Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

frenchpress.thedispatch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 366 posts

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#141

Post by bp0017 »

rayiner wrote: post #111
klyrs wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why does Professor Sachs make this assertion? On November 12, the governor signed a bill that makes it unlawful to include “instruction relating to critical race theory in any portion of the district's required curriculum ... or any other curriculum offered by the district or school .” Now do the steel man (emphasis mine)

Public education is a service provided by the government. What material the government chooses to teach or not teach using parents’ is entirely up to the government and the parents. Free speech is irrelevant to curricular choices because teachers aren’t there to engage students in a marketplace of ideas. They’re being paid to provide a service. Organizations that provide content make such curation choices about what…

This is stated like it is an absolute fact, not a reflection of our hyper-capitalist society. I would argue that reducing education to a content curator is harmful to what it aims to be, although the analogy is not entirely inaccurate, unfortunately. Is education an infotainment service or a search for the truth? The latter requires a free exchange of ideas and informed debate, although this is rarely encouraged in our current school system.

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#142

Post by tandymodel100 »

TrispusAttucks wrote: post #52
josephcsible wrote: post #2

One major distinction this glosses over is the difference between making it so you can't read something (e.g., banning it), and making it so you aren't required to read something (e.g., removing it from the curriculum). Only the former is censorship.

You are correct. Not sure why you're getting down voted. Just because Pinocchio isn't in the curriculum doesn't mean it's banned. You can still get it in the school library. Not in curriculum != Banned

No post body was provided.

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#144

Post by WalterBright »

imgabe wrote: post #138
josephcsible wrote: post #2

One major distinction this glosses over is the difference between making it so you can't read something (e.g., banning it), and making it so you aren't required to read something (e.g., removing it from the curriculum). Only the former is censorship.

I don’t remember the case, but I read somewhere that the Supreme Court drew a distinction between deciding not to add something vs taking away what was already there in regards to school libraries. Assuming this is referring to Maus , it wasn’t a part of the curriculum, it was just a book that was available in the library. The school board removed it from the library, clearly in an effort to limit access to it.

I'm not in favor of book banning, but that book shouldn't be allowed in a library.

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#145

Post by roenxi »

bruce511 wrote: post #129
londgine wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's make an analogy. I suspect there are some teachers who may teach evolution as "just a theory" and add creationism to what they teach. I don't mind if children learn about creationism, but during their required hours at state sponsored schools, I don't want the time to be wasted teaching creationism. So I would like to restrict creationism from the curriculum. Or how about this analogy, Zambia is a real county w…

You fall into the trap here of having someone decide for others what is and is not valuable to learn. Once you take this step you legitimise the idea that there is an authority with the power to censor - ostensibly for good reasons - and sooner or later that power will bend somewhere else. It's important that children learn about everything, especially about opposing ideas because only then can they form their own op…

He's talking about this at a school. The fundamental premise of a school is that someone is going to decide what is and is not valuable to learn. And that there is an authority (embodied in the teacher) who has the power to decide what will and will not be discussed in class.

Assuming you mean what you wrote, you may be arguing for abolishing the public school system. In principle that seems like an interesting idea, but the rest of your post isn't quite congruent with that so it seems possible you've missed that this part of the thread is about school curriculum.

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#146

Post by imgabe »

WalterBright wrote: post #144
imgabe wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t remember the case, but I read somewhere that the Supreme Court drew a distinction between deciding not to add something vs taking away what was already there in regards to school libraries. Assuming this is referring to Maus , it wasn’t a part of the curriculum, it was just a book that was available in the library. The school board removed it from the library, clearly in an effort to limit access to it.

I'm not in favor of book banning, but that book shouldn't be allowed in a library.

Why not? I’ve heard of it but never read it. I just know it’s widely acclaimed and about the Holocaust.

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#147

Post by sixstringtheory »

WalterBright wrote: post #144
imgabe wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t remember the case, but I read somewhere that the Supreme Court drew a distinction between deciding not to add something vs taking away what was already there in regards to school libraries. Assuming this is referring to Maus , it wasn’t a part of the curriculum, it was just a book that was available in the library. The school board removed it from the library, clearly in an effort to limit access to it.

I'm not in favor of book banning, but that book shouldn't be allowed in a library.

I’ve never seen/read it, curious to know why you think it shouldn’t be allowed in libraries.

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#148

Post by adrianN »

bp0017 wrote: post #141
rayiner wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Public education is a service provided by the government. What material the government chooses to teach or not teach using parents’ is entirely up to the government and the parents. Free speech is irrelevant to curricular choices because teachers aren’t there to engage students in a marketplace of ideas. They’re being paid to provide a service. Organizations that provide content make such curation choices about what…

This is stated like it is an absolute fact, not a reflection of our hyper-capitalist society. I would argue that reducing education to a content curator is harmful to what it aims to be, although the analogy is not entirely inaccurate, unfortunately. Is education an infotainment service or a search for the truth? The latter requires a free exchange of ideas and informed debate, although this is rarely encouraged in o…

I don't think students are the right audience for "informed debate", since they go to school to become informed. Sure, you can (and should!) simulate informed debate in class, to train students in the method, but the value that teachers add is that they curate the topics and can provide arguments and answers.

Eventually education turns into an actual search for truth, but that only happens in university where actual research happens. Until then it's all a more or less guided preparation for independent research.

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#149

Post by [deleted] »

wonnage wrote: post #79

The article never once tries to define what it thinks would be good "cultural health". You can kinda infer that the current level of vitriol and animosity is bad, but what kind of society would that look like and how would we get there? I can see three versions. First is a homogenous culture where there is nothing to fight culture wars over. I don't think such a thing is possible, nor desirable, since the author's fr…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN