4 ms·

>If you don't think there's a problem with the government banning books from school curriculum for political reasons It's not banned for political reasons, at

by daenz 5y ago

>If you don't think there's a problem with the government banning books from school curriculum for political reasons It's not banned for political reasons, at least from my reading of it. It's banned for the language and the illustrations of nudity. Nobody is asking for the Holocaust to not be taught in schools, so I fail to see where there is a political bend to this. Do I think they're being up-tight and prudish? Yes, probably (but I haven't seen the book itself). Do I think it's politically motivated? No. The author of the article even defers that they don't know the motivation: "Regardless of why this decision was made..."

danShumway 5y ago
So two objections. First, from the minutes: > So can we take it, as far as it needs to go, because I don’t know that it is going to end with one book. I think the process needs to include a bigger plan to holistically redact things that we don’t want in there. We hope we have good employees, like minded culture, centric folks that fit with McMinn County, that they’re going to make the right discretionary decisions to redact that literature in an appropriate way for the age related presentation. It is very hard for me not to read this as political censorship in nature. ---- And second, given the teachers were planning to inform parents and censor the nudity/profanity, it is hard for me not to read this as an objection over students being taught about any subject that borders sex or sexual content. I think the "inappropriate" objection takes on a different tone when people are saying that it's inappropriate to teach literature even after the swear words have been whited out -- at that point we're talking about subject-matter, not profanity. I view that as both unrealistic in general (I wonder if parents have the same objections to mature topics in To Kill a Mockingbird or Shakespeare), but I also view it as explicitly political. It is a political statement to say that sex as a topic should not ever be mentioned in middleschool. ---- But last but not least, even if this were only a discussion about profanity (which I don't think is the case), government censorship of profanity in schools is still a heck of a lot closer to a 1st Amendment violation on the sliding scale of censorship than people ganging up on each other on Twitter is. I still don't really accept that someone could legitimately find the first to be irrelevant to free speech conversations, but the second to be critically important.
- daenz 5y ago
  From the minutes you posted, I can see how one could interpret it as being politically motivated, especially the words about "bigger plan to holistically redact." However, I think there is an alternate explanation, from the last sentence: "in an appropriate way for the age related presentation." To me, that reads like they are concerned mostly about the age-appropriateness of the content, which is not necessarily politically motivated. For example, if they were being anti-gay, they wouldn't say "this pro-gay content is bad for 8th graders but ok for 10th graders." You and I have different views on sexual content being political or not, and that's fine. I can see both sides, but I just don't think it is inherently political. Wrt 1st Amendment violations, teachers are government employees representing the local government. Saying teachers can't teach something in school as a representative of the government is different than restricting a student's speech.
  - danShumway 5y ago
    > For example, if they were being anti-gay, they wouldn't say "this pro-gay content is bad for 8th graders but ok for 10th graders." Eh... there is a lot of history of LGBTQ+ censorship that should be taken into account when making a statement like this. "It's fine for adults but we need to protect the young from it," is historically a very common phrase that has popped up in discussions about sex education and sexual orientation being expressed in schools. I also want to kind of align the conversation with the specifics of what people objected to in this book. We're talking about 8 swear words and a single cartoon picture of a naked mouse -- all of which were censored from the book. So at this point we are talking about a topic, not specific instances of profanity. We're talking about a view that 8th graders are not mature enough to know that nakedness exists or that sometimes people swear. I just don't understand how that could be seen as a non-political view. There's a difference between someone saying that 8th graders shouldn't be exposed to the words "bitch" or "damn", and someone saying that 8th graders shouldn't be taught that anyone in any context might use those words. From the minutes again: > I understand that on TV and maybe at home these kids hear worse, but we are talking about things that if a student went down the hallway and said this, our disciplinary policy says they can be disciplined, and rightfully so. And we are teaching this and going against policy? Is the objection that someone in a book did something that was against school policy? Because that seems really political in nature to me as an objection. ---- > Saying teachers can't teach something in school as a representative of the government is different than restricting a student's speech. 100% agreed. I don't like what the school is doing here, but I doubt in this case it's a 1st Amendment violation. However, it's still very clearly closer to a 1st Amendment violation than anything happening on Twitter. Government restrictions on school curriculum can be ruled unconstitutional. Of course not all restrictions are unconstitutional, but it is within the realm of things we would talk about. How kids get taught and what topics teachers can bring up to them is a huge battleground in the fight over the government's ability to define what students are and aren't allowed to learn.

by daenz 5y ago

danShumway 5y ago

So two objections. First, from the minutes: > So can we take it, as far as it needs to go, because I don’t know that it is going to end with one book. I think the process needs to include a bigger plan to holistically redact things that we don’t want in there. We hope we have good employees, like minded culture, centric folks that fit with McMinn County, that they’re going to make the right discretionary decisions to redact that literature in an appropriate way for the age related presentation. It is very hard for me not to read this as political censorship in nature. ---- And second, given the teachers were planning to inform parents and censor the nudity/profanity, it is hard for me not to read this as an objection over students being taught about any subject that borders sex or sexual content. I think the "inappropriate" objection takes on a different tone when people are saying that it's inappropriate to teach literature even after the swear words have been whited out -- at that point we're talking about subject-matter, not profanity. I view that as both unrealistic in general (I wonder if parents have the same objections to mature topics in To Kill a Mockingbird or Shakespeare), but I also view it as explicitly political. It is a political statement to say that sex as a topic should not ever be mentioned in middleschool. ---- But last but not least, even if this were only a discussion about profanity (which I don't think is the case), government censorship of profanity in schools is still a heck of a lot closer to a 1st Amendment violation on the sliding scale of censorship than people ganging up on each other on Twitter is. I still don't really accept that someone could legitimately find the first to be irrelevant to free speech conversations, but the second to be critically important.

daenz 5y ago
From the minutes you posted, I can see how one could interpret it as being politically motivated, especially the words about "bigger plan to holistically redact." However, I think there is an alternate explanation, from the last sentence: "in an appropriate way for the age related presentation." To me, that reads like they are concerned mostly about the age-appropriateness of the content, which is not necessarily politically motivated. For example, if they were being anti-gay, they wouldn't say "this pro-gay content is bad for 8th graders but ok for 10th graders." You and I have different views on sexual content being political or not, and that's fine. I can see both sides, but I just don't think it is inherently political. Wrt 1st Amendment violations, teachers are government employees representing the local government. Saying teachers can't teach something in school as a representative of the government is different than restricting a student's speech.
- danShumway 5y ago
  > For example, if they were being anti-gay, they wouldn't say "this pro-gay content is bad for 8th graders but ok for 10th graders." Eh... there is a lot of history of LGBTQ+ censorship that should be taken into account when making a statement like this. "It's fine for adults but we need to protect the young from it," is historically a very common phrase that has popped up in discussions about sex education and sexual orientation being expressed in schools. I also want to kind of align the conversation with the specifics of what people objected to in this book. We're talking about 8 swear words and a single cartoon picture of a naked mouse -- all of which were censored from the book. So at this point we are talking about a topic, not specific instances of profanity. We're talking about a view that 8th graders are not mature enough to know that nakedness exists or that sometimes people swear. I just don't understand how that could be seen as a non-political view. There's a difference between someone saying that 8th graders shouldn't be exposed to the words "bitch" or "damn", and someone saying that 8th graders shouldn't be taught that anyone in any context might use those words. From the minutes again: > I understand that on TV and maybe at home these kids hear worse, but we are talking about things that if a student went down the hallway and said this, our disciplinary policy says they can be disciplined, and rightfully so. And we are teaching this and going against policy? Is the objection that someone in a book did something that was against school policy? Because that seems really political in nature to me as an objection. ---- > Saying teachers can't teach something in school as a representative of the government is different than restricting a student's speech. 100% agreed. I don't like what the school is doing here, but I doubt in this case it's a 1st Amendment violation. However, it's still very clearly closer to a 1st Amendment violation than anything happening on Twitter. Government restrictions on school curriculum can be ruled unconstitutional. Of course not all restrictions are unconstitutional, but it is within the realm of things we would talk about. How kids get taught and what topics teachers can bring up to them is a huge battleground in the fight over the government's ability to define what students are and aren't allowed to learn.