Author: Blue Cereal

Five Sources

~ Blue Cereal

Twisted VoyagerWe’ve been reading up on Supreme Court cases involving “student rights” in one of my classes. Most of the readings and videos have involved the biggies – student speech, mostly, and some search and seizure. I recently asked them to pick a topic related to student rights in school, and of course offered a list of possibilities for those not particularly motivated to come up with their own. 

We’re not looking to do a serious research paper at this level. Mostly, I want us to go through the motions of gathering information, understanding the issues, and recognizing the difference between an informational or expository text (“here’s the current law about X, plus examples”) and a persuasive or rhetorical text (“here’s what the law or policy should be, and here’s why”).

The first day was all groundwork – some videos summarizing various cases and a little discussion about possible topics. Day two was intended to be straightforward, but essential. Students needed to come up with FIVE SOURCES they were going to use for information about their topic. Books or periodicals would be fine, but realistically I knew we were talking websites. I briefly addressed “valid” vs. “invalid” sources, but for something like this I wasn’t overly picky. 

Honestly, there are SO many “student rights” sites out there, so many news stories citing various court cases and issues, so many legal advocacy sites with sections about students and education, it should be difficult NOT to find valid sources of information at the level I’m looking for. I figured most would be done in 15-20 minutes. I asked them to email me their five links or share a Google Doc (for easier follow-up on their part) and we’d discuss their topic and sources before they move on. 

We’re not doing a doctoral thesis here; we’re trying to learn whether or not dress codes are sexist or when principals can search your backpack. I was only taking it slow because this foundational step was so important. 

Sources, Shmorces…

By the next day, I only had a handful of completions. By itself that wasn’t so shocking; my students aren’t always a particularly self-motivated group. But I’d watched them working, and writing. I’d overheard what sounded like productive, on-topic discussions. I knew the product I was asking for was NOT all that demanding, and yet…? 

I started taking a closer look at all the activity I thought I’d observed. 

Several were overdoing it – summarizing entire web pages or the issues covered on each. That’s a good problem to have; obviously, they need to eventually read the information in their sources. Most, however, had simply started writing about their topic – what they thought, why this or that policy was unjust, ect. They were on fire! Except… they weren’t doing the assignment. 

“Looks like you have a lot to say. That’s good. But… where are your five sources?”

“My what?”

Now, this is something many educators will immediately recognize. You can explain something quite explicitly while the same instructions are projected on the screen behind you and in large font on the paper in front of them. You can restate those same directions in multiple ways, give examples, and make sure they know how to refer back to them if necessary. Ten minutes after you turn them loose to work, a third of them haven’t started because they have no idea what they’re supposed to do. Of those, several are already mad that you never explain anything. 

It’s not personal. You get used to it. 

But this wasn’t silent confusion. These kids were writing! Several were quite emotional. Most responded with annoyance and confusion when I tried to steer them back to those FIVE SOURCES. Save what you’ve written! You might decide to use it. But first, we need to know stuff. What does the Constitution SAY? What have the courts already DECIDED? We can agree with it or disagree, advocate or accept, but we must start with existing KNOWLEDGE on which to build our opinions!

Their bewilderment and frustration were palpable. BUT I ALREADY KNOW WHAT I WANT TO SAY! Yes, I see that – and I want for you to be able to say it. I’m just asking that these strong opinions of yours begin with some facts and information. 

Eventually, I thought they’d heard me. Maybe I hadn’t explained it as well as I thought the first day. They mutter what passes for agreement. I walk on. 

And you know what comes next. 

Ground Fog Day

Day Three. We should be outlining by now. Discussing topic sentences and supporting details. Instead, I’m walking around the room trying to figure out why we’re still not turning in those FIVE SOURCES. One pair (I finally caved on letting them work together) has given me a list of homepages – forbes.com, vox.com, etc. I try to explain that I need the actual URLs of the specific articles, which prompts them to sulk and refuse to do anymore that day. Another gives me a handwritten list of very long URLs, which I suppose technically meets the requirements, but WHO DOES THAT AND WHY?!?!

Mostly, however, it’s a brand new start in all the worst ways. What are we doing again? So we have to do research papers? Can I use the essay on Vikings I did for World History first semester? Again I’m left referring back to the same very basic instructions… and insisting they need FIVE SOURCES. Sources? For what? How many? Five?! So any five websites about anything? Mister, you’re not explaining this very well. 

Most are genuinely stuck. Bewildered. Stymied. Buffy and Willow and Xander, wrestling with Spike’s assertion that Ben IS Glory and Glory IS Ben. There’s simply too much dark magic in play to allow their brains to grasp – let alone retain – such madness. FIVE SOURCES? Related to a student right of our choice? So what are those posted directions and samples for? What are we doing again? 

Lost Connections

Most educators know how bewildering kids can be. We love them anyway, and it’s not usually the same from day to day or from student to student. In this particular case, however, I’m convinced that the sticking point was more than usual teenage cluelessness. I think it’s the nature of the requirement triggering the crisis. I might as well have asked them to recalibrate their heartbeats to produce more of a polka rhythm, or required them to eat only color and write with one-dimensional fruit. Starting today, work will only be accepted in Morse Code. Grades are determined by the square root of your age as a negative number divided by zero. And informational writing must be supported by FIVE SOURCES. 

Information. Existing facts. Building our arguments on knowledge and reason. Assume a common foundation of documented truth and empirical understanding. Know stuff FIRST. Then feel. Then rant. Then insist, explain, or decry. 

That’s just not how we do things anymore, is it? They’re high school freshmen – I’m not mad at any of them or despondent over the process. Every lesson has its unexpected wrinkles, and they’re not always the same from year to year or class to class. But I don’t think they’re alone in their bewilderment. If one of our goals in public education is to prepare students for the “real world,” I’m not even sure that insisting on facts and reality as the foundation of their informational or persuasive writing is doing them any favors. Facts and reality don’t seem to carry much weight these days. They get in the way of too many emotions, agendas, and belief systems. 

Why Ruin It With Reality?

We’ve watched over the years as our primary social and political arguments have shifted from disagreements over methodology (“Which approach is most likely to accomplish the goals we largely share?”) to tribal warfare over basic reality (“Did Trump lose the election due to fraud? Is violent overthrow of democracy a valid form of peaceful political protest? ARE BIRDS EVEN REAL?”) Reaching across the aisle has become more and more like a mid-season Star Trek episode; someone always ends up in a different time-space continuum. Emotions are strong, and tied firmly to belief, and religion, and tribal associations, and convictions regarding values and one’s own sense of self. What they don’t seem overly concerned with is objective reality. 

My kids will eventually give me those FIVE SOURCES, but at the moment they’re products of the times in which they live. It’s legitimately difficult for them to fathom the idea that their opinions and emotions should at least take facts, history, and reality into account. It’s not just that they don’t want to do it – they can’t easily get their heads around why anyone would expect such a thing. My instructions are inconvenient and irrational – the bizarre babblings of a madman. “FIVE SOURCES,” he says. Honestly, he won’t shut up about it. Cleary he doesn’t understand – I ALREADY HAVE STRONG FEELINGS ABOUT THIS. Why would we slow all that down, complicate my position with these… these… what did you call them again? “Facts”? 

I realize it’s old school. Outdated. Perhaps even detrimental to their future success. But we’re going to get those FIVE SOURCES before moving forward if it takes all month and nearly kills us all. I can’t do anything about the rest of the country, but for now… THIS group is going to at least START with facts and reality. Where they go next is entirely up to them.

HB 1134 & Mandatory Nationalism

~ Blue Cereal

Indiana’s HB 1134 has passed the House. All its supporters had to do was not openly endorse Nazis in order to avoid the sort of unwelcome attention its companion bill in the state Senate received. 

The sections of this bill which dance around the edges of “stop teaching about racism” have been well-covered elsewhere. What I’d rather focus on here are some of the less-discussed, but severely problematic bits of this legislation – starting with this:

The ideals and values expressed or enumerated in the Constitution of the United States and the economic and political institutions of the United States are better suited to contribute toward human advancement, prosperity, scientific inquiry, and well-being compared to forms of government that conflict with and are incompatible with the principles of western political thought upon which the United States was founded.

Let’s step back and give that a little context, shall we?

Turns Out We Push Beliefs After All…

Current Indiana law requires schools to teach “good citizenship instruction,” including…

(1) Being honest and truthful. {HB 1134 would add “unless doing so violates the new guidelines.”}

(2) Respecting authority.

(3) Respecting the property of others.

(4) Always doing the student’s personal best.

(5) Not stealing. {Which is somehow distinct from “respecting the property of others.”}

(6) Possessing the skills (including methods of conflict resolution) necessary to live peaceably in society and not resorting to violence to settle disputes. {HB 1134 would add “unless doing so violates the new guidelines.”}

(7) Taking personal responsibility for obligations to family and community. {I don’t love this one, but it’s already part of the language.}

(8) Taking personal responsibility for earning a livelihood. {Yeah, I know – but again, it’s already in there.}

(9) Treating others the way the student would want to be treated.

(10) Respecting the national flag, the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Indiana.

(11) Respecting the student’s parents and home.

(12) Respecting the student’s self.

(13) Respecting the rights of others to have their own views and religious beliefs.

HB 1134 adds a few more:

(14) The ideals and values expressed or enumerated in the Constitution of the United States and the economic and political institutions of the United States are better suited to contribute toward human advancement, prosperity, scientific inquiry, and well-being compared to forms of government that conflict with and are incompatible with the principles of western political thought upon which the United States was founded.

That’s the bit quoted above. It’s a serious mouthful of patriotism, don’t you think? Let’s see if we can unpack this one a little…

Ideals & Values?

At first glance, it seems to merely be pushing the message that the ideals and values of the U.S. Constitution are nifty. Schools are government entities and it makes sense we’d be expected to do a little cheerleading for our founding documents from time to time.

Honestly, I can live with that. 

But that’s not what it says. I’m not sure if the phrasing is intentionally deceptive or simply result from the general ignorance of the authors, but this language in some ways troubles me more than the “stop making rich white kids feel bad” parts. 

See, the Constitution doesn’t really say much about ideals or values. The Preamble offers some guiding structure for what it intends to accomplish…

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I guess those might count as ideals or values. Other than that, however, the Constitution is largely structural:

Immediately after {the Senate} shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year…

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices…

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Important? Absolutely. But I’m not sure how many “ideals” and “values” are captured. 

Personally, I’d have started with the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness…

Now THOSE are ideals and values. 

Perhaps HB 1134 is referring to the Bill of Rights and other amendments. These are, after all, very much part of the U.S. Constitution as it now exists. They’re not expressed as “values” or “ideals,” but as restrictions on what the federal government (and later the states themselves) can do to individuals:

Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment VII: In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment XV: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Yeah, I’m certain the GOP didn’t have THAT one in mind. 

Implication & Inference 

Let’s assume the bill means the Constitution and all current amendments, and that the ideals and values of the Declaration of Independence go without saying. Should teachers promote these as better than everyone else’s values and ideals? In short, are we OK with a little American Exceptionalism in this area?

For argument’s sake, I’m going to go with “yes.” (One of my main arguments with the modern Republican Party is how far they’ve strayed from these founding values.) But that’s NOT WHAT THIS CLAUSE SAYS:

The ideals and values expressed or enumerated in the Constitution of the United States and the economic and political institutions of the United States are better suited to contribute toward human advancement, prosperity, scientific inquiry, and well-being compared to forms of government that conflict with and are incompatible with the principles of western political thought upon which the United States was founded.

That’s a big “AND” in there. “AND the economic and political institutions of the United States”? The ones which have developed over the past 200+ years but have no foundation in the Constitution or any of its amendments? The ones many of our Founders openly fought against in designing our nation? The ones which have come, gone, and evolved over the years depending on circumstances, sometimes growing and sometimes being restrained? THOSE economic and political institutions?

Economic Institutions

I figure before I get too far on the subject, I should make sure I’m not simply confused about the terminology. I looked up “economic institutions” on several sites to make sure it means what I think it does. 

According to the Library of Economic and Liberty (EconLib)…

The term “Economic Institutions” refers to two things:

1. Specific agencies or foundations, both government and private, devoted to collecting or studying economic data, or commissioned with the job of supplying a good or service that is important to the economy of a country. The Internal Revenue Service (the IRS—the government tax-collection agency), the U.S. Federal Reserve (the government producer of money), the National Bureau of Economic Research (a private research agency) are all examples of economic institutions.

2. Well-established arrangements and structures that are part of the culture or society, e.g., competitive markets, the banking system, kids’ allowances, customary tipping, and a system of property rights are examples of economic institutions.

Huh. Maybe I’ll get a second opinion… Here’s an explanation from the MIT Department of Economics:

Institutions: the rules of the game in economic, political and social interactions… {Examples of } economic institutions {include} property rights, contract enforcement, etc.

This site goes on to note an “important distinction” between

Formal institutions: codified rules, e.g. in the constitution

Informal institutions: related to how formal institutions are used, to distribution of power, social norms, and equilibrium.

In other words, this is an insanely broad term for something we’re going to be legally required to promote as the unerring zenith of all humanity. 

Political Institutions

This one is slightly less problematic. Most sites agree the term encompasses the three major branches and all their variations at the state and local levels, as well as every level of bureaucracy (which I thought the GOP wanted to reduce), the two major political parties and the ways in which they do business, and the voting processes currently in place (which I could have sworn Republicans find corrupt and in need of serious reform). 

If this law passes, we will be legally required as educators to insist that our current bureaucracy and voting machines are both part of a system more divinely suited to human happiness than any other conceivable variation. Not sure how Trump will feel about THAT. 

In The Beginning Was The Fed…

I have no beef with the Federal Reserve, for example, but am I willing to insist that it is “better suited to contribute toward human advancement, prosperity, scientific inquiry, and well-being” compared to anything China has ever tried over the past 10,000 years? Compared to the values of Native American cultures who seemed pretty happy until we showed up? Compared to the Nations of Israel in the Old Testament? India under Ashoka? Mali under Mansa Musa? That what was REALLY missing in each subpar society was the Fed?

Our current two-party system is well outside anything our the Framers intended. Washington and others openly opposed it as divisive. But whatever else you can say about it, our current party system is absolutely a political institution of the United States. And according to HB 1134, it’s one which simply cannot be improved upon – it’s “better suited to contribute towards human advancement, prosperity, scientific inquiry, and well-being” than anything else ever in the history of mankind or anything else being tried anywhere else in the world. 

Add the Electoral College (which is at least in the Constitution), the current relationship between big business and government, the industrial-military complex, the I.R.S., every bureaucratic agency at every level, every financial arrangement involving tax dollars, and so on – and I’m just not comfortable declaring that WE. HAVE. ARRIVED. 

Maybe that’s not what this bill’s authors intended, but that’s what this clause says. I’m not sure there’s any other way to interpret it. If this passes, all those discussions in U.S. History or AP Government or Economics class debating the pros and cons of this or that system, this or that financial structure, etc., will become verboten. We will instead be required to insist – evidence and other points of view be damned – that the current economic and political institutions of the United States are the ideal short of which everything else falls and has always fallen. 

I suppose that goes well with the new “fact” that racism and sexism have never been inherent in larger economic, social, or legal systems – just lots and lots of unfortunate random individual acts of being codified in law and supported by government officials. 

Final Additions

There are two more elements schools will be required to integrate “into the current instruction”:

(15) Individual rights, freedoms, and political suffrage.

I just can’t even with the irony of this one.

(16) The economic and political institutions which have best contributed toward human advancement, prosperity, scientific inquiry, and well-being.

And I’m bewildered by this one. Only two clauses ago, we were explicitly commanded that current U.S. economic and political institutions have best contributed blah blah THOSE EXACT SAME THINGS. So what, exactly, are we covering in THIS clause?

Conclusion

As I said at the outset, it’s often difficult to distinguish between malice and ignorance. It’s a dilemma I faced in Oklahoma many times when trying to make sense of proposed legislation, and a large part of why I try to avoid it here in Indiana. But if we’re going to argue about this bill, I’d certainly appreciate someone stepping up and at least explaining what the hell they mean by some of this stuff. (Honestly, I doubt most of the bill’s supporters have the slightest clue.) 

What it very much appears to be is a leap past banning the teaching of anything unpleasant in our collective past into requiring that we glorify the state in all its variations as ideal and above questioning – a level of nationalism and publicly-funded propaganda frighteningly consistent with many other Republican priorities at the moment. 

Next time, I’ll try to tackle those “principles of western political thought” mentioned in the same clause. I’m not sure Republicans are actually going to like those very much, either.

Very Fine People On Both Sides

~ Blue Cereal

Indiana’s SB 167 is on hold, although its House equivalent 1134 is still working its way through the system. Senator Scott Baldwin jumped the gun a bit in the standard GOP playbook for justifying horrifying policies:

1) Explicitly reject and condemn the horrifying policy. 

2) Shift the focus to how unfair and hurtful it is to be accused of supporting the horrifying policy.

3) Insist that your opponents are actually the ones doing the horrifying policy… in reverse!

4) Downplay just how horrifying the policy actually is (i.e., muddy the waters). 

5) Declare the issue closed because you’re tired of rehashing the issue and why can’t they find something else to harp on (clearly they don’t have useful policies of their own)!

6) Embrace the horrifying policy while pointing out that at least it’s nothing like this OTHER horrifying policy, which you do absolutely reject and condemn.

7) Repeat with the new policy. 

In terms of censoring history and literature in public schools, the GOP is still largely on Step #2 – the “we are not banning books, we’re just protecting children from ideas we find uncomfortable!” stage. Baldwin got all excited and jumped right to Step #4: “What’s wrong with being a Nazi?”, which as we all know isn’t supposed to happen until about 75 minutes into Swing Kids. 

The kerfuffle, however, has somewhat detracted from some of the underlying problems with the legislation – not just SB 167, but all similar bills demanding that educators simply provide students with a list of objective facts and definitions and avoid anything smacking of evaluations or judgments involving those facts. 

That’s not education. That’s reciting definitions (or dates, or names, etc.)

Naughty Nazis 

Yes, the Nazis were bad. But adding an “unless you’re talking about the Nazis” provision to the bill doesn’t solve anything. Wrestling with the relative “good” and “bad” of various economic systems, political beliefs, lifestyles, attitudes, behaviors, and the like, is one of the primary functions of secondary education. Yes, we’d like to see our students become employable. Yes, we aspire to see them happy and personally fulfilled. But somewhere in the mix is this crazy hope that they’ll be informed, rational citizens, capable of weighing complex ideas and understanding multiple points of view. 

Unlike, for example, the folks pushing this legislation. 

Accomplishing this requires more than listing a few terms and definitions or reciting a watered-down historical record. It requires wrestling with ideas – including many of the ideas Republicans are actively trying to prohibit. 

For example, let’s assume Hitler was a very bad man and everything the Nazis stood for was abhorrent. It’s still worth trying to understand why so many Germans (and others) went along with it. How do basically decent people rationalize each new horrible step and still feel pretty good about themselves? It’s also worth recognizing that many men proudly sporting swastikas went home to their families each night, spoke kindly to their wives, and played with their children. 

Yes, Nazis were bad. (I’d go so far as to say VERY bad.) But they weren’t cartoon characters. They were complex humans, and doing right by history means wrestling with that fact a bit if we’re serious about not doing it again. That doesn’t mean I’m coming out in support of the Nazis, but it does mean I might be asking a few provocative questions along the way. Unless, of course, I know there are political operatives out there just waiting for an excuse to come after me and my family.

In that case, I’ll probably stick with a list of definitions and dates. 

Staying Neutral-ism

How about some other “-isms” GOP legislators are worried about teachers embracing or criticizing? Senator Baldwin mentioned several economic systems on which teachers should avoid expressing any sort of “position.” Surely that’s a reasonable expectation…?

I suppose I could hand my kids a graphic organizer with some basic definitions for them to memorize:

“Communism”: a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

“Capitalism”: an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

“Mercantilism”: the economic theory that trade generates wealth and is stimulated by the accumulation of profitable balances, which a government should encourage by means of protectionism.

“Socialism”: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

OK, kids – quiz this Friday!

The problem with this approach is that it’s all but completely useless. There are major, historically documented problems with Communism when attempted on a large scale – problems worth discussing and understanding. The same goes for Mercantilism – you can hardly claim to “understand” it unless you recognize and appreciate its historical baggage. I’m not interested in demonizing either one; in specific circumstances, one or the other may prove beneficial. But trying to feign “neutrality” forces me to distort reality in ways I’m neither willing nor talented enough to do. 

As to Capitalism and Socialism, such stripped-down definitions are almost dishonest. Like “Christianity,” “Breakfast,” or “Alternative Rock,” these broad classifications manifest themselves in dramatically different ways across time and place. 

Raw Capitalism minus any government restraints or social protections is brutal. Pure Socialism is intended to be a transitional stage towards Communism. You’d be hard-pressed to find a functioning modern nation claiming to be either one without substantial mixing in of the other in order to function effectively. Neither Capitalism or Socialism is an objective absolute; they represent points on a sliding scale with infinite variations between the extremes. Understanding them (or any other economic “-isms”) requires far more than memorizing a “You Have Two Cows…” chart. 

Grasping the differences means discussing pros and cons, both theoretically and historically. It means diving into things many consider “good” (more people able to meet their basic needs and access essential goods and services) and others most would label “bad” (discouraging innovation, encouraging corruption, or punishing success). Teachers should avoid deifying or condemning viewpoints or systems categorically, but I’ve often made value statements about various systems by way of elaboration or example, or simply to provoke and challenge my kids. 

That’s part of what education should be. It’s not a defect; it’s a feature. 

Not Slavery Again

Finally, we have to address the topic Republicans are most worked up about – the thing they wish we’d just forget about and pretend it was so long ago it couldn’t possibly matter. 

No, not January 6th, 2021. The other one. 

I’m talking about how we address slavery in the American south. (You know – that historical oddity that has absolutely no impact on our nation or its inhabitants today because we’re all SO over it?) 

There’s no “good” version of slavery – no “positives” to being a slave. But there were many different types of slavery practiced. There were regional variations, and a wide range of “good” and “bad” when it came to masters. What you did and how you were treated could vary widely, and not all slaves reacted the same way to the same circumstances. It’s a genuinely complicated issue in some ways, and one we must be willing to wrestle with honestly if we’re serious about real progress. 

Frederick Douglass went to great lengths to argue that while slavery was obviously bad for the slave, it corrupted and destroyed the slaveowner as well. George Fitzhugh argued that “wage slavery” in the north was in many ways far worse than chattel slavery in the south. William Lloyd Garrison demanded complete equality for blacks and condemned the U.S. Constitution for allowing slavery in the first place, while more moderate voices suggested colonizing freedmen in Liberia, Africa. Even Abraham Lincoln was not certain black folks and white folks were equal in every way or would ever live together comfortably.

Can I share this information without taking sides? Probably. But can I teach it? Can I help my kids in a developmentally appropriate way to wrestle with the ideas, to understand even those points of view they don’t like, or stretch themselves to embrace complexities that defy easy answers – all without saying or doing anything which taken out of context might constitute promoting one ideology over another? Probably not. 

Heck, I can’t even accurately identify the date beyond which slavery no longer impacted the America in which we live today. The institution ended (at least legally) in 1865 or so, but surely it’s safe to suggest its impact lingered through at least… 1877? 1900? 1954? 1964? 2008? That’s where I hit a serious wall with current GOP dogma.

If my father raped your mother, burned down your home, and took everything your father owned, all before you were born, can you reasonably claim that’s in some way impacted how you were brought up compared to me? I didn’t do it – but is it at least possible I benefited from all that extra wealth, while you struggled from having so little? Is it at least worth considering that the emotional dynamics in both of our families might be impacted even a generation later by the relationship between our fathers?

While I wouldn’t use such a loaded analogy in class, it’s becoming literally illegal in many red states to even proffer the idea for analysis or debate. The language of bills like those being considered in Indiana (and already passed in other states) puts a premium on avoiding anything that might make little white kids uncomfortable with their past or the ways in which it shapes their present. I, on the other hand, see little point to ANY history that doesn’t make us at least a LITTLE uncomfortable with who we are and what we believe about ourselves. 

Honestly, I thought that was the whole point.  

Letters of the Law

The current wave of “anti-CRT” legislation, whatever its specific phrasing or disclaimers, is being pushed through disinformation and fear-mongering. Proponents can argue the specifics of the bills themselves, but they can’t reasonably deny that the entire point is to stoke straight white Protestant paranoia with emotionalism and intentional distortions. 

When you threaten someone at gunpoint, it’s no defense to claim afterward that the gun might not actually be loaded, or that the bullets were actually intended to be used in very different situations. The gun waving is generally enough to get what you want. To act all hurt that anyone thought there were bullets involved is disingenuous… and a tad pathetic. But that’s what legislators are doing in reaction to criticisms of these bills.

There are already stories of districts and administrators scrambling to remove anything that might land them in the news or in court – from MLK to Anne Frank to the Stonewall Riots. Right-wing groups are offering financial “bounties” for anyone “catching” teachers saying or doing anything they can portray as violating these new restrictions, while the politicians who passed the laws with THESE EXACT GOALS in mind do their best to sound shocked that anyone could possibly blame them for working so hard to make it happen.

We should absolutely debate what’s appropriate in the classroom. Parents should be welcomed and involved and free to ask or challenge anything they like. And teachers who step past their role of challenging and educating children and slip into indoctrination or harassment should certainly be disciplined – perhaps even dismissed.

But trying to legislate what thoughts students and teachers are allowed to discuss, or micromanage every possible scenario in every possible classroom, at best stifles a meaningful education for the very students the GOP claims to be protecting (not to mention driving even more educators out of the profession and burning up tax dollars in the courts). At worst, it’s leading us towards an Orwellian sort of ugliness and bringing us one step closer to losing forever the core values and beliefs that made the U.S. such a nifty idea to begin with.

“Have To” History: The Boring Parts

~ Blue Cereal

H2H Boring Parts CoverMany history aficionados get a bit touchy when “outsiders” label something from history “boring.” Like, anything. There’s so much we find fascinating or important or connected or just… weird that it’s easy to take it a bit personally when someone labels our interests “lame” (even when they soften such declarations with more moderate language).

And yet, if we’re being entirely honest, there are some things in history – even U.S. history – which are serious yawners. That doesn’t mean they’re not important, or connected to things which are interesting. It doesn’t mean we don’t need to know them. It’s just that they’re, well…

Boring.

Whether you’re a high school history student, working your way through college, or simply read history for personal enrichment or a temporary escape from horror and embarrassment you feel at everything going on around you today, you’ve no doubt noticed how often you’re expected to zero in on stuff with no intrinsic traction at ALL – tariff policies, the Bessemer Process, anti-trust legislation, Jimmy Carter…

I mean, there was that thing where he was attacked by a bunny in the middle of a lake, but other than that… *SNORE*.

And yet, a number of these “boring” things keep showing up in state curriculums and standardized exams. Even AP U.S. History (insert all the usual disclaimers about how I don’t work for the College Board and they haven’t blessed my efforts with a cyan acorn) loves diving deep into stuff the rest of us would never think to get that excited about – the impact of new technologies on immigration patterns, fiscal policy tensions between nineteenth century political parties… even Jimmy Carter.

Seriously. They ask SOMETHING about him EVERY YEAR.

There are plenty of titles out there promising you the most interesting, unknown, or shocking stories from American history. Many of them deliver quite effectively. That’s a good thing. I love history, and I’m thrilled any time one of my betters finds a way to make it fresh and real to a new audience. If you want exciting tales from our collective past, they’re easy enough to find.

What I haven’t come across are titles focusing on the boring bits. If you want anything more than cursory coverage of the Hartford Convention, the American System and its contributions to sectional tensions, or the Populist Party, you generally have to commit to some rather hefty academic volumes. It feels like your options are either Wikipedia or enrolling in a master’s degree program focused entirely on the pros and cons of centralized banking.

Nothing wrong with either of those, but I figured we needed a third option.

“Have To” History: The Boring Parts covers all the stuff you really don’t want to know (but for some reason have to) about the most boring events, people, and issues in American history. Each chapter opens with the “Three Big Things” you just gotta gotta know about the topic, followed by historical context and any other essential background to help you make sense of the whole mess. It’s intended to be useful and engaging for students and adult readers alike. (It could prove helpful for many teachers as well, but we’re a touchy bunch and I couldn’t figure out how to say that without it sounding like I think we don’t all know everything about everything already.) Most importantly, there’s an ineffable “cool factor” which descends around you the moment you’re spotted reading it in any setting.

I’ve been surprised and flattered by the relative success (don’t read too much into that – my expectations were modest) of my first effort, “Have To” History: Landmark Supreme Court Cases. I was then humbled by the complete lack of, well… anything in response to the second, “Have To” History: A Wall of Education. Still, that one is a bit of an outlier, focused on a much more specific topic and written to scratch an itch of my own. 

So, if I can be real a second – for just a millisecond – let my guard down and tell the #11FF how I feel a second…

I’m genuinely proud of this latest book. I mean, just between you and me, it’s pretty damn good. I sometimes wish I hadn’t written it, just so I could read it for the first time and experience what you’re about to! Seriously, I get a bit teary just thinking about it.

I’d love it if you saw fit to check it out. If you happen to like it, please keep in mind that written reviews are everything on Amazon – good ones, mixed ones, even bad ones if you really think the book sucks. (It doesn’t. That kind of attitude is why no one likes you.) It’s available as an e-book, in paperback, and even in hardback… but I don’t know why you’d order it in hardback unless you’re a library. And if you’re a library, I’d probably send you one just for reading this.

I’d also love to hear from you if you do read the book (or any of my books). Effusive praise and sycophancy is ideal, but I’ll accept constructive criticism or suggestions as well (as far as you know). In the meantime, keep breathing. Keep connecting. Keep clinging to truth and caring for the people you love. It matters.

[email protected]

Indiana SB 167 (Part Three)

~ Blue Cereal ~ 2 Comments

I’ve been breaking down Indiana’s proposed Senate Bill 167 – the one that’s been in the news lately for all sorts of things, including the insistence of one of its authors that educators needed to stop criticizing Nazis for doing Nazi stuff and be more neutral about “-isms.” He had to dial that one back a bit – turns out even today’s GOP doesn’t like to come right out and admit how comfortable they’ve become with the trappings of fascism.

As of this writing, the Senate version is on hold while the House version tries to move forward with less glass-breaking and swastikas. Nevertheless, it’s worth finishing up on what our GOP very much wants to push through in one form or another.

The highlights of Part One are basically this:

  • The GOP wants more voices outside of educators or parents to have more influence over curriculum, lesson plans, activities, and messaging in the classroom.
  • The state legislature is certain we all have 20-30 unused hours each day to participate in subcommittees pursuant to subsections related to the implementation and application of provisions to be detailed by other subcommittees.
  • The bill wants to require teachers to provide alternatives to every lesson plan, short story, activity, video clip, or discussion, for any child whose parents might object, while still fulfilling state requirements and holding class in person with everyone present at the same time.
  • Under the terms of this legislation, videotapes of your autopsy are absolutely protected.

In Part Two, I expressed my concern over the requirement that schools eliminate all materials (stories, books, media, historical documents, academic arguments, etc.) that “include” anything related to sex, race, politics, money, power, science, age, religion, Leonard Cohen, birds, bees, flowers, trees, the moon up above, or a thing called love. Schools are also prohibited from suggesting that boys are in any way different from girls, that Islam is different from Buddhism, or that racism might ever have been a thing whose impact in some tiny way lingers.

No, the bill doesn’t quite put it all that way – but it sure steps right up to the lines and dares you to figure out when you’ve crossed.

Now it’s time to wrap up this trilogy, starting with one of the most naive and bewildering requirements of the whole mess.

What Exactly Is Your Plan For Reinforcing Key Concepts on April 17th, 2027?

Not later than June 30, 2023, and not later than June 30 each year thereafter, each qualified school shall post on the qualified school’s Internet web site, in a manner accessible to parents of students who are attending the school, all electronic curricular materials and a summary of educational activities.

In addition, the Internet web site shall list all nonelectronic curricular materials and provide instruction for a parent to review the nonelectronic curricular materials. Each qualified school shall allow a parent to visit a school during normal business hours in a manner prescribed by the qualified school to inspect nonelectronic curricular materials.

The curricular materials and educational activities must, at a minimum, be disaggregated by grade level, teacher, and subject area.

Now, let’s not pretend this is about anything other than what it’s about. This is NOT about transparency or parent access. Any parent is welcome to ANY of my lessons, materials, activities, etc. I’m happy to have them visit or stay the whole day – announced or unannounced. I’ll meet with them, explain my reasoning to them, listen to their concerns, and in some cases come up with an alternate assignment for their kid if necessary.

You’ll be hard-pressed to find a teacher who wouldn’t.

What this is about is making absurd demands, then acting shocked at anyone who insists they’re not practical. “Why, all we’re asking for is a little transparency! WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO HIDE?!?”

All this from people who capitalize “Internet” and make “web site” two words. (I know both are technically acceptable – if archaic. Comment about something else.)

What Fresh New Hello Is This?

Imagine if I hired you to run the kitchen for a local cooperative of B&Bs. I don’t really trust your cooking, but until I can redirect funding to a few of the more exclusive high-end hotels in town, you’ll have to do.

Before you begin, I need a detailed list of every meal you’re going to prepare for the next calendar year, including ingredients and basic recipes. If you’re ordering out for any of those meals, I need to know where, and what you’re ordering. For each meal, you must provide at least one gluten-free alternative, one low-fat version, and one vegan option – you know, to meet the diverse needs of the guests. This will be posted on the B&B website for critique by the community (even by those who’ve never stayed at the B&B and never plan to eat there) – all before you’ve even met the first guest.

If you argue that your menu could easily change based on what guests seem to enjoy, what ingredients are available, or the strengths of various chefs working under your oversight, I’ll go on Fox News and lament the impact of culinary unions and how they’ve turned you all into incompetent whiners.

It’s an imperfect metaphor, but hopefully the point is clear enough. As I type this, I have a rough idea of what I want to do in class next week. I know where I’m going with the overall approach between now and sometime in early February. But yesterday I didn’t do what I’d planned because of how things went on Wednesday. I recently tossed an entire unit I’d put together based on student success (or lack thereof) with the unit before it, which was supposed to lay its foundation.

I’m constantly adjusting what I’m doing in class, and what I’m using to do it, based on how it’s going – with students, with myself, or with what I see other teachers doing. We’re not scheduling road maintenance here… we’re dealing with real live near-humans whose mindsets and abilities aren’t predictable through next week, let alone next month.

Plus there’s that crazy idea that some of what we discuss should connect with the world around them – current events, unexpected issues, pandemics, politics, scientific breakthroughs, viral videos, etc. If I could lay it all out a year in advance, I’d just make 180 videos over the summer and kids could play one each day until they graduated.

We’re Not Saying You Can’t Teach History… (Just Don’t Pretend It Matters Today)

Let’s skip ahead a bit to where the bill comes back around to “stop pretending our collective history in any way impacts how we see the world or one another today” motif:

It is the duty of the state agency, school corporation, qualified school, or the employee of the state agency…, to remain impartial in teaching curricular materials or conducting educational activities, including curricular material or activities…. and to ensure that students are free to express their own beliefs and viewpoints concerning curricular materials and educational activities… without discrimination…

Nothing in this chapter may be construed so as to exclude the teaching of historical injustices committed against any sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or political affiliation.

This seems like a rather inadequate effort to polish the ugly off the preceding pages. How exactly one teaches historical injustices without any hint they impact who we are today or that anyone should regret them is not at all clear. The only solution I can see is to set a clear cut-off date at which all racism, sexism, or other inequality in American society and politics simply ended, and everything was reset to an entirely level playing field from which we’ve all since moved forward.

All inherited wealth has since been “earned” (because otherwise someone alive currently has benefited from past inequalities). All traditional racial and sexual stereotypes are now entirely the product of corrupt or misguided individuals (because otherwise these tendencies still worm around beneath the surface of cour culture). If your uncle stole someone’s car before the cut-off date and gave it to you, it’s now officially something you’ve earned through your own hard work and merit. If you were abused, molested, or deprived of basic necessities before that cut-off date, any lingering effects are entirely a function of your own unwillingness to suck it up – because we can’t go around blaming the past for everything.

That’s essentially what we’re going for anyway, right? Freedom from the past and its natural consequences? Mandated freedom to celebrate all the parts we like, take credit for all the stuff we’d like to believe about ourselves, and zero responsibility for recognizing or fixing anything that’s still leavening our national loaf today?

Also, NO MORE LION KING!

Complaints Are Encouraged – Support Is Forbidden

I’m going to skip the extensive section on how anyone, anywhere, can come after the school for perceived violations, and how no matter how many times their complaint is found to be unsubstantiated, they can just keep upping the game until the entire district has to be shut down and resources redirected to the 19 levels of gleeful prosecution.

Many schools have discovered in recent decades that students are for some reason unable to concentrate on the Ancient Greeks or Algebra II when their parents are in the middle of an ugly divorce or mom comes home drunk every night with a different guy. Educators have tried different approaches to addressing the emotional, mental, or physical needs of their students, all while avoiding encroachment of parental rights. (I spent an entire semester trying to figure out how to get a kid to a doctor or dentist because mom just couldn’t be bothered – lots of promises, no kept appointments.)

This bill wants to put an immediate end to that.

A qualified school… may not:

(1) provide a student with ongoing or recurring consultation, collaboration, or intervention services for mental, social-emotional, or psychological health issues; or

(2) refer a student to community resources for mental, social-emotional, or psychological health services, without obtaining prior written consent in the manner described in subsection (b) from the student’s parent, or the student, if the student is emancipated.

The assumption here is that educators enjoy rushing kids off for all sorts of liberal brainwashing, satanic tattoos, and abortions, without their parent’s knowledge or consent. I’d try to explain, but honestly…

If you don’t understand why wraparound services are necessary – EVEN IF ALL YOU CARE ABOUT ARE TEST SCORES AND THE ‘THREE Rs’ – then I’m not sure I can explain it to you. It’s not about overturning parent choices; it’s about stepping up when the parents aren’t making the choices or following through on their obligations to parent. It’s about breaking cycles and solving problems so kids can get back to learning math and reading and stuff, and one day get jobs and work for a living instead of being on drugs and welfare or in jail.

Then again, the whole premise of this bill is that nothing in the past impacts the present, so maybe supporters of the legislation genuinely can’t see a connection between being brought up in a broken or dysfunctional home without access to proper mental, physical, or emotional care might affect who you are as a young adult. I guess this is where all that non-racist meritocracy and “hard work” are supposed to fix everything.

Conclusion

It’s worth emphasizing one last time that most of this bill seems designed to counter evils that exist only in the passions of inflamed right-wingers. Schools aren’t teaching CRT or promoting victimhood. We’re not trying to turn kids gay or prevent parental involvement. None of what we do in class is a secret – most of it’s not even malicious.

Perhaps the sponsors of this bill have better intentions than the language they’ve chosen suggests. (I still think there’s a good chance they didn’t actually write it, but that’s a whole other issue.) If so, I respectfully suggest they rework the language to say something less horrifying.

In the meantime, I’m posting my entire analysis here, online, for comment and criticism – especially by anyone with absolutely no involvement in public education, preferably armed with few facts and unchecked paranoia. I look forward to hearing from you.