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

[Lumpenproletariat]

There must be a way to distinguish fact from non-fact.

("non-fact" = theory/interpretation/propaganda/superstition/fiction/mob rule)


"The Truth" cannot be simply whatever those in power choose to impose onto the rest of us.

Make it illegal for the teacher to propagandize, such as saying "America is a racist country," etc. Teach only the facts, not theories about race or "social justice" etc.

Theories are facts.

Then you can give no reason why Creationism should not be taught in public schools. You cannot explain why someone's religious or superstitious beliefs should not be taught as long as they're popular, or as long as they're the sentiments of those in power or of the individual school teacher imposing his/her personal religious beliefs (or anti-religious beliefs).

Facts are part of some propaganda.

So what? Why can't the public schools be limited to teaching only the facts, without the propaganda or religion or theory or personal beliefs that are not verified?

Don't our courts distinguish between the facts and the beliefs/theories when they resolve a case by having a jury decide on a verdict?

If a school teacher says George Floyd or Michael Brown was "murdered," is that propaganda or fact?

answer:

"George Floyd was murdered" = fact
"Michael Brown was murdered" = propaganda (and thus not permitted)

(This doesn't mean Society establishes the truth, through its infallible institutions, but rather it judges what the truth is (as best as possible), and all those serving as society's agents must conform to society's judgment/determination of what the truth is.)

The disagreement over what constitutes a fact is PART of modern propaganda.

You're saying a "disagreement" is propaganda?

Or you mean "what constitutes a fact" is also propaganda? You mean propaganda also must be taught, without any possibility of distinguishing it from fact?

You're just saying that whoever is in power is entitled to impose whatever they wish onto the population, onto all school kids, with no way to judge what is appropriate to teach. So it's never appropriate to question what is being taught -- so it's OK for schools to impose religion or racism or superstitions onto kids if those in power choose to do so. Because facts and science cannot be distinguished from doubtful beliefs being imposed.

If a history teacher could prove objectively that the racism that was (incidentally) baked into the US constitution from the beginning is still affecting the American government, its agents, or merely a good chunk of its populace, that FACT would qualify as "propaganda" to you and any other dimwit in the age of Trump.

No, if that teacher can prove it to recognized scientists/experts so that 90+ percent of experts agree, like 90+ percent of scientists recognize climate change, then it would not be propaganda.

But if that teacher is preaching that "America is a racist country" without first proving it to recognized experts who can judge whether it's true, or to a "jury" of some kind which is recognized by society, then it's propaganda rather than fact.

That teacher alone is not entitled to establish what the facts are and preach his personal sentiments, even if he claims it's fact. That teacher alone, or his private club of crusaders, are not the ones who decide for society what the facts are.

These days "alternative facts" are a popular buzzword which, might I remind you was coined and originally used without a hint of sarcasm.

The concept of "alternative facts" has been around for centuries and was not invented by any one person at a recent press conference. It is applied both seriously -- as meaning non-mainline versions of the truth which might really be correct -- as well as sarcastically to characterize someone's propaganda or distortion of the truth. It has been applied sarcastically to religious cults and to Communists and Nazis, who invent their own facts in order to convert and/or control people ("brainwashing"), but also to legitimate truth-seekers who question the standard social myths.

In both cases those promoting their "alternative" facts are obligated to submit their facts to a process of questioning ("vetting"?), such as happens in a jury trial, before they are entitled to impose their facts onto society, such as a teacher imposes his/her facts onto students in a classroom. But the NON-alternative facts which have already been established may be imposed without additional examination.

Your proposition is ridiculous but primarily because the current political environment is ridiculous.

No, the opposite is the case: Because the current political environment is "ridiculous" (or unusually contentious), some extreme measures are necessary in order to resolve some of the conflicts. There is no other way to fix the problem of renegade teachers propagandizing in the classroom than to have their class sessions recorded in order to determine exactly what they said, and then correct them when they are caught promoting their personal beliefs/propaganda/crusade rather than the facts.

To say this cannot be done is equivalent to saying we cannot distinguish Creationism from proper science teaching.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Critical race theory is not being taught in primary and secondary schools in the country.

From the Harriet T and Ida B Gun Club and Sewing Circle this is me and I'm jessayin'.

 

[laughing dog]

I should add, there are only two reasons I can think of for why a college would choose to cancel a required course when it has the option of making it an elective:

1. The professor or administration wants to trick the public into thinking the law requires substantial changes to the class.

2. The professor or administration thinks if the class is elective then too few students will sign up for it to make teaching it worth the effort.

Can anybody think of a third alternative?

How about the substantial required changes in the curriculum
1) could not be accomplished before the start of the class, or
2) would be viewed as bait and switch by the students?

But that's my point: there are no substantial required changes. The law doesn't require any changes to the class at all. From DDR's link in the OP:

"A. 1. No enrolled student of an institution of higher
education within The Oklahoma State System of Higher Education shall
be required to engage in any form of mandatory gender or sexual
diversity training or counseling; provided, voluntary counseling
shall not be prohibited. Any orientation or requirement that
presents any form of race or sex stereotyping or a bias on the basis
of race or sex shall be prohibited."​

How on earth does that require the school to change the curriculum at all? Note the words "required" and "mandatory". If the class referenced in the OP was at risk of being classified as diversity training, or was accused of presenting race or sex stereotyping or bias, what of it? The law doesn't require the college to change the class; it only requires the college to let students opt out. There's no difficulty accomplishing that before the start of the class; all it takes is the flick of a Bic. If the course description booklet has already been printed, if students have already signed up, whoop de doo. Tape a hand-lettered note to the door of the classroom saying it's been recategorized from required to elective.

You asked
" why a college would choose to cancel a required course when it has the option of making it an elective"
I gave two alternatives that you dismiss because
1) the course is not required, or
2) the law does not require a change but an opt out.

Well, if course is not required, then your question was moot.

While the law does not require the curriculum to be changed, resources and time are limited then it may make sense to cancel the class to restructure it so that students will not opt out. The notion that students can opt out and necessarily find something else to take in this era of dramatic under-funding of higher education is fanciful.

Moreover, I can also see how a publicity-adverse college administrator might wish to avoid any negative publicity stemming from some snowflake conservative moron who makes a stink some delusional claim of "CRT" in the course which may then adversely affect future state funding from the enligthened OK legislative Einsteins.

 

[TomC]

But if that teacher is preaching that "America is a racist country" without first proving it to recognized experts who can judge whether it's true, or to a "jury" of some kind which is recognized by society, then it's propaganda rather than fact.

This is an awkward example for you to use.

"America is a racist country" is a fact as well established as "The sky is blue". Our society was founded on race based slavery and genocide. The Founders protected black slavery and regularly employed genocide against indigenous people. This continued through nearly all of our history.
Things have improved greatly during the last few decades, but the repercussions of our history of vicious racism are nowhere near gone. The counter claim "America is Not a racist country" is to demonstrate an incredible lack of understanding of the USA and historical illiteracy.

These are facts. Like it or not.
Tom

 

[zorq]

("non-fact" = theory/interpretation/propaganda/superstition/fiction/mob rule)
"The Truth" cannot be simply whatever those in power choose to impose onto the rest of us.
Then you can give no reason why Creationism should not be taught in public schools. You cannot explain why someone's religious or superstitious beliefs should not be taught as long as they're popular, or as long as they're the sentiments of those in power or of the individual school teacher imposing his/her personal religious beliefs (or anti-religious beliefs).

Then you can give no reason why the Theory of Relativity SHOULD be taught in public schools. Theories are facts and it is perhaps your mistake to use the word as an antonym when it simply isn't.

Facts are part of some propaganda.

So what? Why can't the public schools be limited to teaching only the facts, without the propaganda or religion or theory or personal beliefs that are not verified?
Don't our courts distinguish between the facts and the beliefs/theories when they resolve a case by having a jury decide on a verdict?

You want there to be a trial with a jury every time a concerned parent complains about teachers saying things that they don't like? This is an expensive solution to what is a very minor problem.
Also, judges and juries are asked to weigh the evidence, but that does not indicate that they are in fact true. Pop quiz: When the US Supreme Court comes to a conclusion they publish documents to which each justice may attach their signature indicating their approval, When one of these documents attracts the majority of the court, it becomes legal precedent enforceable in all Federal courts. What is are these documents called? Answer: Opinions.

If a school teacher says George Floyd or Michael Brown was "murdered," is that propaganda or fact?

answer:

"George Floyd was murdered" = fact
"Michael Brown was murdered" = propaganda (and thus not permitted)

(This doesn't mean Society establishes the truth, through its infallible institutions, but rather it judges what the truth is (as best as possible), and all those serving as society's agents must conform to society's judgment/determination of what the truth is.)

Here it sounds like you are starting to recognize just how murky the difference between opinion and fact is. Truth established by committee is a very troublesome concept considering how many examples of corrupt committees and juries I can point to.

The disagreement over what constitutes a fact is PART of modern propaganda.

You're saying a "disagreement" is propaganda?

Or you mean "what constitutes a fact" is also propaganda? You mean propaganda also must be taught, without any possibility of distinguishing it from fact?

I'm saying that propaganda masquerades as fact and fact is cast as propaganda by those who refuse to accept it or choose to deny it for other reasons. I am saying that the legitimate means of distinguishing fact from fantasy has been delegitimized by propagandists. I'm saying that after years of work, American merchants of doubt have spread their message so far and wide that huge portions of the population don't have skill to distinguish between facts and a fanciful fantasies. These are the people in your hypothetical juries.

You're just saying that whoever is in power is entitled to impose whatever they wish onto the population, onto all school kids, with no way to judge what is appropriate to teach. So it's never appropriate to question what is being taught -- so it's OK for schools to impose religion or racism or superstitions onto kids if those in power choose to do so. Because facts and science cannot be distinguished from doubtful beliefs being imposed.

That sounds more like what you are proposing. An authority\jury imposes a list of facts to be taught and nobody can say different?

If a history teacher could prove objectively that the racism that was (incidentally) baked into the US constitution from the beginning is still affecting the American government, its agents, or merely a good chunk of its populace, that FACT would qualify as "propaganda" to you and any other dimwit in the age of Trump.

No, if that teacher can prove it to recognized scientists/experts so that 90+ percent of experts agree, like 90+ percent of scientists recognize climate change, then it would not be propaganda.

But if that teacher is preaching that "America is a racist country" without first proving it to recognized experts who can judge whether it's true, or to a "jury" of some kind which is recognized by society, then it's propaganda rather than fact.

That teacher alone is not entitled to establish what the facts are and preach his personal sentiments, even if he claims it's fact. That teacher alone, or his private club of crusaders, are not the ones who decide for society what the facts are.

Teachers never really establish facts. They dispense them. They dispense opinions too. And that is okay. Some opinions are objectively wrong and contrary to known facts. That is not okay, but it also isn't a problem big enough to subject every teacher in the country to trial by jury every year.

These days "alternative facts" are a popular buzzword which, might I remind you was coined and originally used without a hint of sarcasm.

The concept of "alternative facts" has been around for centuries and was not invented by any one person at a recent press conference. It is applied both seriously -- as meaning non-mainline versions of the truth which might really be correct -- as well as sarcastically to characterize someone's propaganda or distortion of the truth. It has been applied sarcastically to religious cults and to Communists and Nazis, who invent their own facts in order to convert and/or control people ("brainwashing"), but also to legitimate truth-seekers who question the standard social myths.

In both cases those promoting their "alternative" facts are obligated to submit their facts to a process of questioning ("vetting"?), such as happens in a jury trial, before they are entitled to impose their facts onto society, such as a teacher imposes his/her facts onto students in a classroom. But the NON-alternative facts which have already been established may be imposed without additional examination.

Your proposition is ridiculous but primarily because the current political environment is ridiculous.

No, the opposite is the case: Because the current political environment is "ridiculous" (or unusually contentious), some extreme measures are necessary in order to resolve some of the conflicts. There is no other way to fix the problem of renegade teachers propagandizing in the classroom than to have their class sessions recorded in order to determine exactly what they said, and then correct them when they are caught promoting their personal beliefs/propaganda/crusade rather than the facts.

To say this cannot be done is equivalent to saying we cannot distinguish Creationism from proper science teaching.

I didn't say it can't be done, I am saying that it is extreme, expensive, invasive, and easily corrupted. It's a bad idea.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The evils that exist are not what the country or society is "founded" upon.

But if that teacher is preaching that "America is a racist country" without first proving it to recognized experts who can judge whether it's true, or to a "jury" of some kind which is recognized by society, then it's propaganda rather than fact.

This is an awkward example for you to use.

"America is a racist country" is a fact as well established as "The sky is blue".

No it's not, because it implies that America is more racist than other countries, or most other countries. If the premise is that ALL nations, or 99% of them, are racist, then it might be a fact. But in that case the teacher should say that humans generally are racist, rather than singling out one country or one group of humans, as if they're especially racist compared to the others. It's not an established fact that America is a peculiarly racist country compared to others.

Our society was founded on race based slavery and genocide.

You can make an argument for that theory, but it's only a theory or interpretation or opinion, not an established fact. Just because something happened does not mean that the "society was founded" on it.

That slavery was practiced in some colonies/states, along with some other bad things (and good things) doesn't mean America was "founded on race based slavery and genocide." That something bad happened in some places doesn't mean the country "was founded on" it. Instead of preaching what the country was "founded on," a teacher in the classroom should report what happened, including the bad things. It's not that teacher's job to psychoanalyze the founders or pretend to explain why something happened or to be an expert on what the country's essence is or its basic nature.

If it's true that the country was "founded on" racism and slavery, then why didn't the country totally collapse when slavery was ended? When the foundation of something is removed, that thing totally collapses and is gone, and maybe something else is created to replace it.

Theories about what the country is "founded" upon might be legitimate if everyone agrees with the theory and believes in that founding, or at least 90% of those in the country. It has to be something everyone subscribes to, not an alien idea half the country rejects.

There has been crime and violence throughout all the colonies and states, from the beginning. So does that mean American society was "founded on" crime and violence? There are many evils existing in the country, or in a system or in society, but just because those evils exist does not mean the country or the society is "founded" upon those evils.

The Founders protected black slavery and . . .

"protected" is ambiguous. Most of them owned slaves, but does that mean they "protected" slavery? There were things they said and did in opposition to slavery. If they wanted to prolong slavery, why did many/most of them make anti-slavery statements in their writings? Why did some of them propose measures to end slavery? Why would someone propose to end slavery, or prevent its expansion if they wanted to "protect" slavery and preserve it?

The fact is that most of them OWNED slaves, so that should be in the history books, and the teacher should teach that to the kids. But why should the teacher preach that they "protected" slavery? What does that mean? That's an interpretation, not a fact. Let the teacher say the facts, not interpret the facts or pretend to psychoanalyze the founders.

Instead of putting down "the Founders" as a group, why not instead tell the efforts some of them made to curtail slavery and to end it? and give credit to those who did not own slaves and condemned those practices? You can't put all "the Founders" into the same category and pretend that all of them were the same. If you're going to tell the facts, you have to tell the faults of certain individuals in contrast to others who did not have those faults. It's not true that because most of them owned slaves that therefore the country was "founded on" slavery, or that "the Founders" protected slavery.

Even if most of them were "pro-slavery" in some way, like in their faulty practices, that doesn't mean the the country they founded was based on slavery, or that they intended it to be based on that. They also limited the vote to male property owners only, but that doesn't mean the country was "founded on" sexism and privilege. The country changed later, demonstrating that those faults were not the foundation of the country, but were incidental to it and were expendable.

You're entitled to your personal interpretation or theory, including your insistence that America's foundation is slavery and other evils, but you're not entitled to make the taxpayers pay teachers to preach this interpretation to kids in school. They're entitled instead to have teachers tell only the facts to them, and perhaps instill some theories or values or norms that 95% of us agree with.

. . . and regularly employed genocide against indigenous people. This continued through nearly all of our history.

And there are other evils which have continued even up to the present, but the country is not "founded" on any of that.

All the facts about the evils should be taught to the kids, along with the good things that happened. What should be emphasized are the things that produced change, as opposed to just repeating the same things that had always been happening far back in past history. Bad things like crime and rape and plunder had always happened far back into prehistory. 10 million years ago our ancestors practiced rape and plunder worse than we do today. That doesn't mean our society is "founded on" these practices.

Crime and violence has continued up to the present. Also political corruption has been practiced throughout all the states and at all government levels and continues to today. But the nation is not "founded" on these. Even though much of it is accepted as the way things are and have always been.

All the facts have to be told, but not any particular theory or interpretation pretending to explain it, because the theories about it are subjective and are not agreed to by a majority of the population.

Things have improved greatly during the last few decades, but the repercussions of our history of vicious racism are nowhere near gone.

There are evils also which have actually gotten worse rather than showing improvement. E.g., substance abuse problems. But that doesn't mean the country is "founded on" those evils.

The counter claim "America is Not a racist country" is to demonstrate an incredible lack of understanding of the USA and historical illiteracy.

It's not appropriate for a teacher to say "America is not a racist country." That also is an interpretation, or theory. Teachers should teach only the facts, not their personal theories or interpretations of the facts.

It's appropriate to teach what the laws are today and what they were 100 years ago and 200 years ago, and describe the changes that took place, including the conflicts, like the Civil War and other critical events, telling the good and bad things, including facts that offend someone, as long as it's established fact rather than theory only.

These are facts. Like it or not.

That some bad things happened is a fact, yes. So that's what should be taught. Not theories that "America is a racist country" and other interpretations that are not established scientifically and not reflecting the common values shared by everyone (or 90% of the population).

 

[Bomb#20]

But if that teacher is preaching that "America is a racist country" without first proving it to recognized experts who can judge whether it's true, or to a "jury" of some kind which is recognized by society, then it's propaganda rather than fact.

This is an awkward example for you to use.

"America is a racist country" is a fact as well established as "The sky is blue".

How many racists does it take to make a country racist? How many laws containing racial distinctions does it take to make a country racist? How many cops and prosecutors and judges enforcing color-blind laws in racially discriminatory ways does it take to make a country racist? How many people not focusing on race and just going about their business when they have the option of devoting their lives, liberty and property to alleviating the after-effects of other people's racism does it take to make a country racist?

Our society was founded on race based slavery and genocide.

Our society was founded on Christianity. Does that make "America is a Christian country." a fact?

The Founders protected black slavery and regularly employed genocide against indigenous people. This continued through nearly all of our history.

By arithmetic, slavery continued through four-score and nine years, and was abolished for seven-score and sixteen years. What makes calling 36% of our history "nearly all of our history" qualify as a fact?

The counter claim "America is Not a racist country" is to demonstrate an incredible lack of understanding of the USA and historical illiteracy.

Possibly so. That doesn't make the counter claim "The expression 'Racist country' is a subjective social construct, not an objective category derived from cutting nature at its joints." demonstrate an incredible lack of understanding of the USA and historical illiteracy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But that's my point: there are no substantial required changes. The law doesn't require any changes to the class at all. From DDR's link in the OP:

"A. 1. No enrolled student of an institution of higher
education within The Oklahoma State System of Higher Education shall
be required to engage in any form of mandatory gender or sexual
diversity training or counseling; provided, voluntary counseling
shall not be prohibited. Any orientation or requirement that
presents any form of race or sex stereotyping or a bias on the basis
of race or sex shall be prohibited."​

How on earth does that require the school to change the curriculum at all? Note the words "required" and "mandatory". If the class referenced in the OP was at risk of being classified as diversity training, or was accused of presenting race or sex stereotyping or bias, what of it? The law doesn't require the college to change the class; it only requires the college to let students opt out. There's no difficulty accomplishing that before the start of the class; all it takes is the flick of a Bic. If the course description booklet has already been printed, if students have already signed up, whoop de doo. Tape a hand-lettered note to the door of the classroom saying it's been recategorized from required to elective.

I could see a problem with the no-bias part in PE classes.

 

[Bomb#20]

"... Any orientation or requirement that
presents any form of race or sex stereotyping or a bias on the basis
of race or sex shall be prohibited."​

...The law doesn't require the college to change the class; it only requires the college to let students opt out. ...

I could see a problem with the no-bias part in PE classes.

You had required PE classes in college?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

"... Any orientation or requirement that
presents any form of race or sex stereotyping or a bias on the basis
of race or sex shall be prohibited."​

...The law doesn't require the college to change the class; it only requires the college to let students opt out. ...

I could see a problem with the no-bias part in PE classes.

You had required PE classes in college?

My (admittedly quite vague) memory was a requirement of two credit hours of PE.

Fortunately, college-level PE had more variety--we had PE classes that were one overnight backpack trip.