this is where we end up with institutionalized prejudice.

So would the rules be sufficient if they were consistently enforced?

[Wahoo Redux]

This is like the "excused absences" issue that comes up a lot. Vetting every proferred excuse for an absence is exhausting; having uniform objective rules for everyone simplifies things.

Furthermore, if the person rejects your basis for moral choice, then they can completely sidestep the discussion about their behaviour. Having objective, universal rules cuts to the chase. If someone wants to delve into the morality behind the rules, that's fine, but making it the focus of the discussion is time-consuming and potentially fruitless.

"fruitless"??

At one point it was a universal rule that women not own property or be allowed to vote.

Who makes up these "objective, universal rules" that cut to the chase, anyway?

So you don't think it's possible to come up with rules about what kind of behaviour constitutes bullying that would be widely accepted?  (That's what I mean by "objective, universal rules"; ones that are easy to get broad consensus on that are a vast improvement on no rules and/or ad hoc reactions.)

We do have rules against bullying.  They are not necessarily enforced.

And the problem with "broad consensus" is that this is where we end up with institutionalized prejudice.

So would the rules be sufficient if they were consistently enforced?

Dunno.  But it would certainly help.  And in any event, rules against intimidation and violence are the not rules I worry about----these are good rules.

Rules against belief systems, personal choices, free speech, dress, sexual orientation and the like are the ones I worry about.  "Bullying" in this context is a red herring.

As caio said:

We should discuss what differences are okay, and which need to be addressed as a sign of abuse or mental, physical or other illness.

Someone being gay or wearing a headscarf is none of my business. Someone walking around naked is kind of a problem.

So crack down on bullying all you like.  That makes sense.  Leave the trans-people alone.  That also makes sense.