Bob Somerby is annoyed that liberals continue to say that Florida's Stop WOKE Act bans any classroom discussion that "could prompt students to feel discomfort" because of their race. In fairness, early drafts of the law did use that word, and it was only dropped in the final bill. Nonetheless, he's right that the bill as passed says nothing about discomfort.
But it does make several pronouncements about what can and can't be taught, and it words them in different ways in different places. Here's the most understandable version:
Instruction and supporting materials on the topics enumerated in this section¹ must be consistent with the following principles of individual freedom:
- No person is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously, solely by virtue of his or her race or sex.
- No race is inherently superior to another race.
- No person should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, disability, or sex.
- Meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are not racist but fundamental to the right to pursue happiness and be rewarded for industry.
- A person, by virtue of his or her race or sex, does not bear responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex.
- A person should not be instructed that he or she must feel guilt, anguish, or other forms of psychological distress for actions, in which he or she played no part, committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex.
The Florida law bans any instruction suggesting that students "must feel guilt, anguish, or other forms of psychological distress" for actions in the historical past, which is not at all the same thing as "prompting discomfort." But it's also not entirely different. The upshot, I suppose, is that a little bit of classroom discomfort over our past might be OK as long as it doesn't edge into instruction that students should feel anguish or distress?
It's also worth noting that this isn't the only law ever passed by the Florida legislature. For example, they also passed a law that bans instruction in both Critical Race Theory and systemic racism. That's why they aren't mentioned here.
¹These include American history; the founding of the republic; the Holocaust; slavery, racism, and African American history; principles of agriculture; kindness to animals; state history; and a few other odds and ends.
Sadly, Somerby has devolved into a crank who has confused prolixity with erudition. I found his posts so dull and repetitive that I stopped reading. It simply doesn't repay the effort.
Ditto. I'm also turned off by his war on the left, the constant sneers and putdowns.
Objections registered! I'll offer two reactions, using as few words as possible:
First, here's Gene Brabender, as quoted in Jim Bouton's Ball Four:
"Where I come from, we only talk for a little while. After that, we start to hit."
Human, all too human! Also this:
I rarely write about "the left." More often, I write about the (very human) instincts of us within our current blue tribe, and about the work of the people in the mainstream press and within "cable news" who are taken to be tribunes of blue tribe / liberal / Democratic Party politics.
It seems to me that those instincts are often unhelpful. Others may hold a different view, of course. But the (corporate-paid) people to whom I refer aren't exactly "the left."
Who is "the left" in our modern discourse? Do any such people exist?
The problem is in my view these guidelines are very, very far down the analytical road which is at the heart of the political dispute.
The road is:
Question: Does the government have a role in providing a remedy for past discrimination?
To get to the answer:
1. Is there discrimination today? OMG, this is the very heart of MAGA ridiculousness. They want a definition of "discrimination" that stops at lynchings which are attended by at least 100 people. Anything like one of Kevin's favorites, (minority test scores, anyone?) isn't because of past racism or present racism, its because black people are dumb, or lazy, or crappy parents, or all of the above.
2. Since for a MAGA there is barely any discrimination today, and for a sane person structural racism in the United States is so blindingly obvious the Sun pales in comparison, its off to the races. What to teach? Well, for the MAGAs, racism in the US is right up there with pointing out in AP World history that Alexander the Great was king of Macedonia. A nice fact, but for them that's it. For a sane person, we are barely out of 150 years of Jim Crow. Barely. People are still walking around who beat up freedom riders for daring to challenge segregated lunch counters.
3. So you get to these guidelines. What they really don't want taught is that racism persists. Because then people can grow up and vote against any and all present attempted remedies. Which is where the MAGA analysis starts.
4. Even with all the points you've rightly pointed out, we forget that the law in doing what it does actually fabricates a history that didn't exist by replacing it. It's a disservice to knowledge itself and a rejection of truth as we know it. It's one of the pillars fascism. See the sabotage of the Public Health infrastructure of the state itself during the pandemic.
"I rarely write about "the left." More often, I write about the (very human) instincts of us within our current blue tribe..."
Haw.
Far be it for me to want to defend FL law, but I find nothing to object to with respect to the quoted section. The folks trying to teach the opposite of all this has long struck me as itself racist/sexist.
The last bullet item lays down an awfully broad brush for what is not allowed. Seems hard to teach about topics like slavery and Jim Crow without producing some feelings of deep injustice regarding how blacks were treated. Likewise, it’s hard to imagine that not a bit of shame would be felt if it was your white ancestors doing these things.
And I really doubt that many Florida teachers acted like the worst of the DEI training bullies. To pass a law like this, FL legislators should have presented evidence there is a problem in the first place. "A lot of teachers are libs" is not good enough.
"A person should not be instructed that he or she must feel guilt, anguish, or other forms of psychological distress for actions, **in which he or she played no part, committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex**.
"
Really?
You think that I should be made to feel guilty about things done by people born long before I was born, people with whom I have no connection whatsoever beyond having the "same" skin color?
Please amplify on this theory, and explain EXACTLY how it differs, for example, from me claiming that Jews today bear direct responsibility for the killing of Jesus...
Yes, I went there. Pinning blame on people who weren't even born at the time has a long, and extremely inglorious, history.
Regardless of whether this is how people should feel, this is how they do feel, and it's silly to pretend otherwise.
People are proud of their ancestors who did good things and ashamed of their ancestors who did bad things. People anticipate their descendants being proud of the good things they do and ashamed of the bad things. Furthermore, but to a lesser extent, people feel some pride in the accomplishment of people like them and shame in their failings. Why? Because they assume, rightly, that these things affect other people's estimation of their character and abilities. Countering a bad estimation might require doing something to prove it wrong, like paying reparations, or simply acknowledging that bad acts are bad.
In practice how these laws are interpreted, by both conservatives and liberals, is that white kids shouldn't ever be told that other white people, possibly including their ancestors, ever did anything bad. So the teacher's intent in teaching things doesn't come into question. (And if violation required ascertaining the teacher's intent, the law would have no teeth.)
As for "the Jews killed Jesus", one difference is that this phrase directly ascribes responsibility to Jews as a collective. You are asserting the guilt of the Jews, including Anne Frank. You aren't asserting potential or propensity to do similar things, but guilt for a particular thing. (This is to say nothing of the sordid history of this particular phrase, the questionable assignment of responsibility, the murkiness of ancient history, the fact that Jesus's followers were also Jews, etc.) If the teachers are saying "the whites killed Martin Luther King" then maybe it's a reasonable analogy. If they're just saying "James Earl Ray killed Martin Luther King" and the kids are reasoning, "Ray was white. I'm white. I'm ashamed to have anything in common with Ray," then I think it's a bad analogy.
"People are proud of their ancestors who did good things and ashamed of their ancestors who did bad things."
Not in my experience. I'd say people try to forget and deny the bad things their ancestors did. How else do you explain the furor over the removal of statues memorializing the Confederacy?
Teaching kids how awful slavery was will be construed as instructing them to feel anguish, since anguish and guilt will be an inescapable result of the lesson.
A teacher who simply asked a white kid to imagine how bad it would feel to be sold away from his parents might be guilty of insisting on anguish.
"Teaching kids how awful slavery was will be construed as instructing them to feel anguish, since anguish and guilt will be an inescapable result of the lesson.
"
Why? It ONLY works that way IF you insist on teaching slavery as some sort of uniquely white sin...
If you teach slavery in the full human context, as something done by Africans to Africans, by Arabs to Whites, by Native Americans to other Native Americans, that is still being done in Mauritania and South East Asia,
etc, etc, then why is there some sort of uniquely white guilt that I would automatically feel? Slavery sucks, yes, and we're all lucky that its prevalence is drastically reduced, but it has been a human-wide evil.
Likewise, why insist on teaching the Jim Crow south without also teaching saying the Indian Caste system, or the legal status of many of the overseas Chinese in places like Malaysia, or the way the Indians were treated across most of post-Colonial Africa?
The guilt only arrives IF you insist in teaching a version of world history that has all arrows pointing to white guilt...
Interesting. Many of these provisions would seem to be anti-maga. Whoops!
Or perhaps you never knew what MAGA meant in the first place, only a parody of what it meant?
Given that every student has a smartphone, where is video evidence of a teacher anywhere in Florida (or anywhere else) making a student feel guilt, anguish or distress over actions taken by other members of their race? Since these clips appear to be as rare or nonexistent as clips of children using litter boxes in schools, I can only conclude that the Stop Woke efforts are just total bullshit, drummed up to provoke fear and hatred amongst voters and Fox News watchers.
+1
One might think that Florida has more pressing issues to deal with: hurricanes, sinkholes, ocean rise …
I am in agreement with pretty much every principle enumerated in the quoted section of that Florida Law (but I have not read the full text of the law myself).
However, I do take issue with this instructional statement: "Instruction and supporting materials on the topics enumerated in this section¹ MUST BE CONSISTENT with the following principles of individual freedom"
I may agree with those principles, but I don't want teachers forced to teach them, and I certainly don't want students pressured to accept them. Education should never be reduced to indoctrination, not even for ideas that I endorse.
BUT, unlike much of the Left, I apply the same standard to Democrats as well as Republicans. And Republicans are certainly not the only ones attempting to enforce censorship and compelled speech in the classroom. Leftists are just as guilty on that score, possibly more so.
A recent SF Chronicle article describes new Community College regulations that tie teacher performance reviews and tenure awards to the acceptance and promotion of the Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) ideology:
"The new regulations require all 73 college districts [in California] to develop policies for evaluating employee performance and tenure eligibility in light of their 'DEIA competencies.'
"The rules follow a series of other DEIA guidance and messages from the chancellor’s office in recent years, and say that to ensure academic success, 'diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) and anti-racism remain at the heart of our work.'
"The college system also posts a glossary of DEIA terms, which defines color blindness as a 'racial ideology' that ignores 'a large part of one’s identity and lived experience' and therefore 'perpetuates existing racial inequities.'"
These regulations are outrageous, intellectually insulting, and utterly at odds with the mission of higher ed. Keep in mind that these assertions are not just suggestions or even guidelines, they can now be enforced through poor performance reviews or denial of tenure against teachers who allow discussion about, let alone promote the practice of, any ideology other than Ibram Kendi's version of modern anti-racism.
In other words, the Board of Governors of California's community colleges are imposing their ideology on teachers and students alike. Rather than ensuring an environment of academic freedom, they are turning community colleges into secular churches of anti-racism. Rather than teaching students how to think, they are trying to teach them what to think.
And, not surprisingly, California's Community Colleges are facing first amendment lawsuits over their attempts to compel the speech they like and squash any hint of wrongthink from classrooms. But lawsuits should have never been necessary in the first place. To say that the administrator's involved in this blatant act of ideological tyranny have overstepped would simply be too polite. Their names should live in infamy as enemies of a free society.
So, where is the outrage? Full props to the SF Chronicle for publishing a story on this topic at all, because most Liberal outlets have been largely (though not entirely) muted on what should be one of the greatest scandals in America at this time.
We see, hear, and/or read one story after another, after another, after another, after another, after another, after another, after another, after another, after another about Republican Ron DeSantis and his efforts to censor content and compel speech in Florida's schools. Why aren't we hearing a similar amount of coverage about efforts to do the exact same thing in California's community colleges?
So, I do not support any enforcement of the principles outlined above in the Florida law (even though I agree with them). But I also do not support the enforcement of the anti-racist ideology in California's Community College (an ideology which, in fact, I mostly disagree with). In neither situation is compelled or censored speech even remotely acceptable in the context of higher education.
And I would greatly appreciate if the media would call out censorship in all of its forms, rather than just the censorship practiced by Republicans who they don't happen to like.
Imagine believing that places of learning shouldn't be teaching people what to think.
The NY Times, for example, very frequently has articles calling out censorship by the left, especially on college campuses.
Good for them, and thank you for pointing it out. But how many articles has the NYT run more specifically on school censorship in (Republican) Florida rather than the equally bad if not worse school censorship in (Democratic) California?
No, they don't. What the NY Times very frequently does is publish articles about students exercising their speech rights in ways that are both procedurally legitimately and substantively excellent, but with the implication that they are neither.
And yeah, you know what? I do want my educational institutions to censor. Straight up. There are plenty of things that have no place in them. Zero censorship means zero standards.
Pretend moderate Leo tips his hand.
He is OUTRAGED at California because of a policy. Oh wait no, there is no actual policy to be outraged at, instead he is OUTRAGED! at the call to develop a policy. But the real OUTRAGE! is that other people arent also angry at California for calling for the development of educational policies which is clearly the BIGGEST SCANDAL IN AMERICA!! THE BIGGEST!!
Pretend Leo always faceplants on the delivery.
@jdubs:
The Revisions in the California Code of Regulations can be found here:
https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Browse/Home/California/CaliforniaCodeofRegulations?guid=I5EDC84B04C6911EC93A8000D3A7C4BC3&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)
They are already in effect. And they mandate, among other things, that California's Community College teachers must “employ teaching, learning, and professional practices that reflect DEIA and anti-racist principles”
There is no intellectually honest or sincere way to call out Florida's classroom censorship without also calling out California's classroom censorship.
Either you're against classroom censorship or not; and, if you are, California is arguably the much bigger problem.
Lol, oh I see.
There is no intellectually honest way to be for guidelines that promote/teach a certain principle but against guidelines that oppose the same principles. You must oppose both regardless of what the guidelines are!! SCANDALOUS!!
If you are against guidelines that punish the teaching of the importance of reading, you must also be against guidelines that promote the teaching of importance of reading! This is intellectually honest because they are both guidelines that impose an ideology! Even if they are opposing ideologys, you must treat them equally!!
Guidelines that require things instead of merely suggesting them are the GREATEST SCANDAL IN HISTORY!!
Yes, of course.
This statement does not accurately reflect what I said:
“There is no intellectually honest way to be for guidelines that promote/teach a certain principle …”
I have not complained about people who are “for” anything; I have, rather, very clearly opposed people who COMPEL speech or ideology that they prefer. That is the issue. But if you don’t get it, you don’t get it …
Uh, Leo? Pretty much everyone here's got your number.
Please explain how teaching using DEI practices "censors" anyone.
Have I somehow been unclear?
Teaching while using DEI as a frame of reference does not necessarily censor anyone (though it may lead to some very narrow minded and dull classes: I speak from experience);
However, FORCING community colleges to teach DEI and only DEI principles, as the entire Californian Community College system is doing, is about as obvious an act of censorship as could possibly be imagined.
The only way to somehow ignore that fact is to wear one of the largest pair of ideological blinders in the world and somehow refuse to see or accept any fault on one’s own side.
But the fault is blatant, narrow minded, and obvious. And that’s why these schools are now mired in lawsuits. And if our free society is to survive, the school censorship must end in BOTH California AND Florida.
Practices are not content any more than a method of cooking is nutrition.
"what should be one of the greatest scandals in America at this time."
Glad you've got your priorities straight.
How is it that so many on the Left are only worried about the censorship and compelled speech enforced by the other side? No doubt it relates to the heightened polarization of our current era, but it nevertheless remains one of the most disheartening spectacles I’ve ever witnessed.
There are extremist factions on both the Right and the Left. They are both endeavoring to enforce their own ideology on various school systems within their control. And the paramount issue of our time is to fight these illiberal trends wherever they may arise, whether it’s from the right or the left.
If we only fight against Republican extremism, we are not truly engaged in the genuine struggle of this time; rather, we’re giving a significant number of the ideological zealots (on the Left) a pass.
These don't sound that bad. Some commenters continue to misread them even now. Students should not be instructed that they "must" feel guilt, but that does not rule out suggesting that they "should" feel guilt, or more aptly that they "might" feel guilt.
So could a teacher refer to slavery as our "original sin"? That would imply collective guilt.
Perhaps we should refer to the taking if the land & lives of Native Americans as the "original" sin, & the enslavement of kidnapped Africans as the second horrific injustice.
Like +20.
I live in New Mexico, where the Native presence is much more visible than, say, DC or NYC. My Congressperson was Debra Haaland.
"The right to pursue happiness" has nothing to do with "meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic".
Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd edition: "As used in constitutional law, this right includes personal freedom, freedom of contract, exemption from oppression or invidious discrimination, the right to follow one’s individual preference in the choice of an occupation and the application of his energies, liberty of conscience, and the right to enjoy the domestic relations and the privileges of the family and the home."
Black's Law Dictionary, 10th edition: "The principle -- announced in the Declaration of Independence -- that a person should be allowed to pursue the person's desires (esp. in regard to an occupation) without unjustified interference by the government."
Florida's government should be sanctioned for attempting to indoctrinate children with provably false ideas.
On the face of it, that bullet list doesn't seem so bad. BUT what's going to happen when some middle school history teacher says "There were millions of slaves of African descent in the American South and they didn't like it very much?" Some MAGA kid is going to leap to his/her feet and shriek that they're being made to feel bad and the parents are going to do everything they can to get that teacher fired.
You raise the key point. Probably every educator who has ever addressed a sensitive topic like race can attest that what is said in class, and what students think they hear, can be very different.
Many years ago, I team-taught a course for first-year college students that introduced central themes in the liberal arts. (I'm a math guy, but I have interests and teaching competence in other areas.) I vividly remember, after a segment on on the role of race in society, reading a reaction paper by a student which included the line, "I feel so bad about what we did to the Negroes." So much to unpack there: First of all, it had been over 20 years -- i.e., since before this young woman was born -- since "Negro" had been the respectful term for an American of African descent. More to the point under discussion here, since the historical material we had covered in class was all at least 25 years in the past, "we" from this young woman's point of view hadn't done anything, unless she chose to identify with those individuals who had perpetuated slavery, segregation, etc. But most important, none of the discussion in the class was designed to make anybody feel guilty about anything. Rather, it was intended to explore -- factually and analytically -- how issues of race have shaped society and culture. How might things have played out if such a student complained to their parents, and the parents could complain that the instructors were violating the law?
"No person should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, disability, or sex."
Well, you know, except for Mexicans.
Ooo! Ooo! and Hatians.
One of the important limitations is that a student must not be INSTRUCTED to feel guilty, etc. Teaching that certain members of the same race or ethnic group as the student did some pretty horrible things, may cause some students to feel guilt etc., but as long as they're not instructed to, that's OK.
I expect the distinction will be lost on the parents of at least some of the students.
That last bullet point is incredibly slippery. Note how even the well-intentioned KD, when simply repeating it, significantly broadens it:
Original: "A person should not be INSTRUCTED that they MUST feel guilt..."
Drum: it bans "any instruction SUGGESTING that students SHOULD feel guilt..."
As has been pointed out by many commentators, the chief evil of the law is the chilling effect it has on teachers, most of whom will avoid running the risk of arousing MAGA ire by skipping as lightly as possible over any curriculum items that touch on race, gender or sexual orientation. Few teachers want to be the target of next week's attacks by the Murdoch empire, Newsmax and the rest or to have parents at school board meetings shrieking about illegal course content corrupting their children. They are well aware that such attacks can be launched on the flimsiest pretexts, and the victims have no means to defend themselves.
No Florida teacher, on the other hand, is going to get into trouble because they didn't give students enough information about the evils of slavery or the historical discrimination against LGBTQ people.
Agree, and would add that the mistrust of educators it conveys is demoralizing. Most working people derive satisfaction on the job from being able to feel that their knowledge and skills are appreciated, and contributing to a worthwhile purpose. Even disregarding the politics, this is the worst kind of micromanagement and undermines professional staff.
I think that's exactly right. While these rules look relatively anodyne, they're clearly open to a wide range of interpretation and in a state like Florida, where teachers have *zero* job security (no unions, no tenure, etc.), would you want to risk pissing off some MAGAt parent by teaching about slavery or the Civil Rights movement? You'd keep your head down, tell the students all they need to know is that we won World War II and then move on to the math lesson.
"No race is inherently superior to another race."
So okay. Make a lesson plan emphasizing that principle. I guarantee there will be pushback from the community within a week.
What strikes me is how contrary the principle is to the explicit statements of the (soon to be) Confederate states. Those ancesters whose "heritage" we are told we have to uphold would spin in their graves if they could hear what their descendants are saying. Maybe we should take that as the pipsqueak victory that it is.
In MAGat language, what this means is that you can't teach that people of one racial group were ever unjustly oppressed by those of another racial group, because that implies that the oppressors are inherently bad. They see it as a counterweight to their (mis)perception that "woke" curricula infected with Cultural Marxism™ teach kids that any group that has suffered persecution or oppression is defacto morally superior. So Blacks are always right and whites are always wrong. (You think I'm kidding -- this is exactly what folks like Christopher Rufo are out there pushing)
Teaching about the slave trade, racism, the evils of slavery, the civil war, segregation and America’s racial history is simply teaching what actually happened. It does not put a guilt trip on any student unless they deny that history.
On the other hand, Gov. DeSantis’ s belief in and wanting to teach the “benefits” of slavery, is a lie and that obviously should be banned
Well, depends upon what you emphasize. Here's the MAGA version of the topics you list
Slave trade -- benevolent Christians import laborers to America to teach them valuable work skills
Racism -- officially ended when MLK Jr. gave his I Have a Dream Speech. Any more talk of it now and *you're* the real racist.
Evils of Slavery -- really overblown. Did I mention the valuable work skills? If they were so miserable, why were they singing hymns as they worked, huh?
Civil War -- That's the War of Northern Aggression you woke lib.
Segregation -- Aren't folks happier among their own kind?
Who can learn about Auschwitz or slave ships and NOT find it distressing?
The thing that makes this complicated is that we all know what these kids' great-great grandpappies were doing. When teachers talk about what people did in the past, they're not placing collective racial blame, but plenty of the parents know there is direct lineage back to those events. That's what has them all in a tizzy.
I used to work with a bunch of Southerners, and I got sick of hearing about their ancestors' Civil War heroics (seriously, it's shocking how often a bunch if 50 something white southern men would bring that up). So one day I just let it be known that my ancestor was there too, burning Atlanta. That shut them up.
The other thing is that it's largely unlikely that any individual southerner today, even the white ones, is actually a descendant of slaveowners. Given immigration, internal migration, and the reality that most slaves were owned by a handful of very wealthy (and awful) people, most of the idjits yammering about how "it's about heritage" etc. don't actually have a geneological dog in the fight.
I mean, ffs, even if we somehow were to credit that it's harder to disavow what your ancestors did as many as _seven generations ago_ very, very few people actually have any awareness of or connection to who or what said ancesters were. Instead, this is all cultural nonsense whereby some sort of bizarre sociological drift has incultated the idea that for a lot of folks in-group identification involves proclaiming (in various ways) your support for the ideas underpinning a failed rebellion from a century and a half ago.
I had an uncle who would defend the south and tacitly defend anti-Black racism (usually after a few drinks at Thanksgiving) and I always wanted to smack the guy and remind him that his grandparents came from Poland in the early 20th, that he'd never lived anywhere near the south, and that absolutely no one would think less of him if he simply observed that slavery was awful and then ate some cranberry sauce like a normal person.
Slaveowners did have children, and after eight or ten generations there are a lot of descendants. Assuming no convergence, you have 1024 ancestors from 10 generations ago, and if those ancestors had more children than the two each required for replacement, each of them may have a lot more than 1024 descendants. There are quite a few people around who are descended from at least one slaveowner.
It's also an open and notorious fact that there are MANY Americans descended from slaves and slaveowners. So should such a person identify more with their great to the ninth power grandfather, the rapist, or their great to the ninth power grandmother, the rapee?
As a proud liberal, I have to admit that there is NOTHING here that I find objectionable. In fact, they seem well-thought-out and perfectly acceptable. Read carefully (I've added caps for emphasis):
"A person SHOULD NOT BE INSTRUCTED that he or she MUST feel guilt, anguish, or other forms of psychological distress for actions, in which he or she PLAYED NO PART, committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex."
There is nothing here about blocking anyone from thinking what they want. I firmly believe, and have expressed, that no one should be criticized for who they (or there ancestors) may be, but only for what they've done. If that means I fail some "solidarity" test, then something is going seriously wrong on BOTH ends of the political spectrum.
"I firmly believe, and have expressed, that no one should be criticized for who they (or there ancestors) may be, but only for what they've done."
Ah, but there's the rub, eh? Supposing some people are wealthier and have life easier because of the crimes of their forebears, are they to be judged the same as those who are poorer and have life harder because their forebears had crimes committed against them? As an extreme example, I wouldn't count Baron Trump a virtuous young man simply because he has never stolen a loaf of bread to feed his family, and I wouldn't count Jean Valjean a miscreant simply because he did.
So we're not responsible for things done prior to our coming into existence. Yeah, I can accept that, but what I can't accept is that somehow this principle allows us to ignore the still ongoing consequences of what was done before our time.
If we let evil continue, then we are fully responsible for that even if not for initiating it.
I don't think there were very many schools or educators who were teaching before this law was passed that white people are inherently oppressive or should feel guilt about their race. In fact, I'd love to see examples where this was allegedly taught. I'm sure there were people saying that online, but I doubt you were getting anything quite so extreme or strident in public schools.
The real sticking point is teaching that white people generally benefit from the systemic racism that has been enshrined in our society, which is (I would argue) a necessary point to help understand why inequality can persist even when you have a lot of people who aren't inherently or overtly racist.
This makes some people (particularly conservatives) very uncomfortable. They really resent the implication that they have benefitted in any way from racism, and conservatives like to argue that racism really isn't a problem anymore (partly by defining racism as wearing a white hood.)
So conservatives have objected to anything that ties slavery or historical racism to the present. And maybe primary and secondary schools should avoid that, because it gets inherently political. (I disagree -- learning about the past isn't as effective if you can't see how it unfolds and impacts the present.)
But this argument has led conservatives (see Florida's internal criticisms of AP History) to go beyond that -- anything that makes slavery too one sided, anything that reveals the true extent of the horror -- might make white children feel guilty and needs to be removed. Or balanced with irrelevant minor points about the skills slaves learned. Or make sure there's focus on how Africans started the slave trade even though it's a bit like blaming the cigarette industry on Native Americans.
This whitewashing the past is a big problem. Now it's not enough to divorce slavery and historical oppression from our present society, they need to soften the historical racism, too, because students might be able to draw some of those conclusions on their own.
This is why this is a big problem, and this is how conservatives, more than anyone, are injecting their own politics into public education.
Is Bob Somerby still alive? I used to read him many years ago, but stopped because as the most humorless political writer in the world (ironic, since he also works, or worked, as a standup comic) reading his stuff was a dreary slog with little reward. (Well, it may be a tie with Glenn Greenwald, who I also stopped reading years ago for much the same reasons--and this was when he was still primarily writing on civil liberties issues and criticizing the Bush II administration.)
He popped in to put me down around 4:39am.
The claims that only a handful of wealthy southerners owned slaves is untrue. The very low numbers that some people come up with are generated by not counting the wife or the rest of the family as slaveowners, just the man of the house. They also will look at ownership for just one year. Slaves were property so if business was bad they got sold for cash. The true number is closer to 25%.
Steve
You know, I think I could teach a class everything I wanted them to know about race and avoid violating those guidelines. I would even be willing to tell them up front: "The point of this is not to make you feel bad or guilty. It's so that you know what the score is, how we got here, so that you can try to do better, so that you can try to make things better."
I don't think white people are racist by virtue of their race. I think all people are racist by virtue of being human beings. We don't have to let that lie, though.
As Ta-Nehisi Coates said once, "It's not a problem of white people. It's a problem of power". [His emphasis]
"You know, I think I could teach a class everything I wanted them to know about race and avoid violating those guidelines."
Oh probably, if the guidelines were enforced in good faith by objective robots or something. But they won't be, and that's the point.
In authoritarian failed democracies, one of the tools employed by governing structures is to pass vague laws that maybe everybody violates or maybe nobody violates. That way, prosecutorial discretion can be used to punish people the folks in power don't like and/or ensure that everybody stays way, way, way to the safe side of whatever line the laws might impose.
That's what these guidelines look like to me: nominally, it doesn't look so bad, but it's larded up with extremely hazy boundaries. Thus, any teacher who doesn't want to be targeted will cover material concerning slavery, race, immigration, jim crow, police violence, redlining, etc. in a very, very anodyne way, and teachers who school boards or Floridian governmental types dislike will have their work scrutinized for examples running afoul of the guidelines.
As an example, even your proposed approach to teaching could well get you in trouble. I could see some activist asshole parent objecting to you saying that the point of the lesson(s) is "so that you can try to do better, so that you can try to make things better" as you trying to make their kid feel like they aren't good enough and are obligated to do things to rectify/atone for injustices they themselves didn't necessary cause. Personally, I wouldn't agree with said activist asshole, but if it were politically convenient/expedient, DeSantis's government sure would.
What I didn't mention is that I would be sure to videotape the class, and show the tape to any parent who complained.
And then, I'd smile. I wouldn't say out loud, "go ahead, sue me" but I'd think it.
Uh huh. And then a student who willfully ignores your disclaimer at the beginning and pulls a single sentence out of context runs home to tell his parents, and those parents file a criminal complaint against you, and then you’ve got to lawyer up and defend yourself. Even if you win, you’ll be out a lot of money for lawyers.
Reread what happened to Shirley Sherrod for a masterclass in ignoring disclaimers and taking a single sentence out of context can do to one’s career. And that occurred in a *Democratic* administration. I can’t even begin to imagine how bad it would’ve been for her in a Republican administration, like Florida teachers face for the foreseeable future. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firing_of_Shirley_Sherrod
This isn't a criminal proceeding. If it were, you could get a public defender, which would be so much the better. No, it's grounds for dismissal. Assuming you're any good, and that you have videotape (which oh yeah, you better have made some), no administration will want to get rid of you.
We're in a fight. We need to understand that we're in a fight, and that while we can and will win it, it's going to hurt.
I mean, I think it makes sense for some organization or two to run things past lawyers, and put up some guidelines and model lesson plans.
The right throws tons of money at these things. I'm sick of it. I'm sick of their bullying. When we talk about budget tradeoffs and tax policy, I think conservatives have a point and a legitimate voice.
But this crap? Its garbage. We need to stand up to it.
Yeah, but the power ain't in the teachers' hands.
We all know the repulsive plan is to keep the constituents dumb and dumber so they don't venture out into the real world of liberalism.
We’re rapidly coming to the point where colleges and employers are going to have to start not recognizing high school diplomas issued by some states as equal to those issued by other states that have more robust and reality-based educational standards. Perhaps “full faith and credit” will require government entities like state-owned universities to not discriminate against graduates of Florida schools, but no private entity has to value a Florida high school education the same as, say, a Massachusetts or California one. (And I write this having obtained a high school education down south myself. I went to one of my state’s top high schools and the education I received decades ago was definitely not as thorough as people I’ve met from other states… and this was well before the curriculum wars.)
KD really missed the mark. On its face, the law uses language that is neutral. BUT in the context of other Florida activities regarding curriculum as noted by several others, it puts teachers in a difficult place to either water down history which is often ugly and upsetting or face possible lawsuits/prosecution which will escalate to a very "DeSantis" (can't really say conservative anymore) FL Supreme Court.
As to context, see New College, book bans, etc.
Exactly. This is right from the authoritarian playbook. Enact laws/policies that seem facially neutral but are hazy and vague and thereby open to selective enforcement (think eschewing speed limits in favor of prohibitions on "unsafe driving" such that the cop has even more untrammeled authority to issue citations, and lookee here, the cop seems to only pull over cars without DeSantis bumper stickers) so that they can be used to go after the enemies/targets of the folks in power for political expediency.
You can expect to see the Floridian government select, punish, and publicize some poor junior high teacher for talking about Jim Crow the wrong way as part of an effort to demonize teachers/democrats as "groomers" or something and keep the public focus on this nonsense instead of on how high tides now wash over Miami city streets.
After all, we've already seen this with DeSantis making a big deal of arresting "fraudulent" voters.
The problem with the traffic comparisons is that cops will just selectively pull over vehicles anyhow.
So, just to make sure I understand, a group of people do enormous damage to another group of people. Damage which continues to this day in many varied forms. Damage that can be incredibly subtle. But it's all OK because I didn't do it in the overt way my ancestors did?
In California, we're doing things like renaming colleges because someone did something bad in the past. I know of a George Washington statue that was taken down because he owned slaves.
I guess what I really see here is trying to paper over very complex and difficult problems that are far more difficult than whatever asshat wrote this thinks of them.
And I'm not saying I have any answers, it's beyond me, but it strikes me that it even further beyond whoever wrote this junk.
Okay, it's time for Godwin. Do German schools teach about WWII, Nazis, and the death camps?
I believe they do. So what's our excuse.
What the eff is
supposed to mean?
Sounds like a combination of "POC are lazy" and "If Granddaddy got you into Harvard, that's a meritocracy, baby!"
There are some anti-racism trainings that cite traits like punctuality, or working hard as culturally defined and not at all objective. These observations are typically included in longer lists of cultural assumptions and participants are encouraged to step back from them and consider ways in which people's supposed value is measured.
A handful of conservative shouters latched onto a few of the items on these lists that they could wave around in fake outrage.
Here’s what Florida really means by “Stop WOKE”
Don't we already know? Here's how good ol' boy from the South Lee Atwater explained it back in 1981:
You start out in 1954 by saying, “N____, n____, n____.” By 1968 you can’t say “n____”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “N____, n____.”
In the 2020s, you say stuff like "Stop WOKE" and "Florida is where woke goes to die." It's very clear. Don't overthink it. That's what they mean.
" in which he or she played no part..."
If you are white, you benefited from this system, thus are a stakeholder.
You took part.
The entire argument against teaching falls apart.
Except you also can't teach about systematic racism.
Which doesn't exist.
(As is legally required to say by a racist system.)
The law also says that it "may not be construed to prohibit discussion of the concepts listed therein as part of a course of training or instruction, provided such training or instruction is given in an objective manner without endorsement of the concepts."
Of course, both sides have an incentive to ignore that part, but the students of Florida would be better served if that part were more widely publicized.