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

[laughing dog]

"Altered" from what the employee wanted to say back to what the employee was hired to say.

The instructor was hired before the law was enacted and was teaching that course before the law was passed, so you are factually incorrect.

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".

See above, you are factually incorrect.

 

[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.



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.



BUT, the new law states:


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".

Nice try, but that is NOT what the new terrible wording states.

It does NOT state that it forbids the teaching [as truth] that X.

In effect, it forbids the INCLUSION of any concept that X. A teacher/professor does not need to advocate for it to be true to INCLUDE it and so the law is WAY MORE RESTRICTIVE than you are trying to preach.

This is like the 3rd or 4th time you are making me write this because you guys keep pretending the law says something it doesn't.

Here once again are the ACTUAL words in the law:

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:

Not only is the language very restrictive, it is also untested and unexplained. What does it mean to REQUIRE something? What does it mean to make something PART OF A COURSE? Saying anything at all about a concept technically makes it part of the course, for example. Mentioning a concept could be interpreted as REQUIRING if you add in features of a class such as class participation and students feeling uncomfortable to discuss the concept. There are a host of judicial interpretations to be made in a Republican state.

Further, and here's the kicker. You guys already have been engaging in hyperbole about all anti-racist efforts. You are already pretending that systemic racism means all white people are guilty. And so if a professor wants to bring up the concept of systemic racism but the prevailing view of conservatives in a conservative state is that systemic racism is a concept that makes all white people guilty, they cannot bring it up.

You've banned legitimate discussion from a legitimate curriculum.

 

[laughing dog]

You've banned legitimate discussion from a legitimate curriculum.

Which is a (if not the primary) motivation for this law.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

This was such weird, lengthy commentary that it took a while for me to prioritize getting to.

Probably?

Who are you asking, me?

No, I was not asking anyone.

Seems improbable to me.

That's an odd opinion.

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.

That's a very weird comment to make.

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?

Jesus Christ. Calm down, stop with the coffee or getting triggered or anxiety or whatever it is that made you write 3 paragraphs to a simple sentence including phrases like "character assassination." WOW! Just chelax. Okay, now that you are calmed down, it's just a simple conclusion that looking at your anecdote one could make and that is that discrimination may be an exception to political free speech. That can be the heart of the controversy in the anecdote to some people. And some people may agree or disagree whether free speech or discrimination matter more in what contexts or if it's even a free speech issue or a discrimination issue.

My opinion on free speech is very complicated and my mention of it in the thread title is not to define or to try to define it in this thread, only instead to point out the logical inconsistency that is driven by over-simplification. Therefore, you will not get a simple yes or no from me. Too bad.

I will continue to point out the inconsistencies, however, such as in another thread calling it free speech for a professor to say discriminatory things about trans persons in a classroom. Some of the same persons support that, but oppose discrimination in your case, and then support canceling "free speech" of the professor in the op.

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

No, I don't. You just chose specifically to be silent on the huge issue of the thread and instead to divert the responsibility of propagandists to a brainwashed conservative base and so I wanted to point out what you were in fact doing. Knowingly.

... as a rhetorical tactic to draw attention away from weaknesses in your arguments.

That is some weird mind-reading you have going on. There isn't a weakness in my "argument." It would be great, if you could try to imagine you are not in a debate, too, with debaters presenting arguments against each other, getting involved in "character assassination," and pretending to do mind-reading in order to...well, whatever. Why are you trying to present a knowingly false reading of my mind again? It's weird.

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;

As discussed, I wasn't appealing to a nonsensical free speech reason, but instead mentioning the same over-simplified concept to the same crowd who was just talking about academic freedom in the trans thread. That being said, there's also a legitimate, more nuanced free speech point to be made since the Oklahoma Constitution does not support the way this law has been constructed.

we aren't talking about "some taxpayers" but about a democracy's elected representatives of the majority;

Who are not making laws in good faith because they're engaging in shenanigans.

...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 --

wtf

...there are after all plenty of folks on the other side of the cultural divide who are propagandizing it too.

For any propagandized position, there is an equal and opposite propagandized position. And probably also one involving aliens. None of which is relevant.

 

[Metaphor]

Nice try, but that is NOT what the new terrible wording states.

It does NOT state that it forbids the teaching [as truth] that X.

In effect, it forbids the INCLUSION of any concept that X.

Explain, specifically using the wording of the law, exactly how it does that.

A teacher/professor does not need to advocate for it to be true to INCLUDE it and so the law is WAY MORE RESTRICTIVE than you are trying to preach.

This is like the 3rd or 4th time you are making me write this because you guys keep pretending the law says something it doesn't.

Here once again are the ACTUAL words in the law:

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:

Not only is the language very restrictive, it is also untested and unexplained.

But I quoted the actual words already. Now I'll grant that it's "untested"--of course it is, it's a new law. But I don't find the language "unexplained".

What does it mean to REQUIRE something?

It means to "need something or make something necessary".

What does it mean to make something PART OF A COURSE?

It means it is taught in the course. For an obvious example, I was not taught about visual perception in my constitutional law class. Visual perception was taught in my visual perception class.

Saying anything at all about a concept technically makes it part of the course, for example.

No, it doesn't. But, let's say it does. Let's look at the first proscription: that one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex. Teaching that group X believed that race Y was inherently superior to race Z is not teaching that one race is inherently superior to another race. It is teaching about the history of beliefs about race. It is not teaching the concept that race Y is inherently superior to race Z.

Mentioning a concept could be interpreted as REQUIRING if you add in features of a class such as class participation and students feeling uncomfortable to discuss the concept. There are a host of judicial interpretations to be made in a Republican state.

Okay, let me get your pulse on 'mentioning' a concept.

Teacher A says "I think whites are inherently superior to blacks". That would, as far as I can see, violate the Oklahoma law. Is that a concept you are worried that teachers won't be able to express?

Further, and here's the kicker. You guys already have been engaging in hyperbole about all anti-racist efforts. You are already pretending that systemic racism means all white people are guilty. And so if a professor wants to bring up the concept of systemic racism but the prevailing view of conservatives in a conservative state is that systemic racism is a concept that makes all white people guilty, they cannot bring it up.

First, there are many systemic racism preachers who believe all white people are complicit in and benefit from racism. It is not an imagined accusation.

Second, unless that specific concept is taught, I cannot see how it would violate the law to talk about systemic racism. The law does not forbid talking about systemic racism. The law does not forbid making white people uncomfortable.

You've banned legitimate discussion from a legitimate curriculum.

*I* banned fuck nothing, but what I will say is the State does not need to pay a public teacher to teach that one race is superior to another.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Explain, specifically using the wording of the law, exactly how it does that.

HOLY SHIT, would you knock it off? This is like the tenth time you argue just to argue at every single sentence and so you argue against a sentence that is demonstrated later on in the post. Usually, you respond to the topic sentence of a paragraph and are like "oh yeah, prove it!" and last time you did that you snipped the whole fucking rest of the paragraph where I demonstrated the topic sentence. Now, you've at least not snipped the rest of the post but you've gone and written nonsensical contradictory things, PROVING my point! Wow. Next time, think before you post!

No, it doesn't.

Yes, it does.

But, let's say it does. Let's look at the first proscription: that one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex.

Okay, but you did NOT look at the first proscription. You quote-mined a clause without including the phrases before the clause. Then, you REPLACED those phrases with the phrase below (LOOK DOWN) "teaching":

Teaching that group X believed that race Y was inherently superior to race Z is not teaching that one race is inherently superior to another race. It is teaching about the history of beliefs about race. It is not teaching [<------- RIGHT HERE] the concept that race Y is inherently superior to race Z.

Once again, and this is now the 5th time between both threads that is not what the law states.

It states and I quote:

No teacher ... shall require or make part of a course the following concepts:

In other words, INCLUDE. A "teacher" is prohibited from INCLUDING a concept.

You are being sneaky, not merely changing the phrasing to "teach" but also taking advantage of two ways that _teaching_ something can appear to the reader.

If a person says, "The teacher taught us racism" then it sounds bad. And you are claiming in this bad sense the law is disallowing teachers from teaching racism.

This is different from another possible meaning of "The teacher taught us racism as an included concept in a lesson about racists who used racism."

and just to avoid any confusion about what possible way the authors could have meant "teach," I point out that the authors DID NOT USE THE WORD TEACH, but you keep repeating and repeating and repeating the canard that they did. Nope, the authors of the law did not use that word but instead "require or make part of a course."

So, if a teacher teaches ABOUT racists and INCLUDES the concept of racism which would be natural, it is illegal.*

*provided it meets other criteria that are discussed in other parts of the law.

Therefore, once again, it is proved that you guys keep changing the words of the law and they have different meaning than you are claiming.

Okay, let me get your pulse on 'mentioning' a concept.

Teacher A says "I think whites are inherently superior to blacks". That would, as far as I can see, violate the Oklahoma law. Is that a concept you are worried that teachers won't be able to express?

That's a strawman and you know it. A better example is one already given in the op about a current event such as for example George Floyd. If a teacher or professor mentions George Floyd and the topic of racism comes up from the students, the teacher will not be able to INCLUDE the concept of racism for analysis to see if the current event is compatible or not. Because in this case they would be making part of the course the concept that one race is superior to another.

Again.

First, there are many systemic racism preachers who believe all white people are complicit in and benefit from racism. It is not an imagined accusation.

Second, unless that specific concept is taught, I cannot see how it would violate the law to talk about systemic racism. The law does not forbid talking about systemic racism. The law does not forbid making white people uncomfortable.

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. If a teacher or professor discusses systemic racism, then there is a high risk they will be labeled as one of the bad ones who "believe all white people are complicit" AND/OR because certain conservative white people claimed they felt uncomfortable, they can claim the professor made as part of the course a concept that "any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race." Likewise, for a concept such as privilege, those persons who may think their histories have included privilege due to benefits given unfairly to their race, if they've benefited indirectly from ancestors or whatever, can claim it's an inference from the concept. And many conservatives and YOU have used such hyperbole and propaganda around these concepts that many judges or jurors might agree and even if they don't the concepts have the baggage now to claim it comes with them, even though the professor or teacher likely does not mean it that way.

*I* banned fuck nothing...

You as an individual did not ban something, but you as an individual are supporting this law and so I am including you in a __you (plural)___ because by supporting this law, you are now on their side. You didn't claim neutrality, which would be different. You didn't claim you were against it. You defended and supported it. You've been acting as an activist for many months which has helped gain political support for this to happen. So, you're on that side. You (plural) banned legitimate discussion from a legitimate curriculum. I stand by what I wrote.

If you don't like it then stop making statements like this:

...but what I will say is the State does not need to pay a public teacher to teach that one race is superior to another.

...because yet again you just changed the wording of the law as you keep doing over and over and over.

 

[Metaphor]

HOLY SHIT, would you knock it off? This is like the tenth time you argue just to argue at every single sentence and so you argue against a sentence that is demonstrated later on in the post. Usually, you respond to the topic sentence of a paragraph and are like "oh yeah, prove it!" and last time you did that you snipped the whole fucking rest of the paragraph where I demonstrated the topic sentence. Now, you've at least not snipped the rest of the post but you've gone and written nonsensical contradictory things, PROVING my point! Wow. Next time, think before you post!

I haven't written anything contradictory, but I'll wait for you to "prove" your point.

Okay, but you did NOT look at the first proscription. You quote-mined a clause without including the phrases before the clause. Then, you REPLACED those phrases with the phrase below (LOOK DOWN) "teaching"

It states and I quote:

No teacher ... shall require or make part of a course the following concepts:

In other words, INCLUDE. A "teacher" is prohibited from INCLUDING a concept.

Oy gevalt. Here are two different concepts:

Whites are inherently superior to blacks. (A)
Slave owners thought whites were inherently superior to blacks. (B)

(A) is the concept the Oklahoma law forbids from having in courses. (B) is a different concept and the Oklahoma law does not forbid it.

You are being sneaky, not merely changing the phrasing to "teach" but also taking advantage of two ways that _teaching_ something can appear to the reader.

I am not being sneaky. To be sneaky assumes you know my mind. You don't.

If a person says, "The teacher taught us racism" then it sounds bad. And you are claiming in this bad sense the law is disallowing teachers from teaching racism.

This is different from another possible meaning of "The teacher taught us racism as an included concept in a lesson about racists who used racism."

and just to avoid any confusion about what possible way the authors could have meant "teach," I point out that the authors DID NOT USE THE WORD TEACH, but you keep repeating and repeating and repeating the canard that they did. Nope, the authors of the law did not use that word but instead "require or make part of a course."

Whites are inherently superior to blacks (A).
Slave owners thought whites were inherently superior to blacks (B).

Those are different concepts. (A) is forbidden. (B) is not.

So, if a teacher teaches ABOUT racists and INCLUDES the concept of racism which would be natural, it is illegal.*

*provided it meets other criteria that are discussed in other parts of the law.

I disagree for the reasons already given.

Therefore, once again, it is proved that you guys keep changing the words of the law and they have different meaning than you are claiming.

"It is proved". Gospa moja.

That's a strawman and you know it. A better example is one already given in the op about a current event such as for example George Floyd. If a teacher or professor mentions George Floyd and the topic of racism comes up from the students, the teacher will not be able to INCLUDE the concept of racism for analysis to see if the current event is compatible or not. Because in this case they would be making part of the course the concept that one race is superior to another.

No. They are including the concept "some people think whites are inherently superior to blacks". That is a different concept to "whites are inherently superior to blacks".

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. If a teacher or professor discusses systemic racism, then there is a high risk they will be labeled as one of the bad ones who "believe all white people are complicit" AND/OR because certain conservative white people claimed they felt uncomfortable, they can claim the professor made as part of the course a concept that "any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race."

I am not talking out of both sides of my mouth. If a teacher "included the concept" that a student should feel guilt because of their race, the law forbids it. If a teacher talks about systemic racism but does not include the concept that a student should feel guilt because of it (by, for example, not saying 'you should feel guilty' or including texts that say 'you should feel guilty', they haven't violated the law.

Likewise, for a concept such as privilege, those persons who may think their histories have included privilege due to benefits given unfairly to their race, if they've benefited indirectly from ancestors or whatever, can claim it's an inference from the concept. And many conservatives and YOU have used such hyperbole and propaganda around these concepts that many judges or jurors might agree and even if they don't the concepts have the baggage now to claim it comes with them, even though the professor or teacher likely does not mean it that way.

It is not hyperbole to observe and report facts. Gospa moja.

You as an individual did not ban something, but you as an individual are supporting this law

I didn't even say I supported it. I just said it does not say or imply what you think.

and so I am including you in a __you (plural)___ because by supporting this law, you are now on their side.

I didn't say I supported it. Now, here's the thing. I support the banning of a public school teacher saying to students "whites are inherently superior to blacks". I understand you think this law is badly worded and bans too much with the wording 'including the concept'. If you are right, would you support what would amount to a more carefully worded law that does ban teachers teaching that whites are inherently superior to blacks?

You didn't claim neutrality, which would be different. You didn't claim you were against it. You defended and supported it.

Non. I said the law didn't say what you thought it said. I do support the idea of banning public school teachers from teaching "whites are inherently superior to blacks". I understand you think this law either doesn't do that, or in doing that itgrossly oversteps because of how badly it is worded.

You've been acting as an activist for many months which has helped gain political support for this to happen. So, you're on that side. You (plural) banned legitimate discussion from a legitimate curriculum. I stand by what I wrote.

I did nothing of the kind. What I write on a members-only message board to people who are mostly diametrically opposed to me and my ideas didn't influence fuck no legislator fuck nowhere.

If you don't like it then stop making statements like this:

...but what I will say is the State does not need to pay a public teacher to teach that one race is superior to another.

...because yet again you just changed the wording of the law as you keep doing over and over and over.

I didn't change the wording of any law anywhere. I said I support the State banning a public teacher from teaching that one race is superior to another, and if the Oklahoma law in question is not suited to doing that, I support repealing it and replacing it with a law that is more suitable.

 

[Bomb#20]

"Altered" from what the employee wanted to say back to what the employee was hired to say.

The instructor was hired before the law was enacted and was teaching that course before the law was passed, so you are factually incorrect.

You're applying the wrong baseline. I somehow doubt she was hired in 2015 to teach the 2015 curriculum in perpetuity. She was presumably hired with the expectation that she'd teach the 2015 curriculum in 2015, and the 2016 curriculum in 2016, and so forth. If a teacher were to teach the 2020 curriculum in 2021 instead of teaching the 2021 curriculum in 2021, that would be an alteration of what she says in 2021 from what she was hired to say in 2021.

 

[laughing dog]

"Altered" from what the employee wanted to say back to what the employee was hired to say.

The instructor was hired before the law was enacted and was teaching that course before the law was passed, so you are factually incorrect.

You're applying the wrong baseline. I somehow doubt she was hired in 2015 to teach the 2015 curriculum in perpetuity. She was presumably hired with the expectation that she'd teach the 2015 curriculum in 2015, and the 2016 curriculum in 2016, and so forth. If a teacher were to teach the 2020 curriculum in 2021 instead of teaching the 2021 curriculum in 2021, that would be an alteration of what she says in 2021 from what she was hired to say in 2021.

No, I am applying how courses are constructed and taught in institutions of higher learning. In most institutions of higher learning, professors create their own curriculum within the context of the course description or learning outcomes. In fact, to my knowledge, in most institutions of higher learning, the professor is treated as a professional with standards and given latitude on how a course is conducted.

The notion that elected politicians are setting standards for what should or should not be taught in classrooms ought to appall any rational thinker.

 

[Bomb#20]

The notion that elected politicians are setting standards for what should or should not be taught in classrooms ought to appall any rational thinker.

God forbid that the legislative branch should use power of the purse as a check on the authority of the executive branch. If that sort of thing is allowed to continue it's a slippery slope: the next thing you know the King will have to go hat in hand to Parliament when he wants a tax increase. The rational mind recoils in horror!

 

[laughing dog]

The notion that elected politicians are setting standards for what should or should not be taught in classrooms ought to appall any rational thinker.

God forbid that the legislative branch should use power of the purse as a check on the authority of the executive branch. If that sort of thing is allowed to continue it's a slippery slope: the next thing you know the King will have to go hat in hand to Parliament when he wants a tax increase.

I certainly can appreciate why you would think that elected officials should stifle speech in the classroom.

The rational mind recoils in horror!

You have no basis to make that claim.

 

[Jarhyn]

I certainly can appreciate why you would think that elected officials should stifle speech in the classroom.

The rational mind recoils in horror!

You have no basis to make that claim.

Why? Does it begin with an A, end with an M, and somewhere in the middle include the letters "uthoritarian fascis"?

 

[Trausti]

I certainly can appreciate why you would think that elected officials should stifle speech in the classroom.

School attendance is compulsory. What sort of free speech do imagine exists with elementary students? They just accept whatever they’re told; it’s why all the illiberal ideologies target the young.

 

[laughing dog]

I certainly can appreciate why you would think that elected officials should stifle speech in the classroom.

School attendance is compulsory.

That is untrue in the context of the discussion about community college courses.

What sort of free speech do imagine exists with elementary students? They just accept whatever they’re told; it’s why all the illiberal ideologies target the young.

First, elementary students do not necessarily accept whatever they are told.

Second, and more importantly, if what you claim is true, then it is true whatever the state of Oklahoma mandates. So you are fine with whatever the state of Oklahoma mandates as long as you agree with the mandate - a very illiberal view - or you really have no point to make.

 

[Bomb#20]

Probably?

Who are you asking, me?

No, I was not asking anyone.

So why did you end your reply to my question with a question mark? Did you think this is Jeopardy, or do you just have a mortal fear of giving straight answers?

Seems improbable to me.

That's an odd opinion.

Doesn't matter, since you say you weren't asking my opinion.

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.

That's a very weird comment to make.

My point was that your expressed concern -- "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." -- is a loony scenario to base decisions on because it's such a remote possibility. The vastly more probable scenario to be concerned about is the tremendous financial risk to the school created by teaching the idea of privilege non-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."

...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?

Jesus Christ. Calm down, stop with the coffee or getting triggered or anxiety or whatever it is that made you write 3 paragraphs to a simple sentence including phrases like "character assassination." WOW! Just chelax.

Well, that was your point when you wrote the words 'So much for "free speech advocates."', wasn't it? You were impugning the character of any people responsible for the Oklahoma law who regard themselves as pro-free-speech, weren't you? You were accusing them of hypocrisy, weren't you? But you don't have a case for making that accusation -- if you had a case, then you wouldn't keep ducking my question about a teacher teaching the Noah's Ark myth as fact. So you were impugning people's character without having a case against them. Looks like character assassination to me.

Okay, now that you are calmed down, it's just a simple conclusion that looking at your anecdote one could make and that is that discrimination may be an exception to political free speech. That can be the heart of the controversy in the anecdote to some people. And some people may agree or disagree whether free speech or discrimination matter more in what contexts or if it's even a free speech issue or a discrimination issue.

My opinion on free speech is very complicated and my mention of it in the thread title is not to define or to try to define it in this thread, only instead to point out the logical inconsistency that is driven by over-simplification. Therefore, you will not get a simple yes or no from me. Too bad.

It's one thing to say it should be okay to stifle free speech when the speech is defined to be discriminatory; it's quite another to say that whether free speech is in fact being stifled depends on whether it's defined as discriminatory. The latter is just another way to say "'Free' means people being allowed to do what I want; it has nothing to do with whether they're allowed to do what they want." There is nothing in the historical record to suggest that when the First Amendment was enacted, discriminatory speech was one of the sorts of speech such as soliciting murder-for-hire that were understood not to be the sorts of speech that "freedom of speech" referred to.

I will continue to point out the inconsistencies, however, such as in another thread calling it free speech for a professor to say discriminatory things about trans persons in a classroom. Some of the same persons support that, but oppose discrimination in your case, and then support canceling "free speech" of the professor in the op.

Whom are you referring to? If you're talking about me, in the first place, it is not discriminatory to decline to refer to an individual as "they"; that's a trumped-up charge based on religious fantasy. And in the second place, the law requiring such usage that I described as a violation of free speech was a law a government was applying to private workplaces, not a requirement it was imposing only on its own employees. If you think you can point out an actual inconsistency in one of your opponents' positions X and Y, as opposed to an inconsistency between your own invented overgeneralization of X and your own invented overgeneralization of Y, have at it.

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

No, I don't. You just chose specifically to be silent on the huge issue of the thread

Huh? The legislation being "to stifle free speech" isn't the huge issue of the thread? If that's not the huge issue of the thread, then why did you put that in your thread title?

So what is the huge issue of the thread? The other thing in your title, "Anti-anti-racist legislation"? Sorry, my bad -- I will stop being silent on that issue. No, the legislation in Oklahoma is not "Anti-anti-racist legislation". It's anti-racist legislation. The Oklahoma legislators evidently regard CRT as discriminatory speech, and clearly intended their law to obstruct racists from using the Oklahoma public education system to teach Oklahoma students to be racist against white people.

and instead to divert the responsibility of propagandists to a brainwashed conservative base and so I wanted to point out what you were in fact doing. Knowingly.

Not sure how I could "knowingly" be doing whatever it is you're describing with that word salad.

... as a rhetorical tactic to draw attention away from weaknesses in your arguments.

That is some weird mind-reading you have going on. There isn't a weakness in my "argument." It would be great, if you could try to imagine you are not in a debate, too, with debaters presenting arguments against each other, getting involved in "character assassination," and pretending to do mind-reading in order to...well, whatever. Why are you trying to present a knowingly false reading of my mind again? It's weird.

What's weird is you complaining about mind-reading in the same sentence where you tell me what I know. It's always possible I said something wrong about you, but I did not do so knowingly. You are making a baseless trumped-up false accusation against me with reckless disregard for the truth, and, to all appearances, with malice.

That being said, there's also a legitimate, more nuanced free speech point to be made since the Oklahoma Constitution does not support the way this law has been constructed.

Do tell. Did you read your own OP? The Oklahoma law in fact does not interfere in any way with Oklahoma City Community College making that course available to its students. The administrators had no reason to think they needed to cancel or "pause" the course. There's nothing in the text of the law to stop a college lecturer from teaching "about White privilege", or from teaching about CRT, or from teaching that CRT is correct, or even from flat out telling her students that white people collectively bear a blood-taint due to their collective guilt over the unparalleled crimes of the white race. To quote your own OP:

it essentially revokes any ability to teach critical race theory, including discussions of white privilege, from required courses in Oklahoma​

You do understand the meaning of the word "required", don't you? All the OCCC needed to do if they wanted to keep teaching that course was make it optional.

So explain to me how there's also a legitimate, more nuanced free speech point to be made since the Oklahoma Constitution does not support the way this law has been constructed. Explain to me how the Oklahoma Constitution says "free speech" means college students have no right to absent themselves from whatever bloody thing their professors feel like indoctrinating them with.

we aren't talking about "some taxpayers" but about a democracy's elected representatives of the majority;

Who are not making laws in good faith because they're engaging in shenanigans.

Show your work. Show they don't sincerely believe CRT is what they think it is.

Be that as it may, your characterization of my position as "so long as some taxpayers disagree" was a baseless misrepresentation.

...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 --

wtf

...there are after all plenty of folks on the other side of the cultural divide who are propagandizing it too.

For any propagandized position, there is an equal and opposite propagandized position. And probably also one involving aliens. None of which is relevant.

Of course it's relevant: to the correctness of your claim that the reason the taxpayers don't actually know the content of the speech is because those government officials are propagandizing it. The taxpayers wouldn't know the content of the speech regardless of whether those government officials propagandized it, so your claim of causality fails.

 

[Bomb#20]

God forbid that the legislative branch should use power of the purse as a check on the authority of the executive branch. If that sort of thing is allowed to continue it's a slippery slope: the next thing you know the King will have to go hat in hand to Parliament when he wants a tax increase.

I certainly can appreciate why you would think that elected officials should stifle speech in the classroom.

The rational mind recoils in horror!

You have no basis to make that claim.

Not sure what to make of your reply, but it kind of looks like you're sarcasm-impaired. Let's try this again...

The notion that elected politicians are setting standards for what should or should not be taught in classrooms ought to appall any rational thinker.

If the legislature declines to set standards for what should or should not be taught in classrooms, then that just means the Governor will be setting standards for what should or should not be taught in classrooms. If the Governor and Senate both decline to set standards in detail, then that just means they're setting the standards to "Whatever the Chancellor and Regents we appoint choose". Not to decide is to decide. Moreover, the Chancellor whom those elected politicians chose to run their education system is Glen Johnson, who is a former Speaker of the Oklahoma House of Representatives. If the elected politician Glen Johnson and the other appointed Regents decline to set standards in detail, that just means they're setting the standards to "Whatever the college Governing Boards the Governor appoints choose". Not to decide is to decide. If a college's Governing Board declines to set standards in detail, that just means it's setting the standards to "Whatever the faculty chooses".

It's only at this point that there can be a fundamental change from a system where elected politicians are setting standards for what should or should not be taught in classrooms, because it's only at this point that the personnel making the decision could potentially stop being appointed by elected politicians. If what is taught in classrooms is chosen by the faculty, and if who is on the faculty is decided by a tenure committee, and if who gets added to the tenure committee is decided by the tenure committee itself, then what we have deciding what should be taught in classrooms is a self-perpetuating body accountable only to itself. The self-perpetuating body does whatever it pleases, sends the bills to the people, and the people have no say in what their money is spent on. The role of the people in a democracy is apparently to tug their forelocks, say "Yes, your Lordship", and pay the amount assessed. This, I take it, is how you feel a system should be set up in order not to appall any rational thinker, correct?

There's a word for the practice of requiring the public to financially support a system of meme propagation that's supervised by a self-selecting and self-perpetuating association of meme propagators who are not accountable to the public that pays their bills for the content of the memes they propagate.

"Tithing".

 

[laughing dog]

Not sure what to make of your reply, but it kind of looks like you're sarcasm-impaired.

Nope. Look closely at what I was actually replying to.

If the legislature declines to set standards for what should or should not be taught in classrooms, then that just means the Governor will be setting standards for what should or should not be taught in classrooms.....

Your fantasies are not terribly entertaining or edifying.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

And after substantial gaslighting from right-wingers trying to defend the new laws, we now can observe what the new laws are doing. So, for example, in another thread about CRT, there is now a discussion about how the Karen group called Moms for Liberty is trying to stifle free speech. It is exactly as predicted.

 

[Trausti]

And after substantial gaslighting from right-wingers trying to defend the new laws, we now can observe what the new laws are doing. So, for example, in another thread about CRT, there is now a discussion about how the Karen group called Moms for Liberty is trying to stifle free speech. It is exactly as predicted.

Eh? What free speech? Compulsory education makes other people’s children a captive audience. Does the religious fundamentalist teacher also get free speech to preach the true religion to other people’s captive children? That’s the issue.

 

[Bomb#20]

Eh? What free speech? Compulsory education makes other people’s children a captive audience. Does the religious fundamentalist teacher also get free speech to preach the true religion to other people’s captive children? That’s the issue.

"also"?!?