4 ms·

Dishonest article. It claims, falsely, that "a Tennessee school board voted to ban the book." But the book was not banned; it was simply removed from the curri

Dishonest article. It claims, falsely, that "a Tennessee school board voted to ban the book." But the book was not banned; it was simply removed from the curriculum. The board even suggested adding it back if they couldn't find an alternative they preferred. According to the minutes of the 2022-01-10 McMinn County Board of Education meeting [1]: > Jonathan Pierce: My motion was to remove this particular book from our curriculum and that if possible, find a book that will supplement the one there. > ... > Rob Shamblin: At that point if it’s been removed, it could be added back if there is no better alternative, I assume? I don’t know what it’s going to take to find an alternative. The motion passed unanimously (10-0). [1] 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_...

tandymodel100 5y ago
legerdemain 5y ago
Prohibiting books from being added to a curriculum is what banning is. I have seen this disingenuous copy-paste objection show up in every thread on this topic on HN, and it hurts to see people swallow it. Especially since it then conveniently leads down the slippery slope into aggrieved complaining about scumbag reporters and scumbag press and how newspapers were newspapers and news was news back in the good ole days in the nineteen umpties.
- bumbledraven 5y ago
  Stating that Maus was "banned" without qualification is misleading. It gives the impression that the book was removed from the library and that teachers are prohibited from using it as a resource. The author had plenty of space to clarify this in the article and chose not to. What happened is that the board approved a motion to remove Maus from the list of prescribed materials for the 8th grade unit on the Holocaust. Lord of the Rings isn't on that list either. Neither book has been "banned". > Prohibiting books from being added to a curriculum is what banning is. The board didn't "prohibit" anything from being added to the curriculum. They are the ones responsible for the curriculum and they simply removed Maus from it. As noted in the meeting, they could add it back at any time if they choose.
  - otterley 5y ago
    If a teacher is forbidden from getting copies of a book (even at their own expense), distributing them to students, and assigning reading and giving lessons on the book, then it’s effectively banned. Let’s not play semantics here.
    - bumbledraven 5y ago
      Yes, that would qualify as banning if it happened, but as far as I can tell, neither the article nor the meeting minutes state that McMinn County teachers are forbidden from doing any of those things.
      - otterley 5y ago
        It’s pretty reasonable to infer from the circumstances that such an attempt would immediately get the teacher into big trouble. It would certainly have a chilling effect at the very least.
        bumbledraven 5y ago
        I think reasonable people can disagree about the extent to which removing a book from the required reading list would have such a chilling effect. In any event, can we agree that it's misleading to describe what happened simply as "banning" without further qualification? As an example of a more accurate description, I would point to Reason's article on the subject [1]: > Tennessee School Board Pulls Maus From Eighth-Grade Curriculum > A grim sign of the bureaucratic mentality controlling public education [1] https://reason.com/2022/01/27/tennessee-school-board-pulls-maus-from-eighth-grade-curriculum/ https://reason.com/2022/01/27/tennessee-school-board-pulls-m...
        otterley 5y ago
        I still disagree because my experience with the way schools operate is that “removed from the curriculum” and “banned” amount to the same thing in practice. It’s a distinction without a difference.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- finite_jest 5y ago
  > I have seen this disingenuous copy-paste objection show up in every thread on this topic on HN To be fair, your comment is objectively more generic and closer to a "copy-paste objection" than the GP's. I have no idea how the press were in nineteen umpties, but it seems clear to me that the reporting by Mother Jones is pretty biased, and they have their fair share of polemic-level opinion pieces. Do you think they would cover the recent removal of To Kill A Mockingbird (which is ironically a book they do mention in the article) from the curriculum by a Washington school board [1] in the same way? I don't think so. I searched their website, and it looks like they haven't covered it at all. [1]: https://www.newsweek.com/schools-drop-kill-mockingbird-requi https://www.newsweek.com/schools-drop-kill-mockingbird-requi...
  - otterley 5y ago
    “They didn’t complain about this other equally bad thing” is a weak argument and isn’t HN-caliber.
    - finite_jest 5y ago
      I think that is is an excellent and relevant example of press bias, which @legerdemain was commenting on. Generic straw mans are not conducive to good faith arguments, HN or elsewhere.
      - otterley 5y ago
        It might also be simply that the press has limited resources, and being composed of human beings, cannot be expected to operate with perfect ideological consistency.
        finite_jest 5y ago
        I don't think that's the reason. Hanlon's razor is just a heuristic, we shouldn't blindly and naively apply it to everything. I think you can see how biased Mother Jones is by taking the headlines on their front page, and trying to rewrite them as someone attempting to be impartial would.

tandymodel100 5y ago

legerdemain 5y ago

Prohibiting books from being added to a curriculum is what banning is. I have seen this disingenuous copy-paste objection show up in every thread on this topic on HN, and it hurts to see people swallow it. Especially since it then conveniently leads down the slippery slope into aggrieved complaining about scumbag reporters and scumbag press and how newspapers were newspapers and news was news back in the good ole days in the nineteen umpties.

bumbledraven 5y ago
Stating that Maus was "banned" without qualification is misleading. It gives the impression that the book was removed from the library and that teachers are prohibited from using it as a resource. The author had plenty of space to clarify this in the article and chose not to. What happened is that the board approved a motion to remove Maus from the list of prescribed materials for the 8th grade unit on the Holocaust. Lord of the Rings isn't on that list either. Neither book has been "banned". > Prohibiting books from being added to a curriculum is what banning is. The board didn't "prohibit" anything from being added to the curriculum. They are the ones responsible for the curriculum and they simply removed Maus from it. As noted in the meeting, they could add it back at any time if they choose.
- otterley 5y ago
  If a teacher is forbidden from getting copies of a book (even at their own expense), distributing them to students, and assigning reading and giving lessons on the book, then it’s effectively banned. Let’s not play semantics here.
  - bumbledraven 5y ago
    Yes, that would qualify as banning if it happened, but as far as I can tell, neither the article nor the meeting minutes state that McMinn County teachers are forbidden from doing any of those things.
    - otterley 5y ago
      It’s pretty reasonable to infer from the circumstances that such an attempt would immediately get the teacher into big trouble. It would certainly have a chilling effect at the very least.
      - bumbledraven 5y ago
        I think reasonable people can disagree about the extent to which removing a book from the required reading list would have such a chilling effect. In any event, can we agree that it's misleading to describe what happened simply as "banning" without further qualification? As an example of a more accurate description, I would point to Reason's article on the subject [1]: > Tennessee School Board Pulls Maus From Eighth-Grade Curriculum > A grim sign of the bureaucratic mentality controlling public education [1] https://reason.com/2022/01/27/tennessee-school-board-pulls-maus-from-eighth-grade-curriculum/ https://reason.com/2022/01/27/tennessee-school-board-pulls-m...
        otterley 5y ago
        I still disagree because my experience with the way schools operate is that “removed from the curriculum” and “banned” amount to the same thing in practice. It’s a distinction without a difference.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
finite_jest 5y ago
> I have seen this disingenuous copy-paste objection show up in every thread on this topic on HN To be fair, your comment is objectively more generic and closer to a "copy-paste objection" than the GP's. I have no idea how the press were in nineteen umpties, but it seems clear to me that the reporting by Mother Jones is pretty biased, and they have their fair share of polemic-level opinion pieces. Do you think they would cover the recent removal of To Kill A Mockingbird (which is ironically a book they do mention in the article) from the curriculum by a Washington school board [1] in the same way? I don't think so. I searched their website, and it looks like they haven't covered it at all. [1]: https://www.newsweek.com/schools-drop-kill-mockingbird-requi https://www.newsweek.com/schools-drop-kill-mockingbird-requi...
- otterley 5y ago
  “They didn’t complain about this other equally bad thing” is a weak argument and isn’t HN-caliber.
  - finite_jest 5y ago
    I think that is is an excellent and relevant example of press bias, which @legerdemain was commenting on. Generic straw mans are not conducive to good faith arguments, HN or elsewhere.
    - otterley 5y ago
      It might also be simply that the press has limited resources, and being composed of human beings, cannot be expected to operate with perfect ideological consistency.
      - finite_jest 5y ago
        I don't think that's the reason. Hanlon's razor is just a heuristic, we shouldn't blindly and naively apply it to everything. I think you can see how biased Mother Jones is by taking the headlines on their front page, and trying to rewrite them as someone attempting to be impartial would.