A White teacher taught White students about White privilege. It cost him his job.

[Gospel]

See? That's why I like you Tomc. That is correct. While I do not disagree with his argument, his argument is not being made in the right place/time nor did he garner the support of parents and the administration to engage in said argument. Losing his job (and I wish that wasn't the case) was inevitable after being warned before and agreeing to adhere to the warning. This doesn't take away the fact I believe his intentions were/are noble it's just the School system gonna system yo. Private & public since both clients are (you guessed it) the parents.

 

[Politesse]

If the teacher has a list of things he isn't allowed to teach, on pain of termination, that seems like a pretty strong argument that the students are subject to a plan of indoctrination. In a free and fair academic setting, no contracted censorship is necessary.

High school is not college. The state requires young people to be there unless their parents have the financial means for private or home schooling. The state may even take children from their parents if they don’t attend. The First Amendment may apply to student speech, but not to state actors over a captive audience.

You missed Politesse's point of In a free and fair academic setting, no contracted censorship is necessary. That does not require adherence to the First Amendment. It requires adherence to the very notion of education.

I don't think Politesse's point has much relevance in a state sponsored, state required, K-12 education situation.

In higher education, sure it does. It's crucial. Not always realized, but important. K-12 is very different.
Regardless of what you think about a parent's opinion versus that of the teacher's opinion, the parents are ultimately in charge. Not the administration or the teachers, the parents.

Unless you're willing to let teachers opine about the evil libruls stealing the election from The Best President Ever, complete with entertaining video, you've got to recognize that teachers need to be excruciatingly careful with controversial opinions at that level of education. University and graduate level education is completely different.
Tom

My point (which never had anything to do with the first amendment) is that indoctrination is a more rational accusation against the party that is hiding information from students, than the party which is trying to expose students to it. If you believe that parents should have absolute and unquestionable control over the classroom, that's fine, even legal. But it will very obviously lead to "indoctrination" of the youth, if said parents desire the same. And you should be very mad about what happened at the school in question, as no democratic body of parents was involved at all as near as I can tell. There were "a few complaints", not a vote by the PTA. The original censure was issued on the basis of a single parent complaint. In isolation. If you don't like indoctrination, saying that a person should be formally censured the second they teach something a single parent dislikes is a poor strategy for avoiding indoctrination.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If the teacher has a list of things he isn't allowed to teach, on pain of termination, that seems like a pretty strong argument that the students are subject to a plan of indoctrination. In a free and fair academic setting, no contracted censorship is necessary.

High school is not college. The state requires young people to be there unless their parents have the financial means for private or home schooling. The state may even take children from their parents if they don’t attend. The First Amendment may apply to student speech, but not to state actors over a captive audience.

You missed Politesse's point of In a free and fair academic setting, no contracted censorship is necessary. That does not require adherence to the First Amendment. It requires adherence to the very notion of education.

I don't think Politesse's point has much relevance in a state sponsored, state required, K-12 education situation.

In higher education, sure it does. It's crucial. Not always realized, but important. K-12 is very different.
Regardless of what you think about a parent's opinion versus that of the teacher's opinion, the parents are ultimately in charge. Not the administration or the teachers, the parents.

If the parents were viable for this judgment, we'd have homeschooling and not need public schools. We have a case here where a teacher and their curriculum is being judged based on a two or three instances of material. How the heck does that work?! We have no idea what his curriculum is like as a whole... and please no hyperbole about teaching clearly objectionable material just once or twice being equivalent.

Unless you're willing to let teachers opine about the evil libruls stealing the election from The Best President Ever, complete with entertaining video, you've got to recognize that teachers need to be excruciatingly careful with controversial opinions at that level of education. University and graduate level education is completely different.
Tom

I'm sick and tired of "not controversy" being called "CONTROVERSY!!!".

Evolution, Civil War, manifest desinty, Huckleberry Finn, Tuesdays.

 

[laughing dog]

If the teacher has a list of things he isn't allowed to teach, on pain of termination, that seems like a pretty strong argument that the students are subject to a plan of indoctrination. In a free and fair academic setting, no contracted censorship is necessary.

High school is not college. The state requires young people to be there unless their parents have the financial means for private or home schooling. The state may even take children from their parents if they don’t attend. The First Amendment may apply to student speech, but not to state actors over a captive audience.

You missed Politesse's point of In a free and fair academic setting, no contracted censorship is necessary. That does not require adherence to the First Amendment. It requires adherence to the very notion of education.

I don't think Politesse's point has much relevance in a state sponsored, state required, K-12 education situation.

In higher education, sure it does. It's crucial. Not always realized, but important. K-12 is very different.
Regardless of what you think about a parent's opinion versus that of the teacher's opinion, the parents are ultimately in charge. Not the administration or the teachers, the parents.

Parents are in charge of the education at home but not in school. Parents are free to contradict school education. Parents are not free to dictate school curriculum.

Unless you're willing to let teachers opine about the evil libruls stealing the election from The Best President Ever, complete with entertaining video, you've got to recognize that teachers need to be excruciatingly careful with controversial opinions at that level of education. University and graduate level education is completely different.
Tom

There is a real difference between saying "This subject is not being taught in a balanced manner" and "Waaah, you cannot teach that".

 

[Gospel]

And you should be very mad about what happened at the school in question, as no democratic body of parents was involved at all as near as I can tel

The chant is "No justice no peace!" & it seems pretty darn peaceful about his firing over there. I had a premonition that the Trump era would dull some people's ability to tolerate adversity. Matthew likely lost his job as a result.

 

[ZiprHead]

If the teacher has a list of things he isn't allowed to teach, on pain of termination, that seems like a pretty strong argument that the students are subject to a plan of indoctrination. In a free and fair academic setting, no contracted censorship is necessary.

High school is not college. The state requires young people to be there unless their parents have the financial means for private or home schooling. The state may even take children from their parents if they don’t attend. The First Amendment may apply to student speech, but not to state actors over a captive audience.

You missed Politesse's point of In a free and fair academic setting, no contracted censorship is necessary. That does not require adherence to the First Amendment. It requires adherence to the very notion of education.

I don't think Politesse's point has much relevance in a state sponsored, state required, K-12 education situation.

In higher education, sure it does. It's crucial. Not always realized, but important. K-12 is very different.
Regardless of what you think about a parent's opinion versus that of the teacher's opinion, the parents are ultimately in charge. Not the administration or the teachers, the parents.

What happens when the parents are a bunch of inbred bigots who've been duped about what CRT is and want to protect their little snowflake snot-wagons from truthfulness. And what about the parents of the black and hispanic students? Do they not get a say?

 

[TomC]

While I do not disagree with his argument, his argument is not being made in the right place/time nor did he garner the support of parents and the administration to engage in said argument.

Here's the thing.
I don't even know what argument, if any, he was actually making. All I have to go on is a bunch of internet stories, written by people with more attachment to their agenda than reality. I don't much trust the internet for accurate accounts of this sort of thing. Everyone(on the internet) has a narrative that they can monetize with enough outrage. I still remember the "MAGA hat wearing teen assaulting the Native American veteran" bullshit.

All I know is that the teacher was told to be careful. Then told again. Then got fired.
All I can surmise is that he didn't want the position any more. For better or worse, he chose being replaced by someone the administration found more convenient for their purposes.
Tom

 

[Gospel]

snowflake snot-wagons

There is a large industry behind the education system that supplies testing and textbooks. In other words, they'd need more than just tiki torches to gain the support of Academia.

 

[Gospel]

While I do not disagree with his argument, his argument is not being made in the right place/time nor did he garner the support of parents and the administration to engage in said argument.

Here's the thing.
I don't even know what argument, if any, he was actually making. All I have to go on is a bunch of internet stories, written by people with more attachment to their agenda than reality. I don't much trust the internet for accurate accounts of this sort of thing. Everyone(on the internet) has a narrative that they can monetize with enough outrage. I still remember the "MAGA hat wearing teen assaulting the Native American veteran" bullshit.

All I know is that the teacher was told to be careful. Then told again. Then got fired.
All I can surmise is that he didn't want the position any more. For better or worse, he chose being replaced by someone the administration found more convenient for their purposes.
Tom

Edit: Nevermind.

 

[Politesse]

All I know is that the teacher was told to be careful. Then told again. Then got fired.

Tom

Perhaps you should have read the article we're discussing then, as it went into more detail than this, and your summary is both inaccurate and obscures the role of parents, whom you claim to believe should have dictatorial control of the classroom.

 

[RVonse]

But it is all one and the same. Who do you think the police report to?!! The deplorables or could it be the political elite??? Who do you think shrank the economic pie for everyone for 30 years in the lower middle class? Hint: It began with Clinton and NAFTA. It certainly wasn't the deplorables who shipped high value manufacturing jobs to China away from themselves.

I don't know what rock you've been living under for the last 3 decades.
But NAFTA was a Republican plan. One Republican talking point in the 1992 campaign was that Clinton wouldn't sign it. But Clinton did throw blue collar workers under the bus when he didn't need their votes any more. (He did the same thing to gay people, signing DOMA and DADT) The Democrats were moving steadily to the right.

The "Deplorables" are the political elite these days. That is who the police report to in 2021.

And guess what? The Big Exodus of USA manufacturing jobs and the bulk of the influx of undocumented workers happened during the Bush Administration. All that, plus banking deregulation, resulted in the Republican Recession of 2007.

Sorry buddy. I'm old, and I watched all this happening myself.
Tom

While it is possible for a political elite to be a deplorable, in general the typical deplorable would be in no position to influence or direct the police. And no, the "Deplorables" are NOT the political elite these days. Because if they were, they would not be pushing CRT. Is Nancy Polesi a deplorable? How about any of the members of "the squad"? Is Bernie Sanders a deplorable? Really? I think it is even a stretch to call someone like Mitch McConnell a deplorable. They are surely elites but their very power, influence, and wealth puts them far into another class than the "deplorables". These elites are the people who make laws for everyone else and do not have to follow these same laws themselves. They (and only they) are the ones having the power to influence how our police must act.

As for the rest of your post regarding USA manufacturing jobs, no argument with you because all of them (left and right) made this happen. When it comes to giving away deplorable jobs, congress goes into unified overtime just like they do when it comes to spending money on fake wars.

 

[RVonse]

But it is all one and the same. Who do you think the police report to?!! The deplorables or could it be the political elite??? Who do you think shrank the economic pie for everyone for 30 years in the lower middle class? Hint: It began with Clinton and NAFTA. It certainly wasn't the deplorables who shipped high value manufacturing jobs to China away from themselves.

If your point is both poor black and white people are on an even playing field as a result of police reporting to the political elite & jobs being moved to China you're delusional.

Not quite. I do not say they are on an even playing field but that no real progress can be made by fighting among other members of a different race over issues they have no control over. The fight has to be taken to the decision makers in a unified step among all those in the same economic class.

You should be looking to your elites if you want to place blame. They're the folks that run this country! But your not going to blame the right people because it's just too much fun for you not to. And its not what the elites want either.

I'm not blaming you for having white privilege so you can drop the empty GOSPEL IS BLAMING THE WRONG PEOPLE arguments and just admit that the conversation makes you feel like you are being blamed.

It is not so much feeling like being blamed but rather as a misguided effort for more hostility and reverse racism that will not accomplish your overall mission. Do not let the elites use you.

 

[RVonse]

All I know is that the teacher was told to be careful. Then told again. Then got fired.

Tom

Perhaps you should have read the article we're discussing then, as it went into more detail than this, and your summary is both inaccurate and obscures the role of parents, whom you claim to believe should have dictatorial control of the classroom.

TomC is just stating the reality of K-12 school in America. And if you do not believe this, just ask a superintendent of public education that lost his high salary job because the parents got mad at him. It happens all the time here.

Just my opinion. But if I were the superintendent I would prefer more courses having less to do with arguing with each other and more to do with being more productive in today's society.....but that's just me.

 

[Politesse]

All I know is that the teacher was told to be careful. Then told again. Then got fired.

Tom

Perhaps you should have read the article we're discussing then, as it went into more detail than this, and your summary is both inaccurate and obscures the role of parents, whom you claim to believe should have dictatorial control of the classroom.

TomC is just stating the reality of K-12 school in America. And if you do not believe this, just ask a superintendent of public education that lost his high salary job because the parents got mad at him. It happens all the time here.

Just my opinion. But if I were the superintendent I would prefer more courses having less to do with arguing with each other and more to do with being more productive in today's society.....but that's just me.

He's not describing what happened accurately. There weren't two warnings, and there's no evidence that consensus parent perspective was considered in this case either. If administrators of a school are puppets on the string of whoever calls their office first regardless of the merit of their complaints, they aren't doing their job. They are professionals, and they are compensated as professionals, so they should be exer4csing their professional judgement when it comes to their supposed area of expertise, ie, pedagogy. Moreover, they don't work for the loudest few parents, they work for the government that pays the bills, and that govenment is democratic in character, not convitocratic. If you're going to do surrender your brain/conscience and do something for the sole reason that "parents want it" regardless of whether it is a good policy or not, then at the very least all parents should to be considered as constituents in that social calculus.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I read that the "parent" who first complained was some rando who doesn't actually have children at the school.

 

[Bomb#20]

Obviously. But that's not what I asked you.

What did you expect?

I didn't know what to expect, but I had hopes. The reason I tried to engage with you and southernhybrid in this thread instead of with Hawn's many other defenders here is because you and southernhybrid are the two leftist posters in this forum who come the closest to being rational thinkers. She, consistently. You, when you aren't too emotional. So I was hoping to get you in your cerebral mode.

Me to say all of the above except D? Because that's what I said with the reason why I said it.

Yes, that's what you said, and you said why you said it, and it wasn't a real answer. I asked you what you think the police should have done instead. "All of the above except D" means "The police should have told all five of you to leave and let all five of you stay and made the five of you draw straws for the three available sleep-in-the-train-station slots." I do not believe for a second that you actually think the police should have done all of the above except D. So what's the real answer? What do you think the police should have done instead?

I'm asking because it bears on the thread topic. What would the consequences have been of the various options the police had? I don't want to press you for more personal details about a hurtful experience than you want to share, so feel free to answer in generic hypotheticals if you'd prefer. When the police throw homeless people out of a train station, it makes a difference whether they're causing problems for passengers and staff, whether there's some safer place for them to go to such as a homeless shelter, what law the police were enforcing if they weren't just ordering people around for the sake of enjoying a power trip, and so forth.

... that's a red flag that what you're peddling is a religion.

Nice. What were we talking about again?

Originally? Your asserting without an argument that the opposing viewpoint I offered on the "white privilege" dispute is not legitimate. Subsequently we were also talking about your run-in with the police, about your ad hominem against me, and about the questions you are incorrectly treating as interchangeable with the "white privilege" question. Indirectly, but ultimately, we were talking about the thread topic: whether telling school children "white privilege" is a fact is an appropriate thing for a government employee to do while on the job.

 

[Bomb#20]

Look I recognized that there are poor white people ages ago. ... Consider this, why are they in poverty? Was there some historical oppression sanctioned by Law that got them there and they've been fighting to get out of it since their emancipation or was it an economical cause? Just a thought.

Is that a serious question? Um, whether there was some historical oppression sanctioned by Law that got some poor white person there and his descendants have been fighting to get out of it since their emancipation varies from one white person to another. The notion that you can tell whether there was some historical oppression sanctioned by Law that got them there and they've been fighting to get out of it since their emancipation simply by inspecting a person's skin color is nuts. And (since I'd hate to disappoint you), this isn't rocket science.

 

[Gospel]

this isn't rocket science

Yeah, it's not rocket science. White privilege has everything to do with color.

 

[Gospel]

Is that a serious question? Um, whether there was some historical oppression sanctioned by Law that got some poor white person there and his descendants have been fighting to get out of it since their emancipation varies from one white person to another. The notion that you can tell whether there was some historical oppression sanctioned by Law that got them there and they've been fighting to get out of it since their emancipation simply by inspecting a person's skin color is nuts. And (since I'd hate to disappoint you), this isn't rocket science.

Anyhow, I'll address your incredibly privileged point. Take the variations from one white person to another, then add their color as something they'd have to consider (due to other people's reaction to it) and you'll be a step closer to understanding how your privilege is showing in every argument you make.

 

[Gospel]

Here's a fun series of questions (based on my personal experiences)

Have you ever been pulled over for a traffic violation that has nothing to do with a traffic violation?
Have you ever had the police knowingly break into your home without a search warrant?
When's the last time you fit the description of a suspect?
Have you had that talk with your kids yet?