Roberto Clemente Banned in Florida
 

Interesting development.

https://www.axios.com/2023/02/10/flo...o-clemente-crt

What isn't banned in Florida these days?

That's pathetic.

The Liberal funded media making a mountain out of a molehill again.
Gee, I wonder what popular politician resides in Florida that is driving the Democrats nuts because he is trying to bring some normalcy back to schools and some common sense everywhere else?

"According to Duvall County Schools, the book was pulled as part of its effort to do the state require review of books. The district said all books must be certified by a media specialist"
https://www.cbsnews.com/pittsburgh/n...hool-district/

LOL “normalcy”

A media specialist. LOL.

:confused:

It's real easy to see Pete, if one chooses to open their eyes, but carry on if you wish to remain ignorant instead.

Oh OK you convinced me.

Government "thought police" whether coming from the left or the right is never a good idea. The sooner we get liberal and conservative agendas out of schools the better.

Damn. :(
I wish I was able to do that much earlier before you foolishly decided to get vaccinated.

As the country continues to stratify it's only going to get worse.

What are some aspects of Clemente’s life that would be problematic for a child to learn about?

I think the reason it had to be reviewed were passages suggesting he was a victim of racism.

Nothing, zero, zilch. Read post #4. "All books" are being reviewed but like I said, the Dems and their funded media will stoop to lowest level they can in order to make the Cons and Desantis look bad.

All books have not been removed though for this review, have they? That someone would even need to closely review a biography of Clemente to see if it was lawful is a disgrace in and of itself. And who decides what discussions of race are OK and which aren't, a media specialist? Give me a fucking break. This is America. Or used to be. Stop making it sound neutral and innocuous, it isn't.

Totalitarianism always starts with censorship. And as Phil said it goes both ways, cancel culture from the left has gone way too far too IMO.

I am fine keeping sexually explicit material out of the schools. I am fine waiting for kids to be a little older before getting into sexual and gender identity. But banning books for what ultimately is a political value judgment? Noooooooooo thank you.

You've never had a more totalitarian President and govt than what you currently have now.
It is no different up here with Trudeau at the helm. Like I've said numerous times in various threads, the Liberals are all in bed together worldwide. Cancel culture, censorship, the media in their back pockets, etc, etc, etc. All Liberalism, imo.

It amazes me how many have forgotten history and I'm afraid we are going to repeat it.
WW2 was won but the dream never died with it. It is still an agenda and they are not even trying to hide it anymore.

Dale, I don't like it any more from the left than from the right.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree but it is, by far, imo, more of a left agenda than it is a right one.

You won't have to worry about either left or right soon. Our alien overlords are going to make themselves known in the near future. Then we will have real problems. I have this on good authority. I seen it on both Facebook and Twitter.:eek:

We're having an adult conversation here, Ben. I know it's hard for you to grasp and understand but why don't you go grab yourself a juice box and a fruit rollup then sit back and try to learn something for a change.

I learn something new with every one of your amazing posts.

I am probably on balance a little to the right of center especially these days and I do like some of what DeSantis has done, and maybe that's why seeing him stoop to the level of unnecessary censorship bothers me a great deal. IMO it's just a bad precedent and the non-Trump Republicans should be above such things.

I don't think that genie is going back in the bottle. Straight up lunacy is now widely accepted as a legitimate political position. That may change over time but I don't see it going away anytime soon.

.

I honestly don't think he is stooping to unnecessary censorship, he is just making sure, imo, no race baiting, critical race theory, gender reassignment info, LGBTQ info, among other things, are in these grade school books?

I am pretty sure he is an advocate for free speech as well but he knows/recognizes being a certain age to be able to understand such things, especially of a sexual nature, is important too.
These drag queens and the like reading and dancing for these toddlers is something I never imagined would ever happen. It's insanity, and guess what party is pushing it?

I would not give a public official authority to decide what is or is not race baiting. If a kids' book on Roberto Clemente is under scrutiny, something is wrong with that picture. BTW I went to school with Kim Crenshaw, credited with being one of the founders of critical race theory.

Will they be releasing a Green Refractor insert set before they take over the world?

The whole 1962 set will be reprised.

I hope not the only uglier set is the wood grain 87 Topps set.

No, they are looking at every book/title, but not actually pulling every book from the shelves. Here's another story with a little more detail than an earlier, less detailed story referenced, that others could then use to twist and spin how they wanted.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/...ools-rcna70081

They are going through and looking at titles first apparently, to then see if the books can possibly have some topics they feel are not age appropriate or otherwise unallowable for students under enacted Florida state standards, and if any questions, pulling them from the shelves for "further review". In other words, no K through 3rd grade books can discuss gender identity or sexual orientation, no public grade school books can teach critical race theory, which may discuss or examine systemic racism in the U.S., and books may not include references to pornography and discrimination. The Clemente book was one (of between 100-200) that was specifically pulled for "further review" (ie: it is currently banned), while approximately 2,800 other book titles were already passed so far and not ever pulled or banned. They have around 1.5 million book titles in total in the Duval County public school's library system to eventually be reviewed apparently, and they have hired 52 certified media specialists to do the review. None of the other remaining books that have not yet been looked at by the media specialists have apparently been specifically pulled or banned yet either. If nothing else, were I a taxpayer in Duval county, I'd like to know how much of my tax money was being wasted on these 52 specialists rather than going towards actual education and other more critical school district needs.

In the case of the Clemente book, it apparently talks about the racism and discrimination he faced while playing in the U.S., and apparently the State of Florida doesn't want public school students to hear about the racist treatment someone like him received through the public schools. Makes perfect sense as a lot of states, especially Southern ones, back in Clemente's day supported and upheld Jim Crow and other racist laws and rules. Such states likely don't want to admit and let their kids learn what effing POS's they were back then by allowing such crap to happen. At least not if they can help it.

Double post.

I mean the Mars Attacks set.

He who controls the past controls the present.

Sometimes it helps to remember that what politicians (for or against a bill) and the media say are not really true. The wonderful thing about legislation is that it is all documentary, there is an actual text of the bill and nothing not in that text is in the bill. It's an issue that can be entirely resolved by looking at the document. What is actually in a law that is passed and what everyone is screeching about are often very, very different.

The text of the bill is only 496 lines, it’s not one of the thousand page confusing ones that is a genuine pain to decipher. The actual law is here: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bil...ext/Filed/HTML. If you are really lazy, 51-78 are a pretty good TL;DR of the thesis.

It does not discriminate between races in any way, it sets a standard for all that is exactly the same. It says that one cannot teach that a race is morally superior to another, that an individual is inherently racist because of their race, that moral character is determined by the color of their skin, that a person deserves to be discriminated against because of the actions of people of the same skin color in the past who have nothing to do with them, that a person should feel guilt, anguish or discomfort because of their race.

It does not, in any way, “force schools and libraries to remove literature about people of color or with LGBTQ themes.” Not only is this a complete lie, the bill specifically states that schools are required to teach:

“167 The history of African Americans, including the history
168 of African peoples before the political conflicts that led to
169 the development of slavery, the passage to America, the
170 enslavement experience, abolition, and the contributions of
171 African Americans to society. Instructional materials shall
172 include the contributions of African Americans to American
173 society.”

This, of course, is the exact opposite of what this article and so many others are saying. “Certified”, “media”, and “specialist” are three words that never appear in the bill anywhere in any context whatsoever.

Obviously, a book celebrating Roberto Clemente is not banned, unless it argues that Clemente was morally superior to others because of his skin color (what we would call racist if it was about a white male). It’s a smart move to do this though, people are by and large not going to read the actual bill or do any research whatsoever, they’ll just follow whatever articles that preach their views to them say without any inquiry. Announcing they’re pulling an unobjectionable book that obviously is not banned by this law is just optics politics. It’s rage bait for their base, regardless of how absurd it is on even cursory inspection.

People should actually read the bill instead of the clickbait articles before they rage. One can certainly for or against the law, but one should actually look at it first. That's a probably a hot take in 2023.

I would think they'd reissue the scarce 1947 regional issue with the Roswell backstamp, maybe add a weather balloon relic insert.

Also, history is written by the winners!

Ok, now this thread is getting controversial! :D

It still amazes me what some people will believe just because the media told them so.
I wonder how many still believe Jan 6th was an actual insurrection?
I wonder how many still believe the Russian Collusion narrative?
Trump called Neo-Nazi's fine people?
The Steele Dossier?
Mostly peaceful protests?
Hunter's laptop was Russian disinformation.
The FBI, CIA and DOJ are honest and unbiased?
It goes on and on.
https://twitter.com/RepStefanik/stat...I4sjgA26s%3D19

Am I the only one who really hates when politics enters Net54 chats? This is hobby is one of my favorite escape from some of the world's ugly realities...

But then I tune into threads like this one and get to see the same vile talk and opinions here and honestly, it impacts my willingness to interact with some member/posters.

It's too bad - like others, I tune into "new posts" to see what great new hobby talks may have started. And every now and then, threads take a turn like this one.

It's too bad. I suppose i will just ignore "water cooler talk" moving forward... but my daughter is a new elementary school librarian, so the topic got my attention.

Ah The Joys of Politics

Sadly Politicians on all sides seems to forget about the people and the effects they have on us

Florida has also pulled some books about Jackie Robinson. Guess they don't want kids to hear how their wonderful state wouldn't alow Jackie and Rachel to shop in the local supermarkets only a few decades ago. "Normalcy" is back indeed. What's old is new again.

https://detroitsportsnation.com/duva...7/2023/393722/

"The Intellectualist" LMAO.
What's their moto, "The Intellectualist, a site for the unintelligent" and people still sign up?
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-intellectualist/
These media sources are moderate to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports, and omit information reporting that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Left Bias sources.

Overall, we rate The Intellectualist Left Biased based on story selection that consistently favors the left. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to a couple of failed fact checks and the use of misleading headlines that entirely match the story.

Unbelievable what some people will believe today. :(

Did the state remove the Jackie book or not? That is the subject of the post. The report also came from Penguin, the publisher of the books removed.

Walton County identified two books by Toni Morrison as violating the statute. Yes, Toni Morrison.

They did not. This report is saying the school district did. The district says these books were never in its system at all (https://www.news4jax.com/entertainme...er-on-shelves/). “After requesting more information about the report from the district, a DCPS spokeswoman told News4JAX Tuesday afternoon there are nearly 200 books being reviewed by the district but none of them were challenged by members of the community and the books were never on the library shelves.” So they weren’t in the library at all, and they haven’t been banned by the district.

This claim that these books were banned appears to be completely false. Furthermore, anyone who has read the short law would know that such books are not banned from school libraries whatsoever, and that the law very explicitly requires the achievements of and problems experienced by African Americans to be taught to children. This is just fake rage bait for people who are unable or unwilling to to put even 1 minute into checking if it’s true, or reading the law.

The law does say critical race theory cannot be taught, n'est-ce pas?

No. "Critical" and "theory" are two more words that never appear in the law in any context whatsoever.

The bill is less than 4,000 words. If one does not want to read all of it, 51-78 are a good general summation of what it does not allow.

The talking points of right or left do not equal actual reality.

The updated Pen letter includes a disclaimer that says they are looking into the precise details of why, when, and for how long the books were removed. I don’t see any challenges to them being removed for a period of time.

I've read it. It bans it in so many words and that is obviously how it is understood including by the court that struck it down as unconstitutional as applied to universities.

I would love to see what line(s) in the bill, which explicitly requires teaching African American history and achievement, ban Jackie Robinson books.

Whether it is a good bill or not, I am not so sure. But the claims made appear to be contradictory to the text and to the evidence of what has actually happened.

How is it possible to remove a book that wasn’t in the library in the first place?

You just moved the goalposts of the discussion I was talking about critical race theory.

Hm. The books the thread is about seems to be the topic, but alright. We'll pretend it's not. 'Critical Race Theory' is not in the bill, and is a rather vague term used on the right. I'm not exactly a supporter of the bill, I've simply read it and can see that the media accounts are in complete opposition to the actual text.

Here's 51-83 with what it actually doesn't allow instruction of. What part do you think is a problem and want to debate instead of the books that it obviously doesn't ban?


51. 1. Members of one race, color, sex, or national origin are
52 morally superior to members of another race, color, sex, or
53 national origin.
54 2. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex,
55 or national origin, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive,
56 whether consciously or unconsciously.
57 3. An individual’s moral character or status as either
58 privileged or oppressed is necessarily determined by his or her
59 race, color, sex, or national origin.
60 4. Members of one race, color, sex, or national origin
61 cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to
62 race, color, sex, or national origin.
63 5. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex,
64 or national origin, bears responsibility for, or should be
65 discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of,
66 actions committed in the past by other members of the same race,
67 color, sex, or national origin.
68 6. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex,
69 or national origin, should be discriminated against or receive
70 adverse treatment to achieve diversity, equity, or inclusion.
71 7. An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or
72 any other form of psychological distress on account of his or
73 her race, color, sex, or national origin.
74 8. Such virtues as merit, excellence, hard work, fairness,
75 neutrality, objectivity, and racial colorblindness are racist or
76 sexist, or were created by members of a particular race, color,
77 sex, or national origin to oppress members of another race,
78 color, sex, or national origin.
79 (b) Paragraph (a) may not be construed to prohibit
80 discussion of the concepts listed therein as part of a course of
81 training or instruction, provided such training or instruction
82 is given in an objective manner without endorsement of the
83 concepts.

By signing this legislation, which is the first in the nation to end corporate wokeness and Critical Race Theory in our schools, we are prioritizing education not indoctrination,” said Lieutenant Governor Jeanette Nuñez. “We will always fight to protect our children and parents from this Marxist-inspired curriculum.”

No you're not, and I apologize to you for starting this thread if you thought it was in any way intended to be political, it was not. My intention had nothing to do with politics, it was merely that I saw the story and then immediately thought to myself, I have never heard of a single person who ever had anything bad to say about Roberto Clemente, especially Roberto Clemente the human being. So to me, the idea that somehow a book about Robeto Clemente could in any way be inappropriate for school children to read and learn from is absolutely ludicrous and laughable. And the only reason I thought it appropriate for a Net54 thread was because it was a story about Roberto Clemente, so an obvious hobby connection.

The actual story itself isn't about politics, it is actually about humanity, racism, and discrimination, which should be an apolitical topic and something that all decent humans should be concerned about. The sad truth though is that politicians then take and weaponize such topics for their own means and gain. It is a disgusting and totally dehumanizing tactic they use to cause rifts in populations and helps to distract many from focusing on ALL the politicians' own greed and lack of often doing any actual good for anyone, other than themselves and those they conspire with.

Net54 has various people that buy into this rhetoric, and have no problem aiming and spewing it at others on here. Let me make a suggestion to you. Rather than stopping to read anything in the Water Cooler section at all, why not figure out and take advantage of the forum's IGNORE function? Trust me, the removal of seeing the crap such people spew more than offsets the pretty much little they ever really seem to actually contribute to the forum and others in regards to the hobby itself. Now if there was only some way we could get the forum to extend that IGNORE function so that it also hides what they say when someone quotes them when responding. LOL, that would be really nice.

And congrats on your daughter being a librarian, that is great. Maybe you can ask her to check out this Roberto Clemente book and see what exactly it is that is apparently so bad they specifically had to pull it for further review and keep it away from school kids.

While acknowledging Friday that critical race theory is not taught in Florida schools, DeSantis claimed its "principles" are entering into class instruction, especially in how history and social science is taught. He got the Florida Board of Education last year to specifically ban its use in schools.

Again, the narratives of left and right are not actual reality. Proponents of a bill typically describe it about as accurately as the media does, for political purposes to their base. I do not care about this rhetoric, when we have the actual text in front of us. Which clause are you objecting to, or constitutes the very vague 'critical race theory'? As far as I can tell this is a catch-call term multiple groups are using to denote things they don't like. What part of the actual law do you want to discuss?

"Prioritizing education" = preventing kids from learning things. Yale and Harvard -educated RDS is on roll...gearing up for 2024.

54-56 and 63-67, for example, are vague enough that they could be applied to it. Did you read the order striking down the law as applied to universities? Unlike the statute, it's damn long lol. IMO this statute was drafted very cynically using vague language to give the appearance of neutrality but everyone from the Governor on down knows the purpose.

I have not read the court order (it won't be the last on the matter), I do see the first amendment grounds here and that is what makes me uncertain about this bill (though that same standard would need to be applied to all laws dictating what the schools teach, which it is not). A lot of things that I think are correct or good are not constitutional, and thus should not be law. I disagree with most any restriction on speech, no matter how vile, though I would support this strict standard on everything equally, which the opponents to this bill generally do not think.

" An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex,
55 or national origin, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive,
56 whether consciously or unconsciously."

If we are saying we want to teach children the opposite here and this ban is morally bad, I have to disagree. I do not think it is good to teach that a person is inherently bad because of their race, color or sex, and that this is clearly racist or sexist to do so. If critical race theory means teaching children that they are inherently bad things because of their skin color or sex, then I am strongly against it. Why would we want to teach this?

" 5. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex,
64 or national origin, bears responsibility for, or should be
65 discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of,
66 actions committed in the past by other members of the same race,
67 color, sex, or national origin."

Again, are we saying this is a bad idea? Should we teach that people of a skin color should be discriminated against? I don't see anything to object too. Isn't this the opposite of racism? If critical race theory means teaching that a person is responsible for evils committed by other people they have nothing to do with on the basis of their race, color or sex I think that is is silly and by definition obviously racist. I can find no reasonable objection to the idea here. Why would we want to teach this?

Certainly it is a criticism of critical race theory that it itself is racist. That debate is another question, or whether we SHOULD teach it is also another question. But BANNING something from being taught is to me problematic. And mostly politically motivated posturing, since it wasn't even being taught.

Okay, so we aren't objecting to the the position in the bill itself. The objection is to the category of bill, that it determines what can and cannot be taught in schools.

Do you feel this way about every law and regulation determining what is and is not taught in schools? There are tons of them, and I have never seen outrage over their existence or the idea that the state determines what is taught (which I am not comfortable with personally, but that has been an idea very very few have ever shared).

This is my problem with the narratives against it - almost nobody can object to the actual content in the bill, because it's very explicit in every clause about not allowing discrimination between the races and sexes. It is difficult to see what, exactly, the left is so angry about with the bill and why they will not tackle the bill itself but only their media and political narratives. This is a very liberal law banning schools from teaching racism - it just protects all races the same.

EDIT: It doesn't even ban these things from being taught - it just requires that they be taught in an objective manner and not endorsed or advocated as right by the teacher. Lines 79-83.

The bill itself, or portions thereof, are vague enough IMO to be problematic. And don't forget that where statutes are not crystal clear on their face, legislative history is relevant to interpretation. I would bet much that if you study all the debates in the legislature, statements by the sponsors, etc., it will be clear what the intent was. I agree though that the intent was not to ban books about Jackie Robinson. But somehow I think my classmate Kim Crenshaw would not be welcome as a guest lecturer. :)

I'm trying to understand what is problematic. My liberal self is unable to see it reading the bill. Not allowing teachers or material to openly endorse racism, which is the TL;DR of what it does and I have posted both the full text and the portion containing what is banned, seems good to me.

We've gone from objecting to fictional book bans to to 'okay, it doesn't, but it's bad because it regulates speech', but we don't want to toss out every other law regulating what is taught in schools, so now 'it's just vague' is the argument?

It was not long ago that the left would have loved this bill, because it treats the races and sexes the same and bans discrimination, while specifically stipulating that African American achievement be taught. But now, because it bans advocating racism in the classroom towards any race without a carve out for a particular race, it is wrong and terrible.

I have first amendment concerns on every education bill, but if there is no actual argument against this bill specifically, I cannot see how it should be treated any different than the thousands of others on the books regulating teaching.

Take a glance through the opinion striking it down as applied to universities. I haven't read them but I imagine there are amicus briefs explaining people's concerns as well. And again, look what people from the Governor on down are saying the intent is.

LOL Kim is getting a lot of grief these days.

https://time.com/6225926/banned-book...l-race-theory/

So public schools including colleges dont have any issues in preaching one side of the political aisle they are all in the middle.....no reason for any governor to try to combat it guess is what you are saying.....there is no political issues in public schools on young minds i guess is what we are hearing , if there are issues toward political indoctrination, what are the boards suggestions..

Oh I've heard plenty of opinions and concerns about the bill (almost none of which relate to the actual text). I have already said I have strong constitutional doubts about this bill (as I do essentially every education law that effectively mandates certain speech instead of other speech, even if it is speech I find vile), you don't need to convince me of that because I already think it. What is your objection, or anyone else's here, specifically? If you don't object to all bills regulating what is and is not taught, as I lean towards doing, and you don't disagree with its specific stipulations, it's just that lines 51-83 are too vague? If this law is so problematic, it should be very, very easy to specifically show what clauses one finds bad. If one's objection is to political narrative swirling about a law and not anything in the actual law itself, one might want to step back and not fall for the rage bait.

The Governor does not dictate what a bill does, the text does. When my Governor says something that is not in the bill is, it doesn't become law because he says it to his base. DeSantis sells it to his base as a much bigger conservative win than the law actually is, as every politician does. Just as the media articles in this thread twist and distort and flat out lie about it. They don't determine reality. We all know the text of the law is paramount, and while legislative intent can be looked at in edge cases and under specific circumstances, we are a nation of actual, documented laws and these laws determine what is and is not illegal, not the whim of any governor, as much as DeSantis and Newsom and 48 others might wish otherwise.

You would be surprised how many laws are not crystal clear on their face, and how often legislative history comes in as a guide to interpretation.

right and the bill names shows the spin or if its not the bill name its how the media portrays it like 'inflation reduction act' (where the nickname for that one) or dont say gay bill (i didnt know that was the bill name) etc

Even if the text of the law was not how the law actually worked and the Governor could use a law after the fact to ban whatever he doesn't like or thinks it should have banned instead of what it actually does, if 54-57 and 63-67 are 'critical race theory', how does this even come into play? If these parts you chose as getting into critical race theory are the problem, what's the issue with them? If Critical Race Theory means teaching that one race is superior to others or that members of other races should be discriminated against for things in the past they were not alive for, why would this be a thing we want to teach and advocate anyways? If your objection is solely on grounds of speech, do you feel this should be legal to teach with any race being the one labelled the race that should not receive adverse treatment, and any race being the one instructed to receive adverse treatment?

That you can't really find anything in the law to object too should be telling that maybe one should set aside the partisan narratives.

i don't understand critical race theory in that way. I understand it, at a very simplified level, to be that racism is not just an individual phenomenon but an institutionalized (legal and social) phenomenon. I am not agreeing with it in any way. But I would not ban it as a matter of law, any more than I would rename a school because the person owned slaves.

So your objection is to political narratives, and nothing actually in the law at all?

That was my original point. It’s rage bait for both sides, the actual law is pretty hard to object too because you have to endorse teaching open racism to do so.

Governors lie. The media lies. Go to the source and don’t play the rage bait game. Somebody saying something doesn’t make it true.

We should both read the opinion and amicus briefs to understand better the specific objections to the language. I do think parts of it are vague and arguably could be construed to support certain actions, but at the same time I agree with you that there isn't anything blatant on its face, at least as I read it.

Do you recall the name of the case? I’ll track down the text.

139 pages, give me a minute :D