Sapper Redux said:

---

What are "culturally contentious topics"? Couple things:

Is a history class that discusses slavery, lynching, and racism too culturally contentious? Is the Holocaust? How about more modern wars where the US may not be the good guys? How passive do you want schools to be?

Ignoring people who are frequently treated badly is not being "polite," it is not "unbiased." It is biased against them and what they face. It means their lived experience is not worth understanding and means they are outside the community.

By the way, drop the ******* routine. You don't like me. Got it. Focus.

---

Nah - it's just that your ideas are inferior because they replace individual responsibility and cultivated peer-to-peer respect with centralized control and top-down imposition. And instead of addressing the weak points in your preferred system (like what happens when centralized power ends up in the hands of those who don't share your values), you keep throwing back supposed trap questions / accusations.

People wearing divisive facets of their identity as public badges of honor is a very recent phenomenon. Things were much more harmonious when we just enjoyed the things we shared in common rather than placing emphasis on our differences. If we've got kids in a school play together - I'd rather the drama be reserved for the story being told and not the underlying politics, wouldn't you? How is it hard to extrapolate the same to other manifestations of a shared education apparatus?

And yes - ignoring people who you don't like is a pretty good way to handle the situation. And at no point have I advocated for harassment or assault - disagreement isnt violence and there is no obligation for others to adopt your views over their own.

Finally - you as how do we teach challenging material? The same way it always was (prior to overt politicization). Find a "just the facts, Jack!" textbook and lay out relevant facts that parents / taxpayers are fine with. "America had slaves until Dec 6, 1865 when Delaware was emancipated." No reason for a teacher to moralize - in fact, critical thinking element is better developed if they reserve themselves to facts and ask the students to articulate the positions of those involved.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

And to your insulation point. You may be cool with your 8yo earning some dollar bills during drag story hour - but that doesn't mean that the library should agree to be the venue for that debauchery.

---

I can't think of a response to you that won't get me banned. You don't know a damn thing about me.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

The fact that the left is targeting children in this culture war speaks volumes.

---

Pot calling the kettle black, no?

AGC said:

---

The irony here is you represent power, you are the dominant worldview that controls the education system. Please check your privilege

---

A conservative Christian majority dominates the culture for hundreds of years and cries foul when they begin to lose some control. You want to talk about irony?

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

The fact that the left is targeting children in this culture war speaks volumes.

---

Pot calling the kettle black, no?

---

Person A: "I'm going to indoctrinate your kid in my values."
Person B: "I'm going to have to resist that."
Person A: "Quit using children in your culture war!"

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

The irony here is you represent power, you are the dominant worldview that controls the education system. Please check your privilege

---

A conservative Christian majority dominates the culture for hundreds of years and cries foul when they begin to lose some control. You want to talk about irony?

---

Yes it's irony that a critical theorist that equates power with oppression wields power, thus making himself an oppressor.

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Is the goal of a school to educate children or make parents happy?

---

So many loaded assumptions. What makes an education good or worth teaching? Why assume that children are getting one? What makes parents incapable of assessing the education or knowing what's best for their kids?

The irony here is you represent power, you are the dominant worldview that controls the education system. Please check your privilege

---

I've yet to see you actually answer a question. You make massive assumptions about me and about educators in general while not actually addressing the questions that challenge your arguments. I've already said there are existing processes involving trained experts along with public and parental input. You've yet to address the goal of schooling. Is it an education or to make parents happy according to the whims of the bare majority?

---

You probably want know when I quit beating my wife too.

Much of gender affirming care is anti-scientific. We know it takes until after the teenage years for humans to start thinking with their frontal lobe. We know which parts of the brain they use during those years and early childhood. They can't comprehend what they're doing when schools introduce theory and talk about sex at such young ages. We see the brains of porn addicts: they look like heroin addicts. Sex positive ideas and porn positive ideas are bad, full stop. We don't give kids meth. We don't teach them queer theory and gender theory. It's too much for them to reasonably understand and make decisions with at that stage of development.

Plenty of kids know they aren't straight at young ages. There are also plenty of kids around LGBT people every day. Learning that they exist is not evil unless you're insisting on inserting your personal moral beliefs into school. In that case, why stop at gay people? Maybe we shouldn't teach evolution or any history that disagrees with the Bible?

Oh, and gender-affirming care has undergone quite a bit of research and study. It works. There's plenty to still learn, but it works. Most cases of de-transitioning involve social pressure or a lack of social supports.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

What are "culturally contentious topics"? Couple things:

Is a history class that discusses slavery, lynching, and racism too culturally contentious? Is the Holocaust? How about more modern wars where the US may not be the good guys? How passive do you want schools to be?

Ignoring people who are frequently treated badly is not being "polite," it is not "unbiased." It is biased against them and what they face. It means their lived experience is not worth understanding and means they are outside the community.

By the way, drop the ******* routine. You don't like me. Got it. Focus.

---

Nah - it's just that your ideas are inferior because they replace individual responsibility and cultivated peer-to-peer respect with centralized control and top-down imposition. And instead of addressing the weak points in your preferred system (like what happens when centralized power ends up in the hands of those who don't share your values), you keep throwing back supposed trap questions / accusations.

---

I'm sorry, when in our history did we have "cultivated peer-to-peer respect"? I'm just curious. Because I certainly don't recall kids showing each other much respect. Particularly if they happened to come off as "gay," or different in any meaningful way. I don't recall much "individual responsibility" against bullying behavior.

It's quite telling that you cannot answer a single simple question. You have not once acknowledged the inherent problems in the system you seem to be supporting. I've already acknowledged that there will always be problems in any complex system. I've already said I think parents should have a significant say in how things are presented to students. However, parents are not experts in the education of thousands of children in a school district and they are not subject matter experts in every subject.

Quote:

---

People wearing divisive facets of their identity as public badges of honor is a very recent phenomenon. Things were much more harmonious when we just enjoyed the things we shared in common rather than placing emphasis on our differences. If we've got kids in a school play together - I'd rather the drama be reserved for the story being told and not the underlying politics, wouldn't you? How is it hard to extrapolate the same to other manifestations of a shared education apparatus?

---

When was this harmonious time? Seriously, when was it? The 50s? The 60s? When did we "enjoy the things we share in common" and not have the people with power "placing emphasis on our differences"? Except it used to be that differences in race or sexual orientation meant being ostracized or even harmed for those perceived threats to the power of the majority.

Quote:

---

And yes - ignoring people who you don't like is a pretty good way to handle the situation. And at no point have I advocated for harassment or assault - disagreement isnt violence and there is no obligation for others to adopt your views over their own.

Finally - you as how do we teach challenging material? The same way it always was (prior to overt politicization). Find a "just the facts, Jack!" textbook and lay out relevant facts that parents / taxpayers are fine with. "America had slaves until Dec 6, 1865 when Delaware was emancipated." No reason for a teacher to moralize - in fact, critical thinking element is better developed if they reserve themselves to facts and ask the students to articulate the positions of those involved.

---

You aren't advocating for harassment or assault, you're just allowing the conditions that cause harassment and assault to thrive. As long as it's quiet and it isn't impact the majority of kids, who cares, right?

And you're not actually teaching challenging material. You're just reciting dates. That's not learning. That's not developing critical thinking. That's a lazy, pathetic, weak way to avoid having to think.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Plenty of kids know they aren't straight at young ages. There are also plenty of kids around LGBT people every day. Learning that they exist is not evil unless you're insisting on inserting your personal moral beliefs into school. In that case, why stop at gay people? Maybe we shouldn't teach evolution or any history that disagrees with the Bible?

Oh, and gender-affirming care has undergone quite a bit of research and study. It works. There's plenty to still learn, but it works. Most cases of de-transitioning involve social pressure or a lack of social supports.

---

You're not engaging with the point. Brain development matters. Preteens and teens don't understand the consequences of what they're doing; it's irresponsible to allow them to make permanent or semi-permanent changes. It would be healthier to tell them to wait.

Affirmation works with anyone receiving it; it's not specific to your idea of dualism inspired gender. We find this in subcultures all over the world.

...sorry that kids were mean to you... I guess?

And 'normal' kids get bullied too. Frequency and intensity vary by individual, but all kids get a taste of it.

Bullying isn't 'fixed' by teachers forcing rainbow flags onto kids. Human nature doesn't change and children will remain little monsters (thus law segmenting minors from adults). The only practical change is the nature of bullying and the targets. Point in case: if this version of public school is better, then youth suicides should be decreasing, not increasing!

If you want a policy outcome for emotional reasons - just be honest about it. What bothers me is when someone attempts to cloak an emotional preference as a logical based one.

Boy you're bad at jumping to conclusions. Really bad.

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Plenty of kids know they aren't straight at young ages. There are also plenty of kids around LGBT people every day. Learning that they exist is not evil unless you're insisting on inserting your personal moral beliefs into school. In that case, why stop at gay people? Maybe we shouldn't teach evolution or any history that disagrees with the Bible?

Oh, and gender-affirming care has undergone quite a bit of research and study. It works. There's plenty to still learn, but it works. Most cases of de-transitioning involve social pressure or a lack of social supports.

---

You're not engaging with the point. Brain development matters. Preteens and teens don't understand the consequences of what they're doing; it's irresponsible to allow them to make permanent or semi-permanent changes. It would be healthier to tell them to wait.

Affirmation works with anyone receiving it; it's not specific to your idea of dualism inspired gender. We find this in subcultures all over the world.

---

We did "wait" for centuries before now and the rate of suicide, abuse, and harm to gender non-conforming children was insanely high. It's still insanely high because so many cannot get good medical care (and now are forbidden to in places like Florida and Texas). It's telling that they've banned gender affirming care while offering NOTHING to help those kids. So physical and mental harm to them appears to be fine so long as adults who don't like trans people can ignore them.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

The fact that the left is targeting children in this culture war speaks volumes.

---

Pot calling the kettle black, no?

---

Person A: "I'm going to indoctrinate your kid in my values."
Person B: "I'm going to have to resist that."
Person A: "Quit using children in your culture war!"

---

Unless I'm person B and you are person A, I truly don't know what the hell you are talking about.

In the context of this thread, your values include belief in God and religious definitions of family structures and sex. Your values have been imposed for hundreds of years. And now that some people want other values to have visibility in school, you think you are being oppressed?

You want to find me some articles about a teacher putting on a drag show for kindergartners and pretend that's what I'm promoting? It's over the line and if you've been reading this thread, you understand that is not what I'm promoting? How long do you think it would take me to find articles about teachers promoting Christianity in a classroom or shaming a gay kid for their sexuality? Is it that you are okay with public school indoctrination as long as it's your values? Or are you so blind to the fact that Christians have been doing exactly what you accuse us of for centuries because you just really want to be a victim?

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

The fact that the left is targeting children in this culture war speaks volumes.

---

Pot calling the kettle black, no?

---

Person A: "I'm going to indoctrinate your kid in my values."
Person B: "I'm going to have to resist that."
Person A: "Quit using children in your culture war!"

---

Unless I'm person B and you are person A, I truly don't know what the hell you are talking about.

In the context of this thread, your values include belief in God and religious definitions of family structures and sex. Your values have been imposed for hundreds of years. And now that some people want other values to have visibility in school, you think you are being oppressed?

You want to find me some articles about a teacher putting on a drag show for kindergartners and pretend that's what I'm promoting? It's over the line and if you've been reading this thread, you understand that is not what I'm promoting? How long do you think it would take me to find articles about teachers promoting Christianity in a classroom or shaming a gay kid for their sexuality? Is it that you are okay with public school indoctrination as long as it's your values? Or are you so blind to the fact that Christians have been doing exactly what you accuse us of for centuries because you just really want to be a victim?

---

My point has consistently remained that schools should reflect their communities. And that cultural shift/change should occur through adult-to-adult conversions, rather than through subversion. And in a mixed culture community: stick to common ground and avoid taking sides that a significant portion of the community would be averse to.

Apply equally regardless what the local cultural mix.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

What are "culturally contentious topics"? Couple things:

Is a history class that discusses slavery, lynching, and racism too culturally contentious? Is the Holocaust? How about more modern wars where the US may not be the good guys? How passive do you want schools to be?

Ignoring people who are frequently treated badly is not being "polite," it is not "unbiased." It is biased against them and what they face. It means their lived experience is not worth understanding and means they are outside the community.

By the way, drop the ******* routine. You don't like me. Got it. Focus.

---

Nah - it's just that your ideas are inferior because they replace individual responsibility and cultivated peer-to-peer respect with centralized control and top-down imposition. And instead of addressing the weak points in your preferred system (like what happens when centralized power ends up in the hands of those who don't share your values), you keep throwing back supposed trap questions / accusations.

People wearing divisive facets of their identity as public badges of honor is a very recent phenomenon. Things were much more harmonious when we just enjoyed the things we shared in common rather than placing emphasis on our differences. If we've got kids in a school play together - I'd rather the drama be reserved for the story being told and not the underlying politics, wouldn't you? How is it hard to extrapolate the same to other manifestations of a shared education apparatus?

And yes - ignoring people who you don't like is a pretty good way to handle the situation. And at no point have I advocated for harassment or assault - disagreement isnt violence and there is no obligation for others to adopt your views over their own.

Finally - you as how do we teach challenging material? The same way it always was (prior to overt politicization). Find a "just the facts, Jack!" textbook and lay out relevant facts that parents / taxpayers are fine with. "America had slaves until Dec 6, 1865 when Delaware was emancipated." No reason for a teacher to moralize - in fact, critical thinking element is better developed if they reserve themselves to facts and ask the students to articulate the positions of those involved.

---

This is pure fantasy. As was already asked, when was this harmonious nirvana you speak of?

It's also laughably ironic given this thread is dedicated to educating kids.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

The fact that the left is targeting children in this culture war speaks volumes.

---

Pot calling the kettle black, no?

---

Person A: "I'm going to indoctrinate your kid in my values."
Person B: "I'm going to have to resist that."
Person A: "Quit using children in your culture war!"

---

Unless I'm person B and you are person A, I truly don't know what the hell you are talking about.

In the context of this thread, your values include belief in God and religious definitions of family structures and sex. Your values have been imposed for hundreds of years. And now that some people want other values to have visibility in school, you think you are being oppressed?

You want to find me some articles about a teacher putting on a drag show for kindergartners and pretend that's what I'm promoting? It's over the line and if you've been reading this thread, you understand that is not what I'm promoting? How long do you think it would take me to find articles about teachers promoting Christianity in a classroom or shaming a gay kid for their sexuality? Is it that you are okay with public school indoctrination as long as it's your values? Or are you so blind to the fact that Christians have been doing exactly what you accuse us of for centuries because you just really want to be a victim?

---

My point has consistently remained that schools should reflect their communities. And that cultural shift/change should occur through adult-to-adult conversions, rather than through subversion. And in a mixed culture community: stick to common ground and avoid taking sides that a significant portion of the community would be averse to.

Apply equally regardless what the local cultural mix.

---

So in a Mississippi school district, for example, with a near equal number of white and black kids, a history class should avoid giving details about slavery, Reconstruction, lynchings, Jim Crow, the Klan, and desegregation to "avoid taking sides"?

Sapper Redux said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

The fact that the left is targeting children in this culture war speaks volumes.

---

Pot calling the kettle black, no?

---

Person A: "I'm going to indoctrinate your kid in my values."
Person B: "I'm going to have to resist that."
Person A: "Quit using children in your culture war!"

---

Unless I'm person B and you are person A, I truly don't know what the hell you are talking about.

In the context of this thread, your values include belief in God and religious definitions of family structures and sex. Your values have been imposed for hundreds of years. And now that some people want other values to have visibility in school, you think you are being oppressed?

You want to find me some articles about a teacher putting on a drag show for kindergartners and pretend that's what I'm promoting? It's over the line and if you've been reading this thread, you understand that is not what I'm promoting? How long do you think it would take me to find articles about teachers promoting Christianity in a classroom or shaming a gay kid for their sexuality? Is it that you are okay with public school indoctrination as long as it's your values? Or are you so blind to the fact that Christians have been doing exactly what you accuse us of for centuries because you just really want to be a victim?

---

My point has consistently remained that schools should reflect their communities. And that cultural shift/change should occur through adult-to-adult conversions, rather than through subversion. And in a mixed culture community: stick to common ground and avoid taking sides that a significant portion of the community would be averse to.

Apply equally regardless what the local cultural mix.

---

So in a Mississippi school district, for example, with a near equal number of white and black kids, a history class should avoid giving details about slavery, Reconstruction, lynchings, Jim Crow, the Klan, and desegregation to "avoid taking sides"?

---

Again: teach history as facts. Challenge the kids to see things from all perspectives. Let them draw their own moral conclusions. American slavery / Mayan sacrifices / Middle Eastern wars / aboriginal customs - you can teach facts (even horrific ones) without telling kids what opinions they must about those facts.

Same with biology for older kids: reproduction happens in this manner, often downstream from biological attraction, although not always and not all biological attractions are heterosexual. No need to fly a positional flag - just lay out facts.


Honestly this thread is funny if you take a step back: I'm a conservative... arguing for classical liberal ideas that the left fought for just a few decades ago... against 'liberals.'

Quote:

---

teach history as facts. Challenge the kids to see things from all perspectives

---

Which facts and perspectives do you privilege? You can't cover them all and it's extremely arguable whether you should present a man who joins the Klan and lynches innocent Black men as just another person with an opinion that's just as valid as the person he murders for no reason other than racial power politics.

You WANT this to be simple because at its core, your argument is absurdly reductive and simple in an unsustainable and unworkable way.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

teach history as facts. Challenge the kids to see things from all perspectives

---

Which facts and perspectives do you privilege? You can't cover them all and it's extremely arguable whether you should present a man who joins the Klan and lynches innocent Black men as just another person with an opinion that's just as valid as the person he murders for no reason other than racial power politics.

You WANT this to be simple because at its core, your argument is absurdly reductive and simple in an unsustainable and unworkable way.

---

"Because things get complicated, toss sound principles and adopt... " ... actually, I still haven't heard you articulate your proposal / principles. You've tossed lots of barbs at things that don't align to the values that your media has assigned to you for the time being.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

Again: teach history as facts. Challenge the kids to see things from all perspectives. Let them draw their own moral conclusions. American slavery / Mayan sacrifices / Middle Eastern wars / aboriginal customs - you can teach facts (even horrific ones) without telling kids what opinions they must about those facts.

Same with biology for older kids: reproduction happens in this manner, often downstream from biological attraction, although not always and not all biological attractions are heterosexual. No need to fly a positional flag - just lay out facts.


Honestly this thread is funny if you take a step back: I'm a conservative... arguing for classical liberal ideas that the left fought for just a few decades ago... against 'liberals.'

---

History is a difficult one to teach just as facts. But, I do appreciate the suggestion to teach things from all perspectives. Doing so will inevitably lead to discomfort, and that is not a bad thing. Biology is less complicated to teach as facts. And again, I appreciate an acknowledgement that not all attractions are heterosexual. And the 'left' side should not accept that acknowledgement as license to promote one value over the other.

I started this thread because I was upset about certain books being removed from schools or libraries. And the books I listed were not children's books aimed to encourage kindergarteners to go to more drag shows. Some books are not appropriate for schools or for children. They were some of the greatest American classics with themes and experiences wildly relevant to the human experience and for developing minds.

I do not wish to force a child to read anything they don't want to read or that their parents finds inappropriate. But removing certain books because it has some language we don't like - this seems to go against everything you are suggesting in your post above. I think you joined this thread late, but I think we may be close to seeing eye to eye on whether To Kill a Mockingbird should be eliminated from schools.

We are close. The reason I keep coming back to principles / system is that the question of a specific book is downstream from principles.

If teachers/librarians see their role as service to the community their approach will be very different from one where teachers see themselves as enlightened experts.

In the former, the educators ask "this is a valuable book - but it has an adult concept/word. I think the kids will benefit, but will keep it in an age restricted corner of the library, and send out notice to parents prior to issuing it in class." The latter says "this is a classic, and thus I'm issuing it to kids. Screw their backwards hick parents' wishes!"

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

teach history as facts. Challenge the kids to see things from all perspectives

---

Which facts and perspectives do you privilege? You can't cover them all and it's extremely arguable whether you should present a man who joins the Klan and lynches innocent Black men as just another person with an opinion that's just as valid as the person he murders for no reason other than racial power politics.

You WANT this to be simple because at its core, your argument is absurdly reductive and simple in an unsustainable and unworkable way.

---

"Because things get complicated, toss sound principles and adopt... " ... actually, I still haven't heard you articulate your proposal / principles. You've tossed lots of barbs at things that don't align to the values that your media has assigned to you for the time being.

---

Then you haven't read what I've written. I've said the system where hired experts develop curriculum based on the general guidelines provided by elected and appointed officials and trained, certified teachers and support staff implement the curriculum, works. Parents should absolutely have a voice when they have concerns, but they should not have a heckler's veto.

I find it interesting that your concerns have nothing to do with the quality of children's education and everything to do with the feelings of the parents. Our kids getting dumber and losing ground to the rest of the world appears to be fine in your world so long as the bare majority of parents feel good about what is taught.

larry culpepper said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

This is why I have huge problems with this and the ill-defined "CRT." What disguises itself as well-meaning is really just censoring kids from controversial, but important subjects, thereby making the next generation more ignorant of history

---

I'd say that public schools, and even core university classes, don't teach history at all. They teach a carefully crafted narrative that bears only a passing resemblence to actual history.

---

Oh i couldn't agree more. History classes are heavily biased with a pro-America slant. Once I got out of school, started reading more books, and going to more museums, I couldn't believe how much was left out of history classes because it made America look bad. Horrors of the Vietnam war, US intervention in Latin America in the 80s, the ugly nitty gritty details of slavery and the civil rights movement. It's all whitewashed so badly.

People really cannot come to terms with the fact that yes, America has been the bad guy at times. And it's a shame how much is censored from students. If you dare teach any of this now a bunch of idiot parents will accuse the school of being anti-American/pro-communist and if it's in a red state the legislature and governor will make it illegal to teach it.

---

I have found that to be untrue, as a social studies teacher for 20 years. We've included many of the "bad" things have taken place in our early history and nobody has said a thing. When I've seen teachers get in trouble, it's because they approach history from just the "bad" things, which is just absurd. They want to teach the unknown parts of our history that they forget that it's more than just that and they forget their audience.

I do believe that I need to teach my kids U.S. history but I feel my most important role is to teach them why we learn history, how to be a better consumer of history, and also have them know that they need to continue to studying history because it goes way beyond my class.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

teach history as facts. Challenge the kids to see things from all perspectives

---

Which facts and perspectives do you privilege? You can't cover them all and it's extremely arguable whether you should present a man who joins the Klan and lynches innocent Black men as just another person with an opinion that's just as valid as the person he murders for no reason other than racial power politics.

You WANT this to be simple because at its core, your argument is absurdly reductive and simple in an unsustainable and unworkable way.

---

"Because things get complicated, toss sound principles and adopt... " ... actually, I still haven't heard you articulate your proposal / principles. You've tossed lots of barbs at things that don't align to the values that your media has assigned to you for the time being.

---

Then you haven't read what I've written. I've said the system where hired experts develop curriculum based on the general guidelines provided by elected and appointed officials and trained, certified teachers and support staff implement the curriculum, works. Parents should absolutely have a voice when they have concerns, but they should not have a heckler's veto.

I find it interesting that your concerns have nothing to do with the quality of children's education and everything to do with the feelings of the parents. Our kids getting dumber and losing ground to the rest of the world appears to be fine in your world so long as the bare majority of parents feel good about what is taught.

---

No - my concerns are about who teachers serve. They are agents of SOMEONE. Is that entity the taxpaying citizen, the parent, the state, themselves, or some other entity?

Take, for instance, a lawyer. When you hire a lawyer, you want to get the best one you budget affords, but you most assuredly want them to represent YOU. Failing to represent their client well, or following ulterior motives is called malpractice.

In the same way - I see what you propose as functionally deferring to the experts. That's how you get teachers running around with a 'white savior' complex where they see themselves as superior to the parents, rather than agents of those parents.

I keep trying to expand the conversation globally to show that this is a bigger issue than current cultural issue whack-a-mole. Educators should serve their jurisdictions to the best of their ability in accordance with their client's desires.

As to the quality question: it stands to reason that people want their kids educated well when they agree to fund education with their taxes (or out of pocket). But the client who pays for their kid to attend a Catholic school is different from the client who pays for Public school is different from a client who pays for a private tutor - and these differences should shape the educator's execution of their task.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Is the goal of a school to educate children or make parents happy?

---

Not sure what the point of this statement is. It literally adds nothing to the discussion. As has already been stated many times, the only way upsetting parents while educating children is a good thing is if you think the parents can't be trusted to raise their own children. Which inherently means that you think you, or your experts, are more qualified than parents to determine what is and is not good for children. While assuming that regular people should just follow instructions sent down from on high is a pretty common attitude in academia, even the average Joe Yokel has enough insight and self respect to be offended by that patronizing attitude.

If you were more honest, your question would read "Is the goal of a school to teach children knowledge and values as proxies of their working parents, or is the goal of school to teach children knowledge and values that make them better than their parents, even over their parents' objections?"

Side note: Everyone keeps pointing out scenarios where a community is good with slavery or the Holocaust, but I'd be surprised if a single entire community in the US had those opinions. OTOH, I'd put money that we could find more communities that are totally cool with Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Castro. Yet for some reason I don't think we're going to hear that education experts are fighting to send survivors to children's libraries in places like San Francisco to enlighten the poor backward common people there.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

In the former, the educators ask "this is a valuable book - but it has an adult concept/word. I think the kids will benefit, but will keep it in an age restricted corner of the library, and send out notice to parents prior to issuing it in class." The latter says "this is a classic, and thus I'm issuing it to kids. Screw their backwards hick parents' wishes!"

---

Sapper touched on it before - should there be any safeguards on the curriculum when you do have 'backwards' parents (from any side)? For example, if a small community doesn't want their children taught evolution or wants [insert religious texts] taught as science in their public schools. Is it acceptable for a community to exclude evolution from the curriculum or should there be a state or federal process for certifying a community's curriculum meets a minimum standard?

Which principles should a school serve? The will of the community? Or some principles involving best available information and well roundedness and whatever?

I believe there is a danger in having a school system which only serves the interests of the bias of its community? And I think there is danger in a school system which ignores the wishes of the community. We may disagree where that balancing point is, but I would guess that we both agree that there should be a balance.

Agreed that there is a danger to a "morally bad" community insisting that their childrens' education follows their own.

But here's the rub: which angel swoops in and corrects them? And if these (stereoypically) white middle-aged women with liberal arts degrees produced by lefty colleges COULD ACTUALLY BE WRONG about anything as they usurp the local culture / community by turning the children's minds against their parents... what's the safeguard!?! As mentioned above: they're already glossing over the horrors of communism and the product has been more socialists. Functionally speaking, modern educators are cultivating the belief in the ideology with the highest kill count in history.

When a lawyer knows their client is in the wrong, they'll offer advice, and alternatives, but ultimately facilitate their client going down swinging if that's what they choose. They do not take the option to harm themself away from their client. Because in order to have a free society we must allow for entities to self determine.

Does it suck to have to stand by as Sharia is advanced in Madrasas next to your COP in Afghanistan? Sure. But it's what the locals are funding for themselves. So what do you do if we want them to change? Self fund and offer voluntary alternatives. Extend something better. But certainly not through force or subversion! That would be a recipe for disaster.

Liberals used to teach tolerance for other cultures and beliefs. Live and let live. It's ok to believe different things - I'll peacefully win you over with superior ideas. Elevate and chase the principles I'm our founding documents. Now there seems to be an authoritarian push to control the orthodoxy from the top down. The pendulum has crossed optimal and is now in an upswing away from liberal ideas and toward fascistic ones.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

Agreed that there is a danger to a "morally bad" community insisting that their childrens' education follows their own.

But here's the rub: which angel swoops in and corrects them? And if these (stereoypically) white middle-aged women with liberal arts degrees produced by lefty colleges COULD ACTUALLY BE WRONG about anything as they usurp the local culture / community by turning the children's minds against their parents... what's the safeguard!?! As mentioned above: they're already glossing over the horrors of communism and the product has been more socialists. Functionally speaking, modern educators are cultivating the belief in the ideology with the highest kill count in history.

When a lawyer knows their client is in the wrong, they'll offer advice, and alternatives, but ultimately facilitate their client going down swinging if that's what they choose. They do not take the option to harm themself away from their client. Because in order to have a free society we must allow for entities to self determine.

Does it suck to have to stand by as Sharia is advanced in Madrasas next to your COP in Afghanistan? Sure. But it's what the locals are funding for themselves. So what do you do if we want them to change? Self fund and offer voluntary alternatives. Extend something better. But certainly not through force or subversion! That would be a recipe for disaster.

Liberals used to teach tolerance for other cultures and beliefs. Live and let live. It's ok to believe different things - I'll peacefully win you over with superior ideas. Elevate and chase the principles I'm our founding documents. Now there seems to be an authoritarian push to control the orthodoxy from the top down. The pendulum has crossed optimal and is now in an upswing away from liberal ideas and toward fascistic ones.

---

I don't think that its just 'morally bad' communities that can present a danger. A well meaning and good community can make mistakes too, We are all human and all have our biases.

For the rest of your post. . . . its not that I disagree. There is certainly a group on the far left which has lost sight of their original principles. I do hope to distance myself from those promoting many of the things you posted about. But, I think we have to acknowledge that the conservative '****' stinks as well. Push back against the left seems to be taking the form of doubling down on forcing God into schools, vehement opposition to any acknowledgement of sexual or gender variance, and teaching slavery as 'involuntary relocation'.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

Agreed that there is a danger to a "morally bad" community insisting that their childrens' education follows their own.

But here's the rub: which angel swoops in and corrects them? And if these (stereoypically) white middle-aged women with liberal arts degrees produced by lefty colleges COULD ACTUALLY BE WRONG about anything as they usurp the local culture / community by turning the children's minds against their parents... what's the safeguard!?! As mentioned above: they're already glossing over the horrors of communism and the product has been more socialists. Functionally speaking, modern educators are cultivating the belief in the ideology with the highest kill count in history.

When a lawyer knows their client is in the wrong, they'll offer advice, and alternatives, but ultimately facilitate their client going down swinging if that's what they choose. They do not take the option to harm themself away from their client. Because in order to have a free society we must allow for entities to self determine.

Does it suck to have to stand by as Sharia is advanced in Madrasas next to your COP in Afghanistan? Sure. But it's what the locals are funding for themselves. So what do you do if we want them to change? Self fund and offer voluntary alternatives. Extend something better. But certainly not through force or subversion! That would be a recipe for disaster.

Liberals used to teach tolerance for other cultures and beliefs. Live and let live. It's ok to believe different things - I'll peacefully win you over with superior ideas. Elevate and chase the principles I'm our founding documents. Now there seems to be an authoritarian push to control the orthodoxy from the top down. The pendulum has crossed optimal and is now in an upswing away from liberal ideas and toward fascistic ones.

---

I don't think that its just 'morally bad' communities that can present a danger. A well meaning and good community can make mistakes too, We are all human and all have our biases.

For the rest of your post. . . . its not that I disagree. There is certainly a group on the far left which has lost sight of their original principles. I do hope to distance myself from those promoting many of the things you posted about. But, I think we have to acknowledge that the conservative '****' stinks as well. Push back against the left seems to be taking the form of doubling down on forcing God into schools, vehement opposition to any acknowledgement of sexual or gender variance, and teaching slavery as 'involuntary relocation'.

---

I agree both sides can stink. But let's be careful not to conflate efforts to center the pendulum (again -whether left or right) with efforts to raise it.

I.e. working for the removal of a pride display / celebration from a library (defense of neutrality) is not the same thing as working to raise a Christian flag (counter offensive).

Most Christians ceded public schools to secular governance over 20 years ago with the understanding that a culturally diverse population wasn't aligned with prayer and Bible class in school. They acquiesced to the left's reasonable assertion that the power of government shouldn't be levied against them to remove $ from their pockets in order to instill values on their children that they disagreed with.

...and now, instead of graciously joining in the middle ground, the left is spitefully flipping the script against the right. Tolerance became DEI. Anti-racism became anti-white. Atheists became actively Anti-God (see: numerous posters on this board). Women's liberation became anti-man (patriarchy). With each win, those on the left should be happier, not angrier!

It's quite possible that you're seeing a counter-offensive that I'm not - but "educators as agents who leverage their field of expertise for the purposes of their employers (in public schools = local residents)" is a concept that can buttress against societal fragmentation / animosity born of all ideological factions.

Quote:

---

I agree both sides can stink. But let's be careful not to conflate efforts to center the pendulum (again -whether left or right) with efforts to raise it.

. . . .

It's quite possible that you're seeing a counter-offensive that I'm not

---

Part of the problem, I think, is that both sides think they are centering the pendulum. And in some cases, I think each side is both right at times and wrong at times. Working to remove a pride display may be a good example of working toward neutrality. But, I think that working against the 'In God We Trust' bill is as well.

I do think that you and I are probably much more aware of counter-offensives from our respective 'other side'. Which is where these conversations are probably useful.

As it relates to race, my perception is that CRT and so called anti-white teaching is a bit of a boogeyman. That is not to say there is zero truth to it. However, its a term that damn near everyone has a different definition for and its an idea that generally is not being taught in school. In the few cases where teachers have told white students they should feel guilty and that they are oppressors simply because they are white. . . then yes - that needs to stop. The counter-offensive I see is the TEA attempting to redefine slavery as 'involuntary relocation' in history books. Its in the promotion of a whitewashed version of history that teaches a cheerful story of how America overcame racism and achieve equality, rather than a horrific version of history with enormous trauma that we are still dealing with. In school, my kids will learn about the tens of millions that Stalin killed, but they won't learn about the tens of millions killed by American and European Colonialists. Every kid in grade school can tell you who invented bifocals and hung a key from a kite, but none of them can tell you about how one of the wealthiest and most successful black communities in 1921 was leveled and burnt to the ground by its white neighbors and the OK National Guard.

LGBTQ issues is one that we may not see eye to eye on. If we are seeking a neutral default position for schools and libraries, then they should neither be promoting nor censoring pro-LGBTQ / anti-LGBTQ disproportionately from one another. For example - if it is okay to have a heterosexual character in a book (whose sexuality is not central to the story), then it should also be okay to have an LGBTQ character in a book (whose sexuality/gender is not central to the story). The counter offensive move is the removal of anything mentioning these issues. In my view, neutral should mean that no preferential treatment to one ideology over the other. The mere existence of LGBTQ books, characters, or information is not a deviation from neutrality any more than the existence of heterosexual books, characters, or information is. If a gay character in a children's book is controversial, then so is a straight character.

I think most schools do a good job of not showing preferential treatment on religious values. Every once in a while a story pops up with one side or the other stepping over the line.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Quote:

---

I agree both sides can stink. But let's be careful not to conflate efforts to center the pendulum (again -whether left or right) with efforts to raise it.

. . . .

It's quite possible that you're seeing a counter-offensive that I'm not

---

Part of the problem, I think, is that both sides think they are centering the pendulum. And in some cases, I think each side is both right at times and wrong at times. Working to remove a pride display may be a good example of working toward neutrality. But, I think that working against the 'In God We Trust' bill is as well.

I do think that you and I are probably much more aware of counter-offensives from our respective 'other side'. Which is where these conversations are probably useful.

As it relates to race, my perception is that CRT and so called anti-white teaching is a bit of a boogeyman. That is not to say there is zero truth to it. However, its a term that damn near everyone has a different definition for and its an idea that generally is not being taught in school. In the few cases where teachers have told white students they should feel guilty and that they are oppressors simply because they are white. . . then yes - that needs to stop. The counter-offensive I see is the TEA attempting to redefine slavery as 'involuntary relocation' in history books. Its in the promotion of a whitewashed version of history that teaches a cheerful story of how America overcame racism and achieve equality, rather than a horrific version of history with enormous trauma that we are still dealing with. In school, my kids will learn about the tens of millions that Stalin killed, but they won't learn about the tens of millions killed by American and European Colonialists. Every kid in grade school can tell you who invented bifocals and hung a key from a kite, but none of them can tell you about how one of the wealthiest and most successful black communities in 1921 was leveled and burnt to the ground by its white neighbors and the OK National Guard.

LGBTQ issues is one that we may not see eye to eye on. If we are seeking a neutral default position for schools and libraries, then they should neither be promoting nor censoring pro-LGBTQ / anti-LGBTQ disproportionately from one another. For example - if it is okay to have a heterosexual character in a book (whose sexuality is not central to the story), then it should also be okay to have an LGBTQ character in a book (whose sexuality/gender is not central to the story). The counter offensive move is the removal of anything mentioning these issues. In my view, neutral should mean that no preferential treatment to one ideology over the other. The mere existence of LGBTQ books, characters, or information is not a deviation from neutrality any more than the existence of heterosexual books, characters, or information is. If a gay character in a children's book is controversial, then so is a straight character.

I think most schools do a good job of not showing preferential treatment on religious values. Every once in a while a story pops up with one side or the other stepping over the line.

---

I appreciate where we're going with this thread. There's quite a bit of common ground, but at risk of dredging up unnecessary drama, I'd like to respond to a few points.
1. Colonists killed many people, but it wasn't tens (let alone hundreds) of millions. They may have been responsible for disease transfer that killed millions - which still suck - but the number of violent deaths (war & other violence) was probably in the low millions or hundreds of thousands.

2. "Involuntary relocation" can be an accurate description for the transportation phase of the slave trade. Just as it could functionally describe the trail of tears or the Brits sending their prisoners to Australia. It would NOT be a complete description of the terrors experience during either, nor would it describe the forced labor and other horrors of slavery. I'd need to see the context to assess whether those words result in a dishonest portrayal.

3. What's the value of the books? Were they purchased because they're GREAT WORKS, or are they being bought because of ideology (see also every Democrat getting a book deal because librarians buy their books en mass). Very often when an author sets out to promote their pet cause, their product is inferior to their peers who just want to tell the BEST story.

4. 'If a gay character in a children's book is controversial, then so is a straight character.' Ok, this is a silly statement. Every human in existence resulted from heterosexual biological processes. On the other hand the vast majority of humanity still views homosexuality (and associated LGBTQIA+) as unnatural. Like it or not, deviation from the established norm is controversial. Saying "in my ideal world it wouldn't be controversial" is a far cry from "it isn't controversial." Again - those pesky OTHER people with their DIFFERENT opinions.

TEA did not try to change slavery to involuntary relocation. A teacher work group brought the term up and the board shot down the change very quickly. It's a gross oversimplification to say TEA was trying to make the change.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Quote:

---

I agree both sides can stink. But let's be careful not to conflate efforts to center the pendulum (again -whether left or right) with efforts to raise it.

. . . .

It's quite possible that you're seeing a counter-offensive that I'm not

---

Part of the problem, I think, is that both sides think they are centering the pendulum. And in some cases, I think each side is both right at times and wrong at times. Working to remove a pride display may be a good example of working toward neutrality. But, I think that working against the 'In God We Trust' bill is as well.

I do think that you and I are probably much more aware of counter-offensives from our respective 'other side'. Which is where these conversations are probably useful.

As it relates to race, my perception is that CRT and so called anti-white teaching is a bit of a boogeyman. That is not to say there is zero truth to it. However, its a term that damn near everyone has a different definition for and its an idea that generally is not being taught in school. In the few cases where teachers have told white students they should feel guilty and that they are oppressors simply because they are white. . . then yes - that needs to stop. The counter-offensive I see is the TEA attempting to redefine slavery as 'involuntary relocation' in history books. Its in the promotion of a whitewashed version of history that teaches a cheerful story of how America overcame racism and achieve equality, rather than a horrific version of history with enormous trauma that we are still dealing with. In school, my kids will learn about the tens of millions that Stalin killed, but they won't learn about the tens of millions killed by American and European Colonialists. Every kid in grade school can tell you who invented bifocals and hung a key from a kite, but none of them can tell you about how one of the wealthiest and most successful black communities in 1921 was leveled and burnt to the ground by its white neighbors and the OK National Guard.

LGBTQ issues is one that we may not see eye to eye on. If we are seeking a neutral default position for schools and libraries, then they should neither be promoting nor censoring pro-LGBTQ / anti-LGBTQ disproportionately from one another. For example - if it is okay to have a heterosexual character in a book (whose sexuality is not central to the story), then it should also be okay to have an LGBTQ character in a book (whose sexuality/gender is not central to the story). The counter offensive move is the removal of anything mentioning these issues. In my view, neutral should mean that no preferential treatment to one ideology over the other. The mere existence of LGBTQ books, characters, or information is not a deviation from neutrality any more than the existence of heterosexual books, characters, or information is. If a gay character in a children's book is controversial, then so is a straight character.

I think most schools do a good job of not showing preferential treatment on religious values. Every once in a while a story pops up with one side or the other stepping over the line.

---

Why can't we have furry characters if there are going to be gay characters? Why can't we have doms if we have furries? Why not throuples? There's no logical end to your proposal because you treat the entirety of human behavior as normal. 'MAPs' might as well be in there too. No reason to preference non 'MAPs'.

But no Christian characters are being put in books…why not? If representation is a thing they need to be in there because they exist in great numbers.

Edit: you seem to regard neutrality as absence, hence the last paragraph. Surely being neutral towards attraction would preference heterosexuals since that's where kids come from and all kids have mothers and fathers.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

I appreciate where we're going with this thread. There's quite a bit of common ground, but at risk of dredging up unnecessary drama, I'd like to respond to a few points.
1. Colonists killed many people, but it wasn't tens (let alone hundreds) of millions. They may have been responsible for disease transfer that killed millions - which still suck - but the number of violent deaths (war & other violence) was probably in the low millions or hundreds of thousands.

2. "Involuntary relocation" can be an accurate description for the transportation phase of the slave trade. Just as it could functionally describe the trail of tears or the Brits sending their prisoners to Australia. It would NOT be a complete description of the terrors experience during either, nor would it describe the forced labor and other horrors of slavery. I'd need to see the context to assess whether those words result in a dishonest portrayal.

3. What's the value of the books? Were they purchased because they're GREAT WORKS, or are they being bought because of ideology (see also every Democrat getting a book deal because librarians buy their books en mass). Very often when an author sets out to promote their pet cause, their product is inferior to their peers who just want to tell the BEST story.

4. 'If a gay character in a children's book is controversial, then so is a straight character.' Ok, this is a silly statement. Every human in existence resulted from heterosexual biological processes. On the other hand the vast majority of humanity still views homosexuality (and associated LGBTQIA+) as unnatural. Like it or not, deviation from the established norm is controversial. Saying "in my ideal world it wouldn't be controversial" is a far cry from "it isn't controversial." Again - those pesky OTHER people with their DIFFERENT opinions.

---

1. While I accept that agreeing on a death toll for American / European Colonialism is going to be difficult, I don't understand what your point is unless you are offering a lower (only a few million) causality number as a defense for not teaching it to children. Death toll aside, this is the era what saw the initiation of the slave trade, eradication of tribal religions, mass starvations and mass economic collapse for enormous populations. In grade school, we got a map and were asked to color in which areas each US or European country took and when they gave it back. This isn't education.

2. I accept the criticism that the Ghost gave about my 'Involuntary relocation' comment. The point, however, has nothing to do with the technical accuracy of the comment and everything to do with softening of the portrayal of events. "These people weren't beaten, raped, killed, and enslaved. . . . they were just involuntarily relocated.". This recoiling from the reality of brutality in our own history is why we teach such a watered down version of history.

4. There are lots of deviations from the norm that do not receive the same ostracizing. In most places in the country, the established norm is Christianity. Why do we not consider the existence of books about Hinduism or Buddhism to be controversial? They are deviations from the standard norm of the community. What a book with a character that happens to be Hindu be controversial? Of course not, that would be absurd, right?

Again, this isn't about preferential treatment, its simply about removal of a censorship. Your last sentence is just pure irony. LGBTQ persons are the OTHER persons with the DIFFERENT opinions. When the left starts to demand that any book that mentions Christianity, a church, a cross, a priest, or God be removed from schools and libraries, then you can complain. LGBTQ issues are 'controversial', not because they are out of the norm, but because the values of these OTHER people are judged as morally deviant by a group that thinks that their majority justifies them denying others from having any representation.

And even if a book is controversial, is that reason to remove it from libraries? Is "Any book with a concept or idea that deviates from the norm." a good reason to ban a book? We aren't talking about books with graphic gay sex scenes or a book that promotes the benefits of being in a gay relationship. . . we are simply talking about a gay character. Are we saying that the mere existence of 5% (or whatever you think the right percentage is) of the human population is controversial just for the fact that it exists?