Texas Legislators are discussing how to keep Furries out of the schools. Furries, in case you are unaware of what they are, and why should you as they are a complete figment of the right wing imagination, are children who identify as animals, specifically cats, and, therefore, require a litter box in their classroom in order to use the toilet. That there is no evidence that this is a problem in any Texas school is beside the point. Never mind. Some child could and, because of this highly remote possibility, the Texas legislature needs to act.
Now a Republican Congresswoman is fighting to keep strippers out of the classroom — a problem, again, with no reported occurrences. No matter the insignificance — the nation must act now because strippers in g-strings are camped outside schools just waiting to perform. It is sad, to say the least, that so much of what is troubling the right wing are not even remotely problems for our schools. But, by all means, lets spend precious time protecting children from strippers and furries when we could spend more time discussing an actual existential problem for pupils — something like, I don’t know, school shooters.
Think about it. If you can only protect children from one thing, who would your rather slip through the protective net for children — a school shooter or a stripper?
What’s the problem you may ask. These legislators are acting preemptively against a possible problem in this crazy world we live in. It isn’t hurting anyone and, if lighting strikes and it actually happens, there will be laws in place to protect children from the experience. But this isn’t some harmless ask from a publicity seeking legislator, it does real harm. Every moment these officials spend protecting children from these monsters under the bed is time, money and energy taken away from actual problems. It is a waste of time which isn’t harmless.
Daniel Markovits explaining why the idea of meritocracy is just a way for rich people to keep their advantages. It is only a meritocracy if everyone starts out with the same education. People who get better schools get advantage. Now if all students went to schools of equal quality than yes viva the meritocracy. But that isn’t the case. Don’t tell me that parents who are paying $50,000 a year to educate their child think that this education is equal to a basic public school education. They pay to give their child a leg up. This isn’t meritocracy.
The Conservative Press is agog at Jacob Savage’s the Lost Generation. Savage details the trials and tribulations of White men trying to break into Academia or Cultural positions right now. It is all DEI and racial discrimination. I am afraid they are emphasizing only one aspect of his argument while downplaying and missing some of his more salient points. They are going on about how lesser candidates who are women or people of color are getting the jobs that should rightfully being going to White men. This was not Savage’s point at all.
Savage points out that this problem exists for young white men and not older white men. Older White men already have their jobs in Academia and in Cultural institutions while younger White men are vying for open positions. The problem for younger White men is that these positions, in the past, skewed disproportionately to White men. This past discrimination worked against women and people of color. So if you presently have a staff of 10 and 7 of them are white men, what happens when a position becomes available and your institution is interested in diversity. The young white men are at a disadvantage. Not because of women and people of color but because the institution already has too many white men.
Is this unfair? Yes, absolutely. But how can you achieve two varied goals — a diversified work force and being absolutely fair to everyone. Conservatives say that diversity shouldn’t be considered a factor at all. The only thing that matters is who is the better candidate. Well, that would be nice but how exactly does the best candidate always get the job?
For example, Savage discusses the hiring of television writers. How does one determine who is a better writer? Particularly if one of your goals is to broaden the stories you tell to include more stories about women and people of color. Who better to tell these tales than women and people of color? White men can, of course, write women characters but then I am betting than women can write even better women characters. So, then, who is the best candidate for the job? The man or the woman?
How does one determine the best candidate in Academia? Is it teaching? Is it research? Or is it the old tried and true old boy network where connections with the people who make the decisions help you get the job? Why should groups who have been discriminated in the past, trust that you are hiring the best candidate? The word of the person making the decision? After how many white men are hired does one question the process? Five? Ten? Twenty? Never. And after twenty or so white men are hired and discrimination is determined, what happens to all of those candidates that were overlooked? Tough luck.
By the way, there isn’t only one perfect person for the job. Indeed this is rarely true. The difficult decision comes generally because there are several people who could do the job well. This is particularly true with jobs that everybody wants. Jobs in Academia and Culture have always had stiff competition. They carry salary, prestige, and power. In the past, a lot of white men vied with other white men for these positions. And a lot of white men were disappointed. Now the competition has expanded to include women and people of color. This means that the competition is fierce and there is even a bigger chance of not getting your dream job. Savage writes at the end of his essay: “The truth is, I’m not some extraordinary talent who was passed over; I’m an ordinary talent—and in ordinary times that would have been enough.”
The sad story is that talented White men are used to getting the job and they aren’t anymore. Their expectation did not match the reality of our present world. It is a difficult lesson to learn but life, as we are constantly being reminded, is unfair. Is it fair that some parents can afford private tutors for their children who may have fallen a step behind in class while poor parents with a child in the same situation can not? Is it fair that some schools are direct conduits to Ivy League Universities while other schools are not? Is it fair that some parents make a significant donation to a university which gets their children into an elite university while a poorer parent with an equally gifted child can not? Is it fair that some children are well fed when they arrive at school and poorer children are not?
I could go on but you get the point. Life is unfair in a lot of different ways. Why this particular unfairness is so important while other unfairnesses can be ignored is informative of the motives of the people complaining right now. I mean if the unfairness in the education a person receives throughout their life can be equalized as best we can then we wouldn’t have to discussing the unfair treatment of White men now. It wouldn’t be a problem because everyone would believe that everybody had a fair chance from the start. But we aren’t talking about the differences in education that people receive, are we? I wonder why?
We do not live in a perfect world. There are plenty of bigoted people in important position making employment decisions. Processes devised to protect groups who have suffered discrimination in the past skew the process against the people who did not suffer discrimination in the past. So maybe we look at how to do the process better as we learn more. But, please, please don’t talk to me about the loss of our meritocracy. Because it is bull shit and you know it is bull shit. We never had one and we never will. All we can do is continue to work at making it better. And we will never ever succeed.
I am a little annoyed after reading Chauncey Devega’s interview of Matthew Levendusky in Salon. They were discussing the importance of a Civic’s education in a democracy. But they weren’t really. They seem to want people to recite answers to random questions — like for example what is the 3rd Amendment to the Constitution?
How often in life will I have to answer that question. So far in my 66 years, no one has ever asked me yet nor have I been cognizant of needing this information. Maybe I unknowingly used the 3rd Amendment to live my life. Which is fine with me. There are more important things to remember say like the emergency number for the police is 911. 911 is important and I might use it, have used it. I am not saying the 3rd Amendment isn’t important. It is important but I may never use it or know that I am using it.
There is a serious misconception about the past. Like people used their civics and history education in making their civic decisions. My grandparents all came from modest circumstances. Working people. My Grandma Schnell never got past the 8th grade as she reminded us incessantly. That these people were debating the advantages and disadvantages of constitutional amendments before they voted seems like a bit of a stretch. They did however vote. What DeVega and Levendusky would like citizens to do and what they are actually doing are two different things.
A more realistic vision might acknowledge that people will do some research if it is required but will probably vote based on party preference and the endorsements of institutions or people who they agree with. They look at their pocketbooks, check with their family and friends, and maybe look at the television. To ask for a process of weighing the pros and cons of each and every candidate on the ballot is insanity. Have they ever seen a California ballot? We vote for the assistant to the assistant Dog Catcher here. I have absolutely no interest in researching everyone on that ballot and California is really good about giving you a lot of lead time to research. For me, it boils down to whether they are Democrats and are pro-choice. If they meet those two criterion, I am done researching.
The idea that better civics classes might make for better citizens made me shudder in horror. Civic’s education has always been bad. In my Catholic high school, it was taught by the lesser athletic coaches who couldn’t get the prime PE job which always went to our champion Football coach. They may have cared about history and civics but their hearts were definitely in their sports team and not the Dred Scott decision. My memory of these classes were of men talking each day about what you needed to memorize to pass the class. This meant that they were irredeemably boring. My most vivid memory of these classes was how difficult it was to stay awake in them. Often I would just surrender to the urge and nap.
And let me tell you I missed nothing. The answers to the test were also in the text book. If you read the text book, you could easily figure out what you needed to know for the test. So I just read the text book. That these two apparently intelligent men are advocating the need for people to learn the three branches of government in order to be responsible citizens is disheartening.
This, of course, is a broader problem with American Education. Memorizing facts passes for education in this country. It isn’t. It can be helpful and it can reduce the time a citizen takes to address a problem but it is unnecessary to know this information to act as a good citizen. Far more relevant, would be to give the students issues or problems and ask them how a citizen might act to resolve these issues. How do they use their vaguely understood freedom and rights to make civic life better and, if, in the course of their research, they learn about the three branches of government then good for them.
By the way, I still don’t know what the 3rd Amendment is. I thought about looking it up but then I thought, it is a bit of an effort, and I would really have to focus, and then I realized I have better things to do. So there.
Oklahoma School Superintendent wants the truth of the Tulsa Race Riot to be taught but he also doesn’t want White kids to feel badly about it. Governor DeSantis in Florida feels the same way. What is the proper emotion for White kids to feel after learning about racism? It seems to me that is up to the individual child and is uncontrollable and not really the business of the educators. Some things will make you feel pride and other things might make you ashamed. There is no right way to feel about the past because people are still arguing about the past.
How do you take the White Racism out of the Tulsa Race Riot? White people targeted black people based on a run in between a Black man and a White woman. White people killed hundreds of Black people just because they were Black. White people either participated in the riot or did nothing to stop the riot. Should a White child feel badly about being White and the behavior of his race? Well, yes, if they are decent human beings. White people did a terrible thing to Black people. Thems the facts.
This idea that history has to show the American past in an admirable light seems incredibly wrong headed to begin with. First, history is about people. People are fallible. People sometimes do terrible things. The Civil War was one of the significant events in American history. In order to understand what happened and why this was so important in American history, difficult subjects have to be addressed. It doesn’t put everyone in a positive light. But I don’t think it will be any more traumatic than teaching first graders that one day an active shooter might appear in their classroom and how they should act when this occurs.
What doesn’t help is for educators to be even handed about a subject where being even handed is absurd which is what the Florida Department of Education tried to do. They were concerned that the slavery discussion was too one sided for the anti-slavery side. You heard it right. They wanted children to have a more positive view of the slave owners. This is dumbfounding. Why is that so important? Why can’t some White people be the villains in this particular story?
A Florida school district is finding Shakespeare a little too racy so instead of reading the whole play of Romeo and Juliet they are reading sections of Romeo and Juliet. Don’t get me wrong if I was the average high schooler I would love reading only the selected bits of Shakespeare because he was a real pain in the ass to read.
On the other hand, it is about the stupidest things I have ever heard. It is a play about young heterosexual children in a passionate romance. It sounds like something that a average teenager might be thinking about. This is why, of course, Romeo and Juliet is one of the most commonly taught Shakespeare plays in high schools. So, of course, educators in Ron DeSantis’ Florida are cutting out the interesting bits so the youth of Florida are saved from becoming aware of teenage sex. I think we all know they are already aware and that they are spending a good amount of time talking about it.
Then there is assumption that teenagers are brainless twits and will be enticed into a passionate romance that ends in suicide. It could happen but I think the chances are pretty remote, so remote as to be unworthy of giving it a second thought. I remember in my school most of the kids felt Romeo and Juliet were pretty crazy and probably needed some good adult advice (so take that Nurse). It was certainly my big takeaway and I was 17. Kids are generally pretty rational. The runaways and the rebels get all the attention but most kids are smart enough to stay in school and with their parents. Even poor Romeo and Juliet bought into middle class mores because they got married before they had sex. So, what exactly is the point?
Protecting youth from reading Shakespeare? Is there any evidence to support this? I would like to see it. This isn’t about protecting children. It is about controlling what they read. Every time I hear a conservative who wants to protect children from certain books, I think of gun laws and their renewed interest in child labor and find it incredibly difficult to believe them.
A Catholic School in Kansas expelled a student because the kid’s mother objected to the banning of gay books in the school. The Catholic Church thinks it can still boss people around and people will obey. That they don’t have the good sense to handle a dispute like this better is disappointing. They simply no longer have the same power to intimidate critics.
The Church, however, will still try. The Spanish Inquisition is in the Catholic Church’s DNA so when the opportunity to actually punish someone presented itself it was impossible to pass it up. The Church should have thrown the issue back to the mother. They could have said here is our teaching on homosexuality. If you feel strongly about it, you are free to take your spiritual business elsewhere. It would have put the decision back where it needed to be with the woman who disagreed with the church. Let her decide how much she can take.
Unfortunately leaders in the Gay Community might feel the need to react to the Church. The best thing they can do is a mild reprimand saying that the Catholic Church shouldn’t act that way and forget it. Because the Catholic Church’s position on homosexuality never changes, it is well known. So when the school banned Gay literature from the library, it shouldn’t have been that surprising to the mother. I am more surprised that the library already had these pro-Gay books in them in the first place. Once the Church banned the books, the mother was at choice. Sucking it up so her child could stay in a Catholic school or making an issue of it. She choose correctly but, in doing so, she now has to face the consequences. The Catholic Church has the every right to say the Church isn’t changing their teachings and we need to part ways.
The Gay Community should focus their efforts on protecting the rights we presently have won in civil life and not get sidetracked by an internal church dispute. If Gay Catholics and their supporters want to continue the good fight, by all means, let them. But given that the Church has dug in their heels over birth control and abortion, I doubt very much that things will change. I am having a difficult time getting upset about this. As far as I am concerned and as long as they aren’t calling for my execution or incarceration, it is none of my business.
Governor Santis is having some effect in his effort to rid history text books of anything that might upset a student. A new Florida textbook now includes a statement that some slaves learned marketable skills from their time on the plantation. Really. You don’t say. That is the first time I’ve ever known that plantation doubled as trade schools. But interesting nonetheless.
So what it sounds like to me that there was some kind of trade off occurred here. The slaves worked the plantation while learning marketable skills that would help them in the future. Is this giving any 21st child any idea of what happened on a plantation? It is a completely meaningless statement without context of the time, the skills they are talking about, and whether they were relevant to the individual’s future.
History books have to cover hundreds of years and numerous topics. The history taught in the grade schools are broad brushstrokes focusing on the most important information. The things you would want children to remember. I challenge Governor DeSantis to show any Civil War historian who would prioritize the job training at plantation trade schools.
I am sure the publisher told some poor text book authors to make slavery sound a little less horrible and, after several stiff drinks, and failing to come up with anything, decided this little ditty would work. It’s incredibly weak and patently dishonest. There is some outrage about this now, so maybe something will happen. I’m not very confident though, unfortunately, there are so many things to be outraged about and so little time to focus on all of them.
A principal at a private school in Florida was fired because she allowed students to see Michelangelo’s David. Ironically, this school emphasized a classic education. To which I ask, what could be more classic than Michelangelo’s David? Michelangelo is one of the greatest artists, if not the greatest artist, of the Italian Renaissance. The statue is based in a Biblical story. People come from all over the world and stand in long lines just to see this statue. The problem, as far as I can tell, is David stands naked before the world and some children shouldn’t see naked people.
To be fair, the principal has some fault here. There was some kind of problem with notifying the parents that their children would be seeing the naked David. The parents failed to get the communication. This was handled poorly and, certainly if the communication had been better, any parent who found David’s nudity disagreeable could have opted out. But the reaction to the mistake is disproportionate to the damage done.
If the disagreement was that David’s brazen nudity was too much for young eyes, I could agree with the parents who didn’t want their children to see the image. Unfortunately, it was more than that. One parent used the word pornographic to describe David. David as pornography suggests that David’s value is of a prurient nature only. So this small minority of people, against the judgement of almost all of Western society, are redefining Renaissance Art as pornography.
So, like clockwork, another controversy engulfed, unsurprisingly, another Florida school. A parent objected to the showing of a film called Ruby Bridges which is about a six year old Black girl integrating the New Orleans public school system. The school pulled the film because, well, Florida. The complaining parent was concerned that 2nd graders might learn about racism and actually start hating Black people. Yeah. Right. On the other hand, the movie is a tad bit embarrassing to White children as it show White people as bigots who threaten a six year old. Not exactly the image of great grandmother you want to hand down. Ironically, almost all of these stories are rich with irony, protecting White children from the past is vital. We can’t have white children questioning the actions of their forefathers. Yet, little Ruby Bridges had to walk through a crowd of hostile White people screaming racists chants. Hmm, which is a more traumatic experience.
This is why I get nervous about the all powerful parent and curriculum. Parents have a right and should have some say in what their children learn but there has to be a limit to their guidance. This is particularly important when the parents represent a small minority within the community and what they want is out of step with the rest of civilized world. We can quibble about whether it is age appropriate but David is a masterpiece and Ruby Bridges was subjected to vicious racism when going to school. Few will debate these points so both have historical importance. When is it appropriate for the youth of America to learn more about them?
Then there is the grooming going on here. These parents want to control what their children learn about the world. In the process, other people’s children are just collateral damage in their struggle. They are, in fact, trying to groom all children into their narrow view of America and Western Culture. This means no nude art and a no problems America. They will nitpick every disagreeable comma until they drain history and art of what little life is left in these courses. They believe that if they maintain this control over what a child learns that child will adopt their world view and all will be right afterwards.
Perhaps but it also fails to address the possibility of what happens when the child eventually encounter different ideas. Creating the illusion of a perfect world and, then, being unable to provide one, doesn’t prepare a child for the world they live in. It doesn’t help the child sort out good information from bad information. It, in fact, hobbles the child, and future adult, with the notion of a black and white world. America is good. Nudity is bad. Education, for these groomers, is not about thinking but about the recitation of canned responses. They will give you the answers that you want. Don’t you worry your pretty little head about it. They will protect children from anything that might make them squeamish or excited or rebellious. We won’t have to worry about these children thinking outside the box because they will be so tightly jammed into a nice little box they will have trouble breathing much less thinking.
Idaho Republicans oppose providing free tampons in high schools because this would be too woke. This is beyond meaningless. I understand we don’t have enough money. I understand I don’t want to pay for them. I understand it isn’t our responsibility. Now I may not agree with those positions but I do understand them. I also believe I could have an intelligent disagreement with anyone who takes those positions. I may not change their mind but I can talk about it. But too woke? There is absolutely no there there.
Sometimes a girl attending high school will need a tampon. The question is will the school provide one for her free of charge. Woke has absolutely nothing to do with it. Christian women need tampons. Conservative women need tampons. It is a universal need for most young women. When the government provides a high school education to girls, there is a pretty good chance that, at some point some girls will need one while at school. There are three possible positions — the school provides them free, the school provides them at a cost, or the school leave it up to the girl to provide her own. But the school will have to take some position on the matter because it happens.
So when you say too woke, you are saying nothing. What does too woke mean here? It is an evasion. It is meant to shut down arguments with people who are afraid of being called woke. And nobody likes to be called woke these days. Well, fuck it, so I am woke. Now tell me why you don’t want to give free tampons to high school students who need them?
Mind Stewing, Fingers Typing 