5 ms·

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

by 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

> 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.