2 ms·
> 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 a
by 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 agoYou 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.
- danShumway 5y agoHere's the board's statement on the controversy: https://www.mcminn.k12.tn.us/o/mcsd/article/639918 https://www.mcminn.k12.tn.us/o/mcsd/article/639918 I can't find any reference that implies that this decision was reached because Maus was too informal. Certainly the people who actually voted don't think that was the reason. I also can't find any reference confirming that it's already been replaced or saying what it's been replaced by. Where are you getting this information? I'd love to check what the administrators were thinking, but I can't find the actual text of the resolution online, and from their own statements it's very clear that the board members -- the people actually responsible for confirming whether the resolution should pass or not -- voted because they thought the book was inappropriate for middleschool children. > It's also misleading to say a comic book is being "banned" I think sometimes people use the word "ban" in different ways/contexts that apply different degrees of censorship. It's totally valid to for you to argue that the usage here is inappropriate or that it implies something stronger than what actually happened. However, given that the school board itself uses language saying that they "voted to remove the graphic novel Maus from McMinn County Schools", I don't think "ban" is an completely unreasonable word for someone to use or that using the word "ban" implies that someone is ignorant of the facts of what happened.
- apostacy 5y agoA small school district removed a book because it contained some profanity that made some parents uncomfortable. Is this supposed to be more important than the massive changes that states like California have quietly pushed through over the last year? How am I supposed to take this incident seriously?
- danShumway 5y agoNo one has to take it seriously if they don't want to, they just have to avoid chiding people for jumping to baseless conclusions while they simultaneously describe the situation in a way that is entirely fictional. "Okay, the explanation of events given was completely wrong, but nevertheless it fits the general theme of overreaction" is not really avoiding a narrative.
- apostacy 5y agoCalifornia recently decided that long division should not be taught until middle school, in order to fight "white supremacy" Some Tennessee backwater is not the joke here.
- danShumway 5y agoPlease take whatever fight/flamewar you're trying to start elsewhere. I'm just trying to get people to accurately describe what happened -- particularly if they're also calling out people for not looking up the facts. OP's description of the events doesn't match the meeting notes of what happened and doesn't accurately describe why people were criticizing the decision. California has nothing to do with that.