Don't forget the OTHER side of the Holocaust

[rturner76]

Ahh yes.... I see it clearly outlined in the bill.

Me too!

 

[rjs330]

Me too!

I'm sure you do. How many times was it mentioned? I don't remember exactly.

And aren't parents allowed to do that now? Where is it in law that prohibits parents from teaching their kids to be racist?

Is it your contention that it ought to be outlawed?

 

[rturner76]

I'm sure you do. How many times was it mentioned? I don't remember exactly.

The same answer as why is the word "Trinity" is not in the Bible. They both say it without using the word.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Let's look at a part of it that the OP seems to take issue with:

no teacher shall be compelled by a policy of any
state agency, school district, campus, open-enrollment charter
school, or school administration to discuss current events or
widely debated and currently controversial issues of public policy
or social affairs;

Who is it, exactly, that should be compelling a teacher to discuss something? Please be specific.

If you'd actually read the OP, you'd know that his issue with that section was that social studies teachers should be discussing current events and controversial issues of public policy and social affairs. Personally I agree, but I also don't really have a problem with saying that the state can't force them to do so, so I don't really have a problem with that bit.

The part that compels a teacher to do something is the second part quoted in the OP:

teachers who choose to discuss current events or
widely debated and currently controversial issues of public policy
or social affairs shall, to the best of their ability, strive to
explore such issues from diverse and contending perspectives
without giving deference to any one perspective;

The problem is that "widely debated and currently controversial issues of public policy and social affairs" is ultimately a subjective standard (see your assertion that the bill is not controversial). Who decides what issues fit that description? You could make an argument that, at least in certain circles, the Holocaust (or the Armenian Genocide, or the treatment of the Uighyrs by the Chinese, etc) is controversial and widely debated. Should be we teaching "both sides" of those issues?

 

[rjs330]

If you'd actually read the OP, you'd know that his issue with that section was that social studies teachers should be discussing current events and controversial issues of public policy and social affairs. Personally I agree, but I also don't really have a problem with saying that the state can't force them to do so, so I don't really have a problem with that bit.

The part that compels a teacher to do something is the second part quoted in the OP:



The problem is that "widely debated and currently controversial issues of public policy and social affairs" is ultimately a subjective standard (see your assertion that the bill is not controversial). Who decides what issues fit that description? You could make an argument that, at least in certain circles, the Holocaust (or the Armenian Genocide, or the treatment of the Uighyrs by the Chinese, etc) is controversial and widely debated. Should be we teaching "both sides" of those issues?

What exactly is the other side of those issues? That the Holocaust was good for the Jews or treatment of the Uighyers is good for them and society? I learned all about the Holocaust in school. The teachers didn't actually have to talk about the "morality" if it all. As if there is a lot of material out there stating the Holocaust was a wonderful event and Hitler was a saint.

This is just patently dumb.

 

[Pommer]

What exactly is the other side of those issues? That the Holocaust was good for the Jews or treatment of the Uighyers is good for them and society? I learned all about the Holocaust in school. The teachers didn't actually have to talk about the "morality" if it all. As if there is a lot of material out there stating the Holocaust was a wonderful event and Hitler was a saint.

This is just patently dumb.

Well if enough parents want Holocaust denialism literature in their schools this law says that teachers have to have it on hand.

Maybe you’re not on the side that you think you’re on?

 

[HTacianas]

If you'd actually read the OP, you'd know that his issue with that section was that social studies teachers should be discussing current events and controversial issues of public policy and social affairs. Personally I agree, but I also don't really have a problem with saying that the state can't force them to do so, so I don't really have a problem with that bit.

The part that compels a teacher to do something is the second part quoted in the OP:



The problem is that "widely debated and currently controversial issues of public policy and social affairs" is ultimately a subjective standard (see your assertion that the bill is not controversial). Who decides what issues fit that description? You could make an argument that, at least in certain circles, the Holocaust (or the Armenian Genocide, or the treatment of the Uighyrs by the Chinese, etc) is controversial and widely debated. Should be we teaching "both sides" of those issues?

Neither the holocaust nor the Armenian genocide nor the treatment of Uighyrs by the Chinese are matters of public policy in the United States. Abortion, for example, is a "controversial and widely debated" matter of public policy. And there is nothing in the bill that prohibits discussion of it, or anything else, in any way.

The reason for the bill is that organizations such as teachers unions are creating partisan curriculums and lesson plans discussing "controversial and widely debated" matters of public policy and advocating partisan positions on the issues. Parents, teachers, and school board members are complaining to the State Legislature about it and the State Legislature is reacting to it by prohibiting compelling teachers to participate in it.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I can't find any particular reference to "teaching a pro-Nazi" viewpoint in the text of the bill.

I think this is one of those cases where the intention was aimed at something else, but they set themselves up for this kind of criticism by being too vague.

teachers who choose to discuss current events or
widely debated and currently controversial issues of public policy
or social affairs shall, to the best of their ability, strive to
explore such issues from diverse and contending perspectives
without giving deference to any one perspective;


Basically, I think the most likely explanation is that this bill was supposed to be aimed as a bulwark against critical race theory and things like the 1619 project being taught in schools, and by not being specific enough in the way it's worded, can be broadly interpreted, and the opposition pounced on it and used a little reductio ad absurdum to take it to it's most absurd extremes, and then criticize the result.

The more targeted a piece of legislation is, the higher the level of specificity needs to be in the language used to make the intentions clear.

For example:
https://www.clickorlando.com/news/f...da-students-will-be-taught-communism-is-evil/

So when there was a fear that schools would start teaching a "Marxist Ideology" (however irrational that fear was), Florida republicans fired back by passing bills that specifically zeroed in on making sure they were also teaching the evils of communism.

Had FL made the bill as vague as this TX one is, they likely would've been given the same media treatment.

 

[rjs330]

Neither the holocaust nor the Armenian genocide nor the treatment of Uighyrs by the Chinese are matters of public policy in the United States. Abortion, for example, is a "controversial and widely debated" matter of public policy. And there is nothing in the bill that prohibits discussion of it, or anything else, in any way.

The reason for the bill is that organizations such as teachers unions are creating partisan curriculums and lesson plans discussing "controversial and widely debated" matters of public policy and advocating partisan positions on the issues. Parents, teachers, and school board members are complaining to the State Legislature about it and the State Legislature is reacting to it by prohibiting compelling teachers to participate in it.

You make a really good point. Things like the Holocaust, slavery are certainly not current events or widely debated matters of public policy.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Neither the holocaust nor the Armenian genocide nor the treatment of Uighyrs by the Chinese are matters of public policy in the United States.

Teachers can teach about events outside of the US.

Abortion, for example, is a "controversial and widely debated" matter of public policy. And there is nothing in the bill that prohibits discussion of it, or anything else, in any way.

No one has claimed that the bill would prohibit discussion of controversial topics.

The reason for the bill is that organizations such as teachers unions are creating partisan curriculums and lesson plans discussing "controversial and widely debated" matters of public policy and advocating partisan positions on the issues. Parents, teachers, and school board members are complaining to the State Legislature about it and the State Legislature is reacting to it by prohibiting compelling teachers to participate in it.

I agree that this is the intent behind the bill. The problem is that, as @ThatRobGuy already pointed out, they worded it too vaguely, in such a way that it can be maliciously misinterpreted - or hijacked by extremist fringe groups.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

You make a really good point. Things like the Holocaust, slavery are certainly not current events or widely debated matters of public policy.

They certainly aren't current, but widely debated and controversial? Depends on who you ask. Therein lies the crux of the problem with this bill.

 

[rjs330]

They certainly aren't current, but widely debated and controversial? Depends on who you ask. Therein lies the crux of the problem with this bill.

They are not matters of public policy either.

 

[rjs330]

So far the concerns seem to be snipe hunting. The ideas have not been applicable. The Holocaust is not a matter of public policy nor is it a current event.

It seems there is angst over nothing.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Texas book controversy: School administrator told teachers to include Holocaust books with 'opposing' views when explaining new state law - CNN

I chose CNN cause I'm lazy. I'm positive you can find any one of a number of other sites commenting on this case.

My first question is this:
Do you think this school administrator ACTUALLY wants "the opposing view of the holocaust" in the classroom or do you think they did this bring attention to the sheer folly of this ludicrous bill?




With that said, perhaps that's just all a dog and pony show.
Here is the bill itself:
Texas HB3979 | 2021-2022 | 87th Legislature

What is this even? How is this not disconcerting to ANYONE that governments can dictate this kind of nonsense?

Check it out...look what you CANNOT do in Social Studies class:
That's the OPPOSITE of what should happen.
Social studies teachers should be WANTING to have these conversations. How can we expect adults to grow up and be able to have tough conversations without giving them a chance to practice and learn how as kids?

When did America become so lily white that they hated having tough conversations on tough subjects? Was it when folks started suggesting that maybe members of certain races are still able to exert power over other races whether formally or informally, consciously or subconsciously?

Another one:
On the surface this sounds reasonable. But this is written by a politician and not an educator.
For example:
How quick will they be to say that Communism and Socialism are JUST AS GOOD as capitalism.
And
Equality is good. But racism is also really good and totally level and beneficial for society too.

I guess that means politicians can no longer go to school and present themeslves and the policies they are fighting for.



The use of the word "blame" here is highly suspect and, in my opinion, could easily be taken to a challenge.

And number 6, what a shambles. But that said I can imagine more than a few people are just SALIVATING over that.

What is "suspect" about the word "blame" in that context?

 

[Ana the Ist]

If you'd actually read the OP, you'd know that his issue with that section was that social studies teachers should be discussing current events and controversial issues of public policy and social affairs. Personally I agree, but I also don't really have a problem with saying that the state can't force them to do so, so I don't really have a problem with that bit.

The part that compels a teacher to do something is the second part quoted in the OP:



The problem is that "widely debated and currently controversial issues of public policy and social affairs" is ultimately a subjective standard (see your assertion that the bill is not controversial). Who decides what issues fit that description? You could make an argument that, at least in certain circles, the Holocaust (or the Armenian Genocide, or the treatment of the Uighyrs by the Chinese, etc) is controversial and widely debated. Should be we teaching "both sides" of those issues?

I don't think the holocaust is considered a current event.

 

[rambot]

What is "suspect" about the word "blame" in that context?

Blame seems open to interpretation.

 

[rambot]

What exactly is the other side of those issues? That the Holocaust was good for the Jews or treatment of the Uighyers is good for them and society? I learned all about the Holocaust in school. The teachers didn't actually have to talk about the "morality" if it all. As if there is a lot of material out there stating the Holocaust was a wonderful event and Hitler was a saint.

This is just patently dumb.

And yet this law requires class time dedicated to the idea that the Holocaust was not so bad.

Listen we BOTH agree the holocaust was bad. 98% of people likely agree with that even. That is why, hopefully, you'll come to realize that a law presenting "both sides of an issue" isn't ALWAYS a useful exercise.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Blame seems open to interpretation.

Well...

Clearly it's "responsibility for a fault or wrong".

I don't see what else it could be.

 

[rambot]

Well...

Clearly it's "responsibility for a fault or wrong".

I don't see what else it could be.

Well what if it's not necessarily wrong but a behaviour pattern that is explained in an unflattering way?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Well what if it's not necessarily wrong but a behaviour pattern that is explained in an unflattering way?

Are we still talking about sociology?

Like have the teacher psychoanalyze the students?