Cancelling Dr. Seuss

[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.

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.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits an employer from treating you differently, or less favorably, because of your sex, which is defined to include pregnancy, sexual orientation, and gender identity.

Sex Discrimination | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity ...

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

[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.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits an employer from treating you differently, or less favorably, because of your sex, which is defined to include pregnancy, sexual orientation, and gender identity.

Sex Discrimination | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity ...

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Sure. Now determine if control of a k-12 teacher's speech is consistent or not with the Civil rights Act. I think it is consistent. Nobody is being treated differently. All teachers' speech is prescribed.

[By the way, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 also prohibits "diversity" as a criterion in college admissions, but SCOTUS [Bakke, 1978], well a single justice  (Lewis F. Powell, Jr.) who sided with four others claiming overt discrimination was OK decided the CRA didn't apply.]

[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.

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

Same with the constitution and your countriy's laws.  Obviously the government can and does enforce some level of thought policing.  You are just picking and choosing.

And who is making anyone accept the mission. Statement.  I see all sorts of mission statements that are just stupid, including my own institutions.  No one has arrested me yet.

[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.

Same with the constitution and your countriy's laws.  Obviously the government can and does enforce some level of thought policing.  You are just picking and choosing.

And who is making anyone accept the mission. Statement.  I see all sorts of mission statements that are just stupid, including my own institutions.  No one has arrested me yet.

Of course I'm picking and choosing! I'm picking and choosing stuff that has been or largely was uncontroversial. If it's controversial, decentralize, decentralize. Then we don't have to live close to each other. People differ in their preferences.

[kaysixteen]

Given that k12 ed teaches minor children, exactly what level of moral and behavioral standards ought a community, via its elected  school board reps, be able to impose upon teachers (who are not draftees, and have no sovereign right to their employment)?   Why or why not?

[ciao_yall]

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

Mission statements don't tell you what to think. They do tell you what the institution values, such as... student success. And the success of students from diverse backgrounds.

So if you don't think student success is important or valuable, then you are probably in the wrong field. Or at least in the wrong institution. And... it's a free country.

[Wahoo Redux]

Given that k12 ed teaches minor children, exactly what level of moral and behavioral standards ought a community, via its elected  school board reps, be able to impose upon teachers (who are not draftees, and have no sovereign right to their employment)?   Why or why not?

One assumes there is a background check.

One assumes that there is some oversight on the job.

I think legal charges of pedophilia and drug peddling might disqualify one for a teaching job.

What else are you suggesting, Kay?

(Remember, before you go there, most abusers are straight men and someone that the child already knows, frequently a family member.)

[ciao_yall]

Given that k12 ed teaches minor children, exactly what level of moral and behavioral standards ought a community, via its elected  school board reps, be able to impose upon teachers (who are not draftees, and have no sovereign right to their employment)?   Why or why not?

Well, for starters, we do have Federal and State employment laws so public K-12 institutions cannot discriminate hiring on the basis of race, ethnicity, disability... and often gender and sexuality as well.

So, we know we have a diverse corps of teachers and other school employees, as well as parents who live in the district. It makes sense we should support their teaching of their history and community contributions, as well as that of their local environs, in a respectful and thoughtful way.

Define "age-appropriate?" If a child asks how babies are born, or why Heather has two daddies, it's the same strategy. Answer basically and let the kid ask further if they want to know more. "They grow inside their mommies until they are ready to come out." Or, "Bruce and Stephen fell in love and got married, like your parents did. That's what love is about."

As a teacher, as when I was a babysitter or day care worker, at some point I would say "That might be a good question for your parents." And give the parents a heads up that the kid wanted to know how the daddy planted his seed inside the mommy, or how Heather's two daddies "made" her if there were two daddies.

Depending on the age of the child, I might have clarified their question. Maybe they wanted to double check what they had been told... or see if I knew this fascinating information. So I might have asked them what they knew. Or asked what they thought. And tried to walk that line between validating what a child knew and adding from that place, versus going a bit farther than I thought the parents might be comfortable.

(ETA - fixing typos and ^^What Wahoo said.^^)

[dismalist]

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

Mission statements don't tell you what to think. They do tell you what the institution values, such as... student success. And the success of students from diverse backgrounds.

So if you don't think student success is important or valuable, then you are probably in the wrong field. Or at least in the wrong institution. And... it's a free country.

But that's the first thing we're arguing about [not the only thing]: Diversity means uniformity!

Free country?

"When words lose their meaning, people lose their freedom."
-- attributed to Confucius

[Wahoo Redux]

Diversity means uniformity!

Positively Orwellian!!!

Completely and totally disagree.

In fact, that sounds like typical wingnut propaganda, which is usually composed of just such uncited, oxymoronic sentiments.

Can you explain further what you mean?

[kaysixteen]

Obviously criminal conduct is out, but do not parents and their larger community have some right to see to it that those tasked with teaching their children do not provide examples of behavior that are quite frankly explicitly contrary to their values?   Think very carefully about your answer...

[Wahoo Redux]

Obviously criminal conduct is out, but do not parents and their larger community have some right to see to it that those tasked with teaching their children do not provide examples of behavior that are quite frankly explicitly contrary to their values?   Think very carefully about your answer...

Sure.

Given the propensity for Catholic priests to abuse children, I do not think Catholics should be allowed to teach children of any age.

The rest of the time we have to protect kids from bigotry and prejudice, and we have federal laws to help with that.

If parents do not like their public school system, they may put their kids in private schools or homeschool them.

Think carefully about your questions...

[marshwiggle]

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.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits an employer from treating you differently, or less favorably, because of your sex, which is defined to include pregnancy, sexual orientation, and gender identity.

So does that include requiring students and parents to use the person's chosen pronouns; in this case "they/them"? If so, would that also apply if the person's chosen pronouns were "YourMajesty" (or something like "killalll<whatver>")?

[nebo113]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/marissa-barnwell-pledge-of-allegiance-lawsuit_n_640ba123e4b01ea51226d419

[ciao_yall]

So does that include requiring students and parents to use the person's chosen pronouns; in this case "they/them"? If so, would that also apply if the person's chosen pronouns were "YourMajesty" (or something like "killalll<whatver>")?

It's, at a bare minimum, polite to use one's chosen pronouns.

One could attempt to change one's pronouns to something offensive and try to run it up the court system to see what happens.