5 ms·

> Schools should endeavour to soberly, objectively teach children about the world, and leave defining right and wrong to parents as much as possible. They are

> Schools should endeavour to soberly, objectively teach children about the world, and leave defining right and wrong to parents as much as possible. They are certainly trying, but the sober, objective reality is "Some people dress using gender signifiers counter to the traditional ones for myriad reasons, and almost all of those reasons are harmless." The political friction is coming from the people who think that lesson is, somehow, already too politically charged to share. > you should be entitled to raise your child with a racist or homophobic worldview. Trying to correct for this is not the government's job. That's very thorny "we live in a society" territory because in point of fact, the entire underpinning of public education as an institution is that a democratic society requires a populace educated in the practice of citizenry because they have the collective responsibility / burden / obligation to be citizens. "I have indeed two great measures at heart, without which no republic can maintain itself in strength. 1. that of general education to enable every man to judge for himself what will secure or endanger his freedom..." [Thomas Jefferson]. That obligation ties into the relatively-new concept of "nations" (as opposed to previous structures of clan / tribe / subject of a king / etc.). And in that context: no, it would not be okay for the public education system to just teach racism, because racism is caustic to the national constitution. When this became apparent during the mid-20th century, the racists in some states temporarily suspended public education. As a useful rule of thumb: always be deeply suspect of those who would claim that topic X is not appropriate to teach at all or, when faced with choosing conservation of what they know vs. allowing public education, would torch the education.

thegrimmest 4y ago
I'm perfectly fine with an objective take on identity and subculture formation, but it seems like pretty advanced material inappropriate to elementary school students. Deconstructing societal norms is just too advanced for young children. It also directly undermines parents who are trying to instill these very norms. The lessons that are too politically charged are unsurprisingly those that have the least evidential support - namely those rooted in social constructionism. Even the concept of "gender" isn't well-defined enough to teach a child, given that even experts can't ELI5 "what is a woman?". Gender itself is not a plain fact about objective reality (like sex is). > ...judge for himself what will secure or endanger his freedom > ...is caustic to the national constitution These two things are actually not contradictory. Being racist doesn't stop you from judging what will secure or endanger your freedom, you may just reach different conclusions than other people. This should be OK in a free and pluralistic society.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  > Deconstructing societal norms is just too advanced material for young children. It also directly undermines parents who are trying to instill these very norms. Kids crossdress in kindergarten; I don't know at what age discussion of why one does or does not do that is appropriate, but I can tell you that absent some rules it's just yet another fun game they play. > Gender itself is not a plain fact about objective reality (like sex is). That implies that when a boy picks up the feather boa in kindergarten the appropriate response from public education is to do nothing, right? > Being racist doesn't stop you from judging what will secure or endanger your freedom, you may just reach different conclusions than other people. Ah, but here's the rub: we had a whole fight about that topic specifically and decided to kick it out because of the damage we observed it doing. Separate but equal and its ilk didn't work; we have a cultural narrative of "all men created equal" (for temporally-expanding definitions of 'men') that is incompatible with racism. On that issue, the nation (as a cultural construct) is pretty decided. There are plenty who would love to reopen the question. The public education system is not obligated to give them a line-item on the SOLs. They can and will try to seize one, of course, via the democratic process (as is their right, and those who disagree with them must be aware that this is their intended design).
  - thegrimmest 4y ago
    Yes, kids cross-dress in kindergarten. Just like all harmless childhood play behaviours, they should mostly be ignored by educators. > That implies that when a boy picks up the feather boa in kindergarten the appropriate response from public education is to do nothing, right? Yes, exactly that - nothing. Just like when a kid colours their face with marker, or puts their clothes on backwards, or any other strange thing that kids do when they are developing. The thing not to do is call special attention to this particular play behaviour because it's related to "gender". And if other kids tease or socially reject said boy for picking up the feather boa, then the appropriate thing to do is also nothing. This is how social norms are formed. Interfering with this process is not for educators to do. > we had a whole fight about that topic > "all men created equal" (for temporally-expanding definitions of 'men') > they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness But importantly, continually diminishing definitions of "liberty". All we've done for the last century+ is expand the obligations of the private person/business owner to the public and the state. Segregation is certainly abhorrent for the government to practice, but a private person should be able to choose whom they serve by whatever criteria they see fit. This is the definition of liberty that the nation (as a cultural construct) was founded on.
johngladtj 4y ago
It's not thorny at all, it's the bare minimum required in order for you to have any shred of legitimacy when you argue against fascist states enforcing their own moral rules via pública education.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  Can you clarify your meaning? I'm not sure what the pronouns in this sentence are referring to ("it's not thorny", "it's the bare minimum": what's not thorny or the bare minimum?)

thegrimmest 4y ago

I'm perfectly fine with an objective take on identity and subculture formation, but it seems like pretty advanced material inappropriate to elementary school students. Deconstructing societal norms is just too advanced for young children. It also directly undermines parents who are trying to instill these very norms. The lessons that are too politically charged are unsurprisingly those that have the least evidential support - namely those rooted in social constructionism. Even the concept of "gender" isn't well-defined enough to teach a child, given that even experts can't ELI5 "what is a woman?". Gender itself is not a plain fact about objective reality (like sex is). > ...judge for himself what will secure or endanger his freedom > ...is caustic to the national constitution These two things are actually not contradictory. Being racist doesn't stop you from judging what will secure or endanger your freedom, you may just reach different conclusions than other people. This should be OK in a free and pluralistic society.

shadowgovt 4y ago
> Deconstructing societal norms is just too advanced material for young children. It also directly undermines parents who are trying to instill these very norms. Kids crossdress in kindergarten; I don't know at what age discussion of why one does or does not do that is appropriate, but I can tell you that absent some rules it's just yet another fun game they play. > Gender itself is not a plain fact about objective reality (like sex is). That implies that when a boy picks up the feather boa in kindergarten the appropriate response from public education is to do nothing, right? > Being racist doesn't stop you from judging what will secure or endanger your freedom, you may just reach different conclusions than other people. Ah, but here's the rub: we had a whole fight about that topic specifically and decided to kick it out because of the damage we observed it doing. Separate but equal and its ilk didn't work; we have a cultural narrative of "all men created equal" (for temporally-expanding definitions of 'men') that is incompatible with racism. On that issue, the nation (as a cultural construct) is pretty decided. There are plenty who would love to reopen the question. The public education system is not obligated to give them a line-item on the SOLs. They can and will try to seize one, of course, via the democratic process (as is their right, and those who disagree with them must be aware that this is their intended design).
- thegrimmest 4y ago
  Yes, kids cross-dress in kindergarten. Just like all harmless childhood play behaviours, they should mostly be ignored by educators. > That implies that when a boy picks up the feather boa in kindergarten the appropriate response from public education is to do nothing, right? Yes, exactly that - nothing. Just like when a kid colours their face with marker, or puts their clothes on backwards, or any other strange thing that kids do when they are developing. The thing not to do is call special attention to this particular play behaviour because it's related to "gender". And if other kids tease or socially reject said boy for picking up the feather boa, then the appropriate thing to do is also nothing. This is how social norms are formed. Interfering with this process is not for educators to do. > we had a whole fight about that topic > "all men created equal" (for temporally-expanding definitions of 'men') > they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness But importantly, continually diminishing definitions of "liberty". All we've done for the last century+ is expand the obligations of the private person/business owner to the public and the state. Segregation is certainly abhorrent for the government to practice, but a private person should be able to choose whom they serve by whatever criteria they see fit. This is the definition of liberty that the nation (as a cultural construct) was founded on.

johngladtj 4y ago

It's not thorny at all, it's the bare minimum required in order for you to have any shred of legitimacy when you argue against fascist states enforcing their own moral rules via pública education.

shadowgovt 4y ago
Can you clarify your meaning? I'm not sure what the pronouns in this sentence are referring to ("it's not thorny", "it's the bare minimum": what's not thorny or the bare minimum?)