Roberto Clemente Banned in Florida

[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.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

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.

I would encourage you to read the law, as your examples are directly contradictory to the text.

It very, very explicitly requires schools to teach African American achievement and the racism experiences. It specifically requires them to teach slavery (167-173). It does not ban teaching about discriminatory poll taxes, Jim Crow laws, the ownership of slaves (which it very literally directly requires to be taught), or the racism faced by Jackie Robinson. At all. It does not ban books about Clemente and Jackie Robinson. It does not allow a "gunny-ass parent", whatever that means, to bring a case against a "librul indoctrinator" because they don't like something. It does not ban discussion of racism or anything under the sun, it only bans advocacy of racism against any race. Again, 51-83 are a good TL;DR if 496 is too many.

Which section of the law banning specific practices is too vague? Which part do you disagree with and argue against?

As I've said, I have concerns about this, but I am unable to see these arguments anywhere in the bill, they seem to only exist in political op-ed's that have clearly not read the text.

[carlsonjok]

Originally Posted by G1911

I would encourage you to read the law, as your examples are directly contradictory to the text.

I will, but it won't be tonight. I have a job interview in the morning and I need to get myself prepared and in the right frame of mind.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

I will, but it won't be tonight. I have a job interview in the morning and I need to get myself prepared and in the right frame of mind.

Good luck! Hope you get it

[carlsonjok]

Originally Posted by G1911

I would encourage you to read the law, as your examples are directly contradictory to the text.

I have read it now and I cannot decide if it is a dog’s breakfast or a monument to sophistry. Having caught up on the thread, I’m already tiring of the topic, but I do owe you an answer. So here it is.

It very, very explicitly requires schools to teach African American achievement and the racism experiences. It specifically requires them to teach slavery (167-173). It does not ban teaching about discriminatory poll taxes, Jim Crow laws, the ownership of slaves (which it very literally directly requires to be taught), or the racism faced by Jackie Robinson. At all. It does not ban books about Clemente and Jackie Robinson.

Actually, it says nothing at all about any of those things. And therein lies the issue, as I see it. It makes general mention of things that should be taught, but all of that is obviated by lines 71-73, 297-299, and 307-310. There is no defense against claims of psychological distress. The claim becomes a cudgel to be wielded by any parent or activist with an axe to grind to further dilute the topic. It is the heckler’s veto. You just got to stand up at the school board meeting and claim that Little Johnny was upset by what was he heard in history class and we’ll have a three ring circus on our hands.

Any law that purports to solve the issue needs to be explicit enough to not allow someone’s ignorance (or political agenda) to take advantage of the lack of specificity. And it is that lack of specificity that is causing local schools to over-react and pull things off the shelves that rational people can agree should be there. Because, those local school teachers and administrators have a whole host of parents that they are on a first name basis with that they know are spoiling for a fight, rationality be damned. And those teachers and administrators know that no one from the state political apparatus will back them up. They are on their own.

It does not allow a "gunny-ass parent", whatever that means, to bring a case against a "librul indoctrinator" because they don't like something.

It is completely mute on that point. For giggles, Google “school board meeting CRT” and read a few articles. There are plenty of them. This law does nothing to resolve that. In fact, I would bet it will only make things worse for the reason I state above.

Again, 51-83 are a good TL;DR if 496 is too many.Which section of the law banning specific practices is too vague? Which part do you disagree with and argue against?

My point is that it isn’t banning specific topics or practices. It is banning general topics and practices and leaving it to others to figure out the specific details. Here, though is something that does bother me. Read lines 332-337. Do you see any definition of “persons” that we are not allowed to reflect unfairly upon? I don’t. So where do we go from there? Was Bull Connor a racist, or was he just a misunderstood public servant trying to keep the peace for all citizens regardless of race (Kumbaya, my Lord, Kumbaya!) It sounds like a ridiculous argument, but are you so sure there isn’t someone out there willing to make that argument at the next school board meeting?

My prediction is that this law isn't going to solve the problem is purports to solve. We are going to spend the next two years hearing about School Boards Gone Wild over what is being taught in schools. Each and every one of those stories will be a nice in-kind donation to Ron DeSantis' nascent Presidential campaign.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

I have read it now and I cannot decide if it is a dog’s breakfast or a monument to sophistry. Having caught up on the thread, I’m already tiring of the topic, but I do owe you an answer. So here it is.


Actually, it says nothing at all about any of those things. And therein lies the issue, as I see it. It makes general mention of things that should be taught, but all of that is obviated by lines 71-73, 297-299, and 307-310. There is no defense against claims of psychological distress. The claim becomes a cudgel to be wielded by any parent or activist with an axe to grind to further dilute the topic. It is the heckler’s veto. You just got to stand up at the school board meeting and claim that Little Johnny was upset by what was he heard in history class and we’ll have a three ring circus on our hands.

It very literally and directly states that the path to slavery, the slavery experience, and the achievement of African-Americans are required to be taught, already cited. Nowhere does it ban or imply could be banned any of the things you claimed before reading the bill. You want a section specifically stating Jackie Robinson (and every other baseball player, again, the bill is "any race" except the section specifically stating black achievement and several other topics promoting a positive narrative) can be taught? This bill would be over a million pages if it had to very specifically state everything it does not affect. This is just fundamentally not how law works. No law does this lol

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

Any law that purports to solve the issue needs to be explicit enough to not allow someone’s ignorance (or political agenda) to take advantage of the lack of specificity. And it is that lack of specificity that is causing local schools to over-react and pull things off the shelves that rational people can agree should be there. Because, those local school teachers and administrators have a whole host of parents that they are on a first name basis with that they know are spoiling for a fight, rationality be damned. And those teachers and administrators know that no one from the state political apparatus will back them up. They are on their own.

We have already covered and I have provided the evidence that the claims of books bans made are fake news, and that these obscure texts were not banned or even on the shelf in the first place. I am still awaiting any evidence of said ban and removal. The county themselves stated the Pen report is not correct: "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." This whole subject appears to be a lie. Happy to be corrected by evidence.

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

It is completely mute on that point. For giggles, Google “school board meeting CRT” and read a few articles. There are plenty of them. This law does nothing to resolve that. In fact, I would bet it will only make things worse for the reason I state above.

Well of course, that's how law works. If it isn't in the law, it's not impacted by it. Of course it's not going to list a thousand things it doesn't affect. There's nothing in here about empowering parents to go after teachers for saying something they don't like. That was just completely false. Of course it doesn't overturn the first amendment and remove a parents right ("gunny ass", whatever that means, or otherwise) from speaking, or eliminate parents from attending school board meetings. Why would anyone expect it too? Parents attending school board meetings and being permitted to speak has nothing to do with this bill at all.

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

My point is that it isn’t banning specific topics or practices. It is banning general topics and practices and leaving it to others to figure out the specific details. Here, though is something that does bother me. Read lines 332-337. Do you see any definition of “persons” that we are not allowed to reflect unfairly upon? I don’t. So where do we go from there? Was Bull Connor a racist, or was he just a misunderstood public servant trying to keep the peace for all citizens regardless of race (Kumbaya, my Lord, Kumbaya!) It sounds like a ridiculous argument, but are you so sure there isn’t someone out there willing to make that argument at the next school board meeting?

This is again, plainly and unequivocally false. It bans advocacy of certain racist views, which are very specifically stated. It very, very specifically states that the matter may still be discussed, it just must be addressed objectively (79-83). There are plenty of reasonable arguments against this bill, but they are weakened when it's opponents just make things up that are directly contradicted by the actual text instead.

Here's your chosen section:
(d) Require, when appropriate to the comprehension of
330 students, that materials for social science, history, or civics
331 classes contain the Declaration of Independence and the
332 Constitution of the United States. A reviewer may not recommend
333 any instructional materials that contain any matter reflecting
334 unfairly upon persons because of their race, color, creed,
335 national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, disability,
336 socioeconomic status, or occupation or otherwise contradict the
337 principles enumerated under s. 1003.42(3).

First, what definition do you need for "person"? It's incredibly obvious what a person means, no? That's an objection?

Where does it say anyone cannot observe that Bull Connor was a racist, or teach that? It says they cannot recommend instructional material that reflect unfairly on any person specifically because of their race. "Bull Connor was a racist and did X, Y, Z" is just fine. "Bull Connor was a terrible person and a racist because he was white" would be banned. This section does not say what you are claiming it does, not even close.

I get some people are really upset by this law, but dealing with what it actually says makes for a much better argument than making blatantly false claims about the text.

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

My prediction is that this law isn't going to solve the problem is purports to solve. We are going to spend the next two years hearing about School Boards Gone Wild over what is being taught in schools. Each and every one of those stories will be a nice in-kind donation to Ron DeSantis' nascent Presidential campaign.

Yes, it's rage bait for both sides. The left media gets to completely lie about the text to feed it's rage machine and stir up their base, and DeSantis gets to use it and the predictable reaction that doesn't deal with anything it actually says to stir up the rage for his. Everybody get's their dose of anger and publicity and little is actually accomplished.

The left would be much better served by not playing into Desantis' hand and making wildly false claims about a bill that pushes an anti-racism angle and bans open advocacy of racism in the classroom to try and kill it. The whole point on their side is that this bill is a very liberal approach - just without a clause exempting teaching racism towards whites while still banning it against every other race. This is why I am having a hard time seeing anything wrong in the actual bill (not leftist op-ed's), it's a liberal take of a liberal value to not allow teaching racism and prejudice (again, it very, very directly bans advocacy, and advocacy only) to children.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by G1911

It very literally and directly states that the path to slavery, the slavery experience, and the achievement of African-Americans are required to be taught, already cited. Nowhere does it ban or imply could be banned any of the things you claimed before reading the bill. You want a section specifically stating Jackie Robinson (and every other baseball player, again, the bill is "any race" except the section specifically stating black achievement and several other topics promoting a positive narrative) can be taught? This bill would be over a million pages if it had to very specifically state everything it does not affect. This is just fundamentally not how law works. No law does this lol



We have already covered and I have provided the evidence that the claims of books bans made are fake news, and that these obscure texts were not banned or even on the shelf in the first place. I am still awaiting any evidence of said ban and removal. The county themselves stated the Pen report is not correct: "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." This whole subject appears to be a lie. Happy to be corrected by evidence.




Well of course, that's how law works. If it isn't in the law, it's not impacted by it. Of course it's not going to list a thousand things it doesn't affect. There's nothing in here about empowering parents to go after teachers for saying something they don't like. That was just completely false. Of course it doesn't overturn the first amendment and remove a parents right ("gunny ass", whatever that means, or otherwise) from speaking, or eliminate parents from attending school board meetings. Why would anyone expect it too? Parents attending school board meetings and being permitted to speak has nothing to do with this bill at all.




This is again, plainly and unequivocally false. It bans advocacy of certain racist views, which are very specifically stated. It very, very specifically states that the matter may still be discussed, it just must be addressed objectively (79-83). There are plenty of reasonable arguments against this bill, but they are weakened when it's opponents just make things up that are directly contradicted by the actual text instead.

Here's your chosen section:
(d) Require, when appropriate to the comprehension of
330 students, that materials for social science, history, or civics
331 classes contain the Declaration of Independence and the
332 Constitution of the United States. A reviewer may not recommend
333 any instructional materials that contain any matter reflecting
334 unfairly upon persons because of their race, color, creed,
335 national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, disability,
336 socioeconomic status, or occupation or otherwise contradict the
337 principles enumerated under s. 1003.42(3).

First, what definition do you need for "person"? It's incredibly obvious what a person means, no? That's an objection?

Where does it say anyone cannot observe that Bull Connor was a racist, or teach that? It says they cannot recommend instructional material that reflect unfairly on any person specifically because of their race. "Bull Connor was a racist and did X, Y, Z" is just fine. "Bull Connor was a terrible person and a racist because he was white" would be banned. This section does not say what you are claiming it does, not even close.

I get some people are really upset by this law, but dealing with what it actually says makes for a much better argument than making blatantly false claims about the text.



Yes, it's rage bait for both sides. The left media gets to completely lie about the text to feed it's rage machine and stir up their base, and DeSantis gets to use it and the predictable reaction that doesn't deal with anything it actually says to stir up the rage for his. Everybody get's their dose of anger and publicity and little is actually accomplished.

The left would be much better served by not playing into Desantis' hand and making wildly false claims about a bill that pushes an anti-racism angle and bans open advocacy of racism in the classroom to try and kill it. The whole point on their side is that this bill is a very liberal approach - just without a clause exempting teaching racism towards whites while still banning it against every other race. This is why I am having a hard time seeing anything wrong in the actual bill (not leftist op-ed's), it's a liberal take of a liberal value to not allow teaching racism and prejudice (again, it very, very directly bans advocacy, and advocacy only) to children.

the sad part is 99% of the people with far more influence than you gave 99% less thought and detail in the actual law than you did......the voters probably even less thought. yet one voter one vote......and its a shame they get their information on impacts of laws from people that dont actually read them.

i am all for opposing views but opposing views when there is really no thought and just reliance on media or op ed who dont actually read the laws makes it hard to view an opposing view..

[G1911]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

the sad part is 99% of the people with far more influence than you gave 99% less thought and detail in the actual law than you did......the voters probably even less thought. yet one voter one vote......and its a shame they get their information on impacts of laws from people that dont actually read them.

i am all for opposing views but opposing views when there is really no thought and just reliance on media or op ed who dont actually read the laws makes it hard to view an opposing view..

In a perfect world we could all read everything; I completely understand people having opinions on 2,000 page budget bills they haven’t read because it’s so much work and designed to be confusing.

This one is short and direct. It takes 10 minutes at most to read. Those who have read it struggle to find anything specific to attack and still choose to follow op-ed claims instead that are demonstrably false, or to even go so far as to dismiss a reason based standard entirely because they cannot find what is unreasonable and actually in the bill. The only giveaway that this was written by Republicans instead of Democrats is the “any race”; only that there’s no carve out to not protect whites like every other race.

[carlsonjok]

Originally Posted by G1911

It very literally and directly states that the path to slavery, the slavery experience, and the achievement of African-Americans are required to be taught, already cited. Nowhere does it ban or imply could be banned any of the things you claimed before reading the bill. You want a section specifically stating Jackie Robinson (and every other baseball player, again, the bill is "any race" except the section specifically stating black achievement and several other topics promoting a positive narrative) can be taught? This bill would be over a million pages if it had to very specifically state everything it does not affect. This is just fundamentally not how law works. No law does this lol

Strawman. Those are bumper stickers, not guidelines that can be used by teachers and administrators to make good faith decisions about what to teach. Curriculum guidance needs to be detailed enough that a random sample of educators would come to essentially the same decisions. This law doesn't do that. Quite the opposite, as we are seeing play out in real time. How should a bill affecting curriculum should be constructed. I would say that it isn't a list of what is disallowed, but rather an outline of what is allowed. For the topic of racial discrimination what are the subtopics that can be covered and what evidence introduced to illuminate those topics? Can current events be covered? Etc.

We have already covered and I have provided the evidence that the claims of books bans made are fake news, and that these obscure texts were not banned or even on the shelf in the first place. I am still awaiting any evidence of said ban and removal. The county themselves stated the Pen report is not correct: "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." This whole subject appears to be a lie. Happy to be corrected by evidence.

I am not sure who you are responding to here, because it isn't me. I never said books were banned. I said that, faced with ambiguity, educators are erring heavily on the side of caution and pulling anything that could even result in some fired up parent wasting their morning complaining about CRT infiltrating the schools because a book points out Dixie Walker's role in the integration of the Brooklyn Dodgers.

Well of course, that's how law works. If it isn't in the law, it's not impacted by it. Of course it's not going to list a thousand things it doesn't affect. There's nothing in here about empowering parents to go after teachers for saying something they don't like. That was just completely false. Of course it doesn't overturn the first amendment and remove a parents right ("gunny ass", whatever that means, or otherwise) from speaking, or eliminate parents from attending school board meetings. Why would anyone expect it too? Parents attending school board meetings and being permitted to speak has nothing to do with this bill at all.

Textually, no. And I am certainly not advocating for an abridgement of the people's First Amendment rights, if that is what you are setting me up for here. What I am concerned about is that this bill makes all curriculum subject to the heckler's veto. At some point, you have to stop privileging ignorance. And a properly constructed and detailed curriculum is a good first step.

This is again, plainly and unequivocally false. It bans advocacy of certain racist views, which are very specifically stated. It very, very specifically states that the matter may still be discussed, it just must be addressed objectively (79-83). There are plenty of reasonable arguments against this bill, but they are weakened when it's opponents just make things up that are directly contradicted by the actual text instead.

One man's recitation of facts is another man's advocacy. Take my voter ID example.It is a demonstrable fact that Voter ID laws disenfranchise minority voters because those voters disproportionately do not have the required ID. That is just a statement of fact. And look at how that spun off into it's own argument. Now imagine how that plays out when it involves real educators and real parents, not just a bunch of baseball card collectors wasting time on a discussion board.

First, what definition do you need for "person"? It's incredibly obvious what a person means, no? That's an objection?

I did myself no service by how I stated that earlier. My apologies. My preference is that this language, along with the language about psychological distress, not appear in the bill whatsoever, because it privileges unprovable claims over demonstrable facts and opens it up for the introduction of absurdities.

Where does it say anyone cannot observe that Bull Connor was a racist, or teach that? It says they cannot recommend instructional material that reflect unfairly on any person specifically because of their race. "Bull Connor was a racist and did X, Y, Z" is just fine. "Bull Connor was a terrible person and a racist because he was white" would be banned. This section does not say what you are claiming it does, not even close.

This is exactly the type of absurdity I am talking about. Bull Connor was a racist. Racism is prejudice against a person because of their race. Bull Connor was white. Bull Connor was a white supremacist. Are educational outcomes actually improved by dancing around the obvious?

I get some people are really upset by this law, but dealing with what it actually says makes for a much better argument than making blatantly false claims about the text.

And, to restate myself, the advocates should be less concerned about what it says and more concerned about how what it doesn't say can be used to strategically create chaos. Which is already happening.

The left would be much better served by not playing into Desantis' hand

And, in my opinion, the right would be much better served when they realize that stunts like this bill aren't meant to solve a problem, but rather keep Ron DeSantis' name in the news and burnish his credentials as a culture warrior in advance of the 2024 GOP Presidential primary.

The whole point on their side is that this bill is a very liberal approach - just without a clause exempting teaching racism towards whites while still banning it against every other race. This is why I am having a hard time seeing anything wrong in the actual bill (not leftist op-ed's), it's a liberal take of a liberal value to not allow teaching racism and prejudice (again, it very, very directly bans advocacy, and advocacy only) to children.

If teaching about racism was solely about teaching that it is wrong to be prejudiced against someone because of their race, it would be a 30 second conversation. The history of racism in the US, though, is about racism coupled with control of the levers of power that enables someone to act on that prejudice under the color of law. And that is not a solved problem. To be sure, it is certainly better than it was in the 1860s and also the 1960s. But, it isn't solved. We still have to create a more perfect union. But, is it any less advocacy to teach the comfortable fiction that we have truly achieved a color-blind society?

In sum, I think we are each talking about a different topic. While you are talking about what is within the four walls of the bill, I am talking about what happens out in the wild as a result of the bill. You are asking "Does this sound reasonable?" and I am asking "how can someone abuse this bill in service to some other agenda?" I am not sure how we reconcile that.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

Strawman. Those are bumper stickers, not guidelines that can be used by teachers and administrators to make good faith decisions about what to teach. Curriculum guidance needs to be detailed enough that a random sample of educators would come to essentially the same decisions. This law doesn't do that. Quite the opposite, as we are seeing play out in real time. How should a bill affecting curriculum should be constructed. I would say that it isn't a list of what is disallowed, but rather an outline of what is allowed. For the topic of racial discrimination what are the subtopics that can be covered and what evidence introduced to illuminate those topics? Can current events be covered? Etc.



I am not sure who you are responding to here, because it isn't me. I never said books were banned. I said that, faced with ambiguity, educators are erring heavily on the side of caution and pulling anything that could even result in some fired up parent wasting their morning complaining about CRT infiltrating the schools because a book points out Dixie Walker's role in the integration of the Brooklyn Dodgers.



Textually, no. And I am certainly not advocating for an abridgement of the people's First Amendment rights, if that is what you are setting me up for here. What I am concerned about is that this bill makes all curriculum subject to the heckler's veto. At some point, you have to stop privileging ignorance. And a properly constructed and detailed curriculum is a good first step.




One man's recitation of facts is another man's advocacy. Take my voter ID example.It is a demonstrable fact that Voter ID laws disenfranchise minority voters because those voters disproportionately do not have the required ID. That is just a statement of fact. And look at how that spun off into it's own argument. Now imagine how that plays out when it involves real educators and real parents, not just a bunch of baseball card collectors wasting time on a discussion board.



I did myself no service by how I stated that earlier. My apologies. My preference is that this language, along with the language about psychological distress, not appear in the bill whatsoever, because it privileges unprovable claims over demonstrable facts and opens it up for the introduction of absurdities.



This is exactly the type of absurdity I am talking about. Bull Connor was a racist. Racism is prejudice against a person because of their race. Bull Connor was white. Bull Connor was a white supremacist. Are educational outcomes actually improved by dancing around the obvious?



And, to restate myself, the advocates should be less concerned about what it says and more concerned about how what it doesn't say can be used to strategically create chaos. Which is already happening.


And, in my opinion, the right would be much better served when they realize that stunts like this bill aren't meant to solve a problem, but rather keep Ron DeSantis' name in the news and burnish his credentials as a culture warrior in advance of the 2024 GOP Presidential primary.



If teaching about racism was solely about teaching that it is wrong to be prejudiced against someone because of their race, it would be a 30 second conversation. The history of racism in the US, though, is about racism coupled with control of the levers of power that enables someone to act on that prejudice under the color of law. And that is not a solved problem. To be sure, it is certainly better than it was in the 1860s and also the 1960s. But, it isn't solved. We still have to create a more perfect union. But, is it any less advocacy to teach the comfortable fiction that we have truly achieved a color-blind society?

In sum, I think we are each talking about a different topic. While you are talking about what is within the four walls of the bill, I am talking about what happens out in the wild as a result of the bill. You are asking "Does this sound reasonable?" and I am asking "how can someone abuse this bill in service to some other agenda?" I am not sure how we reconcile that.

Agreed. When local politicians redraw districts the text of how they do it all sounds nice and polite. If a group has an agenda they rarely announce it in those terms.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

Strawman. Those are bumper stickers, not guidelines that can be used by teachers and administrators to make good faith decisions about what to teach. Curriculum guidance needs to be detailed enough that a random sample of educators would come to essentially the same decisions. This law doesn't do that. Quite the opposite, as we are seeing play out in real time. How should a bill affecting curriculum should be constructed. I would say that it isn't a list of what is disallowed, but rather an outline of what is allowed. For the topic of racial discrimination what are the subtopics that can be covered and what evidence introduced to illuminate those topics? Can current events be covered? Etc..

They are very literally the legal guidelines. I am still struggling to find the clause you think is too vague.

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

I am not sure who you are responding to here, because it isn't me. I never said books were banned. I said that, faced with ambiguity, educators are erring heavily on the side of caution and pulling anything that could even result in some fired up parent wasting their morning complaining about CRT infiltrating the schools because a book points out Dixie Walker's role in the integration of the Brooklyn Dodgers.

Your post is quoted right before the comment. I will quote again: "And it is that lack of specificity that is causing local schools to over-react and pull things off the shelves that rational people can agree should be there". I don't know what this is in reference too, because the books in this thread were not pulled off the shelves or banned. Again, nobody can cite any evidence these books have. What Jackie Robinson book has been pulled from the shelves? The one claimed in this thread turned out to be easily debunked fake news.

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

Textually, no. And I am certainly not advocating for an abridgement of the people's First Amendment rights, if that is what you are setting me up for here. What I am concerned about is that this bill makes all curriculum subject to the heckler's veto. At some point, you have to stop privileging ignorance. And a properly constructed and detailed curriculum is a good first step.

It does not allow hecklers or gunny ass parents to veto any curriculum whatsoever. I'm confident you are well aware of this now that you have read it.

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

One man's recitation of facts is another man's advocacy. Take my voter ID example.It is a demonstrable fact that Voter ID laws disenfranchise minority voters because those voters disproportionately do not have the required ID. That is just a statement of fact. And look at how that spun off into it's own argument. Now imagine how that plays out when it involves real educators and real parents, not just a bunch of baseball card collectors wasting time on a discussion board.

The law specifically protects a recitation of facts, or even of opinions. Advocacy is very different, and I am sure one can find an edge case, but this is taking it to ab absurdist level where we pretend the two things mean the same. They do not.

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

This is exactly the type of absurdity I am talking about. Bull Connor was a racist. Racism is prejudice against a person because of their race. Bull Connor was white. Bull Connor was a white supremacist. Are educational outcomes actually improved by dancing around the obvious?

What dancing? It's fine to say Bull Connor was white. It's fine to say Bull Connor was a racist. It's fine to say Bull Connor was a white supremacist. None of what you said is impacted by this bill. You just can't say, again, "Bull Connor was a white supremacist because he was white", or any other person of any race. It only bans advocating racism, that a person is X, Y, Z because of their skin color.

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

And, to restate myself, the advocates should be less concerned about what it says and more concerned about how what it doesn't say can be used to strategically create chaos. Which is already happening.

I think what a bill actually, in real actual fact, does is far more important than the often factually wrong and absurdist ideological statements made around it by any faction.

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

And, in my opinion, the right would be much better served when they realize that stunts like this bill aren't meant to solve a problem, but rather keep Ron DeSantis' name in the news and burnish his credentials as a culture warrior in advance of the 2024 GOP Presidential primary.

Don't disagree. It's a stunt. It seems to be working for him as he's getting the exact reaction intended, where the media does its thing and openly lies about the bill, which he then gets to spin to his base as more confirmation of their existing beliefs.

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

If teaching about racism was solely about teaching that it is wrong to be prejudiced against someone because of their race, it would be a 30 second conversation. The history of racism in the US, though, is about racism coupled with control of the levers of power that enables someone to act on that prejudice under the color of law. And that is not a solved problem. To be sure, it is certainly better than it was in the 1860s and also the 1960s. But, it isn't solved. We still have to create a more perfect union. But, is it any less advocacy to teach the comfortable fiction that we have truly achieved a color-blind society?

This has nothing to do with the actual bill. It does not at all mandate anyone to teach that we have achieved a color-blind society; it says you can't advocate racism in 8 specific ways it delineates, against any race. It then requires instruction in the history and achievement of multiple minority groups. I have said nothing that could possibly be construed as believing or promoting the belief that the US is color-blind.

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

In sum, I think we are each talking about a different topic. While you are talking about what is within the four walls of the bill, I am talking about what happens out in the wild as a result of the bill. You are asking "Does this sound reasonable?" and I am asking "how can someone abuse this bill in service to some other agenda?" I am not sure how we reconcile that.

Yes, I am talking about the actual bill and not peoples fantasies. The law is the actual text, not what people feel or what people claim or what people think their political enemies might claim. Reality of the law > political narratives of that law that are not in the law in actual fact. I cannot fathom why anyone would put culture war points over actual fact. I do not understand why people have adopted such a tribalist mentality that they must attack or make false claims about anything anyone outside of their political tribe has passed, even before reading it, and will put their 'side' over reason. A person should use reason, not conspiracy theories of abuse they or op-ed writers of similar political leaning have imagined in their head and have nothing to do with the law and are not actually enabled by it. People always have the choice to use the great gift of reason, of stepping back and looking at actual fact instead of political narratives. These are minority views that I have.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

They are very literally the legal guidelines. I am still struggling to find the clause you think is too vague.





Your post is quoted right before the comment. I will quote again: "And it is that lack of specificity that is causing local schools to over-react and pull things off the shelves that rational people can agree should be there". I don't know what this is in reference too, because the books in this thread were not pulled off the shelves or banned. Again, nobody can cite any evidence these books have. What Jackie Robinson book has been pulled from the shelves? The one claimed in this thread turned out to be easily debunked fake news.





It does not allow hecklers or gunny ass parents to veto any curriculum whatsoever. I'm confident you are well aware of this now that you have read it.




The law specifically protects a recitation of facts, or even of opinions. Advocacy is very different, and I am sure one can find an edge case, but this is taking it to ab absurdist level where we pretend the two things mean the same. They do not.




What dancing? It's fine to say Bull Connor was white. It's fine to say Bull Connor was a racist. It's fine to say Bull Connor was a white supremacist. None of what you said is impacted by this bill. You just can't say, again, "Bull Connor was a white supremacist because he was white", or any other person of any race. It only bans advocating racism, that a person is X, Y, Z because of their skin color.



I think what a bill actually, in real actual fact, does is far more important than the often factually wrong and absurdist ideological statements made around it by any faction.




Don't disagree. It's a stunt. It seems to be working for him as he's getting the exact reaction intended, where the media does its thing and openly lies about the bill, which he then gets to spin to his base as more confirmation of their existing beliefs.



This has nothing to do with the actual bill. It does not at all mandate anyone to teach that we have achieved a color-blind society; it says you can't advocate racism in 8 specific ways it delineates, against any race. It then requires instruction in the history and achievement of multiple minority groups. I have said nothing that could possibly be construed as believing or promoting the belief that the US is color-blind.



Yes, I am talking about the actual bill and not peoples fantasies. The law is the actual text, not what people feel or what people claim or what people think their political enemies might claim. Reality of the law > political narratives of that law that are not in the law in actual fact. I cannot fathom why anyone would put culture war points over actual fact. I do not understand why people have adopted such a tribalist mentality that they must attack or make false claims about anything anyone outside of their political tribe has passed, even before reading it, and will put their 'side' over reason. A person should use reason, not conspiracy theories of abuse they or op-ed writers of similar political leaning have imagined in their head and have nothing to do with the law and are not actually enabled by it. People always have the choice to use the great gift of reason, of stepping back and looking at actual fact instead of political narratives. These are minority views that I have.

Florida is a rare state that has a superplex of republican control of the government - governor, both houses, most major offices. They pass what you think is a benign law regarding the content of books. The governor has presidential aspirations. Whether he would make a good or bad president I don’t know but to think this isn’t meant to cater to right leaning thinking in Florida and nationwide is naive. The banning of a Clemente book headline is what this was designed to do and it will increase his base support.

[carlsonjok]

Originally Posted by G1911

They are very literally the legal guidelines. I am still struggling to find the clause you think is too vague.

I've stated it several times and will state it several more in this post. The bill purports to set curriculum, but it provides no detail about what is in the approved curriculum beyond chapter headings.

Your post is quoted right before the comment. I will quote again: "And it is that lack of specificity that is causing local schools to over-react and pull things off the shelves that rational people can agree should be there". I don't know what this is in reference too, because the books in this thread were not pulled off the shelves or banned. Again, nobody can cite any evidence these books have. What Jackie Robinson book has been pulled from the shelves? The one claimed in this thread turned out to be easily debunked fake news.

I am sitting here absolutely amazed. Not only are you telling me I am saying something I am not saying, you actually provided a direct quote from me that doesn't say what you say it does. I believe you are engaging in good faith, so I have to believe there is a fundamental disconnect here. In a possibly apocryphal story, Vince Lombardi once gathered his team together after a particularly bad loss, held up a ball and said "Gentlemen, this is a football. Stop me if I am going too fast." I feel like I need to be a bit pedantic here.

A ban is an "official or legal prohibition." A ban says *these* books cannot be in your classroom. What we are seeing is educators, because they have no clear guidance, voluntarily (albeit reluctantly) pulling anything even tangentially related to the topic off the shelf.

It does not allow hecklers or gunny ass parents to veto any curriculum whatsoever. I'm confident you are well aware of this now that you have read it.

Here again, you seem to be working from a completely different language than I am. Heckler's veto:

In the United States, a heckler's veto is a situation in which a party who disagrees with a speaker's message is able to unilaterally trigger events that result in the speaker being silenced. For example, a heckler can disrupt a speech to the point that the speech is canceled.

In the legal sense, a heckler's veto occurs when the speaker's right is curtailed or restricted by the government in order to prevent a reacting party's behavior. The common example is the termination of a speech or demonstration in the interest of maintaining the public peace based on the anticipated negative reaction of someone opposed to that speech or demonstration.

What dancing? It's fine to say Bull Connor was white. It's fine to say Bull Connor was a racist. It's fine to say Bull Connor was a white supremacist. None of what you said is impacted by this bill. You just can't say, again, "Bull Connor was a white supremacist because he was white", or any other person of any race. It only bans advocating racism, that a person is X, Y, Z because of their skin color.

Bull Connor wasn't a white supremacist because he suffered from male pattern baldness. He was a white supremacist because he was white. Writing a law that makes stating the obvious legally untenable is absurd and I struggle to understand how you can't see that.

I think what a bill actually, in real actual fact, does is far more important than the often factually wrong and absurdist ideological statements made around it by any faction.

Out here in the real world what this bill is doing is creating confusion, controversy, protest and, in a not-too-distant day, lawsuits. I mean look at what it is doing here where it is just a throwaway conversation between a bunch of bored greyheads. Out in real schools, it is a rolling disaster.

This has nothing to do with the actual bill.

But everything to do with the actual topic that the bill purports to address.

It does not at all mandate anyone to teach that we have achieved a color-blind society;

Woe be unto the first teacher that points out how various laws that are being passed today (probably even in Florida) are de facto racially discriminatory. Their life is about to get a whole lot more complicated.

Yes, I am talking about the actual bill and not peoples fantasies. The law is the actual text, not what people feel or what people claim or what people think their political enemies might claim. Reality of the law > political narratives of that law that are not in the law in actual fact. I cannot fathom why anyone would put culture war points over actual fact. I do not understand why people have adopted such a tribalist mentality that they must attack or make false claims about anything anyone outside of their political tribe has passed, even before reading it, and will put their 'side' over reason. A person should use reason, not conspiracy theories of abuse they or op-ed writers of similar political leaning have imagined in their head and have nothing to do with the law and are not actually enabled by it. People always have the choice to use the great gift of reason, of stepping back and looking at actual fact instead of political narratives. These are minority views that I have.

Fathom this. Published yesterday.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by G1911

It very literally and directly states that the path to slavery, the slavery experience, and the achievement of African-Americans are required to be taught, already cited. Nowhere does it ban or imply could be banned any of the things you claimed before reading the bill. You want a section specifically stating Jackie Robinson (and every other baseball player, again, the bill is "any race" except the section specifically stating black achievement and several other topics promoting a positive narrative) can be taught? This bill would be over a million pages if it had to very specifically state everything it does not affect. This is just fundamentally not how law works. No law does this lol

https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/05/polit...ory/index.html

Briefly summarized:

"Indeed, Florida has required its schools to teach African American history since 1994, long before the recent push in many states to move toward a more complete telling of the country’s story. The stated goal at the time was to introduce the Black experience to a generation of young people."

"But nearly three decades later, advocates say many Florida schools are failing to teach that history. Only 11 of the state’s 67 county school districts meet all of the benchmarks for teaching Black history set by the African American History Task Force, a state board created to help school districts abide by the mandate. Many schools only cover the topic during Black History Month in February, said Bernadette Kelley-Brown, the principal investigator for the task force.

“The idea that every Florida student learns African American history, it’s not reality,” Kelley-Brown said. “Some districts don’t even realize it’s required instruction.”

Also the 'review' of books and material results in a de facto ban, until further explicit direction is given. School boards, teachers, and administrators are threatened with civil and criminal sanctions for violations. At this point, ONE person can object to ANY perceived indiscretion to trigger investigation.

While the law as written seems 'common sense' and innocuous, the consistent rhetoric from the governor and 'parent groups' indicate the real-life intent of application.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Deertick

https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/05/polit...ory/index.html

Briefly summarized:

"Indeed, Florida has required its schools to teach African American history since 1994, long before the recent push in many states to move toward a more complete telling of the country’s story. The stated goal at the time was to introduce the Black experience to a generation of young people."

"But nearly three decades later, advocates say many Florida schools are failing to teach that history. Only 11 of the state’s 67 county school districts meet all of the benchmarks for teaching Black history set by the African American History Task Force, a state board created to help school districts abide by the mandate. Many schools only cover the topic during Black History Month in February, said Bernadette Kelley-Brown, the principal investigator for the task force.

“The idea that every Florida student learns African American history, it’s not reality,” Kelley-Brown said. “Some districts don’t even realize it’s required instruction.”

Also the 'review' of books and material results in a de facto ban, until further explicit direction is given. School boards, teachers, and administrators are threatened with civil and criminal sanctions for violations. At this point, ONE person can object to ANY perceived indiscretion to trigger investigation.

While the law as written seems 'common sense' and innocuous, the consistent rhetoric from the governor and 'parent groups' indicate the real-life intent of application.

Behind the nakedly transparent racism of all this is the true target - public education itself. I can't imagine anyone wanting to be a schoolteacher in Florida right now.

[irv]

CNN...LMAO

These media sources are moderately 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 CNN left biased based on editorial positions that consistently favor the left, while straight news reporting falls left-center through bias by omission. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to several failed fact checks by TV hosts. However, news reporting on the website tends to be sourced adequately with minimal failed fact checks.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/left/cnn-bias/

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

Behind the nakedly transparent racism of all this is the true target - public education itself. I can't imagine anyone wanting to be a schoolteacher in Florida right now.

or a police officer is most other states.

i also feel that with the failure rates in math and other subject areas in many of the states where the media or other criticism is coming from is so low, why not half the outrage on that versus a 'Clemente' outrage...

the more kids learn real school skills and be educated the more they will have the tools to deal with some of the hardships of life due to many areas..

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

Behind the nakedly transparent racism of all this is the true target - public education itself. I can't imagine anyone wanting to be a schoolteacher in Florida right now.

Nakedly transparent racism. Yup. And it will somehow be defended on this board.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

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.

The ID argument is silly not to be able to get an ID, correct me if i am wrong but i thought that was needed to get a free covid shot and usually anyone with government assistance needs some type of an ID....

there is racism against asians getting into colleges right now, and there are racist minorities now as well, i do think the country is less racist in terms of opportunties then it was 30 years ago, but you would think in the media it isnt......Many liberals also voted for Desantis..... Desantis was blamed for all sorts of things during the pandemic and he has looked pretty good looking back...so anytime you see new criticism on him you take it with a grain of salt...heck all for the main newspapers endorsed Crist...yet it was a super run away election..in a state that desantis only won 4 years about by a very slim margin.. ..also a lot of minorities such as latin groups seemed to vote for desantis even though the media runs mostly negative presss on him.

[irv]

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

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.

Were most African Americans not pissed at the notion, and especially at Kamala Harris, that they were being labelled as being too dumb to acquire ID's?
IIRC, they said that, in itself, is racism and more profiling.
https://youtu.be/DCytgANu010

[packs]

Why do you assume the criticism is about whether or not you're intelligent enough to get an ID? That's not why people don't like voter ID requirements. Something like a driver's license costs money to acquire. A passport costs money to acquire. As you raise the bar for the kind of ID needed, you're raising the cost as well. There are people who can't pay for an ID. In the state of NY renewing your license costs $64.50.

It is true that most states offer some form of free identification, but not all forms of ID are accepted for all things, even when you think they would be. I can't take a domestic flight with my current NY state issued license. I have to show my passport to get on domestic flights because my current state issued ID is not considered secure enough to fly with.

My voter registration card, which I received upon registration when I turned 18, does not have a photo of myself on it or any other personally identifying information. It's my name and my address. This should be the only documentation needed to vote. It did not come at a cost and registering for it was the only thing I was required to do in order to vote. Having a driver's license doesn't entitle you to vote.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by packs

Why do you assume the criticism is about whether or not you're intelligent enough to get an ID? That's not why people don't like voter ID requirements. Something like a driver's license costs money to acquire. A passport costs money to acquire. As you raise the bar for the kind of ID needed, you're raising the cost as well. There are people who can't pay for an ID. In the state of NY renewing your license costs $64.50.

Republicans have tried several times to pass legislation for voters to have a FREE, I’ll repeat, FREE, voter card that will be issued by the government to all potential LEGAL voters. Democrats of course block it every time.

[packs]

My voter registration card was free. Why do I need anything else to vote?

[ALR-bishop]

So we can see YOUR identity ? 😊

[irv]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

Republicans have tried several times to pass legislation for voters to have a FREE, I’ll repeat, FREE, voter card that will be issued by the government to all potential LEGAL voters. Democrats of course block it every time.

But yet the Dems and their brainwashed legion of followers were screaming at the tops of their lungs when it came to requiring people having vaccine passports and were perfectly fine with the mandates as well.

It amazes me that a group can be brainwashed and lied to so bad that they don't even recognize when they are being lied to and brainwashed even more.

[packs]

What are the similarities between the two issues? Voting is a right. Eating dinner at a business is not.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

Republicans have tried several times to pass legislation for voters to have a FREE, I’ll repeat, FREE, voter card that will be issued by the government to all potential LEGAL voters. Democrats of course block it every time.

I’ve never understood this. If one believes that Russia is stealing US elections - wouldn’t one want FREE voter ID requirements to ensure only citizens are voting? It’s strange that the answer is invariably “no”.

[packs]

I don't think anyone believes Russia is voting in US elections. When they refer to election tampering it's in reference to messaging across various social media platforms leading up to an election.

[carlsonjok]

Originally Posted by irv

Were most African Americans not pissed at the notion, and especially at Kamala Harris, that they were being labelled as being too dumb to acquire ID's?
IIRC, they said that, in itself, is racism and more profiling.
https://youtu.be/DCytgANu010

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but given that you posted a link to the Daily Wire, I am guessing this will not go anywhere.

The statistics I saw indicate that 8% of white Americans lack a government issued ID that can be used to vote. 25% of African-Americans lack that type of ID. Lack of such an ID is closely linked with poverty.