Tag: CRT

In Loco Parentis

~ Blue Cereal ~ 2 Comments

We The Parents

Let’s start by addressing the gaslighting elephant in the room:

I have no interest in parenting your children. 

I have a legal and ethical obligation to teach them, and to some degree train them, for an hour or so each day. I’m responsible for their safety and all that good stuff while they’re here. And yes, I end up caring about many of them and occasionally listening when they have something on their minds. 

But subverting you or replacing you? Yeah, not so much. 

First off, that’s way too much work for what I get paid. I’ve raised my kids, and while they’ve both turned out pretty well, that’s largely in spite of my parenting rather than because of it. Secondly, there’s too much else I’m supposed to accomplish during the limited time I have them. Honestly, even if I wanted to shatter their faith, change their gender, or make them feel horrible about being straight, white, and privileged, I’m having enough trouble getting them to check Google Classroom when they miss class or bring their books on silent reading days. 

If we get those things under control, maybe then I’ll spend some time demonizing America or persuading them they might be way gayer than they think. 

There are two things about which many of you are apparently all worked up which I suppose I should take partial “blame” for (three if you count my terrible abuse of prepositions just now). The first is that I do, in fact, sometimes use texts in class which disagree with your personal, heartfelt beliefs. The second is that despite my determination to avoid it, I periodically listen to your kids when they’re upset without immediately calling you or state authorities every time. 

I’ll wait while you email Tucker Carlson. 

The first issue has been well-covered in other blogs you don’t read and news stories from organizations you don’t trust. The short version is that I have way more faith in your kids than you apparently do, and hope they’ll one day be able to function in a complicated, diverse world. I have no interest in making them feel “guilty” for being white (that’s not really a thing, by the way), but I do believe they’ll be more successful personally and professionally if they have some understanding of why many people of color still seem so annoyed by so many things. I wouldn’t even know how to convert them to Islam or any other religion, but I am convinced they’ll be better able to navigate the world around them if they’ve been exposed to some of the basics of other cultures and faiths. (If I were a religious person, I’d also argue they’ll be better able to defend their own faith when they’ve gained insights into the beliefs of others.) I’m pretty sure I lack the ability to turn them gay or spark some previously-buried interest in gender transformation, but personally I’d rather they not self-harm, turn to drugs, or commit suicide based on a misplaced sense of guilt or shame over being whoever they are. 

There’s a whole related argument to be had about whether or not it’s sometimes in the best interest of the child to undercut their parents’ extreme ideologies. (“Is it OK to teach the child of a misogynist that women have the same inherent value in the eyes of the law as men?” That sort of thing.) That’s a bigger, even more emotionally loaded question, and not relevant at the moment BECAUSE SCHOOLS ALREADY BEND OVER BACKWARDS (and sometimes forwards) TO AVOID DOING THIS. Having that discussion would require mutual respect and an acknowledgement of complexity that I don’t think we’ve established just yet – so we’ll set that aside for now and instead address the second issue I mentioned above – teachers who “counsel” kids in various ways. 

*sigh*

I’ve written before about the impossibility of ignoring a child’s physical and emotional health, even if all we care about are standardized test scores. I’ve tried to explain some of the complexities of wooing teenagers to actually learn the stuff we’re tasked with teaching them, and even resorted to complaining a time or two about the way some parents approach their children’s teachers. It occurs to me, however, that I’ve yet to drop the sarcasm and frustration long enough to simply try to explain something I feel should already be obvious to everyone involved.

It’s good when your child talks to caring adults, even when they’re not you. Sometimes especially when they’re not you. 

Taking this as a reflection on your parenting or a subversion of your values is – and I don’t know how else to say this – tragically insecure. My ex-wife (the mother of my now-adult children) and I didn’t always see eye-to-eye about things (hence the ‘ex’ part), but I still remember her reaction when we discovered our then-teenage daughter was sharing uncomfortable details about her home life during some pretty rough years with one of the adult leaders at her church. Rather than get upset, her mother told me how thankful she was that our daughter had found a trustworthy adult outside of the drama to help her process and navigate the feelings and fallout which resulted. 

Why did she react that way? Because she cared more about the well-being of our child than she did her ego or mine. Because she recognized that while the relationship of parent and child is unique and sacred, there’s some truth to the whole “it takes a village” mindset as well.

When your kid talks to me about their personal problems, I don’t think about what a bad parent you must be – I think about how difficult it must be for them to navigate complicated situations and emotions at 14 or 15 years of age. I’ve been working with young people for over two decades, and I’ve figured out by now to take everything they say with a shaker or two of contextual salt. With all due respect, it’s not usually about you, or your rights, or your power. Sometimes it’s about them and their need to sort things out or handle their feelings in a non-destructive way.

Yes, if they tell me they’re being abused or harming themselves or going to hurt someone else, I have to call an 800 number and everything is going to suck from there forward no matter what happens next. Most of the time, though, that’s not what they say. Most of the time, they just need a fresh perspective on how to manage the stresses of school, or why their mom is always mad at them, or how come they can’t focus in class, or what is wrong with their math teacher who needs to stop tweakin’ and doin’ too much.

They don’t unload to me because I’m trying to be their parent; they unload to me because I’m not. 

See, I don’t have to get them up in the morning when they’re being impossible. I don’t have to deal with the fallout of their poor relationship choices. I don’t have to feel guilty when they get in trouble at school or feel like anyone’s judging me for how they behave. I don’t have to feed them or clothe them or take care of them in any meaningful way beyond learning some reading, writing, and math, and secretly trying to turn them into transgender Muslim socialists. 

(I’m kidding about that last part. No, seriously – I am. Dammit… there goes another email to Tucker Carlson.)

That gives me an advantage in some situations. I’m less threatening. I’m less invested. I care about them, and want what’s best for them, but they don’t “answer to me” in any long-term way. They’re not afraid of disappointing me in the same way they often are with you. It’s not a better relationship than you have with them; it’s a different relationship. One I take very seriously, even though it scares me to death. It’s not a responsibility I want, and the entire system is just waiting for me to make the wrong call in the moment and crush me if it can. But I’m also trying to get them through metaphors and appositives and a functional thesis statement, and sometimes they simply can’t focus on such things until we’ve done something about the rest of Maslow’s hierarchy. 

I’m not competing with you. You want them to graduate? Me, too. You want them to cooperate better with authority (including yours)? Me, too. You want them to learn how to manage their emotions and find solutions to their struggles that don’t involve self-harm, sex-for-approval, or violence against others? Me, too. You want them to grow up to function in a complicated world? To do better than you did at their age? To be “happy,” whatever that means? Yeah, me too. You want them to share your worldview forever and never be challenged by other beliefs or opinions? 

OK, on that one we may not be fully aligned. But still – 6 out of 7, am-I-right?

For what it’s worth, you’re always welcome to come sit in on class and see what we’re actually up to. You have full access to everything I assign to your child – it’s on Google Classroom or Canvas or whatever. I’m happy to discuss why I use the materials I do, as well as share what’s worked and what hasn’t and look for better options. I’m honestly rather excited when a parent wants to collaborate with me to figure out what might best serve their little darling. It happens far too rarely. Sorry if that’s more trouble than yelling at the school board or sharing the latest demagoguery by your elected leaders on Facebook, but it might be way more effective. 

If, you know, we both want the same things for your child.

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.

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.

Indiana Senate Bill 167 (Part Two)

~ Blue Cereal

In Part One, I expressed my chagrin over what seems to be the Indiana GOP’s effort to elevate the voices of those unwilling to participate in public education in any sort of helpful way while making it nigh impossible for educators to comply with the reporting and other bureaucratic requirements of this bill.

Now it’s time to confront some of the more abstract language in Indiana SB 167 – the parts about what school employees can’t say, suggest, imply, or otherwise communicate…

You know – the part where they legislate the “liberal” out of education.

Stop Including Concepts!

{A}n employee of {state agencies or schools} shall not include or promote the following concepts as part of a course of instruction or in a curriculum or instructional program, or allow teachers or other employees…, acting in their official capacity, to use supplemental instructional materials that include or promote the following concepts:

Let’s pause and consider this before we even address the specific concepts. There are two very different things going on here, intentionally or not.

The first part limits what educators can “promote.” By itself, that’s nothing new. I’m not legally allowed to call kids up for prayer, to condemn them for their sexuality, or to mock their tattoos or political beliefs. We can debate what those limits should be, but that’s not actually the part that most concerns me at the moment.

It’s the bit about “includes” that seems ripe for exploitation and abuse. Even if we assume the best possible intentions by the bill’s authors (I don’t know if this is an ALEC template or was actually compiled by the senators claiming credit), this part troubles me greatly. I’ve researched enough court cases (insert shameless plug here) to know that the specific language of a bill sometimes matters very much.

I’m happy to argue about what my lessons do or don’t PROMOTE. I consider that a very different issue than what they do or don’t INCLUDE.

Let’s check out a few of the specifics not to be PROMOTED… or even INCLUDED in “supplemental instructional materials”:

(1) That any sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or political affiliation is inherently superior or inferior to another sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or political affiliation.

I taught history for over twenty years. I’ve used dozens, if not hundreds, of resources that insisted one race was superior to another, or that men were inherently smarter or better suited for leadership than women, or that Americans were chosen by God with a unique mission and calling. I’ve used letters and speeches from one nation condemning another and excerpts from contemporary debates about immigration, affirmative action, and gun control. We’ve discussed pros and cons of integration, equality of the sexes, and “American exceptionalism” – because they all matter, and they all must be confronted and discussed if we’re to have a halfway sensible civilization.

Now that I teach English, I’m having trouble coming up with many novels (or even short stories) that might resonate with my kids but which don’t challenge or explore assumptions about race, poverty, sexuality, abuse, power, etc. I mean, that’s the whole point, right? To analyze the things which make us human – good and bad – and the ways in which we express or understand them?

I can guarantee you a fair effort at balance. I can point to twenty years of my students insisting they have no idea where I land politically on most issues. I can promise you sensitivity to potential triggers or issues that might arise and an effort to maintain age-appropriate good taste. Hopefully it goes without saying that I won’t be “promoting” racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, etc.

But can I avoid all materials that include those ideas? That may promote those ideas in their own time and space and reality?

I know supporters of this bill will insist I’m taking that one word out of context. Perhaps I am. But if that’s not what they mean to say, I suggest finding a better word.

Stop Recognizing Racism!

Then again, maybe exploration of difficult topics is exactly what they hope to eliminate:

(2) That an individual, by virtue of their sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or political affiliation is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.

This is another bit that on the surface sounds harmless enough. “Don’t label all white people racist” is essentially what they’re going for here. Once again, however, I think we have to question some of the terminology. Law is all about the details, yes?

People far smarter than I have addressed the many possible definitions of “racist.” The only thing I’ll note here is that you don’t have to drop the ‘N’-bomb and burn crosses to partake in systemic racism – “consciously or unconsciously.” As to “oppressive,” that’s a question of power dynamics – of exploiting or benefiting from a system you may or may not have encouraged, of which you may or may not even be consciously aware, but from which you nevertheless benefit at the expense of others.

I can promise I’ve never taught that “all white people are racist” or that “all men want to demean and misuse women.” I have, however, asked some pretty smart groups of high school students to consider whether or not it’s possible that some policies or personal choices are driven by assumptions or norms they may not have consciously identified or utilized before. We’ve had some excellent discussions as a result. I always thought it was good for tomorrow’s leaders to experiment with other points of view – to weigh the relative merits of various lenses through which history and society might be understood.

Clearly many of those actually in power disagree.

How strong are ideals that can’t survive a little academic questioning by high schoolers?

(3) That an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of the individual’s sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or political affiliation.

We’ll let that one slide.

(4) That members of any sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or political affiliation should not attempt to treat others without respect to sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or political affiliation.

OK, hang on – the triple negative here can get a bit confusing…

Educators CANNOT suggest that anyone should NOT try to IGNORE differences based on race, gender, religion, etc. In other words, no suggesting people might be different from one another based on the ways in which they’re clearly different from one another.

I’d like to assume what’s meant here is something along the lines of “don’t assume girls aren’t good at math” and “watch those personal biases when it comes to discipline.” But If the goal were to discourage discrimination, that’s already explicitly covered in the previous point.

Instead, this one smacks of “I don’t see color.”

I’d like to think I’m generally fair with all of my students, but I’m certain I approach my hijab-wearing girls with a LITTLE more caution than my Baptist basketball players until I’m sure I won’t unintentionally offend or alienate them by assuming too much familiarity out of the gate. I hold my Black students to the same behavioral standards as my white kids, but I try to run an internal check to make sure I’m not interpreting their tone of voice or facial expressions to mean more than they do – because I know that’s a thing that white folks (like myself) sometimes do.

It’s a tricky balance sometimes. Not all Hispanic kids are the same (obviously). Neither are all the gay kids, all the Slavic immigrants, or all cheerleaders. But if there are absolutely no differences worth recognizing or accommodating, I’ve been to WAY too many hours of training over the years intended to help me better understand kids of different backgrounds. Plus, we’re wasting money on twice as many bathrooms and locker rooms as we need.

Stop Acknowledging Diversity!

(5) That an individual’s moral character is necessarily determined by the individual’s sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or political affiliation.

One thing you can say about today’s GOP – they’re wholly committed to equity towards all sexes, races, religions, and national origins. It’s practically their brand.

(6) That an individual, by virtue of the individual’s sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or political affiliation, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or political affiliation.

“Bears responsibility for”? No, probably not. “Benefits from” or “may still be experiencing fallout from”? Now THAT’S a discussion worth having. But we won’t – not if this bill passes. The distinction is too subtle for angry right-wing mobs not known for their love of nuance – or administrators terrified of lawsuits or headlines.

There’s one more that I just can’t get past…

(7) That any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of the individual’s sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, nationa origin, or political affiliation.

That’s not it. I mean, I don’t love the inherent whining it projects, but that’s nothing compared to what’s next.

Stop Questioning Capitalism!

(8) That meritocracy or traits such as hard work ethic are racist or sexist, or were created by members of a particular sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or political affiliation to oppress members of another sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or political affiliation.

It’s been difficult for me to unpack my reaction to this part. I fear I may not express it well even now.

I think the biggest thing bugging me is the implication that “meritocracy” and “hard work ethic” are indisputable goods – natural values all reasonable people share, like “don’t murder”, “don’t steal”, and “eliminate the capital gains tax.” But they’re not universal, and they’re not too sacred to question. Many successful cultures throughout history would have completely rejected “meritocracy” or “hard work ethic” in the way most American understand the terms.

I mean, it’s called the “Protestant work ethic” for a reason. It’s a mindset and value system that was new and different from most of what had gone before.

The second problem is one defenders of the bill could no doubt counter with the very argument I made earlier – the specific language matters. And yet, I gotta get it off my chest.

I don’t know that meritocracy or hard work ethic are racist or sexist or any of that in terms of their origins or intent. It’s nearly impossible to deny, however, that in practice, systems claiming to be built on meritocracy often are racially and sexually discriminatory. “Hard work” may be a wonderful thing, but it doesn’t pay off equally for everyone regardless of their race or gender. Study after study shows it’s not even close.
So what’s the goal of this particular provision? Much like Oklahoma’s recent “It’s OK to run over protestors IF YOU REALLY FEEL SCARED” bill, this line in particular strikes me as blatantly ideological, not to mention dangerously subjective and malleable.

Seriously, Enough With Recognizing Diversity…

There’s one more before we go, and it’s a biggie:

A teacher, an administrator, a governing body, or any other employee of any state agency, school corporation, or qualified school may not require an employee of a school corporation or qualified school to engage in training, orientation, or therapy that presents any form of racial or sex stereotyping or blame on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or political affiliation.

Remember all those workshops I mentioned above about how to better understand, connect with, and educate children of diverse backgrounds? Yeah, it sounds like those are out altogether. From here forward, all children are just like you think you were at that age, in whatever circumstances you were raised. Any variations or difficulties you may encounter in educating them is now simply a nail, and policy the hammer. Efforts to acknowledge humanity or complexity beyond this is just more liberal excuse-making and the real source of division.

If you want to insist that what this really says is that schools can’t mandate training that promotes stereotypes and division, you’d better be able to back that up with real life examples of pro-racism, pro-social division workshops your local high schools have hosted recently. Something you vaguely remember from Fox & Friends doesn’t count.

We’ll wrap up in Part Three. Your comments are welcome below.