Speaking of difficult discussions on race taking place in the appropriate venues
Note that she was both fired from one university and canceled from another before giving the talk.
My actual understanding of her original controversial position is vague, and i think difficult to defend.
But this presents a good example of how students, and student teachers, are learning to have these difficult discussions at universities.
This might just be funny both ways
This would also fit on peak woke, but since I previously wrote here:
I would like to pat myself on the back.
Once again, the lie. The lie is apparantly the best possible argument against this law in the Guardianâs estimation as it is given such a place of prominence
In addition to his Stop-Woke (Wrongs to Our Kids and Employees) Act, which prohibits educational institutions and businesses from teaching students and employees anything that would cause anyone to âfeel guilt, anguish or any form of psychological distressâ due to their race, color, sex or national origin,
I will give them credit for helpfully linking to the law to make the lie so easy to verify. It says little for the average Guardian reader however. I will attempt to contact them about it later. This is for their benefit as there surely are better arguments against this law than the lie.
https://www.flsenate.gov/Committees/BillSummaries/2022/html/2809
The bill specifies that subjecting any individual, as a condition of employment, membership, certification, licensing, credentialing, or passing an examination, to training, instruction, or any other required activity; or subjecting any K-20 public education student or employee to training or instruction, that espouses, promotes, advances, inculcates, or compels such individual to believe the following concepts constitutes an unlawful employment practice or unlawful discrimination:
A person, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, bears personal responsibility for and must feel guilt, anguish, or other forms of psychological distress because of actions, in which the person played no part, committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, national origin, or sex.
Also:
A person should not be instructed that he or she must feel guilt, anguish, or other forms of psychological distress for actions, in which he or she played no part, committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex.
Thereâs no lie. The way the laws are written are vague and open to broad interpretation.
Teaching some white people did bad stuff could certainly be considered as promoting that white people should feel guilt.
Referring back to the Federal judge who wrote the injunction against the stop the woke act:
âThis is positively dystopian,â Walker wrote. "It should go without saying that if liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.ââ
Itâs a willful misrepresentation of the facts to advance their point of view. Otherwise known as a lie.
I disagree. It is a different interpretation of the law which is the inherent problem with vaguely written laws. Iâve read through these laws and come to the same conclusion as have many others.
That started in universities by the progressive left. So, the finger of blame turns on itself.
I donât think that is enough justification to encroach on free speech.
Can you identify the part of the law which prohibits teaching anything that would cause anyone to âfeel guilt, anguish or any form of psychological distressâ?
Perhaps it depends upon the situation. I donât know how all-encompassing your defence of free speech is.
Teachers could say straight out that just because someone is white doesnât mean they deserve any guilt at all. Take away that vague interpretation. Itâs ok to be white. Teach that.
We wouldnât let teachers teach racism against non white people. It is fashionable to teach that whiteness is a problem, and if existing laws arenât enough to stop that, then we need more laws. I donât see the normalization of racism as good for anyone, especially not minorities
Iâd be willing to bet a cheesburger that teachers using negative stereotypes about people of color wouldnât get the same protection
Yes the words highlighted below effectively leave open any instruction to be interpreted as promoting divisive concepts.
Put that in a bill. It can only be considered as not promoting if you add this sentence to the end of every instruction. But no I have a feeling itâs intentionally vague.
The laws are not specific enough to ensure any protection of free speech. Anyone can argue that teaching racism promoted guilt.
Has anyone tried to use existing laws of discrimination? You donât need new laws if the existing make no exception for white people.
Canât
Youâre just taking a couple of words totally out of context. I donât see how that proves anything much less that it shows the law bans "anything that would cause anyone to âfeel guilt, anguish or any form of psychological distress.â On top of that, youâre accusing the law of being âvagueâ (itâs actually very precise in its wording), yet this incredibly vague argument is your best criticism of it?
Youâre ignoring the ruling of a federal judge. Yes vague laws are dangerous and open to abuse. Thatâs a pretty important thing to criticize.
âThe State of Floridaâs decision to choose which viewpoints are worthy of illumination and which must remain in the shadows has implications for us all,â Walker wrote. âBut the First Amendment does not permit the State of Florida to muzzle its university professors, impose its own orthodoxy of viewpoints, and cast us all into the dark.â