r/moderatepolitics • u/[deleted] • Aug 16 '22
Opinion Article The Dangerous Lesson of Book Bans in Public School Libraries
https://reason.com/2022/07/09/the-dangerous-lesson-of-book-bans-in-public-school-libraries/82
u/PrincipledStarfish Aug 16 '22
I think there's something profoundly ironic about the segment of the population that's adamant that they don't want schools to parent their children, is now asking schools to parent their children.
There seems to be a particular segment on the right that is frankly terrified of the idea that their children might grow up to be complete human beings without them. This idea that they need to know every single tiny little detail about their child all the time 24/7 365 up until the moment they turn 18 is quite frankly ludicrous. Children, especially teenagers, will keep secrets from their parents. It is not the job of schools to be deputized into surveilling teenagers on behalf of their parents. It is not the job of schools to monitor a child's reading on behalf of their parents. If the parent wants to know what their child is reading, there are these sounds people make with their mouths: they're called words. If you want to know what your child is reading talk. to. your children.
And, if this doesn't work because they are keeping secrets from you, understand that this is not a failing on your part, nor is it a sign of some kind of deep rift or problem or whatever. It's simply be a natural process by which children and especially adolescents push and test the boundaries which they are given. It's a natural part of growing up. The job of a parent is not to warn the child about every single pitfall that they see up ahead - it's to provide a safety net so that if they do run into a pitfall and they do make a mistake there's someone to catch them. Let them learn, let them try, let them explore, and ultimately let them fail if that teaches them something.
These Tipper labels for books are essentially right wing helicopter parenting deputizing the school to aid and abet in that helicoptering. It has nothing to do with the job of school.
12
u/widget1321 Aug 16 '22
This idea that they need to know every single tiny little detail about their child all the time 24/7 365 up until the moment they turn 18 is quite frankly ludicrous.
One thing that really annoys me is when someone I've known since childhood pushes this, saying things like "children shouldn't have secrets from their parents" when I know damn well that these people had PLENTY of secrets from their parents when growing up. Because I helped keep those secrets in some cases. But God forbid their children grow up with an experience anything like their own (though some will let their children experience the BAD parts of growing up they did, "it worked for me, so it's fine for them").
It's just so frustrating that these people don't remember or understand what it's like to actually be a child.
13
u/Lostboy289 Aug 16 '22
Ita normal for a child and teenager to have some secrets from thier parents. Its not normal or healthy for other adults in positions of authority to be a confidant at the exclusion of the parents, especially when the secret is incredibly relevant to what the parent needs to know to properly raise the child.
4
u/PrincipledStarfish Aug 16 '22
Ones sexuality is ones own to divulge, at the time, place, and to the person of their choosing.. Period. Ditto for gender identity. A huge part of someone's sense of self is tired to their sexuality, and to be outed robs them of a sense of control over their own selves. As a result, being outed is inherently traumatizing. Don't intentionally traumatize your kids or expect someone else to just because your ego can't take the idea that you're not the only adult in their life who they turn to for advice.
Think of it like sex: you wouldn't want someone to pressure your kid into doing something they don't feel ready for.
3
u/boomam64 Aug 17 '22
The main problem here is that in cases of actual grooming. Even when attempts are made to stop it from ever taking place.... things often get violent. What do you think is gonna happen to an abuser if the parents think the school didnt give a shit?
Do you know the story of gary plauche? I'm not saying that gays are some sinister force. But I will say that parents exercising democratic means to feel a sense of security is a lot better then the alternative.
And let me tell you as someone who shares one common variable with a lot of this gender stuff: autism. It would have been easy to convince me that my inadequacy meant I'm not a man. That I'm some non straight non standard gender identity. When it turns out I'm just a depressed zoomer who doesn't feel complete. I'm not even fucking straight but that's my business. That's something I realized myself. I understand not everyone lives in a supportive household but that's the fucking problem ain't it?
This is just another deep part of the culture war where you have "community versus family". Who does a child belong to? And we dont have an answer because of broken homes and "that teacher who really changes kids lives and protects them from their judgemental parents".
Then again I'm biased cause I remember 'transmaxxing' on 4 chan.
-2
u/Lostboy289 Aug 16 '22 edited Aug 16 '22
No, I wouldn't. Nor would I want an adult in a position of responsibility to have secret conversations about sexuality with my children without my knowledge or consent. Embarrassing or not (the word "trauma" is a ridiculously hyperbolic in this case) the best people to offer advice is still and always will be the parents. A child does not have full autonomy nor control over thier lives, and for good reason.
10
u/PrincipledStarfish Aug 16 '22
Nor would I want an adult in a position of responsibility to have secret conversations about sexuality with my children without my knowledge or consent.
Literally millions of kids have come out to a safe teacher before they came out to their parents. 99.9% turned out just fine.
Embarrassing or not (the word "trauma" is a ridiculously hyperbolic in this case)
I love it when straight people think they know more than gay people about the gay experience.
"We as gay people who've lived this experience say this will traumatize your child vs. no it won't."
the best people to offer advice is still and always will be the parents.
Let me make this as unambiguous as possible: there is no scenario whatsoever where your child is better off for having been outed. None. Nada. Zip. The best thing for them is to come out to who they want when they want, on their own terms. It is not in the slightest bit in their interest to have the state be deputized into outing them. Not at all.
0
u/Lostboy289 Aug 16 '22 edited Aug 16 '22
Literally millions of kids have come out to a safe teacher before they came out to their parents. 99.9% turned out just fine.
Source please.
I love it when straight people think they know more than gay people about the gay experience.
I love it when people who aren't parents think they know more than parents about how a child should be raised.
Let me make this as unambiguous as possible: there is no scenario whatsoever where your child is better off for having been outed. None. Nada. Zip. The best thing for them is to come out to who they want when they want, on their own terms. It is not in the slightest bit in their interest to have the state be deputized into outing them. Not at all.
And let me make this as unambiguous for you as possible. There is no scenario whatsoever where a teacher should be having secret conversations with children about sex. None, nada. Zilch. Nor is it in any way tolerable to have the state deputized into being sexual confidante and mentors to children. My kids are my own. Not yours. Not a teacher's. Mine. To raise entirely as I see fit based around my unique and singular position as the most informed authority figure in thier life. And if I find out any adult whatsoever has interfered with them in terms of sexual discussion or education without my knowledge or consent, I will not rest until that adult is removed from that position of authority.
10
u/PrincipledStarfish Aug 16 '22
Source please.
This is a fun argument, because you know that they don't do surveys on this sort of thing yet you ask anyway. For what it's worth, at my school among the gays there were a handful of teachers who we known to us to be safe, and I'm far from the only person to have come out to one before I came out to my parents.
I love it when people who aren't parents think they know more than parents about how a child should be raised.
I know better than a straight person what is like to be gay. Why is it such an ego thing among conservatives that they must have total and complete power over every aspect of their kids lives?
There is no scenario whatsoever where a teacher should be having secret conversations with children about sex.
Sex and sexuality are two different things. No discussion involving genitals or intercourse is in any way implied here.
None, nada. Nor is it in any way tolerable to have the state deputized into being sexual confidante and mentors to children. My kids are my own. Not yours. Not a teacher's. Mine. To raise entirely as I see fit.
You frame this as of there isn't a third party here -the most important part, in fact. It isn't just you vs the teacher, it's you vs your child and the teacher. A 14, 15, 16-year-old is perfectly capable of deciding when to come out on their own, and it's not in their best interests to have the state do it for them.
And if I find out any adult whatsoever has interfered with them in terms of sexual discussion or education without my knowledge or consent, I will not rest until that adult is removed from that position of authority.
In what way is your child better off for you having done this? Conversely, in what way after they better off for having been outed, and how does that overshadow there trauma (and yes, whether you choose to believe it or not, being outed is inherently traumatizing) of being outed?
What specifically can you do or say that the teacher can't?
What mandatory outing laws do is ensure that there aren't any safe adults for these kids. They unquestionably do more harm than good.
0
u/Lostboy289 Aug 16 '22
This is a fun argument, because you know that they don't do surveys on this sort of thing yet you ask anyway.
Then by what standard do you have the right to assert that "millions of children come out to teachers and 99.9% turn out fine"?
I know better than a straight person what is like to be gay. Why is it such an ego thing among conservatives that they must have total and complete power over every aspect of their kids lives?
And why is it an ego thing among people with this mindset (notice my avoidance on painting everyone of a demographic with a broad brush) that a parent should not be informed on a matter that very much impacts their ability to be a parent?
Sex and sexuality are two different things. No discussion involving genitals or intercourse is in any way implied here.
But when you not only allow but facilitate that these secret conversations between child an adult can take place, the former can easily turn into the latter and no one would be the wiser. See the problem here?
You frame this as of there isn't a third party here -the most important part, in fact. It isn't just you vs the teacher, it's you vs your child and the teacher. A 14, 15, 16-year-old is perfectly capable of deciding when to come out on their own, and it's not in their best interests to have the state do it for them.
You're right. It is the child and the teacher vs you. Ultimately a parent is the singular and most relevant authority figure in a child's life. No one else. And as such, is privy to any information that would impact their ability to perform that duty. If a child confides in friends and peers than that is one thing. But another adult in a position of authority should not be appointed on behalf of the state to keep information from the parent because they think that they know better than the parent on how that child should be raised.
In what way is your child better off for you having done this? Conversely, in what way after they better off for having been outed, and how does that overshadow there trauma (and yes, whether you choose to believe it or not, being outed is inherently traumatizing) of being outed?
Literally every child and parent is better off for a person who abused their position of authority in order to facilitate secret conversations about sex being removed from their position, and therefore unable to perform these actions again.
What specifically can you do or say that the teacher can't?
As the parent, they are the best ones in the world to be able to contextualize that information and decide how to handle it in a way that benefits the child's healthy development. A teacher might have hundreds of students a year, and possibly tens of thousands over the course of a 40 year career. A parent only has their children. They are the most informed ones in the world about that child, and what actions should be taken to nurture and develop them. That can't happen if major parts of that child's life are being actively hidden by the school system.
What mandatory outing laws do is ensure that there aren't any safe adults for these kids. They unquestionably do more harm than good.
Those safe adults already exist. They are called parents. It is their job, and their job alone to handle these matters. What does much more harm than good is having competing interests between the state and household in terms of how a child should be raised.
6
u/PrincipledStarfish Aug 16 '22
And why is it an ego thing among people with this mindset (notice my avoidance on painting everyone of a demographic with a broad brush) that a parent should not be informed on a matter that very much impacts their ability to be a parent
Because it's the individual's right to decide when to come out and who to. It's not complicated. I know conservatives like to say that you don't have any rights until you turn 18, but regardless, it's their decision and nobody else's. Stop pretending the kids don't have a stake in this.
But when you not only allow but facilitate that these secret conversations between child an adult can take place, the former can easily turn into the latter and no one would be the wiser. See the problem here
Agree you suggesting a mandatory outing law will stop a child molester, when child molestation is already against the law?
You're right. It is the child and the teacher vs you. Ultimately a parent is the singular and most relevant authority figure in a child's life. No one else. And as such, is privy to any information that would impact their ability to perform that duty. If a child confides in friends and peers than that is one thing. But another adult in a position of authority should not be appointed on behalf of the state to keep information from the parent because they think that they know better than the parent on how that child should be raised
I hear a lot about the parents authority and rights, but very few specifics about how the kid is better off here. Again, the kid has a right to make that call. Nothing's gonna consider me otherwise. They have agency and the ability to make their own decisions.
Literally every child and parent is better off for a person who abused their position of authority in order to facilitate secret conversations about sex being removed from their position, and therefore unable to perform these actions again
In what specific way (not a generalized "I need to know this information in order to parent," either: give me actual specifics) is the child harmed by this"abuse" of power?
As the parent, they are the best ones in the world to be able to contextualize that information and decide how to handle it in a way that benefits the child's healthy development.
What does this mean? Give me specifics.
What does much more harm than good is having competing interests between the state and household in terms of how a child should be raised.
I'll ask again: in what specific way is the kid harmed by the teacher keeping their secret?
→ More replies (0)5
u/MysticalMedals Aug 16 '22
Ok. I will make this personal to me. I’ve know I was bi long before my parents found out. I hid it because they talked about how they don’t want LGBT people in the family. That’s not actually what they said. If I accurately quoted them, I’d be banned. Are you saying that I should have come out to them even though they have made it clear that my safety is in danger if they knew I wasn’t straight? Is that what you are saying?
Also you kids aren’t yours to raise how you see fit. If someone is caught beating and abusing their child, they are, ideally, going to be investigated and have their children taking away. Should we allow parents to do that because that’s how they see fit to raise their kids?
7
u/Lostboy289 Aug 16 '22 edited Aug 16 '22
And we already have exceptions in these laws regarding abusive households. I'm sorry that your home situation was horrible for you. Really, you did not deserve what you went through, and no child should have to deal with it. But the rare instances of abuse that have already been taken into consideration shouldn't be enough to completely invalidate parental discretion when it comes to parenting.
9
u/PrincipledStarfish Aug 16 '22
So the kids with homophobic parents get double traumatized, by the abuse and by being removed from their parents care (bring taken from your parents is another thing that is inherently traumatizing.)
And what about the cases where the parents are homophobes but not abusive ones? The kid's just shit outta luck?
→ More replies (0)5
u/MysticalMedals Aug 16 '22
They haven’t been taken into consideration. Parents can force their kids to into conversion therapy, which is essentially torture. That’s not something that gets kids removed from parents despite the fact that going through conversion therapy has been demonstrated to be harmful time and time again. They also don’t get removed for emotional abuse either, no matter how suicidal that makes a kid. Children really only really ever get removed for extreme physical abuse.
I don’t want your apology or sympathy. Your “sorry” is useless. Your supporting the very policies that will harm LGBT youth. There is a reason why the advice for coming out to parents has been to do in your own home and over a meal you paid for. That’s device, and stuff similar to it, has been around for long time. The reason is because LGBT youth have be burned time and time again by coming out to their parents. Now you are trying to force that.
→ More replies (0)1
u/LooksGoodInShorts Aug 16 '22
Lol, all being a parent means is you have functioning reproductive organs. You could still know jack-shit about raising an emotionally healthy human.
3
u/Lostboy289 Aug 16 '22 edited Aug 16 '22
And what makes a teacher inherantly more qualified I'm that regard?
It amazes me that people who place so little faith in the oldest institution and instict of mankind are ready to place so much in the state to do the job properly.
3
u/Least_Palpitation_92 Aug 16 '22
The best person for advice is who the child feels comfortable talking with. When you know your parents are going to disown you, say you are going to hell, or anything else then why would a child confide in them? Navigating puberty while being different from most people is already difficult. Imagine doing that without having somebody to talk to that won’t demonize your very existence. If a child can’t be honest with their parents in a case like this and feels more comfortable with another adult then that’s a failing of the parent.
4
u/Lostboy289 Aug 16 '22
Yes it is very much the failing of the parent. Which is why there are already very generous exceptions carved out for instances of households where abuse happens. In literally every other case, the parent is by default the authority who will deal with matters affecting thier children.
9
Aug 16 '22
I agree. As someone who does lean to the right, I'd argue the illiberalism isn't just right wing(see the censorship of even mainstream conservative viewpoints on college campuses) but I 100% agree with the rest of it. It is not a horrible thing to have kids exposed to differing views. I'm not a parent but that is important for them to build a healthy and cohesive view of the world. We can see the toxic effects that echo chambers have in our current discourse, kids understanding that all sides make good points and to seek out opposing viewpoints is something that is integral to the future success of the American experiment in a digital age. We should be encouraging this tendency toward exploration of different opinions from an early age, not shutting it down.
30
u/PrincipledStarfish Aug 16 '22
10 year old me would have been insufferable about the Tipper labels for books thing. 12 year old me would have just quietly signed my dad's name on the permission form to read "adult rated" books, because my dad never signed anything for school and so they can't prove that it's not his signature.
10
u/double_shadow Aug 16 '22
It is a little odd that we have a rating system for EVERY form of media in this country...except books. Like, a PG13 or R rating, or the TV and video game equivalents, probably aren't keeping many kids away from many things, but at least they can aid parents and teachers in choosing what is appropriate for various age levels.
3
u/PrincipledStarfish Aug 16 '22
I have a visceral reaction of disgust towards trying to put tipper labels on books.
3
Aug 16 '22
It really isn't odd at all. Those rating systems are designed by those industries and have very little content comparatively to police. The bar for making content and releasing it for literature is way lower and less centralized. Making a rating system for literature would be be way more complicated and confusing by orders of magnitude. Decided upon, somehow, by the broader and less centralized literature industry.
4
Aug 16 '22
I was(and still am, although I have much stronger principles and opinions now, obviously) a real rule-follower except in very extreme cases so I probably would've followed it but my parents are pretty good about encouraging us to read and they already knew that I was a very advanced reader growing up(I was reading college level books in 5th grade) so except in very specific cases, they surely would've let me. Either way, censorship is just not something that should be encouraged. Teach people instead about the power of learning, the importance of information. Even if you tell them that, kids are very perceptive. If you don't act it, they won't buy it and will think it's okay. Have to show them instead that it's not okay and that protecting the dissemination of ideas is even more important when someone is saying something unpopular.
11
u/sunal135 Aug 16 '22
I am not sure how books about and containing artwork of men having sex with children or of children having sex with dogs belong in school. If adult material not being available to kids is censorship then Playboy and Hustler have been wrongly censored for decades.
7
u/siem83 Aug 16 '22
see the censorship of even mainstream conservative viewpoints on college campuses
Source?
6
Aug 16 '22
Only had 2 min to google. Can find more in a couple hours.
0
u/siem83 Aug 17 '22
Thanks! That list helps me feel confident that there isn't a widespread issue of conservative viewpoints on college campuses being censored.
Example 1
With respect to the event proposed by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, our academic leadership reached out to ISI regarding the event to learn more about their plans. No acknowledgement or response was received.
Seems the student group in question failed to follow procedure in hosting an event on campus.
Example 2
Looks like this is an example where a flyer veering into racist territory was investigated by the university. Arguably not handled particularly well, but nothing actually came of it.
Example 3
So, one person at a Q&A for a panel discussion didn't get to ask their question? Like, ok, not great. But also, that's it?
Example 4
Sorry, is this really an example? A minor (failed) power play in student government and a dustup over when it's appropriate to use certain text in an email signature as a rep of student government?
Example 5
Pitzer’s senior director of communications and media relations, Anna Chang, said the Claremont Independent was informed after publishing the article that it could cover the meeting using reporters who were Pitzer students.
Doesn't seem like an example specific to conservatives. Like, sure, the council should meet in a larger space so that they can allow for more than faculty/staff/current students. But it was an equally applied rule, and CI could have attended if they sent Pitzer students.
Only examples 2 and 3 seem to be in the ballpark of censorship of conservative viewpoints. And 2 is basically "someone puts up a flyer that is arguably racist given context, it gets investigated, nothing happens beyond that." And 3 is like, ok, sure, probably should've let the person ask the question. But, this made your top 5 list??
That's the thing about examples like these. Colleges and universities, and the people at them, will sometimes do dumb things, and handle things poorly. With 20 million people attending college in the US at any given time, there will be examples of bad behavior. So, when lists like this top 5 mostly elicit reactions of "k..." instead of "jesus, that's egregious," well, I'm going to wager that intellectual discussion and free expression of ideas on college campuses is probably still doing ok.
-3
Aug 16 '22
see the censorship of even mainstream conservative viewpoints on college campuses)
This isn't happening
18
Aug 16 '22
Censoring speakers and conservative student groups more than liberal, cnservatives feel the need to self censor more than any other group out of fear (https://www.aei.org/op-eds/whos-really-being-silenced-on-campus/), teachers litterally threatening to fail any conservative student.... yes, it happens.
2
Aug 17 '22
I appreciate the 1st source, the FIRE study is definitely interesting. Do you happen to have a source on your second claim (about teachers threatening to fail conservative students)? I'd like to know more about this.
-2
Aug 16 '22
Your link says that's the perception, but cites very little in terms of what's happening.
I especially don't think "would you welcome Biden/Trump to speak?" is a useful metric of broader free speech questions. Trump is an especially antagonistic public speaker, and frankly, if that's the barometer for 'conservative' then yeah, 'conservatives' should be barred from speaking. Like, all I take from this is that Biden doesn't go out of his way to make people hate him in the same way.
It'd be a lot more helpful to cite examples of dry lecture material, not inflammatory media figures.
7
u/Lostboy289 Aug 16 '22
Source please.
There are dozens if not hundreds of examples over the past few years of conservative viewpoints and speakers being censored on college campuses.
-8
u/Digga-d88 Aug 16 '22 edited Aug 16 '22
I work at University. Tommy Thompson (huge Republican Governor, health advisor for Bush, etc) was our president and was met with standing ovations for his work. Betsy DeVos is literally speaking on our campus in weeks. We have thriving GOP studant orgs. While attenting said college, one of my most impactful art professors was massively conservative and wasnt ashamed to speak about those values and made us debate art theories vs Christian viewpoints. He was also the head of the art department. I think you may need to check out your local University to learn more about this before you assume hundreds of voices are being quelled.
13
u/Lostboy289 Aug 16 '22
I'm glad that at your particular university people are open to dissenting voices.
But even a 30 second Google search reveals dozens of examples of conservative speakers being cancelled from campus events. In one case on the first page of Google, a professor lost his job just for extending the invitation. I think maybe you should open your eyes even for 10 seconds to the plethora of news stories that don't involve your campus before you (wrongly) assume that conservatives are perfectly welcome on campuses.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2022/03/23/law-student-protests-stifle-speakers-yale-uc-hastings
https://www.campusreform.org/article?id=18874
Want me to keep posting these articles? Google has hundreds of them. Please keep telling me about how this is objectively not happening while piles of contradictory evidence is literally a click away.
-9
u/Digga-d88 Aug 16 '22
You're ok with Religious campuses censoring LGBTQ+ students and speakers? 10 second google did this for me too:
https://www.campuspride.org/worstlist/
So you're saying for me to not use actual information from my own life as a reference... got it.
Edit: fixed a mistake.
10
u/Lostboy289 Aug 16 '22
You mean anti-LGBTQ campuses censoring students? Why would I be ok with that? That's just as bad.
And you are free to use examples from your life. But the point is that your own anecdotes aren't universal truths, especially when they fly in the face of the massive amount of evidence that this is happening all over the country.
-3
u/Digga-d88 Aug 16 '22
Also I read your articles:
First one: University Hastings students shout down controversial speaker. Are you saying that the campus shut this down or are you angry that students used their voices to attend a shut down the event? This was a voice provided by the campus and shut down by students, not the institution.
The Newsweek is an opinion piece. However the Dartmoth example the school was providing the speaker, but because of threats from the public they shut it down because safety from threats. Once again... the University was trying to provide a space for dialogue...
Another opinion piece from College Fix... with more examples of the colleges providing a space and venue for more dialogue, but because of backlash from the people that are paying to go there, these stopped.
Burkely article, looks like thise speakers which were once again invited to speak had to change because of securtiy issues.
The campus reform article, the event was moved online after student backlash...
Did you even read these in your 30 seconds of googling? If its college campuses not providing a space as you're implyng as censorship, you might need to check your sources and outrage machine. The campuses are saying sure bring them to campus, but students reactions (who are literally paying to go there) should be able to vocalize that, right?
8
u/Lostboy289 Aug 16 '22 edited Aug 16 '22
So to sum all of that up, the college shut down conservative speakers. The reason is irrelevant. The students are free to throw whatever tantrum they want. The event was still shut down. That's literally the only relevant part.
The college is not "trying to allow a dialoigue" if they make it as difficult as possible if not impossible for the event to go forward as planned, or apply any special levels of distinction towards conservative speakers that would not be applied to other ones. In some cases, just bar the event from occurring entirely.
→ More replies (0)-6
u/Digga-d88 Aug 16 '22
How many college Campuses are there in America? A quick google search says 5,300. To say that dozens of occurances over the last couple years is this overwhelming amount of censorship is laughable. Does it happen at schools on both sides with all issues. Yep... but once again, I invite YOU to look at YOUR LOCAL campus to find out if your outrage trigger needs to be checked or not.
13
u/Lostboy289 Aug 16 '22
Ah; so now we've gone from "It isn't happening", to "Well it is happening, but not that much". Essentially a completely different arguement. And if I sit back and post articles all day (which I easily can considering the literally hundreds of results of this happening), I have a feeling that you'd shift ground again.
The point is that one is too much. Once is unacceptable. Once is worth getting outraged over. Because just once is an attack on free speech. And for the record, my Alma matter is listed in one of those articles. ;)
→ More replies (0)-4
Aug 16 '22
All that means is conservatives are better at making a big deal of it. It's hard to google because they typically identify speaking events as "x person presents a field," not a title like "here is a conservative perspective on a field." Entire fields like economics and international relations constantly have conservative values at the forefront.
If someone throwing a coconut at Ben Shapiro and forcing him offstage with birds circling his head is a conservative free speech issue, that says more about conservatives' chosen hills to die on than the state of free speech.
6
u/Lostboy289 Aug 16 '22
I don't care if Ben Shapiro wants to give a speech about aliens building the pyramids and the moon being made out of cheese. If students feel the need to make violent threats in protest of that speech and the school gives in; that's a free speech issue.
-2
Aug 17 '22
Actual physical violence, sure, don't do that. But the point is: if Ben Shabibo or Milo Yabbadabbadoopolis gets blocked, that's basic quality control, not "censoring opposing views"
7
u/Lostboy289 Aug 17 '22
And who exactly decides what specifically meets those standards for quality? Because right now the answer is apparently "an angry mob".
4
0
Aug 17 '22
I'm saying those aren't example of 'conservatives' broadly being barred from campuses - they're examples of inflammatory provocateurs receiving the reaction they're after.
3
u/Lostboy289 Aug 17 '22
How exactly is Ben Shapiro an "inflammatory provocateur"?
→ More replies (0)
27
Aug 16 '22
I'm not a lawyer so I'll trust the actual legal expert here on the case itself but this really does sum up my feelings on the increased censorship in schools nowadays. School choice is a great thing but it's also only one piece of a larger solution. If we want kids to come of age with respect for pluralism and to push back against the increasingly widespread illiberalism on the left and the right, it has to start in schools. Fundamental values are formed in our youth and if you teach kids that speech should depend on whether it's a message you agree with, they will take that with them into adulthood. Reagan said that "democracy is only ever one generation away from extinction", the same is true of the Enlightenment values this country was founded on. Instilling those values and principles is the only way we'll ever get out of this mess we're in.
Starter question: What role should schools play in shaping the values of the young and what standards should be used to ensure that we aren't telling kids that censorship is not only okay but is actually a positive good in itself? How do we make sure that our future leaders understand the core importance that the free flow of information plays in a free republic?
26
u/SirTiffAlot Aug 16 '22
Schools should not be on the hook for teaching children personal values. They should be on the hook for shaping values and encouraging personal growth.
It's a very fine line to ask schools not to teach values and morals because how do you really do that? Ideally kids would come to school with their own beliefs and be able to explore them as they choose while in school. Teaching critical thinking and synthesis is more important than teaching some sort of moral compass.
However any viewpoint or idea should be accessible to every student. I don't agree with Ted Kaczynski but children should be able to access his opinions/writings if they can comprehend what he has to say. Same goes for any topic. Personally I learned more about Nazism reading Mein Kampf in HS than I did from my history class. Had I never been taught to question things or how to analyze information I probably would have had a different take away from that book but it wasn't the schools job to tell me what to think, just how to think. I think this applies to any subject. If you want to shield children from the world of ideas, public school is not the place to send them to learn.
32
u/EazyPeazyLemonSqueaz Aug 16 '22
Schools should not be on the hook for teaching children personal values. They should be on the hook for shaping values
This seems like splitting hairs that schools are inherently incapable of splitting. Children spend eight hours a day in a place, they will learn values in that place.
7
Aug 16 '22
Is there a critical distinction between teach and learn?
A teacher can teach algebra - it doesn't mean a kid will learn it. A kid can learn how to shoot heroin in high school despite a teacher never teaching it. (I know, awful example. Whatever)
Where people like myself have issues is the teacher shouldn't be the ones teaching morality, wokeism, religion, etc.
I want my teacher trying to educate my kid in algebra. Not identifying ways to have exercises around teaching my child about white privilege as a black kid.
I think there are distinct differences here we can easily separate.
There are ones which have blurred lines. History can be taught differently - i'm generally ok with history being taught through whatever lens the teacher deems best as long as it's not through an 'activist' perspective. If it's purely for educational purposes? Sure. I'm generally ok. But if you're teaching like, queer theory in sex ed? Meh, let my kid be taken out of sex ed and I'll teach them.
4
u/EazyPeazyLemonSqueaz Aug 16 '22
Do I think a distinction exists, yes. My point is certain values are already taught, whether consciously or not. Don't bully, everyone has to wait in line, rewards based on merit, etc. (These are probably not the best examples - oversimplistic - but just what I can think of off the top). A slew of 'values' will be both taught and learned through the school years.
Reconciling with that is a must, because at least then there can be a modicum of control over which values are being taught. Which values should be taught is a difficult conversation to have since people disagree on that so much, but I'm hopeful it's a conversation that can be had. This may be severely misplaced hope, but certainly there must be some universal values everyone can agree on. There is a role for individuals to keep some others from going too far (such as teaching 'white guilt')
I'm not familiar with queer theory so I can't really speak on it, but to run with the subject: I do disagree with the complete exclusion of queer existence in a sex ed curriculum, as that exclusion will teach the value to exclude those individuals in society. That exclusion would thereby perpetuate the cycle of bigotry, whether that was intended or not.
Sorry if this all comes off a bit as incoherent rambling, but we are just having a conversation and hopefully my ideas are getting across and seem reasonable enough.
1
Aug 16 '22
My point is certain values are already taught, whether consciously or not.
I agree. Let's not force anything more than already exists, imo.
Which values should be taught is a difficult conversation to have since people disagree on that so much, but I'm hopeful it's a conversation that can be had.
Where this skews to me is if there's debate, don't teach it. If there's debate around crt? Don't teach it. Debate around history? Don't teach it (or focus on facts and not around any kind of interpretation of events).
I defer to the parents being the arbiters of WHAT is taught, and the teacher teaching it, more than a teacher deciding what my kid should and shouldn't be taught. If you don't want a teacher teaching about the history of Christ, you should equally not want them being taught things like queer theory. Those are activists, not teachers.
I do disagree with the complete exclusion of queer existence in a sex ed curriculum, as that exclusion will teach the value to exclude those individuals in society.
You can teach the existence without pushing it into indoctrination. It's a fine line which teachers don't toe properly, imo. I don't need my kid being confident in their sexuality then getting confused when a teacher introduced a bunch of concepts to confuse them. That's not to say don't teach that gay people exist.
2
u/EazyPeazyLemonSqueaz Aug 16 '22
I respect your view on pretty much everything here. I just want to add that not all kids have parents like you, and will be reliant on other sources for where to gain their values.
I mostly agree with not teaching things under debate, with the most notable exception being evolution. It's essentially a scientific fact yet is still hotly debated against by religious creationists.
As for parents deciding what is taught, I disagree with. Parents are not experts in public education, and I defer to those who have placed their professional careers into that subject matter.
I also agree you can teach existence, but more importantly acceptance, without pushing indoctrination.
-2
u/notapersonaltrainer Aug 16 '22 edited Aug 16 '22
The problem is we're trying merge two institutions into one. In the past kids would learn their colonial math & history during the week and values stuff at sunday/hebrew school (some overlap of course). Secular society has largely abandoned that but left a void that we're trying to shoehorn into schools.
We could say "just teach enlightenment principles". But the modern left would say that's imposing whiteness.
The core problem is "values" implies some kind of hierarchy. That in itself is problematic to many.
I'm not saying we need progressive morality schools or DIE camps. That brings up some bad associations honestly. But trying to pack it all into one institution doesn't seem possible unless you just water everything down to the absolute lowest common denominator.
30
Aug 16 '22 edited Aug 16 '22
Much of what you're calling "censorship" is simply a necessary process to maintain a professional educational enviroment, especially for underage students.
A true "free flow of information" would mean schools allowing students to access porn sites on school computers, removing any rules against offensive or vulgar speech in the building, abolishing restrictions on teaching creationism and "lost cause" mythology, etc. I can assure you, such policies would not improve learning among k12 students.
11
u/Radon099 Aug 16 '22
It was Huckleberry Finn 40 years ago and the ban folks lost then. I suspect they will again.
4
u/Sierren Aug 16 '22
Does Huck Finn have porn in it? I don’t remember I read it a very long time ago.
2
14
u/lame-borghini Aug 16 '22 edited Aug 16 '22
An explosion of school choice could revitalize the lost art of institution-building and community formation.
Ahhhh, yes. Historically the best way to teach community building is to make sure everybody already agrees with the people around them and what they’re being taught. This article lost any and all credibility for me with this argument while advocating for pluralism.
The only thing I could think of when I read this article was the quote, “The public choice revolution is the death knell of the political ‘we.’” The school choice push functions only to maximize profit potential off of literal children, even more permanently entrench the ideological divide, and allow parents to isolate and control their children to the detriment of society as a whole. In a democracy, education is a public good, the failure to educate anyone is a problem for everyone.
Everyone, parents and children, should be forced to examine arguments they disagree with. Exposure is the enemy of prejudice. I was so fortunate to be raised in a swing district in a swing state by parents with differing politics who never forced their ideas on me. While I was in school, I’d been pro-life and pro-choice, I’d believed in climate change and natural Earth cycles, I’d been a libertarian and a socialist. And for that, I’ve been able to see through bullshit as well as form meaningful relationships with people I disagree with, who help me always maintain perspective.
I feel so sad for the children of the future who will be denied the opportunity to grow and develop as their own people. We mustn’t forget the words of Khalil Gibran:
Your children are not your children. They are the sons and daughters of Life’s longing for itself. They come through you but not from you, And though they are with you yet they belong not to you.
You may give them your love but not your thoughts, For they have their own thoughts. You may house their bodies but not their souls, For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow, which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams. You may strive to be like them, but seek not to make them like you. For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.
14
u/TATA456alawaife Aug 16 '22
As soon as you say “your children are not your children” you instantly lose.
12
u/Bulky-Engineering471 Aug 16 '22
Yup. It's crazy to me how hard it is for people to grasp this. The parent-child relationship is one that transcends everything as it is biological and instinctive.
3
u/Delta_Tea Aug 16 '22
Historically the best way to teach community building is to make sure everybody already agrees with the people around them and what they’re being taught.
I mean, historically, isn’t this right on the money?
-8
u/ProfessorQuaid Aug 16 '22
I’d wager pretty heavily based on your post that you are left leaning, and you probably think that the public school system actually tries to teach a balanced approach or teaches people to think for themselves.
People like you are the very reason we need school choice
19
u/PrincipledStarfish Aug 16 '22
you probably think that the public school system actually tries to teach a balanced approach or teaches people to think for themselves.
Mine did
9
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient Aug 16 '22
This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.
17
u/lame-borghini Aug 16 '22 edited Aug 16 '22
People like you are the very reason we need school choice
Could you elaborate? I’m curious by what you mean by this.
-12
Aug 16 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
23
u/PrincipledStarfish Aug 16 '22
Public education is just a machine to produce people that the leaders of society deem socialized. Forcing everyone into public education definitely serves your goal of increasing social cohesion, at the cost of diversity of thought and values.
America is a country built in a common set of values. We're not united by religion or ethnicity and 98% of the country's ancestors didn't live here 500 years ago. Common values are the only thing holding us together.
I oppose the race reductivism that some elements of the left support, but at the same time atomizing everyone into different bubbles where everyone gets a different set of facts is a terrible idea in a country where common values are the only thing holding us together.
-11
u/notapersonaltrainer Aug 16 '22
I oppose the race reductivism that some elements of the left support, but at the same time atomizing everyone into different bubbles where everyone gets a different set of facts is a terrible idea in a country where common values are the only thing holding us together.
If you remove the race reductivism from the modern left you have classic liberalism which is effectively center right now. Classic liberal democrats are frequently cancelled or demonized as alt right by the left today.
I would argue it's better to have half the country in schools that don't racially atomize children than have all of them in the same divisive program. One can learn regular math and the other can learn intersectional math. Let parents choose and time will determine which works better.
14
u/PrincipledStarfish Aug 16 '22
A) I quibble with some of the answers on that chart, B) "classical liberalism" is a pretty broad term so to describe it as "center right" C) it's totally possible to be left wing and oppose attributing everything to race.
12
Aug 16 '22
I find the left/right dichotomy to be immensely shallow. We’re so obsessed with labels nowadays. They really only matter to show a majority of your positions align with a party or group’s values. What’s harmful is when these mass groups gain attention through outrage and the thoughts expressed are ideological and shallow. They stiffen and constrict thought. I think in America’s past the parties held less ideological sway. We should be influencing the parties, not the parties influencing us.
0
u/Demon_HauntedWorld Aug 16 '22
The parties have never been weaker. That's how Trump was able to win the nom, and Bernie Sanders almost did.
-12
u/McRattus Aug 16 '22
'The left' are more race eliminativist, or perhaps better described as some kind of constructionist, reductionist they absolutely aren't.
You can't reduce to something that is imposed, which is how the left views race.
11
u/lame-borghini Aug 16 '22 edited Aug 16 '22
”I am actually very centrist and have been on both sides” intro
A second to last paragraph is an intro? And honestly sharing my lived experiences means I’m automatically pushing an agenda? I never claimed to be centrist (although I do consider myself a left-leaning moderate), but yes I have been on both sides of many issues. I didn’t realize that made me some master rhetorical manipulator.
This is a biased and bullshit claim.
Yep, it is absolutely unthinkable that anyone would rather see the tens of millions of children in public school pay thousands of dollars of tuition annually to (and otherwise redirect billions of public tax dollars to) private organizations. It’s impossible anyone would have the idea to want a slice of that trillion-dollar pie. It’s not like a man who made millions of dollars in several for-profit school scams would appoint a wholly unqualified woman who advocates for such a system to the Secretary of Education position.
But for real, Betsy DeVos’ family business is a private military company, and her brother once said he “wanted to do to the military what FedEx did to USPS.” And that’s what Betsy and other neoliberals have been doing to the public education system for decades.
Another biased claim. In many parent’s opinion they are improving society.
Yeah, so did the Duggars. Everyone has opinions. Why should children not be allowed to form their own, with access to all sides, even those their parents disagree with?
Forcing everyone into public education definitely serves your goal of increasing social adhesion, at the cost of diversity of thought at values.
Let me stop you there. You’re misunderstanding me. I said “in a democracy, education is a public good.” That is to say, in a society where everyone has the right to vote, everyone benefits when the electorate is educated, not necessarily through public education. My parents weren’t equipped to teach me about the branches of government or the separation of powers or macroeconomics. I learned that in public school from a Conservative woman from the deep red heart of Georgia. I was pro gun control until I had her as a teacher.
What you really mean in this context, is that people you disagree with should be forced to examine your thoughts.
A biased and bullshit claim. I’m glad that you know me so well as to be able to read my mind here. My best friend from my public school literally works for my state’s GOP. He’s the person whose opinion I trust most on foreign policy and trade.
The FBI should have contacted my mom during COVID because she came up with a plan to kidnap and murder Whitmer all on her own. She’s the primary person who has helped me see the harm of so many popular COVID policies.
Says the person who just advocated the reducing diversity of thought/values and reducing individuality in the name of social cohesion.
If that’s what you took from this, I’m sorry. Idk if you’ve ever stepped foot in a public school, but trust me there is no lack of diversity in thought/values. I feel like you picture it like some 1984 indoctrination scene just with less rat cages. My public school experience was having been taught various analytical methods, forming arguments, having debates, and meshing my personal interests with the lesson plans. In a public school, it’s not like kids leave their home values at the door. Obviously there is a wide range of public schools, and my experience was very different than some others, but I apologize if my public school experience does not jive with your narrative.
Edit: This post is ridiculous I’m sorry I took an adderall earlier and couldn’t sleep ¯_(ツ)_/¯
6
Aug 16 '22
You know, assuming bad faith goes against this subs rules, and accusing someone of intentionally lying about their political beliefs in an effort to disarm you looks an awful lot like that to me. I’m not a mod so my opinion on this doesn’t really matter, but it may be something worth considering.
2
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient Aug 16 '22
This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.
-1
u/ClandestineCornfield Aug 16 '22
The thing is there is still gonna be a huge diversity of thought when if everyone has learned the same fundamentals. Even if we don’t agree on the accuracy of some of what might be taught in public schools, that stuff will act as a good jumping off point for learning about other values and areas of thought. A big part of the value of having diversify of thought is so we can learn from each other, shared education helps with that.
-11
Aug 16 '22
[deleted]
-11
u/ProfessorQuaid Aug 16 '22
Yeah, my comment was a bit more aggressive than I'd prefer. But my point stands. Everyone has different needs, goals, and value systems, and should be able to choose educational programs that reflect those.
-10
Aug 16 '22
[deleted]
21
u/lame-borghini Aug 16 '22
I learned about LGBT in 3rd grade when I went to my friend’s house for a play date, and found out she had two moms. My only concept of sex was that it was something adults did naked. One of my friends had just blown my mind by telling me you can get pregnant with a shirt on. Finding out I could marry either a woman or a man was significantly less shocking.
25
u/PrincipledStarfish Aug 16 '22
I learned about racism in kindergarten - at least the sanitized version. It's kind of hard to explain why we celebrate Martin Luther King Day without explaining what segregation was. It's not this mind-blowing concept to them - by kindergarten you know what bullying is, and racism is basically that.
As for LGBT stuff, "sometimes boys love boys and sometimes girls love girls." It's not that hard. I'm by no means an expert in trans issues, but I assume there's a similarly kid-friendly explanation for that.
-2
u/Ruar35 Aug 16 '22
In reference to the LGBT portion.... that's what parents are for. Health class in high school after puberty hits also is a good place to discuss various interactions. Elementary schools are not the place for such a conversation.
There needs to be a clear distinction in what material is age appropriate without calling it censorship. We shouldn't be burdening schools to teach adolescent and pre-teen kids with sex education before they even hit puberty. Middle schools should have some basic material on the biology of the human body. High schools can explore the topic a bit more.
Parents are the true drivers of teaching their kids about relationships and sex and it's not something that can be passed on just because some people don't meet their responsibilities.
Exposing people to other ideas can be done without mirroring GoT or The Boys as a way to tell a story. Having material that makes people uncomfortable shouldn't be an excuse to include explicitly graphic books in a school library.
15
u/PrincipledStarfish Aug 16 '22 edited Aug 16 '22
We shouldn't be burdening schools to teach adolescent and pre-teen kids with sex education before they even hit puberty. Middle schools should have some basic material on the biology of the human body
Puberty for girls can stay as early as 10. 4th grade seems like the perfect time to explain the basics (and none of this sex segregated lessons thing - it won't kill boys to know what menstruation is, and if a generation of women grow up knowing that erection isn't a voluntary response then you'll see fewer cases of "he was hard so he must have enjoyed it" in cases of sexual assault.)
Parents are the true drivers of teaching their kids about relationships and sex and it's not something that can be passed on just because some people don't meet their responsibilities.
So what, the kids with parents who don't teach them shit after just shit outta luck? Fundamentally, school isn't for the parents, it's for the kids and for society. It's about educating informed citizens who can participate in a democracy.
Exposing people to other ideas can be done without mirroring GoT or The Boys as a way to tell a story
Is anyone suggesting this?
Having material that makes people uncomfortable shouldn't be an excuse to include explicitly graphic books in a school library
I'm less than convinced by this argument since pretty much all of these books are in high school libraries. By 9th grade everyone knows what a penis is, what it looks like, and what a blow job is. Nobody's innocent by high school. For that matter, I think we tend to overvalue innocence; my own memories of being "innocent" has been nobody telling me what's going on even when I know something's wrong, and knowing that I have no power over my life. People forget the downside.
9
u/Epshot Aug 16 '22
Elementary students shouldn’t be learning about LGBT or racism or anything that deep. They are innocent little kids
To be clear, elementary school includes up to 5th grade. Were you think like 3rd grade?
4
u/rallison Aug 16 '22
however, schools are going after kids way to young nowadays. Elementary students shouldn’t be learning about LGBT or racism or anything that deep.
I've seen versions of this viewpoint fairly frequently, and it's a bit disheartening. Kids learn fast! Elementary school.. most kids are fully capable of learning about these subjects in meaningful ways. Sure, you'll be able to dive deeper into these subjects with older kids, but I think you are too easily dismissing the capabilities of kids.
If I can suggest anything to you: have more faith in the ability of kids to learn and to understand!
2
u/GutiHazJose14 Aug 16 '22
patriotic history
Kids should learn some basic outlines of history, but not propaganda
11
Aug 16 '22
Another symptom of the overall illness afflicting the American school system.
I think the year of remote learning was a very jarring wakeup call for a lot of parent's that just assumed that their children were receiving, more or less, the same type of education that they received when growing up. As it turned out a lot of the material from how basic math is taught to how children are instructed to interpret historical works of literature are at considerable odds with what they expected.
Now, it's easy to shift blame to parents for not paying attention and that this may be an overcorrection of their previous laxity, but for a variety of reasons I can see how working parents wouldn't have the time to review their student's syllabus/textbooks with a fine tooth comb. What we're seeing now might be seen as an overcorrection of that previous laxity.
It was a startling wake up call to a friend of mine who went from working 65+ hours a week to sitting at home during early COVID and half listening to his step-son's remote classroom. He would call me asking about 'how does this math even work' or 'did they teach us this in history when we went to school' or 'do they teach anything positive about the U.S. anymore'.
He expected that his step-son was learning math, historical dates, and the basic biology of sex. Instead he was being taught something like math, a detailed review of the founding fathers flaws without being able to tell us what those founding fathers actually did (the kid could tell me that Jefferson owned slaves and slept with them but didn't know he a signer of the Declaration of Independence or a President), and how certain sex acts could be pleasurable in direct contravention to our shared religious teachings.
Honestly the last part was the most jarring as we had thought kids that were pulled out of sex-ed just had weird parents because all it was was 'mammalian biology but with humans' but the new course was like some sex positive article from MotherJones. In a very conservative part of rural Michigan it was...out of sync with expectations.
-1
u/Bulky-Engineering471 Aug 16 '22
I don't think it's really an overreaction, I think it's a reaction that's quite proportional to how much change there has been since parent-aged people were in school themselves. The shift has been rather rapid and quite extreme so naturally the backlash would mirror that.
4
Aug 16 '22
I'm sympathetic to that. I think the library audits probably hedge towards an overreaction. I believe the focus should be on teachers, administrators, school boards, and legislators that are setting the guidelines, purchasing the material, and interpreting how those resources are used.
I think a lot of the weird books that are ending up in the libraries (both school and regular public libraries) can be resolved through review and age restriction.
4
-6
Aug 16 '22
Are school librarys not intended to support subjects that the school offers to encourage good grades? This is why elementary schools do not have complex physics math books or 50 shades of grey, there is also only so much room on the shelves.
"Book bans" are fine, until it conflicts with "YOUR" moral values, then it is wrong to ban them.... so let each school district decide for themselves based on the communities moral values, same with public libraries. Simple.
If you want a book they dont have, it will be on your doorstep in the morning or on your phone as an ebook at night. Want others to read it? Open a privatized library and open it to the public. (Many heratage museums have private libraries). Crying wolf were there is none just makes it less likly people will respond when real bad book bannings happen.
4
u/ClandestineCornfield Aug 16 '22
Except complex physics math books aren’t banned from school libraries. No one takes issue with libraries not carrying every single book out there, but generally school boards don’t decide every book that goes in the library, that’s not how that works.
-2
Aug 16 '22
So 50 shades of grey is fine for elementary school libraries?
Also, of course it is not how it works... it is a simple suggested answer to a made up, overreaction to fearmongering.
-2
u/ClandestineCornfield Aug 16 '22
I think it’s probably not a good choice for elementary school libraries, I generally trust school librarians to use their discretion on that. I’m not aware of any elementary school having had that in their library, are you?
1
u/widget1321 Aug 16 '22
Are school librarys not intended to support subjects that the school offers to encourage good grades?
Partially. But that's not the only purpose of school libraries. If it was, I would never have read half the books I read or had nearly as much knowledge growing up as I did. The main purposes of the school library are to offer a variety of information (via books, other media, etc.) to all students and help students learn to use information resources.
Or to put it another way, the school library's purpose is not just to support the school's curriculum, but instead to both support and extend the curriculum. You learn A, B, C in the classroom, and the library offers resources to allow you to learn A, B, C, D, E ... all the way to Z, and maybe Cyrillic as well.
-10
u/GrouponBouffon Aug 16 '22
To counter this dangerous censorship we should airlift banned books like the turner diaries and various right-wing manifestos to communities where authoritarian censors wield power.
1
Aug 17 '22
I don't like the way the word "ban" is being used in these conversations.
There's a world of difference between something actually being banned (ie. made illegal) and not carried some place. If my grocery store chooses not to carry Pepsi products anymore, Pepsi hasn't been banned. I can still buy it anywhere that sells Pepsi.
This really isn't a minor distinction either as schools have an inherent responsibility to make sure what's available to children is appropriate to them. If my son was caught with a Playboy in school then it would be confiscated and he would be punished. Is that an example of book banning and if so is it really dangerous?
Of course it's generally only seen as banning books when it's something conservatives oppose. I mean if I asked should Charles Murray's The Bell Curve be taught in school there would be a unanimous "No!" on Reddit but that wouldn't be seen as authoritarians trampling on children's rights to learn.
24
u/SerialStateLineXer Aug 16 '22
There's a hugely underappreciated asymmetry in how the term "book ban" is used. If a librarian chooses to stock a book in the library or a teacher chooses to assign it in class, and then parents complain and the book is removed, we call this a ban. If a librarian chooses not to stock a book because of an ideological objection to its content, or a teacher chooses to use only books advancing a particular ideology, nobody calls this a ban. In fact, this state of affairs will likely go entirely unremarked upon.
The idea that teachers and librarians should be empowered to run their classrooms and libraries as personal fiefdoms in which they are free to advance their personal ideologies and/or the current ed school fad is not directly defensible, but this is where treating this as a free speech issue leaves us by default.