5 ms·

There was no school ban. The district was using Maus (a graphic novel) in the curriculum to teach about the holocaust, and opted to search for an actual textboo

by rsj_hn 5y ago

There was no school ban. The district was using Maus (a graphic novel) in the curriculum to teach about the holocaust, and opted to search for an actual textbook to use in its place. That's all. The comic book remains in the school library, and if they can't find an actual textbook they'll go back to the comic book. It was the right call. The extreme freakout over this as well as hordes of sanctimonious diatribes that resulted is unfortunately common in our current social-media driven news cycle, where facts so often succumb to Narrative, in this case, the narrative being that a school does not want to teach the holocaust, rather than the fact that they don't want to use a comic book to do it. I like Maus, but would not rely on it as textbook, either.

version_five 5y ago
Is there something false or misleading in the above comment? A few people have posted something similar. Why is it getting modded down?
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  All I can think of is that a lot of people enjoy outrage so when someone points out "No, the facts are different, so there is nothing to be outraged about", instead of viewing that as good news - that hey, schools are not actually censoring the holocaust and Maus was not banned anywhere - they get really angry as the legitimacy of their outrage is threatened. It's really strange because if you tell someone who was convinced that say, a man was killed a robbery, that actually no, there was no robbery and no one was hurt, most would breathe a sigh of relief and view that as good news. But when it comes to these culture war issues, the reaction of hearing the facts is often people taking offense that their previous offense was not justified. IMO that's a good way of determining whether something is a real issue or a culture war issue -- if it was a real issue, people would be glad to hear that a bad thing didn't happen.
  - NoraCodes 5y ago
    I would argue that people are primarily reacting to the reasoning given by the parents; they're not upset that the book will not be used, but that the people making the decision feel that the inclusion of (censored) profanity and nudity are objectionable enough to call for a change in curriculum. Certainly this is perhaps somewhat overblown, but I don't think it's fair to say that people are "angry that the legitimacy of their outrage is threatened" - I think your downvoters feel that you're missing the point. (I did not flag your comment, to be clear.) There's also the matter of disagreement about the word "banned"; personally I think it's not the right word to use here, but there is an argument to be made that the object of the verb is not students - that is, not making the book totally unavailable - but teachers. They have "banned" teachers from using it in the curriculum. Again, I don't agree with this use of the term, but I don't think it's as clear-cut as "the media is lying about what happened to support their narrative."
danShumway 5y ago
> where facts so often succumb to Narrative These kinds of confident assertions about "facts" and "narrative" are also a kind of narrative of their own; they are designed to fit into and reinforce a broad narrative about the world any social outrage is usually just the result of poor research or snap-takes rather than actual differences in ideologies or opinions, and that people's default reaction to them should be to assume everyone is just overreacting because they always do. So let's step away from that narrative as well, and instead look at something that's a bit more tangible. For anyone who's curious about the actual reasoning, the minutes of the meeting are online (https://core-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/asset/uploaded_file/1818370/Called_Meeting_Minutes_1-10-22.pdf https://core-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/asset/uploaded_...). So you don't need to take a secondhand opinion, you can read the parents' reasoning for yourself. That's a good factual place to start. And from the minutes, it is very hard to conclude that the objection to Maus was that Maus isn't a textbook. The overwhelming objection was concern over several swear words and a naked image, all of them censored in the books that were to be used for the curriculum, and an objection to minor depictions of nakedness (of cartoon rats being literally marched into camps), and an objection that bringing up disturbing topics like hangings, child deaths, or the existence of swearing/sex to 8th graders was inappropriate in a conversation about the holocaust. Criticism of the board's decision isn't based on a misunderstanding of the facts or people jumping to conclusions without reading the minutes, but rather an assertion that teaching kids about the holocaust necessarily requires mentioning the parts of it that were disturbing. In fact, far from the removal of Maus from the curriculum being about whether or not Maus is a textbook, the minutes contain criticism from a parent of other school textbooks that contain swearwords. Which should make it really clear that the issue wasn't that Maus isn't a formal text. I do not know how to read the full minutes in a way that supports the parent comment's argument. It confidently misrepresents the entire conflict with no evidence, even as it claims that everyone else is doing the same.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  You are confusing a public hearing about a decision with the actual decision, which is usually made by administrators and then the board votes up or down. The outcome is generally known beforehand and the public hearing gives an opportunity for board members to speak. In these hearings, board members talk about all sorts of things -- have you ever been to such a hearing in San Francisco or for the SFUSD? You'd think every school policy was about climate change and racism. You would be groaning in embarrassment at what the schoolboard is saying and you'd be shocked at their ignorance. This is not to pick on San Francisco, it's true of most public meetings at the local level, which are involve lots of politicking and posturing, when the outcome of the vote is known in advance. I'm not saying this is bad, but it's certainly misleading to be citing the transcript of such a hearing as opposed to the actual text of the resolution being voted on when describing what a schoolboard did. It's also misleading to say a comic book is being "banned" when it's being replaced by an actual textbook and is still available for students to read if they want to.

by rsj_hn 5y ago

version_five 5y ago

Is there something false or misleading in the above comment? A few people have posted something similar. Why is it getting modded down?

rsj_hn 5y ago
All I can think of is that a lot of people enjoy outrage so when someone points out "No, the facts are different, so there is nothing to be outraged about", instead of viewing that as good news - that hey, schools are not actually censoring the holocaust and Maus was not banned anywhere - they get really angry as the legitimacy of their outrage is threatened. It's really strange because if you tell someone who was convinced that say, a man was killed a robbery, that actually no, there was no robbery and no one was hurt, most would breathe a sigh of relief and view that as good news. But when it comes to these culture war issues, the reaction of hearing the facts is often people taking offense that their previous offense was not justified. IMO that's a good way of determining whether something is a real issue or a culture war issue -- if it was a real issue, people would be glad to hear that a bad thing didn't happen.
- NoraCodes 5y ago
  I would argue that people are primarily reacting to the reasoning given by the parents; they're not upset that the book will not be used, but that the people making the decision feel that the inclusion of (censored) profanity and nudity are objectionable enough to call for a change in curriculum. Certainly this is perhaps somewhat overblown, but I don't think it's fair to say that people are "angry that the legitimacy of their outrage is threatened" - I think your downvoters feel that you're missing the point. (I did not flag your comment, to be clear.) There's also the matter of disagreement about the word "banned"; personally I think it's not the right word to use here, but there is an argument to be made that the object of the verb is not students - that is, not making the book totally unavailable - but teachers. They have "banned" teachers from using it in the curriculum. Again, I don't agree with this use of the term, but I don't think it's as clear-cut as "the media is lying about what happened to support their narrative."

danShumway 5y ago

> where facts so often succumb to Narrative These kinds of confident assertions about "facts" and "narrative" are also a kind of narrative of their own; they are designed to fit into and reinforce a broad narrative about the world any social outrage is usually just the result of poor research or snap-takes rather than actual differences in ideologies or opinions, and that people's default reaction to them should be to assume everyone is just overreacting because they always do. So let's step away from that narrative as well, and instead look at something that's a bit more tangible. For anyone who's curious about the actual reasoning, the minutes of the meeting are online (https://core-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/asset/uploaded_file/1818370/Called_Meeting_Minutes_1-10-22.pdf https://core-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/asset/uploaded_...). So you don't need to take a secondhand opinion, you can read the parents' reasoning for yourself. That's a good factual place to start. And from the minutes, it is very hard to conclude that the objection to Maus was that Maus isn't a textbook. The overwhelming objection was concern over several swear words and a naked image, all of them censored in the books that were to be used for the curriculum, and an objection to minor depictions of nakedness (of cartoon rats being literally marched into camps), and an objection that bringing up disturbing topics like hangings, child deaths, or the existence of swearing/sex to 8th graders was inappropriate in a conversation about the holocaust. Criticism of the board's decision isn't based on a misunderstanding of the facts or people jumping to conclusions without reading the minutes, but rather an assertion that teaching kids about the holocaust necessarily requires mentioning the parts of it that were disturbing. In fact, far from the removal of Maus from the curriculum being about whether or not Maus is a textbook, the minutes contain criticism from a parent of other school textbooks that contain swearwords. Which should make it really clear that the issue wasn't that Maus isn't a formal text. I do not know how to read the full minutes in a way that supports the parent comment's argument. It confidently misrepresents the entire conflict with no evidence, even as it claims that everyone else is doing the same.

rsj_hn 5y ago
You are confusing a public hearing about a decision with the actual decision, which is usually made by administrators and then the board votes up or down. The outcome is generally known beforehand and the public hearing gives an opportunity for board members to speak. In these hearings, board members talk about all sorts of things -- have you ever been to such a hearing in San Francisco or for the SFUSD? You'd think every school policy was about climate change and racism. You would be groaning in embarrassment at what the schoolboard is saying and you'd be shocked at their ignorance. This is not to pick on San Francisco, it's true of most public meetings at the local level, which are involve lots of politicking and posturing, when the outcome of the vote is known in advance. I'm not saying this is bad, but it's certainly misleading to be citing the transcript of such a hearing as opposed to the actual text of the resolution being voted on when describing what a schoolboard did. It's also misleading to say a comic book is being "banned" when it's being replaced by an actual textbook and is still available for students to read if they want to.