Roberto Clemente Banned in Florida

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

So you object to 3, 4, 6 and 8 now, and children should be taught the reverses?

I fail to see how they ban most of what it is claimed Austin is teaching, except for the white privilege that may fall under 3. It is difficult to ascertain because no specifics are given of what they are actually teaching specifically. If the Professor is teaching that a persons moral character or status as privileged or oppresses is determined solely by their skin color, then it falls afoul of 3. What is the argument for teaching children that they should be classified by skin color and that their character and status is entirely dependent on their race? Would you similarly defend a teacher doing the reverse, criticizing 'black privilege' and using it to classify and group black students in a negative way based entirely and solely on their race?

My main objection, to be sure, is codifying what can and cannot be taught. As you pose the hypothetical, I would not argue these are good things to teach. but I would defend the right to do so. And again, to the extent concept 3 could be construed to ban teaching of critical race theory at least in part, I think it's bad policy even apart from First Amendment issues.

What say you to my N word hypothetical?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

My main objection, to be sure, is codifying what can and cannot be taught. As you pose the hypothetical, I would not argue these are good things to teach. but I would defend the right to do so. And again, to the extent concept 3 could be construed to ban teaching of critical race theory at least in part, I think it's bad policy even apart from First Amendment issues.

What say you to my N word hypothetical?

So you don't object to anything in this bill specifically, you object to any education bill stipulating what is and is not taught, in general? And you object to every other law of this type, of which there are thousands across the US, just as much as this one? Or do you object to 3? You're being very good at not really having a specific position lol.

I don't think your hypothetical is analogous. Banning a word formerly in common usage and often without negative intent in its day bans many abolitionist texts and historical documents. It's not banning an extremist prejudice from being advocated, it's banning anything with a formerly common word no matter its view or advocacy. It's wildly different. I don't see the sense in it.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

So you don't object to anything in this bill specifically, you object to any education bill stipulating what is and is not taught, in general? And you object to every other law of this type, of which there are thousands across the US, just as much as this one? Or do you object to 3? You're being very good at not really having a specific position lol.

I don't think your hypothetical is analogous. Banning a word formerly in common usage and often without negative intent in its day bans many abolitionist texts and historical documents. It's not banning an extremist prejudice from being advocated, it's banning anything with a formerly common word no matter its view or advocacy. It's wildly different. I don't see the sense in it.

As I said, I object to concept 3, if it is interpreted as it just was by a federal judge to ban critical race theory. The opinion also demonstrates the danger of a statute like this, because even if you and I think the judge goes too far in his textual analysis, the very fact that a federal judge did so shows the likelihood other people are going to misapply it. Then at best you have all sorts of shit the courts eventually will have to sort out. I am not all that familiar with other education laws honestly but glad to consider any you want to discuss.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

As I said, I object to concept 3, if it is interpreted as it just was by a federal judge to ban critical race theory.

" 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."

Alright, so back to a couple posts ago on 3:

"What is the argument for teaching children that they should be classified by skin color and that their character and status is entirely dependent on their race? Would you similarly defend a teacher doing the reverse, criticizing 'black privilege' and using it to classify and group black students in a negative way based entirely and solely on their race?"

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

" 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."

Alright, so back to a couple posts ago on 3:

"What is the argument for teaching children that they should be classified by skin color and that their character and status is entirely dependent on their race? Would you similarly defend a teacher doing the reverse, criticizing 'black privilege' and using it to classify and group black students in a negative way based entirely and solely on their race?"

You're doing the slippery slope argument or a variant. Just because I am opposed to one potential pernicious application of concept 3 and therefore think it's a bad idea does not mean I think every possible application of concept 3 is bad inherently or maybe stated better that everything that concept 3 would ban is a good idea.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Every thread needs a card (and it's a 1 of 10!):

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You're doing the slippery slope argument or a variant. Just because I am opposed to one potential pernicious application of concept 3 and therefore think it's a bad idea does not mean I think every possible application of concept 3 is bad inherently (leaving aside First Amendment).

It's not a slippery slope, the law is very explicit with the "any race" standard. It is not a slope, this is the entire point of the legislation, that the races are to be treated the same.

So it is bad, if a teacher teaches this about blacks, and acceptable but maybe not good if they teach it about whites? It is only the one context where it is bad? That's obviously the actual outrage objection to the law and always has been, that there isn't a carve out where it is okay to criticize the race that we want to attack in schools, but to protect the others from the same. I have a difficult time finding it okay to teach racism against a particular race, but that's my hot take.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

It's not a slippery slope, the law is very explicit with the "any race" standard. It is not a slope, this is the entire point of the legislation, that the races are to be treated the same.

So it is bad, if a teacher teaches this about blacks, and acceptable but maybe not good if they teach it about whites? It is only the one context where it is bad? That's obviously the actual outrage objection to the law and always has been, that there isn't a carve out where it is okay to criticize the race that we want to attack in schools, but to protect the others from the same. I have a difficult time finding it okay to teach racism against a particular race, but that's my hot take.

Well that's a little glib in the name of neutrality, whites as a race obviously have not faced prejudice in this country to the extent blacks have, so you wouldn't expect any scholarship in the other direction.

[carlsonjok]

Originally Posted by G1911

It's not a slippery slope, the law is very explicit with the "any race" standard. It is not a slope, this is the entire point of the legislation, that the races are to be treated the same.

I will probably regret this, but there is an unstated assumption here that needs to be explored. That assumption is that we need to teach that all races are treated the same because they are treated the same in reality. While our system isn't nearly as unequitable as it was in the Jim Crow days, it is folly to think it is a perfect embodiment of the Lockean ideal that all men are created equal. As an example, much of the objection to voter ID laws is not any commitment to engaging in voter fraud, but rather the simple fact that racial minorities are significantly less likely to hold, or be able to acquire, the required type of ID. Any such law that requires voters to hold a specific type of identification without making it easier to acquire that type of ID is, if not de jure certainly de facto, discriminatory.

To bring this around to point, as Peter points out, the Florida law is written vaguely enough that there is no common understanding of what is allowed and what is not. And, when faced with such ambiguity, people will err on the side of caution because no one wants the grief of having their name in the papers as a "librul indoctrinator" because some gunny-ass parent with too much time on their hands got a burr under their saddle. So, what is an educator to do? Can they teach in current events that there are laws that disproportionately affect minorities? Can they teach about the discriminatory intent of poll taxes and Jim Crow Laws? Can they teach that many of our Founding Fathers owned slaves? Can they teach about the racism faced by Jackie Robinson and Roberto Clemente? No one knows. And when no one knows, anyone who decides to take a stand between an ambitious governor and riled up parents will stand alone.