Federal judges are not infallible
1 Like
Neither are poorly written laws.
Seems those amendments need a lot of work, yeah
The first amendment needs work?..Ok
I do think we need to be very careful of what we limit in education and careful about the standards of teaching subjects. Itâs not an easy thing to legislate and balance.
If the article and people oppose to the legislation would phrase it like that I can understand. But instead this seems to be what they believe is the goal which completely loses anyone with any logically thinking. Itâs to perpetuate white supremacy.
The idea is simple: if kids are not taught about institutional racism, and the white supremacy it upholds, they wonât question it later when they are voters.
Actually I was just looking at it, and in my opinion youâre using it incorrectly to buttress your argument on a specific point.
Have you read the entire ruling? That could be illuminating, but one quick thing I see is this:
First, now CBS does a good job here of briefly and accurately characterizing the actual content of the law:
The law prohibits teaching or business practices that contend members of one ethnic group are inherently racist and should feel guilt for past actions committed by others. It also bars the notion that a personâs status as privileged or oppressed is necessarily determined by their race or gender, or that discrimination is acceptable to achieve diversity.
Thatâs not so hard, is it?
The judge is quoted as saying:
âOur professors are critical to a healthy democracy, and the 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. âIf our âpriests of democracyâ are not allowed to shed light on challenging ideas, then democracy will die in darkness.â
Heâs disagreeing with the law on freedom of speech grounds. On the level of university education, I agree that this is a strong argument (and Iâve mentioned that before in these discussions I recall, or at least that I donât support that aspect of the law). But he certainly is in no way saying the law prevents "anything that would cause anyone to âfeel guilt, anguish or any form of psychological distress.â"
Are you aware of anywhere where the judge does say anything like that?
I am also arguing on freedom of speech grounds. You seem to be upset about the wording of the article but that is their interpretation. Clearly the judge sees it as encroaching on first amendment rights.
In both cases you are stating the intention of the author the article (i.e. theyâre lying) and my intention (i.e. Iâm just using it to buttress my argument). I wonât assume why you are doing that but it is certainly not fair.
Not with me then. I brought up a specific point which you contested. See above.
Itâs 100% fair in both cases. See above.
The two are related.
Prohibiting the teaching of a subject will effectivelyâŚ
We could go around in circles forever on this. Others have a different interpretation of the law (because itâs vague) that you either donât understand or donât agree with, that does not indicate they are lying or being disingenuous.
Assuming the intention of someone undermines your argument. Stick to the merits.
If I can add some insight as Iâve actually taught kids US history and have been educated in the US.
From a teacherâs perspective, kids have trouble understanding the nuances of history. To be fair, most grade school teachers do too. Itâs not as simple as math (not that math is simple) but history is very nuanced different people have different perspectives of certain events.
When I taught kids, they often oversimplify things into so A was the good guy and B was the bad guy. They think in terms of something like Disney movies with a clear protagonist and antagonist.
This is problematic in trying to really to get kids to understand.
Iâm guilty of teaching something without grasping the nuances of a certain historical subject. Iâll give an example with Columbus. To simplify , I taught that he was basically a bad guy and not really the first to discover the Americas. Although itâs not false but I lacked a lot of knowledge into the subject I would later learn.
Columbus was human and some of the things he did is atrocious but we also need to consider how things were in context of the times before. For example even if Columbus wasnât really the first, he did map out the routes as an experienced map maker and sailor and he did sell maps for a long time and sailed since he was young. Thereâs a lot more to that but we donât need to get into it here.
From a studentâs perspective. The history or social studies classes Iâve been in were not so good. They miss out on a lot of important events and tend to not cover some stuff that really should like Japanese internment to give an example. These subjects should be taught.
I do think the education needs to improve but so far CRT doesnât seem to be the best in doing that and proponents of it seem to be more ideologically driven vs actually educating kids the events as unbiased and accurate as possible and letting the kids think for themselves.
2 Likes
What subject is being prohibited? Please cite the law directly
Yeah. Anyway, the receipts are just above.
Both my arguments are based purely on the facts of statements made.
Sure
So in this case the holocaust, the slave trade, racially motivated massacres, trail of tearsâŚand on and on. By doing so you are promoting students to feel guilt or anguish by virtue of their race if by chance you mention race in any context.
Where on the law are these subjects banned?
Canât teach white kids that theyâre guilty of these things, ok. Good.
These subjects are not banned. You are making assumptions unsupported by facts
They are assumptions of intention which is unnecessary unless one feels the need to undermine an opposing argument by challenging the character of the person making the argument. None of which is supported by facts.
Canât promote white kids to feel anguish. If you showed students people of other races being slaughtered by white people, then one consequence can certainly be feeling anguish. Whether or not you intended to promote it.
The distinction here, is teaching historical facts which may be terrible committed by white people and telling a child they are terrible because of the color of their skin.
One of those is ok the other is not.
There is no such distinction stated in the law unfortunately.
Perhaps, you and @tempogain have looked at the legalize. Would you agree teachers shuld not be teaching students they are terrible because of the color their skin?
Any kids. And that should be a good thing. If we have to promote kids to feel anguish, why make it race based? Where is the law specific to white kids?
If history is presented to look like only white people do this, yes. And thatâs the problem, it is fashionable to blame everything on white people, and to teach children that they inherit that racial guilt
If you have to show children people being slaughtered, at least include a little diversity. Make Mongolia Great Again.
If you have these discussions at a higher level, you will often hear that intentions donât matter
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2019/12/04/intentions-in-racism-dont-matter-impact-does.html