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

[RVonse]

I may be wrong, but I can't help but think most (if not all) white people who denounce white privilege 100% are just concerned about losing said privileges.

Edit: I think this because I have no idea why something so obvious is so hard to swallow. I mean, what in the hell would it do to you to recognize some differences in how America treats you?

I'm just guessing when I say this, but if you are poor and white there is a great deal to be lost if you recognize white privilege. For starters, it always leads to government stepping in to "balance" the playing field by taking opportunities AWAY from whites in order for those same job opportunities to be GIVEN to minorities. If the deporables actually have any sort of privilege .... what good is that to them if they are still too poor to ever even start a family?. What possible incentive is for deplorables to advertise for more affirmative action against their own cause?

The biggest problem is that the pie in the private sector isn't big enough in the first place.

Rather than fighting against white privilege it would be much more accurate and much to the point to fight against "elite privilege". Why do our members of congress make 3-4 times as much as the average midwest worker? Why are there so many high paying career government workers in the federal government? The economic pie might actually get bigger in the private sector if a lot of high paying do nothing government jobs were cancelled so that taxes for the lower class could be made much lower. Providing much more opportunity for everyone regardless of race. You do not have to be black to want a good job.....everyone wants opportunity.

 

[Gospel]

Look I recognized that there are poor white people ages ago. I don't have an issue with knowing this and I also don't have an issue with helping them out of poverty. I don't feel the desire to pull a what about this and that card out in that conversation either. If we're going to talk about white poverty let's do that on another fucking thread as I don't understand what the flying fantastic finicky frisky fuck it has to do with white privilege.

Thanks,

Edit: Ok that sounded rude because it was. 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.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

reply to #20

new definition of "debate" -- The Leftist point of view only is presented, through music and poetry, to inspire docile public school students toward the Absolute Truth.

High school students are mature enough to be able to dialogue with each other about socially controversial issues, and have debates in the class. Rather than be preached at and indoctrinated by the teacher.

Any teacher who doesn't understand this and thinks it's his/her role to impose his/her theories and prejudices onto the students, rather than encourage debate and questioning, deserves to be terminated.

Sounds to me like they were having a debate.

That was a debate? a teacher presenting a poem which promotes his bias? performed by a charismatic orator?

analogy: How about a song? Back around 2009-10 at a Tea Party meeting (presented on C-SPAN) several minutes was devoted to a performer doing a song with the lyrics "There's a commie in the Whitehouse" repeated over and over. It was surprising how much time was devoted to something so biased, repeating the same mantra over and over calling Obama a communist.

Now suppose a teacher played this song in his classroom, in response to some student asking a question about the President being accused of Marxist or Communist sentiments. You'd say "they were having a debate"?

No, a "debate" is supposed to give both sides, where 2 (or more) knowledgeable persons on both sides present their arguments, or facts, or evidence. Not where one side uses a poem or a song to inspire passion into the listeners and the other side is absent.

The teacher used a source to support his side that used naughty words.

And that's a "debate"? Where was the similar presentation of the opposing side? Only one source presenting one side is a "debate"? a poem? or a song repeating "There's a commie in the Whitehouse" over and over?

How can anyone call that a "debate"? Has today's anti-culture mindset now sunk so low that it no longer recognizes the classic meaning of "debate"?

Even our "Presidential debates" (as degraded as they have become) are not this degenerate. They are still based on the principle that there are 2 sides presented equally.

It got him fired.

And rightly so. Again, a teacher who tries to indoctrinate his students by presenting only one side, trying to impassion them using art or poetry or music, instead of encouraging real debate from both sides as this one did not do, should be fired.


reply to #23

Any teacher who doesn't understand this and thinks it's his/her role to impose his/her theories and prejudices onto the students, rather than encourage debate and questioning, deserves to be terminated.

One of the functions of any teacher is to teach theories. It is ignorant to claim otherwise.

How about the theory of Creation? A teacher's function is to present poetry in the classroom to strengthen the students' belief in their Creator?

How about economic theories of Milton Friedman or Murray Rothbard or Henry Hazlitt or Ludwig von Mises? Or the theory that Christopher Columbus was a great hero who "discovered America" and proved to mankind that the earth is round? The function of a public school teacher is to teach these theories? through poetry and song?

Obviously the Left-wing mindset is oblivious to the meaning of 2 sides, in debate. Obviously they would not excuse bias in the classroom if it is on the wrong side, but only if it is a Left-wing bias, in which case it then becomes the proper function "of any teacher to teach theories."

 

[Gospel]

So now Noam Chomsky doesn't know what a debate is? Get outta here with that all leftists do X nonsense. I agree with the rest of what you said about a debate having two sides but the warm and cosy hyperbole is just silly.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

And rightly so. Again, a teacher who tries to indoctrinate his students by presenting only one side, trying to impassion them using art or poetry or music, instead of encouraging real debate from both sides as this one did not do, should be fired.

Having thought about the video a little, I conclude that the poetry contains literary devices, metaphors such as "white privilege is YOU," and so forth. And these literary devices are first not meant to be taken literally but at the same time are meant to be so expressive as to garner an emotional reaction, which in theory could be agreement or in theory could be disagreement. Given a typical high school classroom has quite diverse opinions, it is a reasonable inference that the high school teacher would know and expect that some of his students would agree with the sentiment and feel emotionally attached to the messages while some other students would be triggered by the metaphors like "white privilege is YOU" and preemptively being called out for "reverse racism" attacks. So therefore, I conclude that your presumption of guilt by the teacher to indoctrinate the students merely based on this one instance of a video is premature. It is likely the video was there to encourage critical discussion and debate, even though the teacher does take a view that white privilege is real--and why shouldn't he? White privilege is a fact, but as I stated upthread, I don't agree with how it is always presented. There isn't anything wrong with showing art to provoke thinking and figure it out.

 

[Playball40]

Making a single comment during a debate, then backing it up with a source, is "indoctrination" much in the same way that chopping up some firewood in my backyard is "deforestation".

It wasn't a single comment. It says so right in the OP.
He'd been warned at least a couple of times previously about parental complaints. This was just the final straw, one he described as "will probably get me fired", according to the story.

I don't think he wanted the job any more.

Being so far out from the parents made it uncomfortable. But the parents are ultimately in charge of their children, for better or worse. It doesn't matter if he closely aligns with your world views, you aren't in charge. Neither is the school administration, they had to choose between keeping their jobs and Hawn keeping his, probably.

Let me ask, who do you think will teach that class better? Hawn, who "can't help himself"(according to the report), or his replacement? A replacement who will probably be chosen for their ability to avoid any controversy that might further annoy parents who are already angry.

Did Hawn do those kids a favor by showing them the YouTube he chose? I don't think so.
Tom

How does one go about discussing current affairs without controversy?

Why should a few snowflake parents ruin the class for the rest of the students? Withdraw your kids from the damn class and STFU.

I'm not saying that the parents should. Only that they did.

Lemme ask you a question. If a teacher were teaching your kids something you really didn't like or agree with, like vaccinations are more dangerous than infection, would you complain to the administration? Would you demand that the teacher either stop or be terminated? I'm guessing you would.
Tom

There is a difference between teaching facts and teaching fallacy. White "privilege" exists whether we care to acknowledge it or not.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

As for the case of Lebron James. I'm certain (and yes this may be pure speculation to some folks) he along with millions of other black youths chose sports because of the easy access to possible success in their efforts to GTFO of the ghetto.

Edit: And by easy, I don't mean level of difficulty of the profession I'm talking about the level of access.

But surely White Privilege should have stopped his rise in favor of a White dude with mediocre talent? If White Privilege can’t make the NBA majority White, what’s it good for?

You mean majority white... again. It did take time to integrate the NBA. Also, ownership majority in the NBA is near exclusively white, hitting along the lines of the distinction Chris Rock makes between "rich" and "wealthy". Lebron James will be one of the few to come out of athletics "wealthy".

Are NBA players drafted based on their talent or skin color?

So you are going with the exception to the rule?

reply to #20

new definition of "debate" -- The Leftist point of view only is presented, through music and poetry, to inspire docile public school students toward the Absolute Truth.

High school students are mature enough to be able to dialogue with each other about socially controversial issues, and have debates in the class. Rather than be preached at and indoctrinated by the teacher.

Any teacher who doesn't understand this and thinks it's his/her role to impose his/her theories and prejudices onto the students, rather than encourage debate and questioning, deserves to be terminated.

Sounds to me like they were having a debate.

That was a debate? a teacher presenting a poem which promotes his bias? performed by a charismatic orator?

analogy: How about a song? Back around 2009-10 at a Tea Party meeting (presented on C-SPAN) several minutes was devoted to a performer doing a song with the lyrics "There's a commie in the Whitehouse" repeated over and over. It was surprising how much time was devoted to something so biased, repeating the same mantra over and over calling Obama a communist.

Now suppose a teacher played this song in his classroom, in response to some student asking a question about the President being accused of Marxist or Communist sentiments. You'd say "they were having a debate"?

No, a "debate" is supposed to give both sides, where 2 (or more) knowledgeable persons on both sides present their arguments, or facts, or evidence. Not where one side uses a poem or a song to inspire passion into the listeners and the other side is absent.

The teacher used a source to support his side that used naughty words.

And that's a "debate"? Where was the similar presentation of the opposing side? Only one source presenting one side is a "debate"? a poem? or a song repeating "There's a commie in the Whitehouse" over and over?

How can anyone call that a "debate"? Has today's anti-culture mindset now sunk so low that it no longer recognizes the classic meaning of "debate"?

Even our "Presidential debates" (as degraded as they have become) are not this degenerate. They are still based on the principle that there are 2 sides presented equally.

It got him fired.

And rightly so. Again, a teacher who tries to indoctrinate his students by presenting only one side, trying to impassion them using art or poetry or music, instead of encouraging real debate from both sides as this one did not do, should be fired.


reply to #23

Any teacher who doesn't understand this and thinks it's his/her role to impose his/her theories and prejudices onto the students, rather than encourage debate and questioning, deserves to be terminated.

One of the functions of any teacher is to teach theories. It is ignorant to claim otherwise.

How about the theory of Creation? A teacher's function is to present poetry in the classroom to strengthen the students' belief in their Creator?

How about economic theories of Milton Friedman or Murray Rothbard or Henry Hazlitt or Ludwig von Mises? Or the theory that Christopher Columbus was a great hero who "discovered America" and proved to mankind that the earth is round? The function of a public school teacher is to teach these theories? through poetry and song?

Obviously the Left-wing mindset is oblivious to the meaning of 2 sides, in debate. Obviously they would not excuse bias in the classroom if it is on the wrong side, but only if it is a Left-wing bias, in which case it then becomes the proper function "of any teacher to teach theories."

There is a lot of text there but almost no actual argument being supported that the teacher was indoctrinating the students.

 

[ZiprHead]

reply to #20

new definition of "debate" -- The Leftist point of view only is presented, through music and poetry, to inspire docile public school students toward the Absolute Truth.

High school students are mature enough to be able to dialogue with each other about socially controversial issues, and have debates in the class. Rather than be preached at and indoctrinated by the teacher.

Any teacher who doesn't understand this and thinks it's his/her role to impose his/her theories and prejudices onto the students, rather than encourage debate and questioning, deserves to be terminated.

Sounds to me like they were having a debate.

That was a debate? a teacher presenting a poem which promotes his bias? performed by a charismatic orator?

analogy: How about a song? Back around 2009-10 at a Tea Party meeting (presented on C-SPAN) several minutes was devoted to a performer doing a song with the lyrics "There's a commie in the Whitehouse" repeated over and over. It was surprising how much time was devoted to something so biased, repeating the same mantra over and over calling Obama a communist.

Now suppose a teacher played this song in his classroom, in response to some student asking a question about the President being accused of Marxist or Communist sentiments. You'd say "they were having a debate"?

No, a "debate" is supposed to give both sides, where 2 (or more) knowledgeable persons on both sides present their arguments, or facts, or evidence. Not where one side uses a poem or a song to inspire passion into the listeners and the other side is absent.

The teacher used a source to support his side that used naughty words.

And that's a "debate"? Where was the similar presentation of the opposing side? Only one source presenting one side is a "debate"? a poem? or a song repeating "There's a commie in the Whitehouse" over and over?

How can anyone call that a "debate"? Has today's anti-culture mindset now sunk so low that it no longer recognizes the classic meaning of "debate"?

Even our "Presidential debates" (as degraded as they have become) are not this degenerate. They are still based on the principle that there are 2 sides presented equally.

It got him fired.

And rightly so. Again, a teacher who tries to indoctrinate his students by presenting only one side, trying to impassion them using art or poetry or music, instead of encouraging real debate from both sides as this one did not do, should be fired.


reply to #23

Any teacher who doesn't understand this and thinks it's his/her role to impose his/her theories and prejudices onto the students, rather than encourage debate and questioning, deserves to be terminated.

One of the functions of any teacher is to teach theories. It is ignorant to claim otherwise.

How about the theory of Creation? A teacher's function is to present poetry in the classroom to strengthen the students' belief in their Creator?

How about economic theories of Milton Friedman or Murray Rothbard or Henry Hazlitt or Ludwig von Mises? Or the theory that Christopher Columbus was a great hero who "discovered America" and proved to mankind that the earth is round? The function of a public school teacher is to teach these theories? through poetry and song?

Obviously the Left-wing mindset is oblivious to the meaning of 2 sides, in debate. Obviously they would not excuse bias in the classroom if it is on the wrong side, but only if it is a Left-wing bias, in which case it then becomes the proper function "of any teacher to teach theories."

There is a lot of text there but almost no actual argument being supported that the teacher was indoctrinating the students.

But, but... He showed them a VIDEO!!!!

Seriously though, Lumpen has failed to show that the students on the other side were stifled in any way. That's a requirement for his rant to have any validity at all.

 

[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.

 

[RVonse]

Look I recognized that there are poor white people ages ago. I don't have an issue with knowing this and I also don't have an issue with helping them out of poverty. I don't feel the desire to pull a what about this and that card out in that conversation either. If we're going to talk about white poverty let's do that on another fucking thread as I don't understand what the flying fantastic finicky frisky fuck it has to do with white privilege.

Thanks,

Edit: Ok that sounded rude because it was. 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.

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.

We live in 2021 and the sins of the past are long over. We live in the present now. At this point the deplorables are not the scary bad whites you believe are telling the police to prejudice blacks. They just aren't.

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.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Look I recognized that there are poor white people ages ago. I don't have an issue with knowing this and I also don't have an issue with helping them out of poverty. I don't feel the desire to pull a what about this and that card out in that conversation either. If we're going to talk about white poverty let's do that on another fucking thread as I don't understand what the flying fantastic finicky frisky fuck it has to do with white privilege.

Thanks,

Edit: Ok that sounded rude because it was. 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.

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 began with Reagan. It continued with Clinton and NAFTA.

It certainly wasn't the deplorables who shipped high value manufacturing jobs to China away from themselves.

FYI, China isn't in North America.

We live in 2021 and the sins of the past are long over. We live in the present now. At this point the deplorables are not the scary bad whites you believe are telling the police to prejudice blacks. They just aren't.

They seemed a bit scary when trying to crash through the doors at the Capitol Building to stop Biden from becoming President.

 

[Gospel]

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.

We live in 2021 and the sins of the past are long over. We live in the present now. At this point the deplorables are not the scary bad whites you believe are telling the police to prejudice blacks. They just aren't.

I never said nor do I think poor white people are scary and bad (though there are some good arguments to be made for that) so you should save that righteous indignation for a more appropriate time. The sins of the past are not long over, I don't have the privilege to make such a claim.

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.

 

[TomC]

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

 

[Trausti]

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.

 

[Trausti]

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

This is all OT, but the issue is political realignment. It’s a reason Trump won in ‘16. The Dems have abandoned the working class in favor of cultural issues and immigrants. The working class doesn’t care about pronouns, gender neutral bathrooms, or cultural appropriation. They care about keeping their jobs and limiting mass migration. Not too long ago even Bernie Sanders argued that mass immigration was a Koch brothers plot for cheap labor. Trump took up the mantle of protecting jobs and limiting immigration - which was Dem policy a generation ago.

 

[TomC]

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

This is all OT, but the issue is political realignment. It’s a reason Trump won in ‘16. The Dems have abandoned the working class in favor of cultural issues and immigrants. The working class doesn’t care about pronouns, gender neutral bathrooms, or cultural appropriation. They care about keeping their jobs and limiting mass migration. Not too long ago even Bernie Sanders argued that mass immigration was a Koch brothers plot for cheap labor. Trump took up the mantle of protecting jobs and limiting immigration - which was Dem policy a generation ago.

I agree, this is off topic.
Honestly, I agree with you mostly. The Democrats moved hard to the right, starting with Slick Willy, and then the Republicans had to go even further to maintain market share.
I agree with Sanders, the Bush Administration encouraged undocumented workers to keep the cost of labor down while increasing consumption. That's perfect for corporate profits. Trump lied about protecting blue collar workers, and they bought it. Same as when they voted for Clinton in 1992.
I'm agreeing with you.
Tom

 

[Gospel]

This is all OT, but the issue is political realignment. It’s a reason Trump won in ‘16. The Dems have abandoned the working class in favor of cultural issues and immigrants. The working class doesn’t care about pronouns, gender neutral bathrooms, or cultural appropriation. They care about keeping their jobs and limiting mass migration. Not too long ago even Bernie Sanders argued that mass immigration was a Koch brothers plot for cheap labor. Trump took up the mantle of protecting jobs and limiting immigration - which was Dem policy a generation ago.

Considering how long it took both Jobs moving to China and immigration workers to reach critical mass you'd think White America would have adjusted their privileged undies by now and addressed cultural & immigration issues. When times were good they gave fuck all about Blacks and/or immigration and now that blacks and immigrants have grown tired, the numbskulls wanna scream "not right now!"

Edit: For the record, I'm talking about the "deplorable" folks you mentioned that voted for Trump because they consider cultural and immigration issues less important than their jobs. Which I understand is many of those jobs were borderline obsolete anyway.

 

[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.

 

[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.

Free speech has nothing to do with it. Exposure to ideas different from your own explicitly in the context of a debate is not indoctrination. Censorship, applied to pedagogy, is a fundamental tool of any system of indoctrination. That it is young and malleable minds having vast segments of the world purposefully concealed from their awareness makes this worse, not better.

 

[TomC]

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