The Ornery American Forums

General Category => General Comments => Topic started by: Wayward Son on November 10, 2021, 11:24:49 AM

Title: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: Wayward Son on November 10, 2021, 11:24:49 AM
A Kansas school district has effectively banned 29 books that a parent has found objectionable (https://www.newsweek.com/school-district-pulls-29-books-libraries-1647822), including The Handmaid's Tale, The Hate U Give, the play Fences, and a book on the origin of the KKK.

Officially, it is just a review, to find out "if the books contained on this list meet our educational goals or not."  But "Challenged materials shall not be removed from use during the review period," per the school policy, yet the assistance school superintendent has directed librarians not to check out the books until the review is complete.  Limiting reading the books to the library seems like removing a significant portion of the books' use in my book. :)

Does anyone else smell the odor of the real reason Republicans are making a big deal of critical race theory here? ;)
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: yossarian22c on November 10, 2021, 11:36:35 AM
Does anyone else smell the odor of the real reason Republicans are making a big deal of critical race theory here? ;)

They can make the cliff notes version out to be radical and scary. And despite its complete absence of being taught outside of some grad schools it makes for "good politics." It stirs up their base and swings some moderates who think the far left is too much.
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: Fenring on November 10, 2021, 12:04:43 PM
Does anyone else smell the odor of the real reason Republicans are making a big deal of critical race theory here? ;)

I've seen enough videos, including from NYC public schools, that seem to show that CRT is being taught in schools (including elementary). How large-scale a problem this is, I'm not sure, but it is happening in at least some places.

The usual response to this claim is the motte and bailey "oh it's not really CRT being taught, that's only an adademia thing, this is just good virtue being taught". Alternatively it could be seen as a No True Scotsman variant. So to be clear, obviously grade schoolers are not being taught an abstract academic theory, but rather are taught the fruits of its conclusions as "facts" of being a good person. I personally don't think any reasonable person should object to the actual theory being taught as theory; it's when the conclusions are passed along as truth minus the assertions of the theory that such education can become pernicious.
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: LetterRip on November 10, 2021, 01:19:28 PM
Fenring what conclusions of 'critical race theory' are 'being taught as facts' in your opinion?

This article states that "The core idea is that race is a social construct, and that racism is not merely the product of individual bias or prejudice, but also something embedded in legal systems and policies."

1) Race is a social construct - that is a conclusion of evolutionary biology rather than a hypothesis (within 'race' genetic variability is greater than between 'race' genetic variability and there aren't any genes that can be systematically correlated with definitions of race)
2) 'racism can be embedded in legal systems and policies' - again broadly accepted fact with a wealth of well known examples

https://www.edweek.org/leadership/what-is-critical-race-theory-and-why-is-it-under-attack/2021/05

Do you find either of those to be controversial?  If a teacher teaches those are they, in your opinion 'teaching critical race theory'?  Or do you have something more specific in mind?
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: LetterRip on November 10, 2021, 01:57:06 PM
More on 'race' as construct,

Quote
Of the 0.1% of DNA that varies among individuals, what proportion varies among main populations? Consider an apportionment of Old World populations into three continents (Africa, Asia and Europe), a grouping that corresponds to a common view of three of the 'major races'16,17. Approximately 85–90% of genetic variation is found within these continental groups, and only an additional 10–15% of variation is found between them18,19,20 (Table 1). In other words, ∼90% of total genetic variation would be found in a collection of individuals from a single continent, and only ∼10% more variation would be found if the collection consisted of Europeans, Asians and Africans. The proportion of total genetic variation ascribed to differences between continental populations, called FST, is consistent, regardless of the type of autosomal loci examined (Table 1). FST varies, however, depending on how the human population is divided. If four Old World populations (European, African, East Asian and Indian subcontinent) are examined instead of three, FST (estimated for 100 Alu element insertion polymorphisms) decreases from 14% to 10% (ref. 21). These estimates of FST and π tell us that humans vary only slightly at the DNA level and that only a small proportion of this variation separates continental populations.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ng1435
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: TheDrake on November 10, 2021, 02:03:24 PM
The most cited thing from NYC is "white privilege" which of course as a concept is not at all CRT. Those denying that white privilege exists are uneducated. Numerous studies have demonstrated white advantage based only on an applicants name. Policies discriminating against traditionally black hairstyles exist. Wanting your kids to not be taught that is willful ignorance. If the concept of white privilege triggers you, that too is an example of white privilege.
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: wmLambert on November 10, 2021, 02:14:21 PM
Some books are often brought to the attention of librarians just because books may be in the wrong section. For instance, "The Valley of Horses" by Jean Auel, is often racked in children's sections because the title sounds innocent. Upon reading it however, the graphic sex is undeniable - and most librarians are aghast at where they placed it.

There are many, many books in the world, and all have a place in the library, but not necessarily in the children's section or in school libraries for children. Which books are which are the result of mutual decisions with parents and teachers. No one should have a say that contradicts others concerns without addressing them. Nothing wrong in this at all.

You seem to want to make parents into the caricature of Eulalie Mackechnie Shinn in "The Music Man" when she tells Marian the Librarian that "The Rubaiyat Of Omar Khayyam" is smutty.

I would sooner make an issue with most schoolbooks that print proven distortions of fact and history. For instance,  Mant school books relied on the Sadler Report of 1832 that reported the Industrial Revolution was "crowded with overworked children", "hotbeds of putrid fever," and "monotonous toil in a hell of human cruelty." Charles Dickens wrote novels that pushed that image.

Yet most students believe the worst of the Industrial Revolution that improved conditions far more than what is depicted in lying text books.

Quote
Mr. Sadler, we know today, lied in his report. He was a member of Parliament and made up much of his report to gain support for a bill he wanted to see Parliament pass. Economist W. H. Hutt has described Sadler's falsification of evidence. Even Friedrich Engels, comrade of Karl Marx, concluded that "Sadler permitted himself to be betrayed by his nobel enthusiasm into the most distorted and erroneous statements."

Likewise, was the attack against the Church and how it created the "Dark Ages." Even the encyclopedias now state there never was such a time when science was constrained by the Church. The opposite was true.

Every history book recounts how Columbus fought the religious extremists who used the Bible to decree the Earth was Flat. Name a Liberal who knows any different!

Andrew Dickson White lied. He said:
Quote
The warfare of Columbus [with religion] the world knows well: how the Bishop of Ceuta bested him in Portugal,; how sundry wise men of Spain confronted him with the usual quotations from Psalms, from St, Paul, and from St. Augustine; how, even after he was triumphant, and after his voyage had greatly strengthened the theory of the Earth's sphericity... the Church by its highest authority solemnly stumbled and persisted in going astray... the theological barriers to this geographical truth yielded but slowly. Plain as it had become to scholars, they hesitated to declare it to the world at large... But in 1519 science gains a crushing victory. Magellan makes his famous voyage. He proves the Earth is round, for his expedition circumnavigates it... Yet even this does not end the war. Many conscientious [religious] men oppose the doctrine for two hundred years longer.

White was running for President of Cornell and admitted he wrote this to "get even with his Christian critics of his plans for Cornell." Every educated person of Columbus's time knew the earth was round. This includes Roman Catholic theologians. The Venerable Bede (ca. 673-735) taught that the Earth was round, as did Bishop Virgilius of Salzburg (ca. 720-784). Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179), and Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274), and all four became Saints. It was part of an ages-old conspiracy of atheists to portray Religion as being anti-Science. Columbus was not argued out of sailing off the edge of the world. The scientist of his day knew the world was round - but much larger than Columbus estimated. He put Japan at being only 2,080 miles from the Canary Islands, but the "sundry wise men of Spain" knew it was over 14,000 miles. Had Columbus not run across an unsuspected continent - his crew would have all died at Sea. But our school books lie. Bob Bennett wrote a history book that corrects most of this, but check the schools and see what they teach from.

The school books give the impression that robber barons stepped in to exploit whatever they could, and were a negative point in history. The lesson the books should be teaching is that in the world of commerce, the profit motive, the structure of incentives. and the stifling tendencies of bureaucrats are such that those businesses run by entrepreneurs will consistently outperform those run by the government. Instead, the suthors had a bias for a strong central government. When the authors were called on these reports, they agreed that they were not reporting fact, but incorrect, unsubstantiated ideology.

Yes, there are bad books. The Rubaiyat is not one of them.

Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: rightleft22 on November 10, 2021, 04:04:33 PM
I like to think that all theory's being taught are taught critically.

I personally would like to see courses on Critical Bias Theory. How since the beginning of history Bias are imbedded into our societies systems and can become systemic and so hidden.
I suspect such courses wouldn't go over well with those who's power rest on those biases remaining hidden.
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: Fenring on November 10, 2021, 04:34:45 PM
Fenring what conclusions of 'critical race theory' are 'being taught as facts' in your opinion?

Let me answer your next point first and then get back to this question.

Quote
This article states that "The core idea is that race is a social construct, and that racism is not merely the product of individual bias or prejudice, but also something embedded in legal systems and policies."

1) Race is a social construct - that is a conclusion of evolutionary biology rather than a hypothesis (within 'race' genetic variability is greater than between 'race' genetic variability and there aren't any genes that can be systematically correlated with definitions of race)
2) 'racism can be embedded in legal systems and policies' - again broadly accepted fact with a wealth of well known examples

So this is a typical motte/bailey definition, making it sound like a no-brainer that anyone should be supportive of this type of line. Let me just quote the very first section of the Wiki article on Critical theory itself, of which critical race theory must necessarily be a subset:

Quote
Critical theory is any approach to social philosophy that focuses on reflective assessment and critique of society and culture in order to reveal and challenge power structures.

[bold is mine]

That's the long and short of why it should be obvious to anyone why CT is at minimum a highly contentious theory: it orients all of its problems and theses around the notion that human relationships are fundamentally reducible to power structures, and that examining these relationships in terms of relative power analysis will yield important results (or in the more extreme case, the only results that matter). It is fundamentally a revoluationary line of thinking, as you will never see a case of CT being employed to justify or bolster existing power structures. Ironically this makes the proponents of this theory unintentional hypocrites in scenarios where the CT proponents are in fact the ones in power, since obviously they will want to bolster their own position even though the 'heart' of CT is not just to pole holes in unjust power structures but more fundamentally to empower the underdog and destabilize the culture surrounding the power elite (which is why it's often referred to as a Neo-Soviet analysis structure).

There are many fundamental flaws in this type of analysis, but that's off-topic to this post so I'll save that for another post if we want to discuss that.

Getting back to your initial point, there are many conclusions that are inescapably from CT (or CRT) that are indeed being taught far and wide (not just in schools), of which I'll list a few items off the top of my head (and bear in mind I have literally 2 min to finish this post before I have to leave, so forgive me my haste):

-Privilege is part of an axis of examination whereby intersectional traits (usually physical) are defined along power structures, usually grouped into oppressor/oppressed (relatively speaking)
-People inhabiting 'oppressed' categories have innate disadvantages, and moreover, are therefore entitled to increase privileges to compensate
-The categories by axis (race, color, sex, etc) are universal and not subject to inspection of the particularities of the life of the individual: hence the field of analysis is quantitative and impersonal
-The categories (and this is my interpolation) are typically defined in very broad ways, allowing for very little in nuance (for example: how do you define who is a "black man"?). In some cases the categories may even be entirely incoherent.
-It is understood in the milieu in which CT is taught that oppressed people have more 'right' to express their concepts of their own category than others do
-Although this is usually denied, it seems inescapable that guilt ends up built in to the concept (or at least application) of privilege

There are many others like this, it is no mystery at all to anyone paying attention. Now I'm not outright taking all of this to task right now, but merely saying it's pretty obvious that this stuff is indeed CRT/CT, and is indeed taught in some schools as "facts" about being a good person.
-
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: LetterRip on November 10, 2021, 05:15:01 PM

Quote
Critical theory is any approach to social philosophy that focuses on reflective assessment and critique of society and culture in order to reveal and challenge power structures.

[bold is mine]

That's the long and short of why it should be obvious to anyone why CT is at minimum a highly contentious theory: it orients all of its problems and theses around the notion that human relationships are fundamentally reducible to power structures

I think a rather obvious interpretation of 'power structures' is things like - red lining; unequal eligibility for WW II benefits; etc, - ie 'structural inequalities' that were implemented by those in power, where perhaps the beneficiaries aren't necessarily racist; but often racist motivations were used in deriving and implementing the policies.


Quote
Getting back to your initial point, there are many conclusions that are inescapably from CT (or CRT) that are indeed being taught far and wide (not just in schools), of which I'll list a few items off the top of my head (and bear in mind I have literally 2 min to finish this post before I have to leave, so forgive me my haste):

-Privilege is part of an axis of examination whereby intersectional traits (usually physical) are defined along power structures, usually grouped into oppressor/oppressed (relatively speaking)

I don't much care for the term privilege, but the idea that particular groups have relative advantages due to their group membership long predates CRT.

Quote
-People inhabiting 'oppressed' categories have innate disadvantages, and moreover, are therefore entitled to increase privileges to compensate

You realize that this idea is rather ancient and long predates CRT?  We provide assistance to the poor that we don't provide to the wealthy.

Quote
-The categories by axis (race, color, sex, etc) are universal and not subject to inspection of the particularities of the life of the individual: hence the field of analysis is quantitative and impersonal
-The categories (and this is my interpolation) are typically defined in very broad ways, allowing for very little in nuance (for example: how do you define who is a "black man"?). In some cases the categories may even be entirely incoherent.

I'd suggest the vast majority of CRT proponents wouldn't agree that race is even a real concept, but rather it is a social construct.

Quote
-It is understood in the milieu in which CT is taught that oppressed people have more 'right' to express their concepts of their own category than others do

Again this isn't a CRT related thing.  Most people in general believe that those with more experience in anything have greater expertise and their expertise is more 'valid'.

Quote
There are many others like this, it is no mystery at all to anyone paying attention. Now I'm not outright taking all of this to task right now, but merely saying it's pretty obvious that this stuff is indeed CRT/CT, and is indeed taught in some schools as "facts" about being a good person.

Most of these ideas are from the 1960's and earlier, CRT originated in 1989.  How do you come to the idea that those are CRT?
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: rightleft22 on November 10, 2021, 05:20:59 PM
Quote
Critical theory is any approach to social philosophy that focuses on reflective assessment and critique of society and culture in order to reveal and challenge power structures.
I would imagine that CRT being a critical examination would address other social philosophy's?
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 10, 2021, 06:05:35 PM
CRT is guilt tripping little impressionable white children into knowing how inherently evil they are because of the color of their skin so that they won't complain or worse yet sue when they lose out in college admissions and on job applications to less qualified people who nevertheless are more deserving because they and their ancestors weren't born evil. Not only will they not complain but they'll feel good about it because it's no less than what they deserve, cosmic karma balancing out the universe. The trick of course is to make sure they understand all of this when they are young so they won't question it later, and I mean you really have to drive it home every chance you get, so CRT starting as early as possible is vitally important.
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: rightleft22 on November 10, 2021, 06:06:06 PM
All philosophies end in the absurd... If they have started teaching such complex ideas in grade school let alone high school... I can see it becoming pragmatic.

As for the idea of banning books that's a slippery slope.
Freedom from or Freedom to... once again peoples concept of freedom come down to - Do as I want and don't tell me what to do.
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: rightleft22 on November 10, 2021, 06:11:13 PM
Quote
CRT is guilt tripping little impressionable white children into knowing how inherently evil they are because of the color of their skin so that they won't complain or worse yet sue when they lose out in college admissions and on job applications to less qualified people who nevertheless are more deserving because they and their ancestors weren't born evil. Not only will they not complain but they'll feel good about it because it's no less than what they deserve, cosmic karma balancing out the universe. The trick of course is to make sure they understand all of this when they are young so they won't question it later, and I mean you really have to drive it home every chance you get, so CRT starting as early as possible is vitally important.

That reads more of a reaction to the idea of CRT and not a response. Such a teaching would not be a critical teaching and so miss the point.

 I would expect anyone teaching such a social philosophy would have qualifications to do so and that standards would have to be met. If that's not happening I would agree that CRT does not belong in grade schools or even high schools.
Their are other ways to teach how bias get imbedded into our social structures and way of thinking or not thinking
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 10, 2021, 06:18:35 PM
Put simply, CRT, critical race theory, is the theory that to make any progress toward social justice you have to constantly criticize the white race. White people historically, white people today, but most importantly little doe-eyed white kids looking up to you in schools. That's critical race theory.

Okay, if it's actually not then whatever but that's what it looks like to a lot of the people who are worried about it.

Just about every group has it to contend in education though, the Chinese with Tibet, The Japanese with China and Korea. You don't see them constantly hitting their young children over the head in school with how evil their race was and still is.

One of the things about CRT though is that it smears an entire race of people. White people.
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: TheDrake on November 10, 2021, 06:22:20 PM
CRT is guilt tripping little impressionable white children into knowing how inherently evil they are because of the color of their skin so that they won't complain or worse yet sue when they lose out in college admissions and on job applications to less qualified people who nevertheless are more deserving because they and their ancestors weren't born evil. Not only will they not complain but they'll feel good about it because it's no less than what they deserve, cosmic karma balancing out the universe. The trick of course is to make sure they understand all of this when they are young so they won't question it later, and I mean you really have to drive it home every chance you get, so CRT starting as early as possible is vitally important.

You can go ahead and substitute "advantaged" for evil and you've got it about right. You don't like that the white kid who deserves to enter on his merit, but was marginally more qualified got bumped? But you don't seem to be bothered about the kid who didn't deserve to be raised up in an inadequate school system became marginally less qualified in the first place.

In horse racing, they make the smallest jockeys carry weight. Are they oppressed for being smaller? No, we are ensuring a level playing field.

So yeah, if you got to go to private school and had tutors you should have to pass a higher bar to admission. The biggest losers in a scenario driven by diversity requirements are the handful of white kids that had even *censored*tier settings than the worst of the black kids - but most of them also have preferential treatment.

I have yet to see a white person with a *censored*ty upbringing railing against diversity requirements - it invariably seems it is a privileged person of marginal ability who just barely had to fall back on their second or third choice of school - or similar with job applicants - who howls at the moon over this terrible reverse discrimination.

Those kids aren't supposed to feel guilty, and I don't think they are. I think they are supposed to be ashamed of their grandpappy who didn't want the coloreds living in his neighborhood, and want to right that historical wrong.

Smear the history, not the race. Stop revering *censored* heads like Woodrow Wilson by putting a mural of him in the dining hall. For that matter, let's get to work renaming everything named after FDR who incarcerated American citizens in ovens with inadequate food that gave them dysentery. Those people should be shamed for that behavior. We can, if we like, continue to acknowledge their contributions - but in balance.
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: rightleft22 on November 10, 2021, 06:23:33 PM
Quote
Put simply, CRT, critical race theory, is...

That's just it CRT is not a simple theory and anyone trying to explain it as such is reacting to something else...

CRT need more then 280 characters to grasp and better then either or thinking
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 10, 2021, 06:46:55 PM
This is interesting and goes against my point but the point is when you are dealing with little kids and how they are going to internalize what you're teaching them, that's got to be taken into consideration. And many times it seems like it's not. If kids are coming home and saying, "Mommy, am I evil because I'm white?" then that's a problem.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2021/07/02/why-are-states-banning-critical-race-theory/

"CRT does not attribute racism to white people as individuals or even to entire groups of people. Simply put, critical race theory states that U.S. social institutions (e.g., the criminal justice system, education system, labor market, housing market, and healthcare system) are laced with racism embedded in laws, regulations, rules, and procedures that lead to differential outcomes by race. Sociologists and other scholars have long noted that racism can exist without racists. However, many Americans are not able to separate their individual identity as an American from the social institutions that govern us—these people perceive themselves as the system. Consequently, they interpret calling social institutions racist as calling them racist personally. It speaks to how normative racial ideology is to American identity that some people just cannot separate the two. There are also people who may recognize America’s racist past but have bought into the false narrative that the U.S. is now an equitable democracy. They are simply unwilling to remove the blind spot obscuring the fact that America is still not great for everyone.


Scholars and activists who discuss CRT are not arguing that white people living now are to blame for what people did in the past. They are saying that white people living now have a moral responsibility to do something about how racism still impacts all of our lives today. Policies attempting to suffocate this much-needed national conversation are an obstacle to the pursuit of an equitable democracy. Supporters of CRT bans often quote Martin Luther King Jr’s proclamation that individuals should be viewed by the content of their character instead of the color of their skin, ignoring the context of the quote and the true meaning behind it."

-----------------------------------------------

"They are saying that white people living now have a moral responsibility to do something about how racism still impacts all of our lives today."

I agree with this part. That's the final objective. "... white people living now have a moral responsibility to do something..." which is to give it up. Give up their privilege which means their money in the form of more taxes in the form of a transfer of wealth from whites to non-whites, in the form of giving up opportunities in education and employment to non-whites who deserve them more, to give up their standard of living so it's lower to achieve equity instead of providing opportunities for everyone to raise their own standard of living. It means going in the opposite direction of MLK and to quota systems and beyond quota systems to a system in which whites are in minority positions of power. In the end Orwell had it right in 1984. All of the rhetoric and justifications are just an excuse for power. Those who don't have it want it and anyone who has it wants to keep it. Sharing power is just something people who don't have it make up so they can steal it. And what better way to take power than to start by convincing children that their kind doesn't deserve to have it?

The left always thinks they're so slick but it's all just so transparent.

The sad thing is the powerful whites on the left are just using all of this to consolidate their own power too. They will stunt the potential of a generation of white children if it means more votes to keep themselves in power.  You see that in the attacks on how racist it is to have advanced classes that skew more toward Asians and whites and therefore we need to get rid of those and let everyone learn at the same pace.

I don't know anything about this source but it's one of the first things that came up and I've seen stories along these lines in the mainstream media too, that math is racist and advanced courses are even more racist. If that's where CRT brings us, if that is the fruit of the CRT tree, then it's a huge problem for the future of our brightest children, the future of the country and even the world. When the solution to achieving equality is to hold people back and to hold children down instead of trying to raise every child up to achieve their maximum potential then we're going in the wrong direction.

https://www.nocrtatcusd.org/

"Examples of such efforts involve a new math framework that eliminates the advanced math curriculum to move all children into the same academic path. The argument is that advanced math, or rigorous accelerated programs, are inequitable and racist. Although this starts with math, the ultimate goal is to extend this to all academic subjects.

We believe that this “LCD” (lowest common denominator) approach punishes and discriminates against those hard-working and gifted children, many of whom are also from underrepresented groups, and puts many children behind an increasingly global and competitive workforce. This approach does not address inequity in education, and it deprives outstanding students of resources they would otherwise have."

-------------------------------


The sad part about this is it isn't even white children giving up their educational opportunities to non-whites. It's taking those opportunities away from everyone completely.
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: wmLambert on November 10, 2021, 07:32:06 PM
CRT was dreamed up by a poor scholar/Communist who thought to use it to further increase cultural divisions. It was not designed to fix anything - only to make disinformation worse. Do not defend it in any way, unless you, too, want to divide and cause racial hatreds. If you want to do something, repeat the words of MLK, Jr.
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: Lloyd Perna on November 11, 2021, 05:24:28 AM
In horse racing, they make the smallest jockeys carry weight. Are they oppressed for being smaller? No, we are ensuring a level playing field.

Your analogy sucks.  It's the horses that are racing, not the Jockeys.  Otherwise they would call it Jockey racing or something.  The extra weight is to make it more fair for the horses.
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: Fenring on November 11, 2021, 10:57:08 AM
I think a rather obvious interpretation of 'power structures' is things like - red lining; unequal eligibility for WW II benefits; etc, - ie 'structural inequalities' that were implemented by those in power, where perhaps the beneficiaries aren't necessarily racist; but often racist motivations were used in deriving and implementing the policies.

No, no, you are (inadvertantly, I think) looking at power structures in the wrong way in this case. Obviously everyone in the world agrees that power structures exist, you can file that under duh, and that likewise these are rarely equitable structures. Not's not the thesis of CT. Its special claim, and again why it's compared to Marx's thinking, is that power structure is the main, or even sole, explanation for the workings of a society and of interactions between people. You are thinking of obviously degenerate social systems, things that are flawed by mere inspection. CT discusses how all structures, flawed or otherwise (within a given context) is nevertheless riddled with unequal power relationships and that these dictate the course of events. So just for example, you work for someone, that person is your boss. In the Marx framework, they have power over you; but moreover, the relationship is fundamentally defined by this power imbalance, rather than in other ways, such as the idea that a fair division of labor requires organization and division of tasks, one of which is to be in charge. This type of way of looking at it is at odds with Marx, and as well with CT (i.e. to view a potential power imbalance as being both necessary and even virtuous/positive). I could give other examples of what sets CT aside from what you're talking about.

Quote
I don't much care for the term privilege, but the idea that particular groups have relative advantages due to their group membership long predates CRT.

CRT by itself is irrelevant, you need to look at CT as a whole. CRT is just a branch-off using the same set of logic and assumptions. CT goes back way further than you think. From Wiki:

Quote
Max Horkheimer first defined critical theory (German: Kritische Theorie) in his 1937 essay "Traditional and Critical Theory", as a social theory oriented toward critiquing and changing society as a whole, in contrast to traditional theory oriented only toward understanding or explaining it. Wanting to distinguish critical theory as a radical, emancipatory form of Marxist philosophy

[my bold]

This is pretty self-explanatory regarding the history of this line of thinking. It's also why the 'anti-fascism' stream runs in parallel with CT and CRT lines of thinking, because historically the Marxist stream has usually branded itself as anti-fascist.

Quote
Quote
-People inhabiting 'oppressed' categories have innate disadvantages, and moreover, are therefore entitled to increase privileges to compensate

You realize that this idea is rather ancient and long predates CRT?  We provide assistance to the poor that we don't provide to the wealthy.

Again, this is a motte/bailey no-brainer version of what CT and CRT really claim. What you are takling about is actual privilege which everyone always acknowledged. This is NOT what CT is talking about when it uses the term "privilege", and I would hope you would know that. In fact one of the anti-woke responses to talk of 'privilege' is to bring up the topic of being privileged in the classic sense, like being born into a rich family, growing up in a good neighborhood, even in a good country. These are not additions to, but actually repudiations of, the manner of using the term 'privilege' in the CT school.

Quote
I'd suggest the vast majority of CRT proponents wouldn't agree that race is even a real concept, but rather it is a social construct.

Don't mistake some dude sitting in an office in a race studies department from the vast, vast majority of 'foot soldiers', bloggers, and other academics that hold racial identity as being a critically important reality requiring acknowledgment. The genetic complexity of 'race' is far from the radar of the woke movement and from most analysis of power disparity. But yes, you are right in one sense, that some of these people are theoretically social constructivists, but this isn't particular to their understanding of genetitcs; they actually think all aspects of humanity are social constructs too, including behavior and preferences. This, too, is a highly Marxist (but really Soviet) belief system. But on a practical level most 'normal believers' absolutely adhere to the idea that race is a real thing.

Quote
Quote
-It is understood in the milieu in which CT is taught that oppressed people have more 'right' to express their concepts of their own category than others do

Again this isn't a CRT related thing.  Most people in general believe that those with more experience in anything have greater expertise and their expertise is more 'valid'.

No, man, that's not what it's saying at all. Are you trying to bend things so that you won't agree with me or do you really not know these things? If the latter, I am happy to engage with you on it. The issue is not knowledge and expertise, but lived experience. It is an entire different axis of interpretation of what someone brings to the table. If it was about expertise then you wouldn't have situations where male doctors are told they're 'mansplaining' facts about the female body to women. Because they don't have the lived experience of being a woman, the doctor has an inferior position in a discussion about women's issues (including physiological). Of course this is not an everyday type of occurance, but is just an example of how you are not looking at the correct axis of 'rightness' if you are thinking in the old-fashioned way you outlined above.

Quote
Most of these ideas are from the 1960's and earlier, CRT originated in 1989.  How do you come to the idea that those are CRT?

Already answered above, CRT is an offshoot of the CT stream of thinking. The former cannot be understood without the latter's framework. And also, according to Wiki CRT goes back to the 70's, but anyhow that doesn't really matter that much. Employing CT's framework to examine race is an obvious next-step for a general theory that began more as an issue of social power structures, money, and government. The newest iteration of this, sometimes called 'wokeism' is also an employment of CT, but bringing it further into other areas such as sexual identity. It's all just a continuation of the original intellectual tradition.
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: TheDrake on November 11, 2021, 12:51:17 PM
*censored*. No"gifted" white kids are getting left behind numnuts. Some marginal b students are having to go to the next best school.
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: Fenring on November 11, 2021, 02:22:03 PM
I wish there was another button for the forum next to "like" and "quote", maybe something like "confused" or something. Not a 'dislike' per see but a button expressing the desire for clarification or re-statement.
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: yossarian22c on November 11, 2021, 02:38:42 PM
The most cited thing from NYC is "white privilege" which of course as a concept is not at all CRT. Those denying that white privilege exists are uneducated. Numerous studies have demonstrated white advantage based only on an applicants name. Policies discriminating against traditionally black hairstyles exist. Wanting your kids to not be taught that is willful ignorance. If the concept of white privilege triggers you, that too is an example of white privilege.

White privilege is so horribly misnamed. The connotation of privilege is something that should be removed from individuals to level the playing field. Almost every example of "white privilege" I've seen given is that white people don't face discrimination. The issue isn't that white people "have privilege" its that discrimination, be it racial, economic, or some combination of both still exists.

So correctly stated white people are privileged to not face discrimination. But more clearly stated is that subtle, and sometimes overt, forms of discrimination still exist in our society and should be addressed. Addressing that by calling white people "privileged" doesn't seem to be productive.
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: yossarian22c on November 11, 2021, 02:45:31 PM
The right has done more to publicize critical race theory than anyone on the left ever could or did. It wasn't being taught in schools, unless you take CRT to be so broad as to include that the USA had discriminatory laws and institutions in our past. I don't think that fact is very controversial. But it can be made to sound scary and politicians on the left didn't know how to address it so they ended up looking like idiots.

The right runs on culture issues and governs by making the rich richer. They occasionally pass some bad laws banning stupid things or banning things that aren't happening. Sharia law ban, carrying which stall trans folk walk into in public, and I'm sure many others. But their real legislative effect is to enrich businesses and lower taxes on the rich.
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: Seriati on November 11, 2021, 02:57:36 PM
A Kansas school district has effectively banned 29 books that a parent has found objectionable (https://www.newsweek.com/school-district-pulls-29-books-libraries-1647822), including The Handmaid's Tale, The Hate U Give, the play Fences, and a book on the origin of the KKK.

I'm always amazed when otherwise smart individuals fall for the framing of an issue over the substance.  Google generated an estimate that 130 million books have been published over time.  Amazon has something close to 30 million books listed for sale.  The average elementary school library has something like 3000 books in it.  Finding that 29 have been "banned" is startling in its level of missing the forest for the trees.  Based on Google, very close to 130 million volumes are not in that library.  Every book in there has been selected for a purpose.  When you find the same books showing up in every school library, that's almost literally an endorsement that those books are the most important ones - out of the whole 130 million possibilities - to be there.  That reflects a PROFOUND level of discretion, choice and intent.

You object to parents disagreeing that a certain 30 books are worthy of being in that 3000, but never said a word about librarians pursuing their own goals to force those books to be there in the first place.  I'm pretty sure that there are a whole host of books that you find offensive, heck the woke have gone out of there way to ban classics because they don't like the historically accurate portrayals of race, gender or sexuality in them.

It's a lie of omission to claim this is about 30 books being "banned," when its really about determining what 3000 should be there in the first place.

Quote
Officially, it is just a review, to find out "if the books contained on this list meet our educational goals or not."  But "Challenged materials shall not be removed from use during the review period," per the school policy, yet the assistance school superintendent has directed librarians not to check out the books until the review is complete.  Limiting reading the books to the library seems like removing a significant portion of the books' use in my book. :)

Didn't the standard that the librarians were supposed to apply in the first instance include whether the books meet the educational goals or not?  It certainly did.  The reality though is that is the weakest possible version of the standard that could be measured.  Literally millions of books fit the educational goals, unless of course the goal is woke propaganda - then you need certain titles that keep somehow magically making the cut to get into the limited list of available books.

Quote
Does anyone else smell the odor of the real reason Republicans are making a big deal of critical race theory here? ;)

Not sure what you think the "real" reason is.  CRT is literally racism.  Woke or progressive racism is the most prevalent form of racism around today.  Racism is always wrong, it can't be used for good, and the progressives are deluding themselves to believe otherwise.
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: LetterRip on November 11, 2021, 04:17:35 PM
Complete list for those interested,

Quote
Here is the list of books ordered to be removed from circulation in Goddard school libraries:

“#MurderTrending” by Gretchen McNeil

“All Boys Aren’t Blue” by George M. Johnson

“Anger is a Gift” by Mark Oshiro

“Black Girl Unlimited” by Echo Brown

“Blended” by Sharon M. Draper

“Crank” by Ellen Hopkins

“Fences” by August Wilson

“Fun Home: A Family Tragicomic” by Alison Bechdel

“Gender Queer” by Maia Kobabe

“Heavy” by Kiese Laymon

“Lawn Boy” by Jonathan Evison

“Lily and Dunkin” by Donna Gephart

“Living Dead Girl” by Elizabeth Scott

“Monday’s Not Coming” by Tiffany D. Jackson

“Out of Darkness” by Ashley Hope Perez

“Satanism” by Tamara L. Roleff

“The 57 Bus: A True Story of Two Teenagers and the Crime that Changed Their Lives” by Dashka Slater

“The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian” by Sherman Alexie

“The Bluest Eye” by Toni Morrison

“The Girl Who Fell From the Sky” by Heidi W. Durrow

“The Handmaid’s Tale” by Margaret Atwood

“The Handmaid’s Tale: The Graphic Novel” adapted by Renee Nault

“The Hate U Give” by Angie Thomas

“The Perks of Being a Wallflower” by Stephen Chbosky

“The Testaments” by Margaret Atwood

“They Called Themselves the K.K.K.: The Birth of an American Terrorist Group” by Susan Campbell Bertoletti

“This Book is Gay” by James Dawson

“This One Summer” (graphic novel) by Mariko Tamaki and Jillian Tamaki

“Trans Mission: My Quest to a Beard” by Alex Bertie

https://www.kmuw.org/education/2021-11-09/goddard-school-district-orders-29-books-removed-from-circulation
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: Wayward Son on November 11, 2021, 05:46:49 PM
It has suddenly occurred to me that just about everything that the Right objects to about CRT are things that CRT doesn't really teach.

"Whites should feel guilty and recompense those they oppressed" seems to be the core objection.  But we know actual Critical Race Theory doesn't teach that.  No one can show any CRT essay that propounds that.  And yet, we are told that practically every school in the U.S. is teaching this as part of CRT.

So if this core idea is not part of CRT, then who is telling teachers to teach this??  Who is coordinating it and how are they coordinating it?  Where are the syllabuses that direct teachers to make white children feel guilty?  Where are the learning plans that point out how we need to give blacks extra help?

Until someone can produce these documents, it means that all this criticism of CRT is just bellyaching about teaching our children the history of racism in our country.  And so, anything taught about race that they don't like gets put under this umbrella of CRT.

If CRT is teaching this stuff, show me the syllabus.  And if not, then how it is being coordinated?
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: Fenring on November 11, 2021, 07:46:07 PM
So if this core idea is not part of CRT, then who is telling teachers to teach this??  Who is coordinating it and how are they coordinating it?  Where are the syllabuses that direct teachers to make white children feel guilty?  Where are the learning plans that point out how we need to give blacks extra help?

Until someone can produce these documents, it means that all this criticism of CRT is just bellyaching about teaching our children the history of racism in our country.  And so, anything taught about race that they don't like gets put under this umbrella of CRT.

Dude, how many people is it going to take telling you for you to get that this No True Scotsman answer is just a dodge? It doesn't actually matter whether some textbook with the label "CRT" on it says one particular thing or doesn't. It's all part of the same family of belief system (woke/CRT/inclusive/social justice) that employ a common set of premises and often even the same colloquial language. You can keep insisting till you're blue in the face that according to some definition of your choosing some claim technically doesn't count as CRT, but it's irrelevant if the actual proponents of these concepts on the street level lump it all together. Who is telling teachers to teach these things? Gee, I wonder, maybe it's the same group of people who threaten to unfriend anyone who disagrees with them. It's called lateral pressurization, man. It's not a mystery. I can get people agreeing with some parts of CRT (I am sympathetic to a few of its points), or wanting to push its social interests, but I don't see why you all have to keep playing dumb about what's being said and taught. It's not like it's some arcane complicated theory! It's like a 150 year old mode of analysis already.
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 12, 2021, 02:47:08 AM
"So correctly stated white people are privileged to not face discrimination."

That's interesting because now it is perfectly legal to discriminate against white people for the sole crime of being born white. Not only legal but moral and necessary.
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 12, 2021, 07:29:34 AM
https://news.yahoo.com/virginia-school-districts-deny-teaching-010000949.html

"What matters is how CRT is implemented in classrooms, and that - teaching students to view all human interactions through the prism of race, and treating people accordingly - is, indeed, taking place in districts across the Commonwealth," she added.

Ian Prior, executive director at Fight for Schools, the organization filing petitions to remove Loudoun County School Board members, also countered the denials.

"Parents in Loudoun County aren't stupid and they are done with the cornucopia of lies that come from Loudoun County Public Schools and it's school board," Prior said.

He sent Fox News an email from LCPS Superintendent Eric Williams. "While LCPS has not adopted CRT, some of the principles related to race as a social construct and the shaping of stories of racism, racialized oppression, etc. that we are encouraging through the Action Plan to Combat Systemic Racism, in some of our professional learning modules, and our use of instructional resources on the Social Justice standards, do align with the ideology of CRT," Williams had written.

Prior presented his own definition of CRT that puts parents' concerns in better context.

"Critical race theory is a lens through which teachers are encouraged to teach through teachers trainings, specifically, that western liberalism, meritocracy, and equal opportunity perpetuate systemic racism," Prior told Fox News. "This lens is confirmed by their own consultant - the Equity Collaborative - and this use of critical race theory for teacher training and in the classroom was confirmed by the former Superintendent of LCPS in an email to a constituent."

----------------------------------------------

One extra troubling thing about the denials is if they aren't proud enough about what they're doing to openly admit it then why are they even doing it?

Well obviously they are proud of what they are doing but they still need to keep the parents, including many black parents, who are opposed to their children being indoctrinated about how evil every white person is, from stopping them.
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: Fenring on November 12, 2021, 10:17:51 AM
One extra troubling thing about the denials is if they aren't proud enough about what they're doing to openly admit it then why are they even doing it?

That's the thing, these things are being taught when they know full well it would anger many (or most?) parents. You can see the denials on these boards as well, because it would give too much fuel to the opposition to admit to certain of the tenets. I agree with you that it's better to just own the contentious point rather than to play a game that furthers the trend of people not believing anything they hear anymore. Why trust authorities, or anyone for that matter, when you know they will say anything that will provide an advantage to their position? It's realpolitik in the civic sphere.
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: LetterRip on November 12, 2021, 10:58:23 AM
One extra troubling thing about the denials is if they aren't proud enough about what they're doing to openly admit it then why are they even doing it?

So the vast vast majority aren't doing it and are being falsely accused.  The absurdly tiny minority doing what people are accusing them of, probably are 'proud' if anyone bothered to ask them.

You probably don't like when people make generalizations about Trump supporters being racists, even though there clearly are white supremecist groups who support Trump and he has made complementary references to them.  If you aren't engaging in racism then you would reasonably object to someone stating - if you aren't proud enough to admit your a racist, why are you even doing it? It is specifically because you are being falsely accused. 

People who talk about "institutional racism" or want accurate history taught about the US shameful history of racism, are not teaching "Critical Race Theory".  If what you object to is "teaching white guilt" or some such - hey, no problem - I object to that too.  Or if you want a discussion about what age is appropriate to discuss US history of racism and effects of institutional racism - I'm open to such discussion. If you think children should be lied to and make out the US history of slavery as something other than extremely shameful - I completely disagree with you. 

Since we had slavery as a founding principle of our nation and enshrined in our Constitution - any talk about US history has to include racism as a fundamental theme, it is one of the most defining characteristics of the US.
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: Fenring on November 12, 2021, 11:14:21 AM
Since we had slavery as a founding principle of our nation and enshrined in our Constitution - any talk about US history has to include racism as a fundamental theme, it is one of the most defining characteristics of the US.

I don't think any reasonable person would dispute this. Naturally, actual racists will have a problem with racism education. But this is why a motte and bailey position is so pericious to deal with: it makes it sound like the thing being taught is a no-brainer, when in fact that is in dispute is that *that* discussions about racism are being had (which has been true since the 80's in one form or another), but what is being said about it. It's the mechanics and the details, not the underlined topic, that is at issue.

I think your comparison to white supremacists and broad generalizations is odious, btw, since the comparison is preposterous. There may well be some white supremacist Republicans out there, but very few of them overall. Whereas by contrast, where I live 100% of the arts community is full-on woke/social justice, with all the terms and baggage that go along with it. I think there is a silent minority who don't speak up with contrary notions (out of fear), and actually it's possible there are more of them than I think since they are silent. But openly the arts community is in complete lockstep, and that is a milieu that has reach and an audience. I am not talking about a few outliers, I am saying it is 100% standard and you would be virtually destroyed in the business for saying something contrary. This is the same theory being taught in schools. Again, please dispense with the motte/bailey game; I urge you to consider that all this game does is enrage the opposition, push centrists to the right of center in reaction, and create a very hazardous air in leftist circles. No one wins, other than it sounds like in the short term arguments are being won. They really aren't being won, it's just people stop arguing back out in the open.
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 12, 2021, 02:47:12 PM
"No"gifted" white kids are getting left behind..."

Is not getting left behind good enough though?

We should be striving to allow all children the opportunities to achieve their maximum human potential.

Not getting left behind is the perfect way to put it too. Thanks for that. When advanced programs are canceled because they lead to racial disparities in outcomes and advantages to the children in them, including minority children in the advanced classes who not don't get to take them, of course those children aren't getting left behind compared to everyone else. They are allowed to stride along in their education and perhaps in their lives to follow right alongside the rest. That's equality. That's the goal, right?

Well sure maybe that's the goal of the woke. But that's not everyone's goal. Holding the brightest kids back by canceling advanced placement classes or reserving the spot that Michio Kaku took at MIT for someone with a more desirable skin color to achieve equality of outcome isn't as good for humanity as maximizing everyone's human potential and facing the reality that not everyone is exactly the same so treating them all the same if it means holding some back isn't good and it isn't right.

The gifted are likely to contribute more than their fair share to solving the world's problems from climate change and renewable energy to curing diseases and fighting hunger. Holding any of them back may seem to be more fair but it's not going to work out for the best in the long run. Of course the non-gifted need to be given every opportunity to reach their own maximum potential as well. Just to be honest, I don't consider myself to be one of the gifted ones. I've met a few of them though and I don't want them to have to learn at my pace when I know it slows them down.
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: TheDrake on November 12, 2021, 03:18:39 PM
"No"gifted" white kids are getting left behind..."

Is not getting left behind good enough though?

We should be striving to allow all children the opportunities to achieve their maximum human potential.

Not getting left behind is the perfect way to put it too. Thanks for that. When advanced programs are canceled because they lead to racial disparities in outcomes and advantages to the children in them, including minority children in the advanced classes who not don't get to take them, of course those children aren't getting left behind compared to everyone else. They are allowed to stride along in their education and perhaps in their lives to follow right alongside the rest. That's equality. That's the goal, right?

Well sure maybe that's the goal of the woke. But that's not everyone's goal. Holding the brightest kids back by canceling advanced placement classes or reserving the spot that Michio Kaku took at MIT for someone with a more desirable skin color to achieve equality of outcome isn't as good for humanity as maximizing everyone's human potential and facing the reality that not everyone is exactly the same so treating them all the same if it means holding some back isn't good and it isn't right.

The gifted are likely to contribute more than their fair share to solving the world's problems from climate change and renewable energy to curing diseases and fighting hunger. Holding any of them back may seem to be more fair but it's not going to work out for the best in the long run. Of course the non-gifted need to be given every opportunity to reach their own maximum potential as well. Just to be honest, I don't consider myself to be one of the gifted ones. I've met a few of them though and I don't want them to have to learn at my pace when I know it slows them down.

If we're going to spend limited resources, then yes it is far more important to have programs for disadvantaged youths than creating opportunities for kids to learn physics when they are 12 years old. And yes, there is a rac ial component to that. Historical racism means there are proportionally more white kids in relatively richer families. The better way to solve those problems would be to give money to the black families, but that would be an entitlement. As if accelerated classes aren't an entitlement. Segregating the kids least able to succeed from the ones most able to succeed is the definition of leaving the less capable kids behind permanently. "You're in the dummies section, Malik. Good luck with that."

Nobody is holding the brilliant kids back. They can expand on their curriculum in a variety of ways within or outside the school system.

[quotej]To enroll, kindergarten students used to take a screening test. Parents often paid tutors to prepare their kids, but the city’s advisory board refused to renew the exam last year.

De Blasio’s plan would permanently end the kindergarten tests. “The era of judging 4-year-olds based on a single test is over,” he said in a statement.

Instead, de Blasio proposed retraining teachers to accommodate kindergarten students who need accelerated learning, which could cost tens of millions of dollars.

In lieu of a gifted and talented track, the city would also evaluate all rising third graders, using teacher feedback, to determine whether they need higher-level instruction in specific subject areas. [/quote]

Read that back. Privileged kids, mostly white, got private tutoring to get put in the special room for special kids. That isn't universal, I was put in a gifted and talented program and I was poor. But I did grow up in a stable, almost all white, semirural town. I didn't have to walk through dangerous neighborhoods to get to the library, or other drawbacks that have nothing to do with a kids individual merit.
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: Fenring on November 20, 2021, 10:20:46 AM
Fenring what conclusions of 'critical race theory' are 'being taught as facts' in your opinion?

Here is an example that is borne out in practice rather than in theory:

https://nypost.com/2021/11/18/manhattan-school-to-sort-kids-by-race-during-social-justice-discussions/?utm_source=reddit.com

Quote
A Manhattan junior high school plans to racially separate students while discussing identity and social justice topics next week, The Post has learned.
[...]
“On November 23rd and 24th, 7th and 8th graders will explore the question ‘How do our racial identities influence our experiences?’ in affinity groups,” Douglas announced. “An affinity group is a group formed around a shared interest.”

When you conduct an action like this one, there are many things that become "fact" just by virtue of the exercise being done. For instance the concept that "we need to divide ourselves up by race" is a theory in accord with CRT, but for these kids it becomes a solid fact when it's put into practice by the teachers. Or the idea that the racial/ethnic groups need to be grouped in easy to digest labels. Now some woke people don't use such labels, preferring terms such as POC, so there is obviously not a clear consensus on the best schema for presenting these 'facts.' Another postulate that becomes taught as fact when doing an exercise like this is that all of those niggling feelings kids have - hey! that kid looks different from me! - are actually correct, and that in fact that other kid really is different from you in an important way.

Anyhow, I don't want to get into a debate about the minutiae of these propositions, but just wanted to post a link showing that obviously the CRT method of analyzing reality is becoming a fact in some schools. I mentioned NYC earlier so here it is, ready to serve.

Just as a post-script, here's a Times series on how white parents are perennial problem in the NYC school system:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/23/podcasts/nice-white-parents-serial.html

[disclaimer, I haven't actually listened to these podcasts, so I'm taking them at their word that the description is what it sounds like]

Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: Wayward Son on November 22, 2021, 01:44:30 PM
Quote
For instance the concept that "we need to divide ourselves up by race" is a theory in accord with CRT, but for these kids it becomes a solid fact when it's put into practice by the teachers. Or the idea that the racial/ethnic groups need to be grouped in easy to digest labels.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that this is a "theory."  When I was growing up, it was a stone-cold fact

The neighborhood I grew up in was predominately black.  And do you know why?  Because that was the area they were allowed to live.  In other neighborhoods, even a block away, there were specific covenants in the housing developments that forbid anyone from selling a house to a black person.  That was the reality when I was a boy.

Come to think of it, there may be such a clause in my own house's covenant.  Right there next to forbidding people from having a cat. :)

When such parts of the covenants were outlawed and became null and void, some people sold their houses and moved away because they didn't want to live close to a black person.  Somehow they thought of people in by racial/ethnic groups with simple labels. :)

If CRT didn't include this "theory," then it wouldn't be much use for anything.  Ignoring facts never helps develop a good, working theory.  So I don't see why you blame it on CRT.  Blame it on the people who lived at that time, who wrote those laws and covenants, who allowed such rules to exist, and enforced them.

And remember, at that time, a person didn't get to choose which group they belonged to.  It was chosen for them. :(
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: Fenring on November 22, 2021, 02:06:26 PM
Quote
For instance the concept that "we need to divide ourselves up by race" is a theory in accord with CRT, but for these kids it becomes a solid fact when it's put into practice by the teachers. Or the idea that the racial/ethnic groups need to be grouped in easy to digest labels.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that this is a "theory."  When I was growing up, it was a stone-cold fact

I'm not sure I know when you were growing up, but from 80's though the early oughts there was a strong concept being sought of seeing past color and to treat everyone like an individual; the so-called 'color blind' approach. Slogans such as "label jars, not people" abounded, and were strongly believed in by pretty much anyone I came into contact with. Likewise, the overarching social goal in the urban U.S. was the "melting pot" theory, of which many people were proud. Now all of these were things to strive for, and anyone knows that it takes 1-2 generations to actually move foward on things like this since the older generation rarely changes. Anyhow you can loosely group the above things together under "let's see past our differences", and call that a theory of social reform. The new theory of social reform - the one coming from the CRT approach - is essentially a reversal, which suggests that the better way forward isn't to try to look past our differences, but rather to highlight them as clearly as possible; that rather than live and let live, the better approach is to focus on the past and on wrongs done and (in some cases) reparations.

Now although I may be disposed to think one system is superior to the other in terms of both its practical and its moral virtues, nevertheless they are both theories of how to proceed forward as a species. And no, it is not a stone cold fact that the CRT way is the only way to be a good person.

But you need to be aware of these different systems of analysis, because basing yourself in the 80's-00's theory, much of what is happening now in the name of progress is actually "racist", whereas the CRT system would claim the reverse, that the old theory's practices are "racist". So they are not compatiable on fundamental level. And you can see this mirrored in other spheres like in feminism. For instance people who maintain previous feminist positions are now sometimes being called hateful. Why? Because the new theory in town has redefined the terms.
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: NobleHunter on November 23, 2021, 11:42:46 AM
TERFs are being called hateful because they are hateful. A lot of them have decided to drop the femi and just go full Nazi. This isn't moving goalposts, this is people getting halfway to the goal and deciding it's far enough so they'll tackle anyone trying to keep going.

The reason movements for civil rights and equality have evolved is because the old approaches either reached the limit of their ability to reform society or ended up reinforcing the existing order. The reason old wrongs keep getting brought up is because they aren't being addressed. If you want people to stop focusing on the past, you need to give them justice. Until that happens, you're never going to get to the melting pot or a color blind society.
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on December 15, 2021, 07:54:01 AM
TERFs are being called hateful because they are hateful.
100% correct.

Further, it is now culturally acceptable to claim to be a transphobe. At least where I am (Portland Oregon) it is.
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: TheDeamon on December 15, 2021, 12:16:56 PM
TERFs are being called hateful because they are hateful.
100% correct.

Further, it is now culturally acceptable to claim to be a transphobe. At least where I am (Portland Oregon) it is.

Speaking of Portland, an article discussing the lack of Lesbian Bars in Portland even though plenty of Gay Bars still existed as of the time the article was written in 2016.
https://www.wweek.com/culture/2016/11/30/who-crushed-the-lesbian-bars-a-new-minefield-of-sexual-politics/
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: Wayward Son on January 27, 2022, 05:53:39 PM
Here's one that shouldn't be surprising: a Tennessee county school board bans the use of the graphic novel "Maus" to teach middle-school students about the Holocaust. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2022/01/27/maus-ban-tennessee-mcminn-county-holocaust/)

They objected to the use of profanity in the novel, and the naked bodies (of cartoon mice).  ::)

After all, we must protect those innocent 13-year-old minds from seeing swear words while they read about human skin being tested for use as lamp shades.  ::)  (Something not in the book, but did happen.)
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: alai on January 27, 2022, 11:13:42 PM
The school boards red-flagging 1984 has similar angsts, IIRC.  Sex and violence in a dystopian novel -- you can imagine how shocked they must have been!
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: Fenring on January 27, 2022, 11:38:24 PM
I'm not even sure 1984 should be in a high school anyhow. Parts of it are quite graphic and even gruesome. Not that I wasn't reading Stephen King at the age of 13...but still, it wasn't given to me by my teachers!
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: alai on January 28, 2022, 12:00:53 AM
I'm not even sure 1984 should be in a high school anyhow. Parts of it are quite graphic and even gruesome.
*removes Fenring's mask shock-reveals Florida school board!*

Quote
Not that I wasn't reading Stephen King at the age of 13...but still, it wasn't given to me by my teachers!
I can't testify first-hand about how US high-school libraries work, but in the conventional sort, the borrower has to fetch their own book off the shelf, rather than it being proactively handed out by the teachers.  (I read 1984 in secondary school, but I'm not certain it is was a set text, from the library, or my own copy.  O tempora, o memoria!)
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: Wayward Son on January 28, 2022, 02:08:09 AM
I'm not even sure 1984 should be in a high school anyhow. Parts of it are quite graphic and even gruesome. Not that I wasn't reading Stephen King at the age of 13...but still, it wasn't given to me by my teachers!

Aye, but Maus is a graphic novel.  The Jews are all drawn as mice, the Nazis are cats, and the Poles are pigs.  Not exactly realistic.

But what was depicted was real, and horrible.  What better way can you think of to educate these kids about the true horror of Holocaust without being even more graphic?

Consider these statistics: (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/16/holocaust-us-adults-study)
Quote
Almost two-thirds of young American adults do not know that 6 million Jews were killed during the Holocaust, and more than one in 10 believe Jews caused the Holocaust, a new survey has found, revealing shocking levels of ignorance about the greatest crime of the 20th century.

According to the study of millennial and Gen Z adults aged between 18 and 39, almost half (48%) could not name a single concentration camp or ghetto established during the second world war.

Almost a quarter of respondents (23%) said they believed the Holocaust was a myth, or had been exaggerated, or they weren’t sure. One in eight (12%) said they had definitely not heard, or didn’t think they had heard, about the Holocaust.

And this school board decides not to allow this depiction because it contains some swear words (which doubtlessly all the students have heard by now) and because some anthropomorphic mice were drawn naked, since that's how the bodies were when thrown into piles.  ::)  Not because of the gruesomeness of the book.  Because someone may have said the F-word over the naked corpse of a child or such.  ::)
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: alai on January 28, 2022, 02:16:28 AM
What better way can you think of to educate these kids about the true horror of Holocaust without being even more graphic?
Wait, educating them.  I'm sure that wasn't on the menu, much less taking precedence other their parents' delicate feelings!
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: Fenring on January 28, 2022, 10:43:30 AM
Well I was just throwing that out there. I'm not really making a statement about the school censorship issue. I may have gotten my wires crossed anyhow since I was talking more about reading 1984 as part of a cirriculum, more so than it merely being in the library. That said I don't actually think kids should have easy access to just anything. Porn is the trivial example but there are probably others. Overall I'm pretty far into the "if they're going to get it anyhow then treat it like it's normal" strategy. I kind of feel that way about booze, too.
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: alai on January 28, 2022, 03:48:17 PM
I'm not sure either.  I read that 1984 had been "challenged" by one of those school boards (possibly the Florida one).  Meaning what?  I dunno!  Some Concerned Citizens(TM) wrote a petition, but the school board didn't actually remove it from libraries?  Or what?

Sure, "just about anything" wouldn't be an appropriate inclusion criterion.  Or especially budget-compatible, I imagine.  Porn, Joe Rogan podcasts, etc, we can do without.  But one of the most influential novels in the English language?  (Says the BBC, and who am I to argue with the Beeb?  I have you lot to do that for me!)  Also came very high in a survey of books that people claim to have read, but actually haven't, according to a QIfact.

The booze thing strikes me as a striking case where the US's religious authoritarian instincts really tell on its incessantly bellowing rhetoric about personal freedom.  MLDA of 21?  "Dry counties"?  Making it illegal in federal fundamental law for over a decade?  Pretty breathtaking.  And yes I'm following you wildly off-topic here, but given that we've had bizarrely illogical Cardrants justifying such nonsense, an apt forum for it, at least.

Might you, if you look up "country with an unhealthy relationship with alcohol", you likely find the one I live in.  Or if not that one, various other north European booze-bingers I'm also familiar with to a degree.
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: Wayward Son on April 04, 2022, 06:06:26 PM
The American Library Association has issued it's yearly report for National Library Week. (https://www.ala.org/news/press-releases/2022/04/national-library-week-kicks-state-america-s-libraries-report-annual-top-10)

Quote
ALA’s Office for Intellectual Freedom tracked 729 challenges to library, school and university materials and services in 2021, resulting in more than 1,597 individual book challenges or removals. Most targeted books were by or about Black or LGBTQIA+ persons.

“The 729 challenges tracked by ALA represent the highest number of attempted book bans since we began compiling these lists 20 years ago,” said ALA President Patricia “Patty” Wong.

The Top 10 Most Challenged Books of 2021 are:

Quote
1. “Gender Queer,” by Maia Kobabe
Reasons: Banned, challenged, and restricted for LGBTQIA+ content and because it was considered to have sexually explicit images.

2. “Lawn Boy,” by Jonathan Evison
Reasons: Banned and challenged for LGBTQIA+ content and because it was considered to be sexually explicit.

3. “All Boys Aren’t Blue,” by George M. Johnson
Reasons: Banned and challenged for LGBTQIA+ content, profanity, and because it was considered to be sexually explicit.

4. “Out of Darkness,” by Ashley Hope Perez
Reasons: Banned, challenged, and restricted for depictions of abuse and because it was considered to be sexually explicit.

5. “The Hate U Give,” by Angie Thomas
Reasons: Banned and challenged for profanity, violence, and because it was thought to promote an anti-police message and indoctrination of a social agenda.

6. “The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian,” by Sherman Alexie
Reasons: Banned and challenged for profanity, sexual references and use of a derogatory term.

7. “Me and Earl and the Dying Girl,” by Jesse Andrews
Reasons: Banned and challenged because it was considered sexually explicit and degrading to women.

8. “The Bluest Eye,” by Toni Morrison
Reasons: Banned and challenged because it depicts child sexual abuse and was considered sexually explicit.

9. “This Book is Gay,” by Juno Dawson
Reasons: Banned, challenged, relocated, and restricted for providing sexual education and LGBTQIA+ content.

10. “Beyond Magenta,” by Susan Kuklin
Reasons: Banned and challenged for LGBTQIA+ content and because it was considered to be sexually explicit.
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: TheDrake on April 04, 2022, 07:56:27 PM
I don't know any of these books. I picked one at random, The Bluest Eye, and I think there are fair grounds to question its graphic portrayals - depending on the venue. I could also see people saying that it is an important and poignant book and helps kids open up about abuse they've received. I don't think its entirely fair to portray people who don't want it in their school library as racist or homophobic.

https://www.commonsensemedia.org/book-reviews/the-bluest-eye/user-reviews/adult
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/banned-bluest-eye/
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: TheDeamon on April 04, 2022, 07:59:02 PM
I'm not even sure 1984 should be in a high school anyhow. Parts of it are quite graphic and even gruesome. Not that I wasn't reading Stephen King at the age of 13...but still, it wasn't given to me by my teachers!

1984 was a class reading assignment for me in High School. I recently have been been playing with an Audible+ subscription, where it and Brave New World are available as part of the subscription. I now know why Brave New World wasn't high school reading material. 1984 gets racy in parts. Brave New World goes well beyond that.
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: TheDrake on April 05, 2022, 08:50:11 AM
I think it is also worth acknowledging how many different ways there are to acquire books beyond the school library. They don't have the monopoly they once did. If some teen wants to read Brave New World, all you need is a phone and know that it exists. The full text is available all over the place. But the cloistering of the youth is entirely founded on the fiction that many of them are already creating their own graphic scenes.
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: TheDeamon on April 05, 2022, 12:01:59 PM
I think it is also worth acknowledging how many different ways there are to acquire books beyond the school library. They don't have the monopoly they once did. If some teen wants to read Brave New World, all you need is a phone and know that it exists. The full text is available all over the place. But the cloistering of the youth is entirely founded on the fiction that many of them are already creating their own graphic scenes.

After "reading" Brave New World by way of Audible, I can see why that one would be controversial.

Between the scenes involving juvenile sexuality (although it doesn't specify age beyond "children"), and otherwise demonstrating a society that has otherwise adopted a view towards sexuality which in present day parlance would be reflective of "free use" attitudes, complete with multiple orgies being mentioned. I can certainly see why that one has normally been kept well clear of K-12 schools.

1984 was positively tame by comparison, even with one of the major characters talking about having had extra-marital affairs with dozens of men.
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: Wayward Son on April 05, 2022, 04:03:23 PM
I don't know any of these books. I picked one at random, The Bluest Eye, and I think there are fair grounds to question its graphic portrayals - depending on the venue. I could also see people saying that it is an important and poignant book and helps kids open up about abuse they've received. I don't think its entirely fair to portray people who don't want it in their school library as racist or homophobic.

https://www.commonsensemedia.org/book-reviews/the-bluest-eye/user-reviews/adult
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/banned-bluest-eye/

I think it comes down again to who chooses for me.

As you said, some people see it as an important and poignant book.  Perhaps they would like their child to read it.

But others say it is overly sexual and pornographic.  They would not allow their child to read it.

But who are they to deny my rights as a parent?  Who are they to say the book should not be available to my child if I would want him to read it, or have no problem with him reading it?  Why do their parental rights override mine?  Why do they get to decide which books are available in the school library for my child and which are not?

They can always instruct their children to avoid certain books.  But I can't instruct my child to find a book that isn't available.
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: TheDrake on April 05, 2022, 04:45:53 PM
Quote
They can always instruct their children to avoid certain books.  But I can't instruct my child to find a book that isn't available.
Repo

How is it not available for a parent to give to their kid, or for high schoolers to get for themselves? They have all the choice they need. I don't believe they have banned the book from school premises, although even that wouldn't stop them from reading it. Or from doing a report on it, provided they leave out the naughty bits.

The only thing that's happened in these "book bannings" is that they are not in the school library. Out of all the books in the world, how many titles are in school libraries? How many kids are even reading books out of their school libraries?

Harry Potter books have been challenged because there is witchcraft in them! Is it really such a horror if kids don't have access to a mildly entertaining fictional work?

I don't think the parents arguing against the removal of these books are at all concerned that their kids won't get to read them. I think they're concerned that other kids in the school won't get to read them. Otherwise they'd be a birthday present and that would be the end of it.
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: Wayward Son on April 05, 2022, 04:51:06 PM
But you still haven't answered the core question: why do these parents get to decide what books are not available for my child to read in the school library?  Especially important books.

Sure, I could buy them the book.  And they could tell their child to avoid the book in the school library.  So why ban it?  Why say, "We can't have this book in the library because I find it nasty."  Why do they get to say what books can't be in the library and I can't say what can be? 
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: TheDrake on April 05, 2022, 04:59:46 PM
No no no. They get to decide what books are in the library. Why do they get to decide? They don't. They advocate, and the school board decides. Just like you can advocate that Hugh Hefner's memoirs ought to be in there.

Maybe they don't want their tax money spent to purchase smut. The board is elected. The board responds to popular opinion. Someone else might object to the Art of the Deal being put up in the library.

Let me ask you, if the local school board decided to fill the library with the collected works of Milo Yiannopoulos, does your argument change or do you stand by the idea that parents can tell their kids not to read it?
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: Wayward Son on April 05, 2022, 05:09:05 PM
Well, Milo's an idiot, so I wouldn't worry about my kid reading him.  He'd probably end up laughing at him anyway. :D

I don't even mind Mein Kampf in a school library, and I had to read The Communist Manifesto for a World History class in High School.  So even those books are OK with me.

If it is pure "smut" (as defined by Tom Lehrer's song :) ), I can understand if it isn't included in a library.  We don't need to fill it up (and spend money) on junk.  But a book that is considered important but offends some parents' sensibilities?  No, that isn't a good enough reason.
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: Wayward Son on April 18, 2022, 11:03:54 AM
Now public library boards are starting to be overrun by censors. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/04/17/public-libraries-books-censorship/)

Quote
With these actions, Llano [County, north of Austin] joins a growing number of communities across America where conservatives have mounted challenges to books and other content related to race, sex, gender and other subjects they deem inappropriate. A movement that started in schools has rapidly expanded to public libraries, accounting for 37 percent of book challenges last year, according to the American Library Association. Conservative activists in several states, including Texas, Montana and Louisiana have joined forces with like-minded officials to dissolve libraries’ governing bodies, rewrite or delete censorship protections, and remove books outside of official challenge procedures. ...

Leila Green Little, a parent and board member of the Llano County Library System Foundation, said her anti-censorship group obtained dozens of emails from country officials that reveal the outsize influence a small but vocal group of conservative Christian and tea party activists wielded over the county commissioners to reshape the library system to their own ideals. ...

Leaders have taken works as seemingly innocuous as the popular children’s picture book “In the Night Kitchen” by Maurice Sendak off the shelves, closed library board meetings to the public and named Wallace the vice chair of a new library board stacked with conservative appointees — some of whom did not even have library cards. ...

At the county’s main library in Llano, director Amber Milum said in an interview that she had already taken it upon herself to put some books away in a file cabinet in her office as early as August, including two popular read-aloud picture books aimed at amusing kids: “I Need a New Butt!” and “Freddie the Farting Snowman.”

The moves circumvented the library’s established practices on objectionable content — including a challenge form to be reviewed by librarians. Isolating or removing books because of subjective or “personal opinions” — finding the content offensive or distasteful, for example — could open up a library to a First Amendment challenge, experts said.

Meanwhile, Florida education department has rejected submitted mathematics books because they contain Critical Race Theory and Common Core learning concepts. (https://www.npr.org/2022/04/18/1093277449/florida-mathematics-textbooks)  Of course, they didn't bother to show examples of these forbidden subjects, leaving everyone to guess how it is possible.  ::)
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: TheDrake on April 18, 2022, 01:55:26 PM
Quote
leaving everyone to guess how it is possible.

1. If Leeroy's polling station is 3 miles from his house and he can go 1 MPH with his walker, and it will take him 195 minutes to get to the front of the line, and it takes 3 minutes to check his identification, when does Leeroy have to leave the house if the polls close at 6pm and he doesn't want to get turned away?

2. If Chad's polling station is 3 miles from his house, and his limousine driver can drive an average of 30 MPH, and it will take 13 minutes to get to the front of the line, and it takes 30 seconds to check his identification, when does Chad have to leave the house if the polls close at 6pm and he doesn't want to get turned away - assuming the poll workers won't extend the hours for him?
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: Wayward Son on April 18, 2022, 05:11:12 PM
Sure, those examples are possible--if a Republican shrill was writing the problems.  ;D  And those examples are precisely what they want you to think they are.

But you know they aren't that blatant.  No where near.  Most likely, you'd have to stand on your head and cross your eyes to see the CRT in them.  (Common Core is easier, since at it's root is teaching children why the math works rather than just making them memorize the process.)  And if it applies to more than a hand full of problems in the books, I would be astounded.

Which, I'm sure, is why they aren't in any hurry to provide examples.  Because most people would be scratching their heads trying to figure out what was so wrong with them.  ;D
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: TheDrake on April 18, 2022, 09:22:08 PM
Sure, those examples are possible--if a Republican shrill was writing the problems.  ;D  And those examples are precisely what they want you to think they are.

But you know they aren't that blatant.  No where near.  Most likely, you'd have to stand on your head and cross your eyes to see the CRT in them.  (Common Core is easier, since at it's root is teaching children why the math works rather than just making them memorize the process.)  And if it applies to more than a hand full of problems in the books, I would be astounded.

Which, I'm sure, is why they aren't in any hurry to provide examples.  Because most people would be scratching their heads trying to figure out what was so wrong with them.  ;D

I hope you got that I was joking. I didn't think Floridians even taught math judging from the videos.
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: Wayward Son on April 19, 2022, 10:34:21 AM
Wasn't quite sure.  Poe's law and all that.  :D
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: Wayward Son on April 22, 2022, 01:43:04 AM
In case anyone is curious, here are examples of the banned math problems from Florida. (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/florida-releases-4-prohibited-math-textbook-examples-here-they-are/ar-AAWsUNe?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=9190cd97d7194368b139ad3f64d50e67)

Somehow it's offensive to say that there are a percentage of racist people in the U.S.?  ???
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: Fenring on April 22, 2022, 08:37:46 AM
In case anyone is curious, here are examples of the banned math problems from Florida. (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/florida-releases-4-prohibited-math-textbook-examples-here-they-are/ar-AAWsUNe?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=9190cd97d7194368b139ad3f64d50e67)

Somehow it's offensive to say that there are a percentage of racist people in the U.S.?  ???

Frankly that sort of reference is a distinctly left-wing dog whistle, so I'm not surprised they called it out. What I'm not so sure of is what the specific objection is to the "emotional learning" segments. If that's a dog whistle it's one I'm not familiar with. Maybe they just think it's too touchy feely?
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: TheDrake on April 22, 2022, 10:11:45 AM
I made STEM my specialty specifically to avoid having to empathize or have any form of emotional learning. Pullies and levers don't have implicit bias, and Newton's equations don't have a racial coefficient. I'm not an educator so I can't speak to the value of having cross-disciplinary learning - but it feels like a distraction from the manipulation of variables and data. I'd have the publisher scrap the whole chapter.
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: rightleft22 on April 22, 2022, 01:05:21 PM
Going to sound like the Old guy who walk 10 miles to school each day, uphill... both ways

Schools should focus more on the fundamentals of learning and less on the latest culture war topic.  We expect to much from our Teachers and don't pay them enough to be educators and phycologists, sociologist....

Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: TheDrake on April 22, 2022, 01:48:55 PM
Now if you've got a history class, you can't really avoid what somebody is going to call the "culture war". You have to choose to depict colonialism one way or another. Even more so, political science and sociology. I don't doubt that Florida will go after those books too, but they were smart to use mathematics to frame the debate.
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: rightleft22 on April 22, 2022, 04:46:50 PM
Schools should just drop history class.
Not like there's any danger of history repeating itself. Were much smarter then our forefathers were.
We've given over our thinking to our phones and can read the history ho we want it to be no need to study it. 
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: Wayward Son on April 25, 2022, 05:12:22 PM
Here's the next round of "guess the offense:"  "Everywhere Babies." (https://sports.yahoo.com/everywhere-babies-picture-book-celebrating-183843897.html)

Yes, a picture book about babies, for babies.

Quote
The district's superintendent, Russel Hughes, told WJGH-TV that it was "necessary in this moment for me to make that decision and I did it for just a welfare of all involved, including our constituents, our teachers, and our students."

Yeah, right.

For those of you who aren't afraid of being morally corrupted, here's the entire book being read on YouTube. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1Ag3ZuMyIk)  Can you find the offensive content?

My guess is scene at the padded play area (at about 2:42).  (Sorry, no page numbers in this tome. :) ) Can anyone spot a more offensive page?  ;D

Of course, you have to look elsewhere to find why it is offensive:

Quote
She [author Susan Meyers] said that her book has been included in lists of LGBTQ-friendly children's books and suspects that is how the school board determined her book should be banned.

This is what the Florida government is telling it's citizens right now: if you're homo-friendly, you'll be banned and cancelled.  Just ask Disneyland. ;)

So tell me again how Conservatives are the new champions of free speech?  ;D
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: Fenring on April 25, 2022, 06:22:01 PM
WS,

To be fair I'm sure all the legislators (or whoever they are) aren't reading each book by themselves, but for better or worse are relying on reports. Your article suggest that maybe because the book is included on an LGTB+ 'friendly list' that it was automatically targeted. That would make it a casualty of having the wrong kind of promotion, I guess. If the odd book gets caught in that type of trap I guess I'm not that surprised. That's not a conspiracy, just bureaucratic imperfection.
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: Wayward Son on April 26, 2022, 12:03:03 PM
Quote
That's not a conspiracy, just bureaucratic imperfection.

I don't think one necessarily excludes the other.  ;D
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: Seriati on May 09, 2022, 07:56:09 PM
The American Library Association has issued it's yearly report for National Library Week. (https://www.ala.org/news/press-releases/2022/04/national-library-week-kicks-state-america-s-libraries-report-annual-top-10)

Quote
ALA’s Office for Intellectual Freedom tracked 729 challenges to library, school and university materials and services in 2021, resulting in more than 1,597 individual book challenges or removals. Most targeted books were by or about Black or LGBTQIA+ persons.

“The 729 challenges tracked by ALA represent the highest number of attempted book bans since we began compiling these lists 20 years ago,” said ALA President Patricia “Patty” Wong.

The Top 10 Most Challenged Books of 2021 are:

A lie.  Honestly, its a lie.  Not yours, its a lie of the librarians.  Challenged by whom?   They tracked "tracked 729 challenges to library, school and university materials and services in 2021, resulting in more than 1,597 individual book challenges or removals."  Notice "challenged" or "removed," in fact, the ALA has repeatedly had to admit that virtually none of these outside challenges result in any of the books actually being removed.  Whereas, the librarians themselves are constantly removing volumes - of their own choice - to clear space for new books.  They systematically and without fanfare remove volumes they determine are offensive - based on their own standards. 

How many librarians, members of the ALA, refused to acquire books they disapproved of or even refused donations of those books?  How many passed over books that were totally appropriate for a library because they personally disagreed with the content or depictions of people in those books?  I guaranty that it was far more than 729 librarians and impacted far more than 1600 books and I guaranty that they didn't count those in their list of "most challenged." 

This is nothing but a list of how often "outsiders" disagree with the librarians as to what should be in the library.  But librarians have no special insight or validity on this matter when it comes to substance.  They do have more time and focus and access to professional resources, but that can be used to cover deliberate bias as easily as to reduce it.  As the list demonstrates, they've overwhelmingly selected certain books that offend many communities morals solely on the basis that they serve certain political goals (of the librarians) in overwhelming enough numbers to cause those complaints.  They are literal activists that are whining that their activist choices are not respected.  They don't tend to donate much to politics, but when they do its usually at a ratio of several hundred to 1 in favor of the Democrats.

In fact, they spent half of the press release you cited just tooting their own horns about how trusted they are by communities and how trusted they should be.  But when you use trust to act in ways that those relying on you oppose, it's really an abuse of trust and over time it will cost that trust.  As a group they strongly deviate from the opinions of the population at large, and the more they exploit trust to push their own agendas to the exclusion of the agendas of the communities they serve the less they should be trusted.

The list could just as easily been called the list of volumes that we have tried to push on the communities that we work for because of our own political purposes but to which they have objected.  Less catchy.
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: wmLambert on May 11, 2022, 07:07:12 PM
Most referrals on books are not about removal - but to redirect erotic or offensive books out of youth shelves. I remember seeing The Valley of Horses by Jean Auel in the book section reserved for very young kids. The title let it get past the librarians. Once called to their attention it wasn't banned, just put in the adult stacks.
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: Wayward Son on May 12, 2022, 03:21:33 PM
That would be an appropriate response to many such books.  But I don't think that applies to any of the incidents I've talked about.

They want the books completely removed, if not burned. (https://tennesseelookout.com/2022/04/27/representative-says-he-would-burn-books-deemed-inappropriate-by-state/)
Title: Re: The Book Banning Begins
Post by: Ouija Nightmare on May 14, 2022, 07:22:38 PM
Most referrals on books are not about removal - but to redirect erotic or offensive books out of youth shelves. I remember seeing The Valley of Horses by Jean Auel in the book section reserved for very young kids. The title let it get past the librarians. Once called to their attention it wasn't banned, just put in the adult stacks.

That’s peculiar. Just what sort of qualifications are required to be a librarian in your neck of the woods?