• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

$5 Million Fine for Classroom Discussions on Race? In Tennessee, This Is the New Reality

Augustus

Augustus

…
sun rise said:
For example, students can’t be told that they are “inherently privileged, racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or subconsciously,” or bear responsibility for past actions committed by members of their race or sex.
Click to expand...

While I don't know anything about the law in general so am not commenting on it overall, do you think children should be taught they are "inherently privileged, racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or subconsciously, and bear responsibility for past actions committed by members of their race or sex"?
 
lewisnotmiller

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Augustus said:
While I don't know anything about the law in general so am not commenting on it overall, do you think children should be taught they are "inherently privileged, racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or subconsciously, and bear responsibility for past actions committed by members of their race or sex"?
Click to expand...

I'll have a crack at this, based on my education background.
No, I don't. But nor do I want the government interfering in curriculum, particularly with these type of vague directions.

Let's say I teach about the current moves to roll back mandatory sentencing laws around crack cocaine. Am I allowed to discuss the difference in sentences that were instituted between crack and powder? Am I allowed to discuss why this occurred, and suggest there were racial elements to it? Am I allowed to encourage my students to investigate this, come up with their own conclusions based on evidence, and then present this to their classmates?

Based on the 'Prohibited Concepts in Instruction', I suspect I can allow my students to investigate it, and present their conclusions, as long as I don't promote a racially based viewpoint myself. Is that how you'd read it?
Combine that with parents being actively asked to police this. Parents, mind you, who aren't in the classroom at the time of instruction.

'Hey Jonny, what did ya learn today?'

'We learnt that mandatory sentencing laws around cocaine were disproportionately targeted at poor people, and had particular impact on black communities.'

Can't see that ending well for a teacher promoting such discussion and thought. Many will simply avoid 'controversial' topics.
Tulsa Massacre wasn't being taught even without these laws. How much do children get taught about the history of First Nations people, and how they were displaced (many times in some cases), had their religions and culture actively targeted, their languages impacted, etc.

Nope...it will be safer to talk about World War 2.
Don't get me wrong, the last thing I want schools to become is factories for social engineering. I'm an ex-teacher, and my general view of my fellow teachers ability to handle complex and nuanced topics is...well...a mixed bag at best.

But if they are to do the job they are paid to do, I think there are real risks to this type of guideline and the risk schools will then attribute to certain topics. Better we just remove history teaching, along with religion.

Oh, and on that last note?

The following concepts are prohibited concepts that shall not be included or promoted in a course of instruction, curriculum, instructional program, or in supplemental instructional materials:

All Americans are not created equal and are not endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, including, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;

Source : Microsoft Word - Prohibited Concepts in Instruction Rule 7.29.21 FINAL.docx (tn.gov)

I'm sure that's not aimed at atheists (honestly) and I'm sure parents will all understand the intent, rather than the wording (kinda sarcastically, to tell the truth).
 
lewisnotmiller

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Not even commenting on the fine, or comparing it to other things, and the relative level of THOSE fines.
 
Mister Emu

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
Public school teachers, funded by the government, in Tennessee are not allowed to racially abuse children? The horror.
 
Augustus

Augustus

…
lewisnotmiller said:
Let's say I teach about the current moves to roll back mandatory sentencing laws around crack cocaine. Am I allowed to discuss the difference in sentences that were instituted between crack and powder? Am I allowed to discuss why this occurred, and suggest there were racial elements to it? Am I allowed to encourage my students to investigate this, come up with their own conclusions based on evidence, and then present this to their classmates?

Based on the 'Prohibited Concepts in Instruction', I suspect I can allow my students to investigate it, and present their conclusions, as long as I don't promote a racially based viewpoint myself. Is that how you'd read it?
Combine that with parents being actively asked to police this. Parents, mind you, who aren't in the classroom at the time of instruction.

'Hey Jonny, what did ya learn today?'

'We learnt that mandatory sentencing laws around cocaine were disproportionately targeted at poor people, and had particular impact on black communities.'

Can't see that ending well for a teacher promoting such discussion and thought. Many will simply avoid 'controversial' topics.
Tulsa Massacre wasn't being taught even without these laws. How much do children get taught about the history of First Nations people, and how they were displaced (many times in some cases), had their religions and culture actively targeted, their languages impacted, etc.
Click to expand...

To me at least, that in no way meets the prohibited criteria.

Stating that racial groups have been discriminated against, and holding people accountable for acts of discrimination is a different argument than saying groups are inherently privileged and are thus collectively guilty.

Imo the 'privilege' framing is one of the worst pieces of communication in history as it turns something that the vast majority of people agree with: discrimination is wrong into a highly contentious and tribalistic issue.
 
Jose Fly

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Augustus said:
Stating that racial groups have been discriminated against, and holding people accountable for acts of discrimination is a different argument than saying groups are inherently privileged and are thus collectively guilty.
Click to expand...
But the latter doesn't necessarily have to follow from the former. For example, I recognize that being a straight, cis-gender, white male born to an upper-middle class family carries many inherent privileges. But that doesn't make me "guilty" of anything.
 
Shadow Wolf

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Augustus said:
Stating that racial groups have been discriminated against, and holding people accountable for acts of discrimination is a different argument than saying groups are inherently privileged and are thus collectively guilty.
Click to expand...
That's saying not everyone is equal, and that is prohibited.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top