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

[Elixir]

Eh? What free speech? Compulsory education makes other people’s children a captive audience.

The word "compulsory" is extraneous here. I guess it does serve to take the spotlight off conservatives' antipathy toward education, though.

Does the religious fundamentalist teacher also get free speech to preach the true religion to other people’s captive children? That’s the issue.

Yup. In fact, even agnostic teachers were, when I went to grade school, compelled to force kids to recite "one nation, under God, blah blah blah wishful lies".

 

[TomC]

Compulsory education makes other people’s children a captive audience.

That's not true.

My parents both paid for the local public school system and also paid tuition at schools they considered better for their kids' education.

Education is compulsory, but public schooling is not. My siblings and I weren't a captive audience of anybody my parents didn't approve.
Tom

 

[Trausti]

Eh? What free speech? Compulsory education makes other people’s children a captive audience.

The word "compulsory" is extraneous here. I guess it does serve to take the spotlight off conservatives' antipathy toward education, though.

Does the religious fundamentalist teacher also get free speech to preach the true religion to other people’s captive children? That’s the issue.

Yup. In fact, even agnostic teachers were, when I went to grade school, compelled to force kids to recite "one nation, under God, blah blah blah wishful lies".

A teacher does not have free speech in the classroom; no more than a police officer has free speech to wear a political symbol while on the clock. But then again, it's no secret that authoritarians are always after other people's children.

 

[Trausti]

Compulsory education makes other people’s children a captive audience.

That's not true.

My parents both paid for the local public school system and also paid tuition at schools they considered better for their kids' education.

Education is compulsory, but public schooling is not. My siblings and I weren't a captive audience of anybody my parents didn't approve.
Tom

If the state required Elixir's children to be a captive audience to Jerry Falwell, Jr., methinks Elixir would understand a parent's objections.

 

[laughing dog]

The word "compulsory" is extraneous here. I guess it does serve to take the spotlight off conservatives' antipathy toward education, though.



Yup. In fact, even agnostic teachers were, when I went to grade school, compelled to force kids to recite "one nation, under God, blah blah blah wishful lies".

A teacher does not have free speech in the classroom; no more than a police officer has free speech to wear a political symbol while on the clock. But then again, it's no secret that authoritarians are always after other people's children.

I didn't realize you consider yourself an authoritarian.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

So, are you for or against compulsory education?

 

[Bomb#20]

Compulsory education makes other people’s children a captive audience.

That's not true.

My parents both paid for the local public school system and also paid tuition at schools they considered better for their kids' education.

Education is compulsory, but public schooling is not. My siblings and I weren't a captive audience of anybody my parents didn't approve.
Tom

That isn't actually evidence against Trausti's claim. Children whose parents can't afford to pay tuition to private schools also count as other people’s children.

 

[TomC]

Compulsory education makes other people’s children a captive audience.

That's not true.

My parents both paid for the local public school system and also paid tuition at schools they considered better for their kids' education.

Education is compulsory, but public schooling is not. My siblings and I weren't a captive audience of anybody my parents didn't approve.
Tom

That isn't actually evidence against Trausti's claim. Children whose parents can't afford to pay tuition to private schools also count as other people’s children.

That wasn't the claim I was responding to. It was the one I quoted.
Tom

 

[Bomb#20]

That isn't actually evidence against Trausti's claim. Children whose parents can't afford to pay tuition to private schools also count as other people’s children.

That wasn't the claim I was responding to. It was the one I quoted.
Tom

And the one you quoted is the one I said your counter-argument isn't evidence against. Compulsory education makes the children of people who can't afford private school a captive audience. That counts as compulsory education making other people’s children a captive audience -- it's not as though Trausti said compulsory education makes all other people’s children a captive audience.

The point is, free-speech rights don't entitle you to say whatever you please to a captive audience of children without their parents' consent. Pointing to half the class and saying "Well, those kids' parents are rich enough to remove them so I have their consent." doesn't mean you aren't preaching at the other half without their parents' consent. If we've democratically decided to have government make poor children show up and be lectured at whether their parents are okay with it or not, then we're going to have democratic oversight on the content of the lectures; the lecturers' free-speech rights don't enter into it.

Conversely, a lecturer has the free-speech right to say whatever he pleases on his own time to his own kid and to the kids of all who freely choose to send their kids to him for indoctrination.

 

[laughing dog]

That isn't actually evidence against Trausti's claim. Children whose parents can't afford to pay tuition to private schools also count as other people’s children.

That wasn't the claim I was responding to. It was the one I quoted.
Tom

And the one you quoted is the one I said your counter-argument isn't evidence against. Compulsory education makes the children of people who can't afford private school a captive audience. That counts as compulsory education making other people’s children a captive audience -- it's not as though Trausti said compulsory education makes all other people’s children a captive audience.

Compulsory education makes all children a captive audience. The fact that one might approve of the education is immaterial. As an aside, I seriously doubt that anyone approves of everything a child is taught at school - public or private. Education is a bundle of different ideas and processes - it is not like a a bag of potato chips. I know plenty of parents who did not approve of everything taught in the private school they choose for their children.

 

[TomC]

Compulsory education makes all children a captive audience.

All children are a captive audience of their parents. That's my point. Parents aren't even compelled to enroll their children in any school at all.
Tom

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Conservatives: "TEACHERS ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY ARE TEACHING THAT WHITE KIDS ARE OPPRESSORS!!!1111one1! OUR OVERLORDS NEED TO MAKE NEW LAWS ON THE BOOKS TO REMOVE CERTAIN TOPICS FROM DISCUSSION! Also, we need to burn some specific books over here."

Democrats: "The legislation is too vague and too broad such that it infringes too much on speech and education. For example, the provision that if something is divisive or makes people feel bad leads to unverifiable claims and exaggeration that all become substantiated because they are subjective. Another example is that racist concepts cannot even be mentioned in the classroom and so students cannot learn to examine current events critically to analyze whether they are consistent with such concepts."

Libertarians: "It is the function of government to control public education. So, it's okay."

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

"Moms for Liberty" group demands schools ban books with "sexy" pictures of seahorses
A far-right group in Williamson County, Tennessee, is demanding schools censor a number of books and subjects

n Friday, The Daily Beast reported that a far-right group in Williamson County, Tennessee, is demanding schools censor a number of books and subjects — including an unusual demand regarding pictures of marine life.

"Registering its website in late 2020, the group 'Moms For Liberty' is one of a series of conservative education groups to spring up in the wake of 2020's racial justice protests," reported Kelly Weill. "The group is currently involved in battles against in-school mask mandates, as well as a particularly heated fight over school books in Tennessee's Williamson County."

Among their demands are that lessons about Martin Luther King, Jr. and Ruby Bridges be cut for being divisive, lessons about civil rights crackdowns be cut for "negative views of firemen and police," and lessons about Galileo be revised for being too anti-church. The story of Johnny Appleseed was also condemned as "sad and dark," Greek and Roman mythology for depicting the goddess Venus naked, and textbooks explaining the effects of hurricanes as too violent for first graders.

But one of the oddest crusades of the group is against a children's picture book on seahorses, which they believe, according to Weill, "is too sexy."

"MFL's Williamson County chapter also takes issue with a picture book about seahorses, in part because it depicted 'mating seahorses with pictures of postions [sic] and discussion of the male carrying the eggs,'" said the report. "The Daily Beast reviewed the text in question via a children's story time YouTube channel. Readers looking for a Kama Sutra of seahorse sex will be disappointed. Sea Horse: The Shyest Fish In The Sea contains nothing more risqué than watercolor illustrations of two seahorses holding tails or touching bellies (never — heavens — at the same time)."

 

[Keith&Co.]

Moms for Liberty" group demands schools ban books with "sexy" pictures of seahorses

is this like the disbarred lawyer using the Texas abortion lawsuit to fight the Texas abortion ban?
Are they hoping their idiocy will be taken to court and the too-vague law overturned?

Gosh golly i would like to think so... But my faith in humans is so low as it is...

 

[Bomb#20]

Compulsory education makes all children a captive audience.

laughing dog pipes up to say he agrees with me...

T: Compulsory education makes other people’s children a captive audience.

TC: That's not true. My parents both paid for the local public school system and also paid tuition at schools they considered better... My siblings and I weren't a captive audience of anybody my parents didn't approve.

B20: Compulsory education makes the children of people who can't afford private school a captive audience.

ld: Compulsory education makes all children a captive audience.​

...and some people claim miracles don't happen.

 

[Bomb#20]

Compulsory education makes all children a captive audience.

All children are a captive audience of their parents. That's my point. Parents aren't even compelled to enroll their children in any school at all.
Tom

Compulsory education makes the children of other people who can't afford private school and don't have the free time to homeschool because they have to work for a living or aren't allowed to homeschool because they didn't graduate from high school a captive audience.

 

[laughing dog]

Compulsory education makes all children a captive audience.

laughing dog pipes up to say he agrees with me...

T: Compulsory education makes other people’s children a captive audience.

TC: That's not true. My parents both paid for the local public school system and also paid tuition at schools they considered better... My siblings and I weren't a captive audience of anybody my parents didn't approve.

B20: Compulsory education makes the children of people who can't afford private school a captive audience.

ld: Compulsory education makes all children a captive audience.​

...and some people claim miracles don't happen.

You missed the point again. My point, that Trausti and you seem to miss is that compulsory education makes all children a captive audience. That means children of parents who cannot afford to send their children to private school, and the children of parents who can afford to send their children to private school. And, as Tom C points, out, the first group includes home schooling. So, complaining about a perceived curriculum in public (i.e. compulsory) education is really simply special pleading or just another example of shallow conservative "thinking" or just a complaint against education.

Just to be clear, I do not agree with any of those three complaints.

 

[TomC]

Compulsory education makes all children a captive audience.

All children are a captive audience of their parents. That's my point. Parents aren't even compelled to enroll their children in any school at all.
Tom

Compulsory education makes the children of other people who can't afford private school and don't have the free time to homeschool because they have to work for a living or aren't allowed to homeschool because they didn't graduate from high school a captive audience.

People investing their time, effort, and resources into things other than their children's education doesn't mean that the children are a captive audience.
That's what I keep saying. The children are not a captive audience of the school corporations, they are a captive audience of their parents.
Tom

 

[TomC]

My point, that Trausti and you seem to miss is that compulsory education makes all children a captive audience.

It's flat out false to claim that children are a captive audience of the public school system.
Tom

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Compulsory education makes all children a captive audience.

laughing dog pipes up to say he agrees with me...

T: Compulsory education makes other people’s children a captive audience.

TC: That's not true. My parents both paid for the local public school system and also paid tuition at schools they considered better... My siblings and I weren't a captive audience of anybody my parents didn't approve.

B20: Compulsory education makes the children of people who can't afford private school a captive audience.

ld: Compulsory education makes all children a captive audience.​

...and some people claim miracles don't happen.

There are a couple of nuances that a literalist would likely overlook. So while I agree that compulsory education is required to children thus making them "captive" it doesn't exactly carry the same meaning when Trausti says it. When Trausti says it, he is engaging in reactionary political activism and so he means that _other_ families have to learn your views, i.e. education is always discriminating against someone; education has a liberal bias, yada yada yada. Meanwhile, knowing LD, I'd say he is being more precise and literal and means exactly how it sounds, that children have to learn the required content of the education. Trausti's statement is making some claim of bias and victimization, while LD's statement is objectively neutral.

Well that's nuance#1. Nuance#2, well, my sister, if she had really wanted to, would not have been able to afford private school for her kids. She did not want to send them to public school. So she homeschooled them. So because people cannot afford private school, it does not necessarily follow that they then have to bring their children to public school since there is a third option of homeschooling.

So next, can people who can't afford it, just have their kids homeschooled? Let's not forget that the parent doesn't have to be the one doing it, parents can kind of pool together and do homeschooling, if some have to work or whatever. I've heard of poor religious people doing this. Trying to argue about whether SOME people who can't afford it have the practical reality that they are FORCED into sending their kids to public schools is something that I could conceivably agree with, but won't explicitly say it because I think it's an interesting thing for conservatives to suddenly argue. Conservatives (and libertarians who are completely different) often make arguments in favor of for-profit corporations and say things like "well, if workers don't like it, they can just start their own companies!" So the idea that there is a practical reality of life and many variables affecting people's outcomes so that they are practically forced into something is often disingenuously argued against by these right-wing types. It will be interesting to hear the response to this.