3 ms·

You're probably right, but nonetheless, the original commenter's point stands about the state having literal and legal responsibility for peoples children. It m

You're probably right, but nonetheless, the original commenter's point stands about the state having literal and legal responsibility for peoples children. It makes sense to be conservative in deciding what material to put in the school library.

KarlKemp 5y ago
""In carrying out searches and other disciplinary functions pursuant to such policies, school officials act as representatives of the State, not merely as surrogates for the parents, and they cannot claim the parents' immunity from the strictures of the Fourth Amendment."" (NJ v TLO) Meaning: schools have the right (and responsibility) to take steps necessary for the safety of children, but those rights are rather limited compared to those of parents, because they must also satisfy the limits set by constitution for all acts of the state and its representative. Banning books is an excellent example since it is almost the textbook definition of a restriction of free speech at the same time as having exceptionally weak arguments for its necessity, ostensibly to prevent psychological harms, which is a dubious concept to begin with.
shkkmo 5y ago
> It makes sense to be conservative in deciding what material to put in the school library. It really doesn't. School is one of the best places we can have people encounter challenging idea and works for the first time. If we coddle people on school and then they are exposed to those ideas on their own (which they will be) then they have fewer resources to aid in processing those ideas and are more likely to end up confused and misinformed.
- danielvaughn 5y ago
  That’s a good formula for college, once children have become legal adults and are responsible for themselves. While they’re children, it’s up to the parents to expose them to the world.
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    Most people don't go to college and even if they did, you need to start teaching these cognitive skills much earlier.
  - kradeelav 5y ago
    Yes and no. I would argue it's even more important to maintain a variety of voices in repressive environments like private religious schools and libraries, especially where queer kids (as one of many examples) there may not have any access to stories reflecting their own experiences. Being that repressed is far more harmful than anything fiction can do, and I speak as that literal example there. I owe my entire current mentality to the books and literature I found on my own beyond the parent's wishes. They're good people in many ways, but having that sanctum to explore other experiences was critical.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
naasking 5y ago
> It makes sense to be conservative in deciding what material to put in the school library. Does it? Is there actual evidence of harm from having these materials available, or is this really just pearl clutching?

KarlKemp 5y ago

""In carrying out searches and other disciplinary functions pursuant to such policies, school officials act as representatives of the State, not merely as surrogates for the parents, and they cannot claim the parents' immunity from the strictures of the Fourth Amendment."" (NJ v TLO) Meaning: schools have the right (and responsibility) to take steps necessary for the safety of children, but those rights are rather limited compared to those of parents, because they must also satisfy the limits set by constitution for all acts of the state and its representative. Banning books is an excellent example since it is almost the textbook definition of a restriction of free speech at the same time as having exceptionally weak arguments for its necessity, ostensibly to prevent psychological harms, which is a dubious concept to begin with.

shkkmo 5y ago

> It makes sense to be conservative in deciding what material to put in the school library. It really doesn't. School is one of the best places we can have people encounter challenging idea and works for the first time. If we coddle people on school and then they are exposed to those ideas on their own (which they will be) then they have fewer resources to aid in processing those ideas and are more likely to end up confused and misinformed.

danielvaughn 5y ago
That’s a good formula for college, once children have become legal adults and are responsible for themselves. While they’re children, it’s up to the parents to expose them to the world.
- shkkmo 5y ago
  Most people don't go to college and even if they did, you need to start teaching these cognitive skills much earlier.
- kradeelav 5y ago
  Yes and no. I would argue it's even more important to maintain a variety of voices in repressive environments like private religious schools and libraries, especially where queer kids (as one of many examples) there may not have any access to stories reflecting their own experiences. Being that repressed is far more harmful than anything fiction can do, and I speak as that literal example there. I owe my entire current mentality to the books and literature I found on my own beyond the parent's wishes. They're good people in many ways, but having that sanctum to explore other experiences was critical.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

naasking 5y ago

> It makes sense to be conservative in deciding what material to put in the school library. Does it? Is there actual evidence of harm from having these materials available, or is this really just pearl clutching?