Cancelling Dr. Seuss

[marshwiggle]

Still, in the same way local K-12 boards have been dealing with "anti-woke" types, these folks are finding their way onto our local College boards at times. From what I hear from colleagues, so far they are generating more heat than light.

If both the "woke" and "anti-woke" types could be weeded out, so that boards consisted of people focused on education, it would be a big win for all.

Yet issues that used to be rubber stamps, like including "equity" and "dismantling racism" in our mission statements have occasionally led to tantrums.

Including "dismantling racism" in a mission statement is like including "dismantling use of child labour" or "dismantling production of child pornography"; if the institution ever was doing those things, they presumably have already stopped doing them since they are admitting they shouldn't be. Or else the definitions of those things are just ridiculously vague so it doesn't mean anything specific.

[dismalist]

Still, in the same way local K-12 boards have been dealing with "anti-woke" types, these folks are finding their way onto our local College boards at times. From what I hear from colleagues, so far they are generating more heat than light.

If both the "woke" and "anti-woke" types could be weeded out, so that boards consisted of people focused on education, it would be a big win for all.

Yet issues that used to be rubber stamps, like including "equity" and "dismantling racism" in our mission statements have occasionally led to tantrums.

Including "dismantling racism" in a mission statement is like including "dismantling use of child labour" or "dismantling production of child pornography"; if the institution ever was doing those things, they presumably have already stopped doing them since they are admitting they shouldn't be. Or else the definitions of those things are just ridiculously vague so it doesn't mean anything specific.

This reminded me of Vaclav Havel's essay The Power of the Powerless, parable really, about the greengrocer who puts signs of loyalty to the regime into his shop window -- by pressure if no longer by violent coercion -- forced speech in contemporary parlance.

Let us now imagine that one day something in our greengrocer snaps and he stops putting up the slogans merely to ingratiate himself. He stops voting in elections he knows are a farce. He begins to say what he really thinks at political meetings. And he even finds the strength in himself to express solidarity with those whom his conscience commands him to support. In this revolt the greengrocer steps out of living within the lie. He rejects the ritual and breaks the rules of the game. He discovers once more his suppressed identity and dignity. He gives his freedom a concrete significance. His revolt is an attempt to live within the truth.

This is something the regime cannot tolerate.

Thus the power structure, through the agency of those who carry out the sanctions, those anonymous components of the system, will spew the greengrocer from its mouth. The system, through its alienating presence in people, will punish him for his rebellion. It must do so because the logic of its automatism and self-defense dictate it. The greengrocer has not committed a simple, individual offense, isolated in its own uniqueness, but something incomparably more serious. By breaking the rules of the game, he has disrupted the game as such. He has exposed it as a mere game. He has shattered the world of appearances, the fundamental pillar of the system. He has upset the power structure by tearing apart what holds it together. He has demonstrated that living a lie is living a lie. He has broken through the exalted facade of the system and exposed the real, base foundations of power. He has said that the emperor is naked. And because the emperor is in fact naked, something extremely dangerous has happened: by his action, the greengrocer has addressed the world. He has enabled everyone to peer behind the curtain. He has shown everyone that it is possible to live within the truth. Living within the lie can constitute the system only if it is universal. The principle must embrace and permeate everything. There are no terms whatsoever on which it can co-exist with living within the truth, and therefore everyone who steps out of line denies it in principle and threatens it in its entirety.

And the lie explains why the regime cannot tolerate alternatives, even thinking about alternatives, and those who think about alternatives.

This is understandable: as long as appearance is not confronted with reality, it does not seem to be appearance. As long as living a lie is not confronted with living the truth, the perspective needed to expose its mendacity is lacking. As soon as the alternative appears, however, it threatens the very existence of appearance and living a lie in terms of what they are, both their essence and their all-inclusiveness.

Forced speech is forced conformism, an attempt to show far more support than there actually is and to break independent thought.

On average, we are still far from the regime in pre-1990 Czecho, but some of higher ed in some places is close to it, without the guns so far. What makes pre-1990 Czecho unlikely here is economic and political competition which will be difficult to snuff out.

This, too, shall pass.

https://hac.bard.edu/amor-mundi/the-power-of-the-powerless-vaclav-havel-2011-12-23

[ciao_yall]

Still, in the same way local K-12 boards have been dealing with "anti-woke" types, these folks are finding their way onto our local College boards at times. From what I hear from colleagues, so far they are generating more heat than light.

If both the "woke" and "anti-woke" types could be weeded out, so that boards consisted of people focused on education, it would be a big win for all.

Yet issues that used to be rubber stamps, like including "equity" and "dismantling racism" in our mission statements have occasionally led to tantrums.

Including "dismantling racism" in a mission statement is like including "dismantling use of child labour" or "dismantling production of child pornography"; if the institution ever was doing those things, they presumably have already stopped doing them since they are admitting they shouldn't be. Or else the definitions of those things are just ridiculously vague so it doesn't mean anything specific.

This reminded me of Vaclav Havel's essay The Power of the Powerless, parable really, about the greengrocer who puts signs of loyalty to the regime into his shop window -- by pressure if no longer by violent coercion -- forced speech in contemporary parlance.

Not sure who is being forced to say/do what in the CCC board scenario?

[dismalist]

Still, in the same way local K-12 boards have been dealing with "anti-woke" types, these folks are finding their way onto our local College boards at times. From what I hear from colleagues, so far they are generating more heat than light.

If both the "woke" and "anti-woke" types could be weeded out, so that boards consisted of people focused on education, it would be a big win for all.

Yet issues that used to be rubber stamps, like including "equity" and "dismantling racism" in our mission statements have occasionally led to tantrums.

Including "dismantling racism" in a mission statement is like including "dismantling use of child labour" or "dismantling production of child pornography"; if the institution ever was doing those things, they presumably have already stopped doing them since they are admitting they shouldn't be. Or else the definitions of those things are just ridiculously vague so it doesn't mean anything specific.

This reminded me of Vaclav Havel's essay The Power of the Powerless, parable really, about the greengrocer who puts signs of loyalty to the regime into his shop window -- by pressure if no longer by violent coercion -- forced speech in contemporary parlance.

Not sure who is being forced to say/do what in the CCC board scenario?

Still, in the same way local K-12 boards have been dealing with "anti-woke" types, these folks are finding their way onto our local College boards at times. From what I hear from colleagues, so far they are generating more heat than light. Yet issues that used to be rubber stamps, like including "equity" and "dismantling racism" in our mission statements have occasionally led to tantrums.

There is no reason to rubber stamp "equity" and "dismantling racism" in mission statements. The greengrocer is removing the picture of Stalin from the shop window.

[ciao_yall]

Still, in the same way local K-12 boards have been dealing with "anti-woke" types, these folks are finding their way onto our local College boards at times. From what I hear from colleagues, so far they are generating more heat than light.

If both the "woke" and "anti-woke" types could be weeded out, so that boards consisted of people focused on education, it would be a big win for all.

Yet issues that used to be rubber stamps, like including "equity" and "dismantling racism" in our mission statements have occasionally led to tantrums.

Including "dismantling racism" in a mission statement is like including "dismantling use of child labour" or "dismantling production of child pornography"; if the institution ever was doing those things, they presumably have already stopped doing them since they are admitting they shouldn't be. Or else the definitions of those things are just ridiculously vague so it doesn't mean anything specific.

This reminded me of Vaclav Havel's essay The Power of the Powerless, parable really, about the greengrocer who puts signs of loyalty to the regime into his shop window -- by pressure if no longer by violent coercion -- forced speech in contemporary parlance.

Not sure who is being forced to say/do what in the CCC board scenario?

Still, in the same way local K-12 boards have been dealing with "anti-woke" types, these folks are finding their way onto our local College boards at times. From what I hear from colleagues, so far they are generating more heat than light. Yet issues that used to be rubber stamps, like including "equity" and "dismantling racism" in our mission statements have occasionally led to tantrums.

There is no reason to rubber stamp "equity" and "dismantling racism" in mission statements. The greengrocer is removing the picture of Stalin from the shop window.

Not sure I would equate a brutal dictator with making sure an educational environment is inclusive and supportive of a diverse student body.

[dismalist]

Still, in the same way local K-12 boards have been dealing with "anti-woke" types, these folks are finding their way onto our local College boards at times. From what I hear from colleagues, so far they are generating more heat than light.

If both the "woke" and "anti-woke" types could be weeded out, so that boards consisted of people focused on education, it would be a big win for all.

Yet issues that used to be rubber stamps, like including "equity" and "dismantling racism" in our mission statements have occasionally led to tantrums.

Including "dismantling racism" in a mission statement is like including "dismantling use of child labour" or "dismantling production of child pornography"; if the institution ever was doing those things, they presumably have already stopped doing them since they are admitting they shouldn't be. Or else the definitions of those things are just ridiculously vague so it doesn't mean anything specific.

This reminded me of Vaclav Havel's essay The Power of the Powerless, parable really, about the greengrocer who puts signs of loyalty to the regime into his shop window -- by pressure if no longer by violent coercion -- forced speech in contemporary parlance.

Not sure who is being forced to say/do what in the CCC board scenario?

Still, in the same way local K-12 boards have been dealing with "anti-woke" types, these folks are finding their way onto our local College boards at times. From what I hear from colleagues, so far they are generating more heat than light. Yet issues that used to be rubber stamps, like including "equity" and "dismantling racism" in our mission statements have occasionally led to tantrums.

There is no reason to rubber stamp "equity" and "dismantling racism" in mission statements. The greengrocer is removing the picture of Stalin from the shop window.

Not sure I would equate a brutal dictator with making sure an educational environment is inclusive and supportive of a diverse student body.

In a world where "inclusion" really means "exclusion", "diverse" really means "uniform", and "equitable" really means "inequitable". Some are against the actual meaning of those words, like Havel's greengrocer, and don't genuflect before them.

[marshwiggle]

Still, in the same way local K-12 boards have been dealing with "anti-woke" types, these folks are finding their way onto our local College boards at times. From what I hear from colleagues, so far they are generating more heat than light.

If both the "woke" and "anti-woke" types could be weeded out, so that boards consisted of people focused on education, it would be a big win for all.

Yet issues that used to be rubber stamps, like including "equity" and "dismantling racism" in our mission statements have occasionally led to tantrums.

Including "dismantling racism" in a mission statement is like including "dismantling use of child labour" or "dismantling production of child pornography"; if the institution ever was doing those things, they presumably have already stopped doing them since they are admitting they shouldn't be. Or else the definitions of those things are just ridiculously vague so it doesn't mean anything specific.

This reminded me of Vaclav Havel's essay The Power of the Powerless, parable really, about the greengrocer who puts signs of loyalty to the regime into his shop window -- by pressure if no longer by violent coercion -- forced speech in contemporary parlance.

Not sure who is being forced to say/do what in the CCC board scenario?

Still, in the same way local K-12 boards have been dealing with "anti-woke" types, these folks are finding their way onto our local College boards at times. From what I hear from colleagues, so far they are generating more heat than light. Yet issues that used to be rubber stamps, like including "equity" and "dismantling racism" in our mission statements have occasionally led to tantrums.

There is no reason to rubber stamp "equity" and "dismantling racism" in mission statements. The greengrocer is removing the picture of Stalin from the shop window.

Not sure I would equate a brutal dictator with making sure an educational environment is inclusive and supportive of a diverse student body.

How exactly is putting language in a mission statement "making sure an educational environment is inclusive and supportive of a diverse student body"? And how is not putting it there indicative of an educational environment that isn't inclusive and supportive of a diverse student body?

All kinds of people who have abused or murdered family members have claimed to love them, and all kinds of people who avoided explicitly expressing love have sacrificed everything for others.

(For a good historical example of virtue-signalling, see the Apostle Peter, who vowed he would never deny Jesus. That didn't turn out so well. Was he sincere? Undoubtedly. The problem was that how he imagined his loyalty would be tested was nothing like what actually happened. Humility is vastly superior to virtue-signalling.)

[Kron3007]

Still, in the same way local K-12 boards have been dealing with "anti-woke" types, these folks are finding their way onto our local College boards at times. From what I hear from colleagues, so far they are generating more heat than light.

If both the "woke" and "anti-woke" types could be weeded out, so that boards consisted of people focused on education, it would be a big win for all.

Yet issues that used to be rubber stamps, like including "equity" and "dismantling racism" in our mission statements have occasionally led to tantrums.

Including "dismantling racism" in a mission statement is like including "dismantling use of child labour" or "dismantling production of child pornography"; if the institution ever was doing those things, they presumably have already stopped doing them since they are admitting they shouldn't be. Or else the definitions of those things are just ridiculously vague so it doesn't mean anything specific.

This reminded me of Vaclav Havel's essay The Power of the Powerless, parable really, about the greengrocer who puts signs of loyalty to the regime into his shop window -- by pressure if no longer by violent coercion -- forced speech in contemporary parlance.

Not sure who is being forced to say/do what in the CCC board scenario?

Still, in the same way local K-12 boards have been dealing with "anti-woke" types, these folks are finding their way onto our local College boards at times. From what I hear from colleagues, so far they are generating more heat than light. Yet issues that used to be rubber stamps, like including "equity" and "dismantling racism" in our mission statements have occasionally led to tantrums.

There is no reason to rubber stamp "equity" and "dismantling racism" in mission statements. The greengrocer is removing the picture of Stalin from the shop window.

Not sure I would equate a brutal dictator with making sure an educational environment is inclusive and supportive of a diverse student body.

In a world where "inclusion" really means "exclusion", "diverse" really means "uniform", and "equitable" really means "inequitable". Some are against the actual meaning of those words, like Havel's greengrocer, and don't genuflect before them.

Sure, if you change the meaning of all the words to their opposites it is pretty easy to be against the statement. 

Ironically, the "anti-woke" crowd who are against this forced speech of tolerance and acceptance are often very supportive of forced recitation of the national anthem, the pledge of allegiance, etc.  Funny how morals are so fickle. 

     

[dismalist]

Still, in the same way local K-12 boards have been dealing with "anti-woke" types, these folks are finding their way onto our local College boards at times. From what I hear from colleagues, so far they are generating more heat than light.

If both the "woke" and "anti-woke" types could be weeded out, so that boards consisted of people focused on education, it would be a big win for all.

Yet issues that used to be rubber stamps, like including "equity" and "dismantling racism" in our mission statements have occasionally led to tantrums.

Including "dismantling racism" in a mission statement is like including "dismantling use of child labour" or "dismantling production of child pornography"; if the institution ever was doing those things, they presumably have already stopped doing them since they are admitting they shouldn't be. Or else the definitions of those things are just ridiculously vague so it doesn't mean anything specific.

This reminded me of Vaclav Havel's essay The Power of the Powerless, parable really, about the greengrocer who puts signs of loyalty to the regime into his shop window -- by pressure if no longer by violent coercion -- forced speech in contemporary parlance.

Not sure who is being forced to say/do what in the CCC board scenario?

Still, in the same way local K-12 boards have been dealing with "anti-woke" types, these folks are finding their way onto our local College boards at times. From what I hear from colleagues, so far they are generating more heat than light. Yet issues that used to be rubber stamps, like including "equity" and "dismantling racism" in our mission statements have occasionally led to tantrums.

There is no reason to rubber stamp "equity" and "dismantling racism" in mission statements. The greengrocer is removing the picture of Stalin from the shop window.

Not sure I would equate a brutal dictator with making sure an educational environment is inclusive and supportive of a diverse student body.

In a world where "inclusion" really means "exclusion", "diverse" really means "uniform", and "equitable" really means "inequitable". Some are against the actual meaning of those words, like Havel's greengrocer, and don't genuflect before them.

Sure, if you change the meaning of all the words to their opposites it is pretty easy to be against the statement. 

Ironically, the "anti-woke" crowd who are against this forced speech of tolerance and acceptance are often very supportive of forced recitation of the national anthem, the pledge of allegiance, etc.  Funny how morals are so fickle. 

     

The point is that it's forced speech of intolerance and rejection. I wouldn't sign off on that stuff even if the words had their original meaning.

And nobody has to sing the national anthem or pledge allegiance to the flag [West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 1943 -- in the middle of a damned war.]

Justice Robert Jackson said, "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."

Put simply: the government can't tell you what to say or think.

I also don't want the educational establishment to tell me what to say or think.

[jimbogumbo]

The point is that it's forced speech of intolerance and rejection. I wouldn't sign off on that stuff even if the words had their original meaning.

And nobody has to sing the national anthem or pledge allegiance to the flag [West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 1943 -- in the middle of a damned war.]

Justice Robert Jackson said, "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."

Put simply: the government can't tell you what to say or think.

I also don't want the educational establishment to tell me what to say or think.

You mean like this? https://news.stlpublicradio.org/education/2023-04-28/kirkwood-sexualized-my-identity-3-trans-educators-claim-discrimination-say-they-were-forced-out

[dismalist]

The point is that it's forced speech of intolerance and rejection. I wouldn't sign off on that stuff even if the words had their original meaning.

And nobody has to sing the national anthem or pledge allegiance to the flag [West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 1943 -- in the middle of a damned war.]

Justice Robert Jackson said, "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."

Put simply: the government can't tell you what to say or think.

I also don't want the educational establishment to tell me what to say or think.

You mean like this? https://news.stlpublicradio.org/education/2023-04-28/kirkwood-sexualized-my-identity-3-trans-educators-claim-discrimination-say-they-were-forced-out

I was thinking of higher ed. State governmenst control K-12 education. They can legislate what they want as far as content is concerned. The solution to the trans ethnogenisis more generally is to let states do it how they want.

As for higher ed, it occurs to me that state schools may not force speech, based on Barnette. I expect there will be lawsuits.

[Kron3007]

Still, in the same way local K-12 boards have been dealing with "anti-woke" types, these folks are finding their way onto our local College boards at times. From what I hear from colleagues, so far they are generating more heat than light.

If both the "woke" and "anti-woke" types could be weeded out, so that boards consisted of people focused on education, it would be a big win for all.

Yet issues that used to be rubber stamps, like including "equity" and "dismantling racism" in our mission statements have occasionally led to tantrums.

Including "dismantling racism" in a mission statement is like including "dismantling use of child labour" or "dismantling production of child pornography"; if the institution ever was doing those things, they presumably have already stopped doing them since they are admitting they shouldn't be. Or else the definitions of those things are just ridiculously vague so it doesn't mean anything specific.

This reminded me of Vaclav Havel's essay The Power of the Powerless, parable really, about the greengrocer who puts signs of loyalty to the regime into his shop window -- by pressure if no longer by violent coercion -- forced speech in contemporary parlance.

Not sure who is being forced to say/do what in the CCC board scenario?

Still, in the same way local K-12 boards have been dealing with "anti-woke" types, these folks are finding their way onto our local College boards at times. From what I hear from colleagues, so far they are generating more heat than light. Yet issues that used to be rubber stamps, like including "equity" and "dismantling racism" in our mission statements have occasionally led to tantrums.

There is no reason to rubber stamp "equity" and "dismantling racism" in mission statements. The greengrocer is removing the picture of Stalin from the shop window.

Not sure I would equate a brutal dictator with making sure an educational environment is inclusive and supportive of a diverse student body.

In a world where "inclusion" really means "exclusion", "diverse" really means "uniform", and "equitable" really means "inequitable". Some are against the actual meaning of those words, like Havel's greengrocer, and don't genuflect before them.

Sure, if you change the meaning of all the words to their opposites it is pretty easy to be against the statement. 

Ironically, the "anti-woke" crowd who are against this forced speech of tolerance and acceptance are often very supportive of forced recitation of the national anthem, the pledge of allegiance, etc.  Funny how morals are so fickle. 

     

The point is that it's forced speech of intolerance and rejection. I wouldn't sign off on that stuff even if the words had their original meaning.

And nobody has to sing the national anthem or pledge allegiance to the flag [West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 1943 -- in the middle of a damned war.]

Justice Robert Jackson said, "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."

Put simply: the government can't tell you what to say or think.

I also don't want the educational establishment to tell me what to say or think.

I don't think anyone is forced to recite that mission statement either.

[dismalist]

Still, in the same way local K-12 boards have been dealing with "anti-woke" types, these folks are finding their way onto our local College boards at times. From what I hear from colleagues, so far they are generating more heat than light.

If both the "woke" and "anti-woke" types could be weeded out, so that boards consisted of people focused on education, it would be a big win for all.

Yet issues that used to be rubber stamps, like including "equity" and "dismantling racism" in our mission statements have occasionally led to tantrums.

Including "dismantling racism" in a mission statement is like including "dismantling use of child labour" or "dismantling production of child pornography"; if the institution ever was doing those things, they presumably have already stopped doing them since they are admitting they shouldn't be. Or else the definitions of those things are just ridiculously vague so it doesn't mean anything specific.

This reminded me of Vaclav Havel's essay The Power of the Powerless, parable really, about the greengrocer who puts signs of loyalty to the regime into his shop window -- by pressure if no longer by violent coercion -- forced speech in contemporary parlance.

Not sure who is being forced to say/do what in the CCC board scenario?

Still, in the same way local K-12 boards have been dealing with "anti-woke" types, these folks are finding their way onto our local College boards at times. From what I hear from colleagues, so far they are generating more heat than light. Yet issues that used to be rubber stamps, like including "equity" and "dismantling racism" in our mission statements have occasionally led to tantrums.

There is no reason to rubber stamp "equity" and "dismantling racism" in mission statements. The greengrocer is removing the picture of Stalin from the shop window.

Not sure I would equate a brutal dictator with making sure an educational environment is inclusive and supportive of a diverse student body.

In a world where "inclusion" really means "exclusion", "diverse" really means "uniform", and "equitable" really means "inequitable". Some are against the actual meaning of those words, like Havel's greengrocer, and don't genuflect before them.

Sure, if you change the meaning of all the words to their opposites it is pretty easy to be against the statement. 

Ironically, the "anti-woke" crowd who are against this forced speech of tolerance and acceptance are often very supportive of forced recitation of the national anthem, the pledge of allegiance, etc.  Funny how morals are so fickle. 

     

The point is that it's forced speech of intolerance and rejection. I wouldn't sign off on that stuff even if the words had their original meaning.

And nobody has to sing the national anthem or pledge allegiance to the flag [West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 1943 -- in the middle of a damned war.]

Justice Robert Jackson said, "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."

Put simply: the government can't tell you what to say or think.

I also don't want the educational establishment to tell me what to say or think.

I don't think anyone is forced to recite that mission statement either.

Maybe not, but to accept it. Tells me what to think.

[jimbogumbo]

The point is that it's forced speech of intolerance and rejection. I wouldn't sign off on that stuff even if the words had their original meaning.

And nobody has to sing the national anthem or pledge allegiance to the flag [West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 1943 -- in the middle of a damned war.]

Justice Robert Jackson said, "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."

Put simply: the government can't tell you what to say or think.

I also don't want the educational establishment to tell me what to say or think.

You mean like this? https://news.stlpublicradio.org/education/2023-04-28/kirkwood-sexualized-my-identity-3-trans-educators-claim-discrimination-say-they-were-forced-out

I was thinking of higher ed. State governmenst control K-12 education. They can legislate what they want as far as content is concerned. The solution to the trans ethnogenisis more generally is to let states do it how they want.

As for higher ed, it occurs to me that state schools may not force speech, based on Barnette. I expect there will be lawsuits.

Yes, but in this case the teachers were told that simply telling the class that they (the teacher) were non-binary was sex education. That a personal statement of identity could be construed as curriculum related is bizarre.

[dismalist]

The point is that it's forced speech of intolerance and rejection. I wouldn't sign off on that stuff even if the words had their original meaning.

And nobody has to sing the national anthem or pledge allegiance to the flag [West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 1943 -- in the middle of a damned war.]

Justice Robert Jackson said, "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."

Put simply: the government can't tell you what to say or think.

I also don't want the educational establishment to tell me what to say or think.

You mean like this? https://news.stlpublicradio.org/education/2023-04-28/kirkwood-sexualized-my-identity-3-trans-educators-claim-discrimination-say-they-were-forced-out

I was thinking of higher ed. State governmenst control K-12 education. They can legislate what they want as far as content is concerned. The solution to the trans ethnogenisis more generally is to let states do it how they want.

As for higher ed, it occurs to me that state schools may not force speech, based on Barnette. I expect there will be lawsuits.

Yes, but in this case the teachers were told that simply telling the class that they (the teacher) were non-binary was sex education. That a personal statement of identity could be construed as curriculum related is bizarre.

What's bizarre to some is fine to others, and what's bizarre to others is fine for some. People differ in their preferences. Decentralize, decentralize.