Roberto Clemente Banned in Florida

[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.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

talking in generalities always strange, asians and jews have had enormous racisim as well as many other groups. Not sure why it matters to keep score as to has the most, if you face it its personal to you..you dont care about any group of people who face it 'more' overall..

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

And yet, here we are, with a national outrage that teachers in a state have been banned from advocating racism against any race in the classroom, because we want to teach racism against one and only one race.

If this bill's any race provision was simply reworded to exclude white races from the same protection as every other race, this bill would be a darling of the left. Which is the entire point of it, and the rage bait troll.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

And yet, here we are, with a national outrage that teachers in a state have been banned from advocating racism against any race in the classroom, because we want to teach racism against one and only one race.

If this bill's any race provision was simply reworded to exclude white races from the same protection as every other race, this bill would be a darling of the left. Which is the entire point of it, and the rage bait troll.

Well we can agree to disagree then because I think the intent is pretty clear despite the neutral wording. Clearly a political ploy and I do think some of the concerns are well founded. Very enjoyable and informative discussion from my perspective, thank you.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Well we can agree to disagree then because I think the intent is pretty clear despite the neutral wording. Clearly a political ploy and I do think some of the concerns are well founded. Very enjoyable and informative discussion from my perspective, thank you.

Thank you Peter. It’s always fun, even if we never agree lol

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Well we can agree to disagree then because I think the intent is pretty clear despite the neutral wording. Clearly a political ploy and I do think some of the concerns are well founded. Very enjoyable and informative discussion from my perspective, thank you.

right and political ploy on a bunch of the criticism. , heck the title of this thread is misleading....you would think that any mention of roberto clemente is 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 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.

[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.