When Idiots Attack: The Rise of Anti-intellectualism and the Illegalization of Critical Thought

[untermensche]

...However, there is a difference between acknowledging and explaining disunity and its causes, and to intentionally promote the politics of disunity and mutual animosity...

Then we ban Thomas Jefferson and all his talk of continual bloody Revolutions.

 

[surreptitious57]

Ban nothing and consider all ideas worthy of discussion regardless of the consequences
Then accept those ideas that are most justifiable and use them as a basis both for how
to live ones life individually and how society could function collectively. And also to not
allow the decision making process to be compromised by any one with ulterior motives
Now this would seem a good foundational basis for education beyond the primary level
and beyond education itself and so into other areas as well such as politics for example

 

[arkirk]

Teaching the facts of historical documents that may contain conflicted values does not necessarily teach disunity, and quite often can be used to teach American kids unifying values. However, there is a difference between acknowledging and explaining disunity and its causes, and to intentionally promote the politics of disunity and mutual animosity. When a textbook promotes rubbish such as AZTLAN, it is not doing anything more than promoting separatism and historical hooey.

The same argument you make for the US constitution could be made for using books that have AZTLAN etc... I do appreciate the fine line you articulate in your response, but it is shame you do not recognize it has two sides.

Max: If you were given authority to ban books you found offensive would you feel good and comfortable doing it? Would you feel you have all the knowledge to pick the right books to kick out? The reason we have the first amendment is because nobody has all the necessary knowledge to promote the advancement of society. Sleeping undiscussed grievances have a funny way of coming back and biting you in the butt.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Please clarify.

These books are being banned from students reading them, or they are being declined as authorized textbooks for teaching?

Pretty gigantic difference between the two.

 

[untermensche]

Please clarify.

These books are being banned from students reading them, or they are being declined as authorized textbooks for teaching?

Pretty gigantic difference between the two.

You can't ban people from reading anything on their own time.

Not yet at least.

 

[Davka]

Please clarify.

These books are being banned from students reading them, or they are being declined as authorized textbooks for teaching?

Pretty gigantic difference between the two.

Neither one. They've been removed from some public school libraries, and banned from being included as "required reading" by any teacher. The reason for the ban is that they include ideas that teachers are now prohibited from exposing their students to.

From the article linked in the OP:

In 2010 the sixth circuit upheld the firing of high school teacher Shelley Evans-Marshall when parents complained about an assignment in which she had asked her students in an upper-level language arts class to look at the American Library Association's list of "100 most frequently challenged Books" and write an essay about censorship. The complaint against her centered on three specific texts: Hermann Hesse's Siddhartha, Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird and Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. (She was also alleged, years earlier, to have shown students a PG-13 version of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet.)

The court found that the content of Evans-Marshall's teachings concerned matters "of political, social or other concern to the community" and that her interest in free expression outweighed certain other interests belonging to the school "as an employer." But, fatally, the court concluded that "government employees… are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes."

(you know, you could have answered the question for yourself by simply clicking a link and reading for a couple of minutes.)

 

[maxparrish]

Please clarify.

These books are being banned from students reading them, or they are being declined as authorized textbooks for teaching?

Pretty gigantic difference between the two.

I doff my cap to you, the distinction you make is a "nuance" that totally eludes most of the other posters. To set the record straight: Williams began her article by complaining that a book in which her name is mentioned, claimed it was "banned" and then follows up with a mangled and false rendition. She stated:

Recently, I found out that my work is mentioned in a book that has been banned, in effect, from the schools in Tucson, Arizona. The anti-ethnic studies law passed by the state prohibits teachings that "promote the overthrow of the United States government," "promote resentment toward a race or class of people," "are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group," and/or "advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals." I invite you to read the book in question, titled Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, so that you can decide for yourselves whether it qualifies.

In fact, I invite you to take on as your summer reading the astonishingly lengthy list of books that have been removed from the Tucson public school system as part of this wholesale elimination of the Mexican-American studies curriculum. The authors and editors include Isabel Allende, Junot Díaz, Jonathan Kozol, Rudolfo Anaya, bell hooks, Sandra Cisneros, James Baldwin, Howard Zinn, Rodolfo Acuña, Ronald Takaki, Jerome Skolnick and Gloria Anzaldúa. Even Thoreau's Civil Disobedience and Shakespeare's The Tempest received the hatchet.

Perhaps Ms. Williams knew better, perhaps she was mislead (as happens frequently) by her side's left choir of knee jerk reactions. None the less these are the facts:

The state of Arizonia has a law which bans not books but courses or classes of instruction that have a particular purpose. No course or class may be taught whose intent and effect is to: "1. Promote the overthrow of the United States government.2. Promote resentment toward a race or class of people.3. Are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group.4. Advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils individuals."

For example, no course or class may be taught for the purpose of promoting white solidarity, white separatism, white resentment of ethnic or race groups, etc. And what applies to whites and Euro-Americans applies to any other course promoting solidarity, separatism, revolution, or resentment of other race's or people.

But the law also makes clear that:

E. This section shall not be construed to restrict or prohibit (the teaching of)... controversial aspects of history.

F. Nothing in this section shall be construed to restrict or prohibit the instruction of the holocaust, any other instance of genocide, or the historical oppression of a particular group of people based on ethnicity, race, or class.

Unlike any other school district ethnic study courses in Arizona, the Tuscon's Mexican American Studies program (MAS) and its courses had been a target of much complaint by parents. State Superintendent Huppenthal consulted an audit and conducted his own investigation.

State Superintendent Huppenthal issued a determination that the the District’s MAS program violated A.R.S. §§ 15-112 (A)(2),
(3), and (4). Superintendent Huppenthal provided a description of the rationale for his decision and attached to the determination a list of excerpts from textbooks and materials that the District presented to the Department.

23. Superintendent Huppenthal specifically noted in the June 15, 2011 determination that his findings were limited and that the investigation was hampered by a lack of cooperation from the MAS Director and the District’s failure to provide a written curriculum for each of the classes offered as a part of the MAS program.

In any event, the administrative law judge, in finding of fact, determined that Tuscon was in violation of the law in one or more courses, that Huppenthals order to suspend 10 percent of its funds was valid.. The board, in response to Huppenthal's criticisms, the district prohibited 7 books as textbooks and ended MAS (Mexican American Studies).

This particular issue has nothing to do with freedom of speech or book banning. It has to do with a public education standard in courses and classes. And apparently the clap-trap of AZTLAN, critical race theory, and other grievance study literature used in Tuscon as textbooks was (for good cause) not approved.

Williams, by the way, conflates such with other cases (some of merit, some not) with that of Tuscon. They have little to do with it.

Link's to above quotes at: https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/sites/all/docs/TUSD_Ethnic_Studies_Ruling.pdf

 

[Davka]

Free lesson in reading comprehension, Max:

Recently, I found out that my work is mentioned in a book that has been banned, in effect, from the schools in Tucson, Arizona.

I take it from your post that you agree that including To Kill a Mockingbird as required reading in a class curriculum is a bad, evil thing which needs to be stopped?

 

[maxparrish]

The same argument you make for the US constitution could be made for using books that have AZTLAN etc... I do appreciate the fine line you articulate in your response, but it is shame you do not recognize it has two sides.

Max: If you were given authority to ban books you found offensive would you feel good and comfortable doing it? Would you feel you have all the knowledge to pick the right books to kick out? The reason we have the first amendment is because nobody has all the necessary knowledge to promote the advancement of society. Sleeping undiscussed grievances have a funny way of coming back and biting you in the butt.

Ban in what context? Would I ban bestiality and child porn in the the elementary school library - yes. Would I ban the a KKK designed curriculum in high school - yes. Would I ban books bought and sold to the public - no. Would I ban any political or economic book from a high school library - no. Would I ban "Critical Race Theory" from a school library - no. Would I ban hateful, Marxist, Fascist, racist, sexist, or homophobic material from the school library or campus - no.

You don't seem to get that the approval and disapproval of textbooks for elementary and high schools is a part of the education standards of most States (or School Districts), and not considered "banning" by most educators, .

 

[maxparrish]

Free lesson in reading comprehension, Max:

Recently, I found out that my work is mentioned in a book that has been banned, in effect, from the schools in Tucson, Arizona.

That's a pretty lousy excuse for a lesson, Davka. I stated that "Williams began her article by complaining that a book in which her name is mentioned, claimed (that) it (the book) was "banned" and then follows up with a mangled and false rendition." The book in which her name was mentioned was not "banned", it was disapproved for classroom use. It could still be stocked in the school library or carried around and read on campus by anyone.

If that is "banning" then every State and District textbook standards approval process is "banning."

I take it from your post that you agree that including To Kill a Mockingbird as required reading in a class curriculum is a bad, evil thing which needs to be stopped?

Why? As taught conventionally it is a presented as a wonderful part of American literature, and one that contains American (old liberal) ideals.

 

[Davka]

Free lesson in reading comprehension, Max:

That's a pretty lousy excuse for a lesson, Davka. I stated that "Williams began her article by complaining that a book in which her name is mentioned, claimed (that) it (the book) was "banned" and then follows up with a mangled and false rendition." The book in which her name was mentioned was not "banned", it was disapproved for classroom use. It could still be stocked in the school library or carried around and read on campus by anyone.

If that is "banning" then every State and District textbook standards approval process is "banning."

I take it from your post that you agree that including To Kill a Mockingbird as required reading in a class curriculum is a bad, evil thing which needs to be stopped?

Why? As taught conventionally it is a presented as a wonderful part of American literature, and one that contains American (old liberal) ideals.

Thank you for proving that not only do you not know what "in effect" means, but you also didn't bother to read the article past the first paragraph. or even to read this thread, in which I quoted this from the article:

The law has taken some startling turns as well. In 2010 the sixth circuit upheld the firing of high school teacher Shelley Evans-Marshall when parents complained about an assignment in which she had asked her students in an upper-level language arts class to look at the American Library Association's list of "100 most frequently challenged Books" and write an essay about censorship. The complaint against her centered on three specific texts: Hermann Hesse's Siddhartha, Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird and Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. (She was also alleged, years earlier, to have shown students a PG-13 version of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet.)​

Siddhartha, To Kill a Mockingbird, and Farenheidt 451 - truly subversive reading which should be banned from classroom use, according to Max.

 

[arkirk]

Max: If you were given authority to ban books you found offensive would you feel good and comfortable doing it? Would you feel you have all the knowledge to pick the right books to kick out? The reason we have the first amendment is because nobody has all the necessary knowledge to promote the advancement of society. Sleeping undiscussed grievances have a funny way of coming back and biting you in the butt.

Ban in what context? Would I ban bestiality and child porn in the the elementary school library - yes. Would I ban the a KKK designed curriculum in high school - yes. Would I ban books bought and sold to the public - no. Would I ban any political or economic book from a high school library - no. Would I ban "Critical Race Theory" from a school library - no. Would I ban hateful, Marxist, Fascist, racist, sexist, or homophobic material from the school library or campus - no.

You don't seem to get that the approval and disapproval of textbooks for elementary and high schools is a part of the education standards of most States (or School Districts), and not considered "banning" by most educators, .

Exactly as I thought you would respond. You seem to know what is best for everybody. The point is you seem to think you know what should be banned and could serve as an arbiter of what we may access. Thanks for your honest answer.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

So nothing was actually banned? This is just rhetoric? Ok then. Why exactly should I care then?

 

[Davka]

So nothing was actually banned? This is just rhetoric? Ok then. Why exactly should I care then?

Books were excluded from use in classroom curricula. This means that a high school English teacher could not require students to read and discuss Siddhartha, To Kill a Mockingbird, or Fahrenheit 451, among others. Any time that classics are excluded from the classroom, we have a problem.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

So nothing was actually banned? This is just rhetoric? Ok then. Why exactly should I care then?

Books were excluded from use in classroom curricula. This means that a high school English teacher could not require students to read and discuss Siddhartha, To Kill a Mockingbird, or Fahrenheit 451, among others. Any time that classics are excluded from the classroom, we have a problem.

I really wouldn't call it a "ban" to tell somebody that they can't force students to read and discuss a particular book and if that book isn't part of the assigned reading list from the school board or whoever is in power.

If on the other hand the teachers assigned students to read any book of their choice, and do a book report, and a student picked a particular book, and the teacher then said, no that book is not allowed, that sounds more to me like a ban.

If the books were not ordered by the school library I wouldn't call that a ban either, but if the books were actually PULLED OUT of the library and thrown away... that sounds more like a ban.

 

[Davka]

Books were excluded from use in classroom curricula. This means that a high school English teacher could not require students to read and discuss Siddhartha, To Kill a Mockingbird, or Fahrenheit 451, among others. Any time that classics are excluded from the classroom, we have a problem.

I really wouldn't call it a "ban" to tell somebody that they can't force students to read and discuss a particular book and if that book isn't part of the assigned reading list from the school board or whoever is in power.

If on the other hand the teachers assigned students to read any book of their choice, and do a book report, and a student picked a particular book, and the teacher then said, no that book is not allowed, that sounds more to me like a ban.

If the books were not ordered by the school library I wouldn't call that a ban either, but if the books were actually PULLED OUT of the library and thrown away... that sounds more like a ban.

I majored in journalism. Took a shit-ton of English classes. I'd call it a ban if the school said certain books were not allowed as required reading.

 

[maxparrish]

That's a pretty lousy excuse for a lesson, Davka. I stated that "Williams began her article by complaining that a book in which her name is mentioned, claimed (that) it (the book) was "banned" and then follows up with a mangled and false rendition." The book in which her name was mentioned was not "banned", it was disapproved for classroom use. It could still be stocked in the school library or carried around and read on campus by anyone.

If that is "banning" then every State and District textbook standards approval process is "banning."

I take it from your post that you agree that including To Kill a Mockingbird as required reading in a class curriculum is a bad, evil thing which needs to be stopped?

Why? As taught conventionally it is a presented as a wonderful part of American literature, and one that contains American (old liberal) ideals.

Thank you for proving that not only do you not know what "in effect" means, but you also didn't bother to read the article past the first paragraph. or even to read this thread, in which I quoted this from the article:

The law has taken some startling turns as well. In 2010 the sixth circuit upheld the firing of high school teacher Shelley Evans-Marshall when parents complained about an assignment in which she had asked her students in an upper-level language arts class to look at the American Library Association's list of "100 most frequently challenged Books" and write an essay about censorship. The complaint against her centered on three specific texts: Hermann Hesse's Siddhartha, Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird and Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. (She was also alleged, years earlier, to have shown students a PG-13 version of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet.)​

Siddhartha, To Kill a Mockingbird, and Farenheidt 451 - truly subversive reading which should be banned from classroom use, according to Max.

Lets see, I asked why ban TKM, and I said "As taught conventionally it (To Kill a Mockingbird) is presented as a wonderful part of American literature, and one that contains American (old liberal) ideals." Charging a windmill, you proclaim that "... To Kill a Mocking Bird... truly subversive reading which should be banned from classroom use, according to Max."

If you are going to fabricate other's opinions in order to make a foolish charge, you ought to do it BEFORE, not after, they stated just the opposite. And for the record, there is no problem in using Siddhartha and Farenheidt 451 either.

 

[maxparrish]

I really wouldn't call it a "ban" to tell somebody that they can't force students to read and discuss a particular book and if that book isn't part of the assigned reading list from the school board or whoever is in power.

If on the other hand the teachers assigned students to read any book of their choice, and do a book report, and a student picked a particular book, and the teacher then said, no that book is not allowed, that sounds more to me like a ban.

If the books were not ordered by the school library I wouldn't call that a ban either, but if the books were actually PULLED OUT of the library and thrown away... that sounds more like a ban.

I majored in journalism. Took a shit-ton of English classes. I'd call it a ban if the school said certain books were not allowed as required reading.

So any text unapproved by a school district as required reading is a "ban".

 

[arkirk]

I majored in journalism. Took a shit-ton of English classes. I'd call it a ban if the school said certain books were not allowed as required reading.

So any text unapproved by a school district as required reading is a "ban".

Let's use a little reason on this. When it is banned from being required reading in an English or other class, what happens when a student brings something in that book up that has a bearing on what the class is discussing. Is not the ban on the book a hindrance in understanding what the book is about? If you cite your opinion in answer to a student's query on a banned book what do you tell the student..."like to help you son, but max has sent it to the library." The truth is censorhship only deprives people of their own right to a critical opinion.

 

[Deepak]

I majored in journalism. Took a shit-ton of English classes. I'd call it a ban if the school said certain books were not allowed as required reading.

So any text unapproved by a school district as required reading is a "ban".

Coy language. It isn't 'unapproved reading' - a teacher can be prosecuted for teaching the material from these books. That's effectively a ban.

Bart Simpson: All right. But on my way, I'm going to be doing this...
[windmills his arms]
Bart Simpson: If you get hit, it's your own fault.