Anti-Anti-Racist Legislation for Classrooms to Stifle Free Speech

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

A quick review--the Juneteenth thread, meant to discuss celebration and positive things quickly got derailed several times, one time including an attack on Joy Reid for mentioning anti-anti-racist legislation across some dozen of states. The legislation chills teaching in states like Texas and Oklahoma because the legislation goes too far and has terrible wording. The purported intent is to go after Critical Race Theory that the right-wing is propagandizing but the true effect is to remove teaching about modern racism, which in some instances can only be seen through a lens of counter-whitesplaining back at teachers and professors. In one case, nothing can be taught that might make a white person uncomfortable. In another case, nothing can be taught that might use a concept of one race being superior in a current event...so you can't talk about racism producing George Floyd's murder, for example.

Conservatives are free to argue with me on any of these points, but the reason I have put this review in is because of a recent news story.

[Professor Melissa] Smith learned her fully enrolled class at Oklahoma City Community College was canceled for the summer. It’s been her primary course for several years.

“[After] learning more about HB/SB 1775 and how it essentially revokes any ability to teach critical race theory, including discussions of white privilege, from required courses in Oklahoma … we recognized that HB/SB 1775 would require substantial changes to the curriculum for this class particularly,” Erick Worrell, a spokesman for the college, wrote in an email Friday to The Washington Post.

Worrell said the course is not gone, but “paused.” The college believes in teaching about racism, he said. But administrators wanted “more time to get this right — or to let the legal issues play out with other universities and colleges before we teach it again in its current form.”

To be clear, the class does NOT teach critical race theory, does NOT teach white people that they are guilty of crimes against humanity, does NOT use the phrase critical race theory, but DID teach about racism and discrimination.

[The former] syllabus DID ask students to learn about racial inequality in the United States — from health to criminal justice to housing — and to “recognize the extent of privilege, prejudice, and discrimination in our society.”

Emphasis added.

...Smith, who is White, said Friday it is “just ridiculous” that her course apparently cannot teach about White privilege if Oklahoma’s law remains in place.

She said she typically tackles the subject with lots of questions: “What is your definition of privilege? What does that mean?” She also remembered giving students example of privilege from her own life and seeing “the lightbulb go off.”

“That is what I’m sad won’t be happening,” she said.

BUT, the new law states:

No teacher, administrator or other employee of a school district, charter school or virtual charter school shall require or make part of a course the following concepts:
... any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex, ...

There are too many conservatives who will make the jump that any mention of a concept of privilege or white privilege is there to make all white people bad or to create white guilt. And the fact that it may make some students uncomfortable, even if the idea of privilege is taught factually, creates tremendous financial risk to the school.

Therefore, this school is taking an innocuous course offline to see how things play out and what the resolutions will be. So much for "free speech advocates."

 

[laughing dog]

And, if anyone thinks that this is very thing some of the legislatures were aiming for, they are mistaken.

 

[Trausti]

.so you can't talk about racism producing George Floyd's murder, for example.

Probably OT, but how was it racism? The guy was trying to pass counterfeit money. There was probable cause to arrest him. They tried to put him in the police car; he resisted because he could not breath. Then he is placed on the ground. Where’s the racism? Was the death of Tony Timpa also racism? If not, why not?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

.so you can't talk about racism producing George Floyd's murder, for example.

Probably OT, but how was it racism? The guy was trying to pass counterfeit money. There was probable cause to arrest him. They tried to put him in the police car; he resisted because he could not breath. Then he is placed on the ground. Where’s the racism? Was the death of Tony Timpa also racism? If not, why not?

Yes, this would be an off-topic derail to discuss specifics because the conversation is more abstract.

Consider a modern example of racism you will accept. Let's call it r. r is in the set R where R is the set of all modern racist events, whereby modern I mean current and very recent events in news as opposed to official terminology like the Modern Era or the Post-Modern Era. Whether you consider George Floyd or some other person to be examples is irrelevant and will create a derail on issues of fact.

r in R

If a professor is to discuss r and its mechanisms, they cannot because a discussion of the concept that one race is superior is forbidden. Likewise, a discussion that might make someone feel uncomfortable or guilty is risky because that person can claim that is the intent of the lesson which conservatives like yourself are already claiming.

 

[Trausti]

.so you can't talk about racism producing George Floyd's murder, for example.

Probably OT, but how was it racism? The guy was trying to pass counterfeit money. There was probable cause to arrest him. They tried to put him in the police car; he resisted because he could not breath. Then he is placed on the ground. Where’s the racism? Was the death of Tony Timpa also racism? If not, why not?

Yes, this would be an off-topic derail to discuss specifics because the conversation is more abstract.

Consider a modern example of racism you will accept. Let's call it r. r is in the set R where R is the set of all modern racist events, whereby modern I mean current and very recent events in news as opposed to official terminology like the Modern Era or the Post-Modern Era. Whether you consider George Floyd or some other person to be examples is irrelevant and will create a derail on issues of fact.

r in R

If a professor is to discuss r and its mechanisms, they cannot because a discussion of the concept that one race is superior is forbidden. Likewise, a discussion that might make someone feel uncomfortable or guilty is risky because that person can claim that is the intent of the lesson which conservatives like yourself are already claiming.

Well, your reply doesn’t actually explain how racism caused Floyd’s death. I mean, at no point during the Chauvin trial was it shown or even argued that racism had anything to do with it. Hence, the central problem with CRT: it is anti empirical evidence. This is not too surprising, as the progenitors of CRT openly reject objectivity. So why would we want to inculcate children into this mendacity?

 

[Gospel]

.so you can't talk about racism producing George Floyd's murder, for example.

Probably OT, but how was it racism? The guy was trying to pass counterfeit money. There was probable cause to arrest him. They tried to put him in the police car; he resisted because he could not breath. Then he is placed on the ground. Where’s the racism? Was the death of Tony Timpa also racism? If not, why not?

Absolutely yes, Tony Timpa's death was a result of racism. It's the low standard established in the police department since its founding that is leaking over and affecting everyone. The police were formed to control "people not like us" and have been allowed to get away with a lot of things as long as it hurts "people not like us". Qualified immunity itself was established to protect X from "people not like us" and has, you guessed it, become a tool used by the police against "people not like us". Just because there is an increase in the number of people like X getting buttfucked by the police doesn't mean their purpose to fuck"people not like us" has ended.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Yes, this would be an off-topic derail to discuss specifics because the conversation is more abstract.

Consider a modern example of racism you will accept. Let's call it r. r is in the set R where R is the set of all modern racist events, whereby modern I mean current and very recent events in news as opposed to official terminology like the Modern Era or the Post-Modern Era. Whether you consider George Floyd or some other person to be examples is irrelevant and will create a derail on issues of fact.

r in R

If a professor is to discuss r and its mechanisms, they cannot because a discussion of the concept that one race is superior is forbidden. Likewise, a discussion that might make someone feel uncomfortable or guilty is risky because that person can claim that is the intent of the lesson which conservatives like yourself are already claiming.

Well, your reply doesn’t actually explain how racism caused Floyd’s death. I mean, at no point during the Chauvin trial was it shown or even argued that racism had anything to do with it. Hence, the central problem with CRT: it is anti empirical evidence. This is not too surprising, as the progenitors of CRT openly reject objectivity. So why would we want to inculcate children into this mendacity?

This thread isn't about either George Floyd or CRT, but instead how the legislation is concretely affecting schools.

Even if racism has absolutely nothing to do with George Floyd's death, a technical discussion of reasons why it is NOT related to racism would require analysis and explanations of what racism is and how it plays into society. Racism will include the concept that one race is superior to another. And this is a current event, not an historical event from decades past. Ego, BANNED.

By Free Speech Advocates.

 

[Trausti]

Yes, this would be an off-topic derail to discuss specifics because the conversation is more abstract.

Consider a modern example of racism you will accept. Let's call it r. r is in the set R where R is the set of all modern racist events, whereby modern I mean current and very recent events in news as opposed to official terminology like the Modern Era or the Post-Modern Era. Whether you consider George Floyd or some other person to be examples is irrelevant and will create a derail on issues of fact.

r in R

If a professor is to discuss r and its mechanisms, they cannot because a discussion of the concept that one race is superior is forbidden. Likewise, a discussion that might make someone feel uncomfortable or guilty is risky because that person can claim that is the intent of the lesson which conservatives like yourself are already claiming.

Well, your reply doesn’t actually explain how racism caused Floyd’s death. I mean, at no point during the Chauvin trial was it shown or even argued that racism had anything to do with it. Hence, the central problem with CRT: it is anti empirical evidence. This is not too surprising, as the progenitors of CRT openly reject objectivity. So why would we want to inculcate children into this mendacity?

This thread isn't about either George Floyd or CRT, but instead how the legislation is concretely affecting schools.

Even if racism has absolutely nothing to do with George Floyd's death, a technical discussion of reasons why it is NOT related to racism would require analysis and explanations of what racism is and how it plays into society. Racism will include the concept that one race is superior to another. And this is a current event, not an historical event from decades past. Ego, BANNED.

By Free Speech Advocates.

Err, okay. But you understand that the provisions against teaching that one race is superior to another is not to exclude historical events? It’s to stop schools from making children identify by racial groups and segregating by “oppressor” and “oppressed.” Teachers should be teachers not political activists.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

This thread isn't about either George Floyd or CRT, but instead how the legislation is concretely affecting schools.

Even if racism has absolutely nothing to do with George Floyd's death, a technical discussion of reasons why it is NOT related to racism would require analysis and explanations of what racism is and how it plays into society. Racism will include the concept that one race is superior to another. And this is a current event, not an historical event from decades past. Ego, BANNED.

By Free Speech Advocates.

Err, okay. But you understand that the provisions against teaching ...

*FULL STOP*

As discussed numerously, the law does not state the concept ought not be "TAUGHT" but instead that it ought not be INCLUDED. No one is TEACHING racism by teaching that one race is factually superior to another...but as a discussion of current events will inevitably turn up, a review or a technical discussion of elements of racism that INCLUDES the concept of one race being superior is going to happen. Don't change around the wording of the law.

As shown in the op, it states "...make part of a course the following concepts...." which means INCLUDE, not TEACH as a truth.

...that one race is superior to another is not to exclude historical events? It’s to stop schools from making children identify by racial groups and segregating by “oppressor” and “oppressed.” Teachers should be teachers not political activists.

Strawman. The wording of the statute allows conservative politicians to be activists and disallows teachers from teaching factual subjects or critically examining current events that could be caused by racism.

 

[Bomb#20]

And the fact that it may make some students uncomfortable, even if the idea of privilege is taught factually, creates tremendous financial risk to the school.

Has anyone ever actually taught the idea of privilege factually?

Therefore, this school is taking an innocuous course offline to see how things play out and what the resolutions will be. So much for "free speech advocates."

When I was in junior high, we had a substitute teacher in Latin class one day who explained to us that the story of Deucalion and Pyrrha was the result of the ancient Greeks misremembering the actual events of Noah and the Ark. If that public school classroom had been in the U.S., telling us what she told us would have been illegal -- our government is not supposed to be in the business of teaching one segment of society's religion as fact. Hypothetically, if that teacher had been in the U.S. and had gotten swatted for breaking the law about what the government authorized her to teach, would you regard that as "stifling free speech"?

Why do so many people equate having the right to say what you want with having the right to be paid to say what you want by the taxpayers?

 

[laughing dog]

And the fact that it may make some students uncomfortable, even if the idea of privilege is taught factually, creates tremendous financial risk to the school.

Has anyone ever actually taught the idea of privilege factually?

Therefore, this school is taking an innocuous course offline to see how things play out and what the resolutions will be. So much for "free speech advocates."

When I was in junior high, we had a substitute teacher in Latin class one day who explained to us that the story of Deucalion and Pyrrha was the result of the ancient Greeks misremembering the actual events of Noah and the Ark. If that public school classroom had been in the U.S., telling us what she told us would have been illegal -- our government is not supposed to be in the business of teaching one segment of society's religion as fact. Hypothetically, if that teacher had been in the U.S. and had gotten swatted for breaking the law about what the government authorized her to teach, would you regard that as "stifling free speech"?

Cool story.

Why do so many people equate having the right to say what you want with having the right to be paid to say what you want by the taxpayers?

Probably for the same reason so many people bring up their pet but irrelevant peeves.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

And the fact that it may make some students uncomfortable, even if the idea of privilege is taught factually, creates tremendous financial risk to the school.

Has anyone ever actually taught the idea of privilege factually?

Probably?

Therefore, this school is taking an innocuous course offline to see how things play out and what the resolutions will be. So much for "free speech advocates."

When I was in junior high, we had a substitute teacher in Latin class one day who explained to us that the story of Deucalion and Pyrrha was the result of the ancient Greeks misremembering the actual events of Noah and the Ark. If that public school classroom had been in the U.S., telling us what she told us would have been illegal -- our government is not supposed to be in the business of teaching one segment of society's religion as fact. Hypothetically, if that teacher had been in the U.S. and had gotten swatted for breaking the law about what the government authorized her to teach, would you regard that as "stifling free speech"?

So, to be clear, being anti-discrimination is not being anti-free-speech.

Why do so many people equate having the right to say what you want with having the right to be paid to say what you want by the taxpayers?

So you are okay with government interference in college education so long as some taxpayers disagree with the content of the professor's speech, even if the taxpayers don't actually know the content of the speech because those government officials are propagandizing it.

 

[Jarhyn]

Probably?

Therefore, this school is taking an innocuous course offline to see how things play out and what the resolutions will be. So much for "free speech advocates."

When I was in junior high, we had a substitute teacher in Latin class one day who explained to us that the story of Deucalion and Pyrrha was the result of the ancient Greeks misremembering the actual events of Noah and the Ark. If that public school classroom had been in the U.S., telling us what she told us would have been illegal -- our government is not supposed to be in the business of teaching one segment of society's religion as fact. Hypothetically, if that teacher had been in the U.S. and had gotten swatted for breaking the law about what the government authorized her to teach, would you regard that as "stifling free speech"?

So, to be clear, being anti-discrimination is not being anti-free-speech.

Why do so many people equate having the right to say what you want with having the right to be paid to say what you want by the taxpayers?

So you are okay with government interference in college education so long as some taxpayers disagree with the content of the professor's speech, even if the taxpayers don't actually know the content of the speech because those government officials are propagandizing it.

Personally, I will have issue with any situation wherein a professor is not allowed to talk about the systems and models of reality that pertain to the core material of the course.

If the course is history, that means it must acknowledge the frequent application of tribal xenophobia to take advantage of out-groups, and it must do so for every instance in the period of study.

Taxpayers should have no say in the content because taxpayers have no control over what happened in history. It is said and done.

The same goes for any other subject of schooling.

 

[Bomb#20]

And the fact that it may make some students uncomfortable, even if the idea of privilege is taught factually, creates tremendous financial risk to the school.

Has anyone ever actually taught the idea of privilege factually?

Probably?

Who are you asking, me? Seems improbable to me. Worrying about tremendous financial risk to a school in the event that a classroom's pet hamster causes a worldwide plague strikes me as a tail-wagging-the-dog kind of consideration.

Therefore, this school is taking an innocuous course offline to see how things play out and what the resolutions will be. So much for "free speech advocates."

...If that public school classroom had been in the U.S., telling us what she told us would have been illegal -- our government is not supposed to be in the business of teaching one segment of society's religion as fact. Hypothetically, if that teacher had been in the U.S. and had gotten swatted for breaking the law about what the government authorized her to teach, would you regard that as "stifling free speech"?

So, to be clear, being anti-discrimination is not being anti-free-speech.

Is that a "no"? That sounds like a "no", assuming you were actually sincerely answering the question. Were you sincerely answering the question? 'Cause it also sounds kind of like you're imputing a claim to me that's a gross overgeneralization of anything I actually implied, while you're simultaneously evading the question I asked you.

Assuming you were sincerely answering the question "no", this establishes that the government limiting what its employees are allowed to teach while on the government clock does not qualify as "stifling free speech", that your 'So much for "free speech advocates."' quip was just unsupported character assassination, and that your OP totally missed the mark.

If you weren't sincerely answering the question, now's your chance to give a sincere answer. Hypothetically, if that teacher had been in the U.S. and had gotten swatted for breaking the law about what the government authorized her to teach, would you regard that as "stifling free speech"? Yes or no?

Why do so many people equate having the right to say what you want with having the right to be paid to say what you want by the taxpayers?

So you are okay with government interference in college education so long as some taxpayers disagree with the content of the professor's speech, even if the taxpayers don't actually know the content of the speech because those government officials are propagandizing it.

You have a penchant for making up positions out of whole cloth and imputing them to political opponents as a rhetorical tactic to draw attention away from weaknesses in your arguments. There are any number of reasons a person might object to interference in college education other than the nonsensical "stifling free speech" reason you appealed to; we aren't talking about "some taxpayers" but about a democracy's elected representatives of the majority; and you have produced no evidence that the taxpayers would know the content of the speech if only those government officials weren't propagandizing it -- there are after all plenty of folks on the other side of the cultural divide who are propagandizing it too.

 

[laughing dog]

A law prohibiting the teaching of ________ (you fill in the blank) is stifling free speech. Especially one where the prohibition explicitly depends on the education makes people feel.

The fact is causing self censorship at an institution of higher learning should be very troubling since those are the very institutions where the comfortable may be afflicted by mivel or “troubling” ideas.

 

[Metaphor]

A quick review--the Juneteenth thread, meant to discuss celebration and positive things quickly got derailed several times, one time including an attack on Joy Reid for mentioning anti-anti-racist legislation across some dozen of states. The legislation chills teaching in states like Texas and Oklahoma because the legislation goes too far and has terrible wording. The purported intent is to go after Critical Race Theory that the right-wing is propagandizing but the true effect is to remove teaching about modern racism, which in some instances can only be seen through a lens of counter-whitesplaining back at teachers and professors. In one case, nothing can be taught that might make a white person uncomfortable. In another case, nothing can be taught that might use a concept of one race being superior in a current event...so you can't talk about racism producing George Floyd's murder, for example.

Conservatives are free to argue with me on any of these points, but the reason I have put this review in is because of a recent news story.



To be clear, the class does NOT teach critical race theory, does NOT teach white people that they are guilty of crimes against humanity, does NOT use the phrase critical race theory, but DID teach about racism and discrimination.



Emphasis added.

...Smith, who is White, said Friday it is “just ridiculous” that her course apparently cannot teach about White privilege if Oklahoma’s law remains in place.

She said she typically tackles the subject with lots of questions: “What is your definition of privilege? What does that mean?” She also remembered giving students example of privilege from her own life and seeing “the lightbulb go off.”

“That is what I’m sad won’t be happening,” she said.

BUT, the new law states:

No teacher, administrator or other employee of a school district, charter school or virtual charter school shall require or make part of a course the following concepts:
... any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex, ...

There are too many conservatives who will make the jump that any mention of a concept of privilege or white privilege is there to make all white people bad or to create white guilt. And the fact that it may make some students uncomfortable, even if the idea of privilege is taught factually, creates tremendous financial risk to the school.

Therefore, this school is taking an innocuous course offline to see how things play out and what the resolutions will be. So much for "free speech advocates."

The Oklahoma law forbids teaching the concept that "any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex" (emphasis mine)

The Oklahoma law does not forbid teaching concepts that might cause someone to feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex.

For example, the Oklahoma law forbids a teacher instructing "white people have privilege and you should feel guilty about that". I see nothing that forbids teaching "white people have privilege".

 

[Bomb#20]

A law prohibiting the teaching of ________ (you fill in the blank) is stifling free speech.

That's absolutely right. What's your point? The Oklahoma law we're discussing in this thread doesn't prohibit the teaching of anything. It only prohibits the using of The Oklahoma State System of Higher Education for teaching certain things. Any teacher who wants to teach the material the Oklahoma legislature objects to is free to do it at any private school that will hire him, or to do it on his own time in some non-state-owned venue, or for that matter to stand on a soapbox in the public square and teach any students who want to listen.

If you opened a culinary institute and you hired a guy to teach cooking, and he spent his time in your classroom teaching hairdressing, so you told him to stop doing that and teach your students to cook, have you "prohibited the teaching of hairdressing"?

 

[laughing dog]

A law prohibiting the teaching of ________ (you fill in the blank) is stifling free speech.

That's absolutely right. What's your point? The Oklahoma law we're discussing in this thread doesn't prohibit the teaching of anything. It only prohibits the using of The Oklahoma State System of Higher Education for teaching certain things.

Which, as Don’s example shows, is causing the content of a course (speech) to be altered. That is stifling free speech in that course in that system.
That is undeniable.
Whether it is constitutional is a different issue. Whether it is good policy is a different issue.

 

[Bomb#20]

The Oklahoma law we're discussing in this thread doesn't prohibit the teaching of anything. It only prohibits the using of The Oklahoma State System of Higher Education for teaching certain things.

Which, as Don’s example shows, is causing the content of a course (speech) to be altered.

"Altered" from what the employee wanted to say back to what the employee was hired to say. Some might see that less as an alteration than as prevention of an alteration.

That is stifling free speech in that course in that system.
That is undeniable.

That is stifling free speech in exactly the same sense as a movie producer replacing Sylvester Stallone because he can't follow a script and keeps ad libbing is "stifling free speech".

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

In addition to the United States Constitution and its free political speech that the highest court has found to be ubiquitous across the country, the Oklahoma state constitution reads:

Every person may freely speak, write, or publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press.

The Constitution is the law of the land and it continues to explain that individuals can get into trouble for libel:

In all criminal prosecutions for libel, the truth of the matter alleged to be libelous may be given in evidence to the jury, and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libelous be true, and was written or published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted.

In other words, the State does not dictate by laws what can or cannot be said by professors, but if professors (or teachers) abuse their rights to spread misinformation, they can be found guilty for libel. Not to mention, there are already federally speaking discrimination laws so that persons could get into trouble for lying about white people, if they do that.

The State may control the structure of content in school curricula through some sort of state department of education, but it cannot control the day-to-day political speech of professors and teachers in ways they may choose to illuminate lesson plans while the lesson plans are consistent with the curricula.

Moreover, the content of curricula may not be abridged by Law as that would be Unconstitutional.

That is stifling free speech in exactly the same sense as a movie producer replacing Sylvester Stallone because he can't follow a script and keeps ad libbing is "stifling free speech".

No, really, what is going on is not the same thing as that, and while it might have some similarity on a state dept of education deciding metrics for curricula or whatever it may do, it is not the same thing as a government writing laws banning terms and concepts from inclusion in education. Therefore, the correct, modified analogy in your case would be to jump from private producers to the government of the municipality of Hollywood making a law that movie producers cannot make communists feel guilty or mention socialism in a negative light. Would you be okay with that?