Archive for the ‘Culture Wars’ Category

The Cost of Mixing Culture Wars With Public Finance – Governing

Given the nations deep political divisions nowadays, it should come as no surprise that some state and local politicians from both sides of the aisle would seek to leverage their governments purchasing power to send messages to corporate America and play to their base by doing so. After all, its not their own money its the publics so why not exploit political power to advance ones partisan posturing?

The most common manifestations of these impulses to make political statements through public funds have historically been public pensions divestment campaigns, starting with South Africa in the 1960s, then with Sudan in the early 2000s and continuing up to this years Russia divestment wave. Critics would say that pension policies focused on corporations environmental, social and governance (ESG) profiles are liberals playbook strategy to pressure companies into bending to their political will. The same might be said about pension funds that avoid investing in firearms manufacturers.

The complaint and its a valid one in my view has always been that these political statements rarely work to the benefit of the pension funds and that the employers taxpayers are ultimately obligated to foot the bill for investment underperformance. That grievance is now popular with 19 Republican attorneys general. However, many ESG advocates would counterclaim that more-sustainable and farsighted corporate policies will produce better investment returns over the long term. That debate in pension-land doesnt look likely to end any time soon; we really cant properly evaluate investment efficacy in less than a decade or even two.

West Virginias legislature has followed suit with similar legislation. Kentucky, Oklahoma and Tennessee have enacted similar laws, all focused on ESG and fossil-fuel extraction. Notably, Kentucky ranks 21st and Tennessee 27th among the states in oil production, so one must conclude that their blackball actions are largely political and not budgetary.

The magnitude of any fiscal impact on Texans debt service costs is a matter for empirical research, which has already begun at Wharton. The topic will probably make for a great doctoral dissertation someday, but we wont know hard numbers any time soon. With multiple states now involved, a fertile field for research has arisen.

In Florida, we have the now-notorious meddling in public finance by state politicians who decided to punish Walt Disney World for the companys public opposition to the states so-called Dont Say Gay law (in support of its employees) by stripping the financial powers of five special districts to rebuke Americas most-beloved family theme park.

Even local governments are getting into the act, including from the left side of the political spectrum. In Pennsylvania, Lehigh County may become the first entity to divest its assets and business from Wells Fargo because of the banks reported support of political candidates opposing abortion rights.

Some of these retaliatory measures may eventually run into First Amendment lawsuits, especially given that the Supreme Courts Citizens United decision equated companies free-speech rights to those of individuals. But given the deepening divisions in the American body politic these days, it doesnt require much imagination to expect that similar political blacklists and financial boycotts will continue to proliferate.

Im sure, for example, that well see a few local governments sympathetic to abortion rights adopt policies prohibiting travel reimbursement for attendance at professional conferences and training events in states that prohibit or severely restrict the procedure. Meanwhile, other governments may ban employee travel to conferences in states that provide sanctuary for abortion-seekers. Whats to stop similar internal policies from popping up with regard to visiting states with open-carry gun laws? At least in the case of conference attendance, most government workers can find alternative professional development opportunities elsewhere, and some of these events now include virtual attendance options in this pandemic era. But for financial services firms serving the public sector, and the efficient market competition they engender, there is no such workaround.

I dont pretend to have all the answers or a universal solution to the dilemmas that these examples present. But Im pretty sure that taxpayers will ultimately be ill-served when public-sector investments and financial transactions are subjected to political favoritism, which is what these back-in-your-face policies really are. The problem, of course, is that in the short run there is very little political downside for these interventions, and the financial costs will be diffuse and initially imperceptible. But that doesnt make it right or smart.

The Big Seven state and local government policy associations and their financial affiliates can do us all a favor by standing up to such partisan grandstanding with policy advisories that emphasize just how ill-advised and ultimately costly these culture war reprisals are likely to be and perhaps already have become.

Read this article:
The Cost of Mixing Culture Wars With Public Finance - Governing

Cultural war moves to libraries as some groups demand removal of books. – NPR

Anti-censorship protestors at a meeting of the Lafayette Library Board, defending a librarian who included queer teen dating in a book display in defiance of the board. John Burnett/NPR hide caption

Anti-censorship protestors at a meeting of the Lafayette Library Board, defending a librarian who included queer teen dating in a book display in defiance of the board.

LAFAYETTE, La. The culture war inside America's libraries is playing out in the monthly meetings of the Lafayette Library Board of Control. Conservative activists are demanding the removal of controversial books, librarians are being falsely accused of pushing porn, and free speech defenders are crying censorship.

The August meeting in Lafayette was fairly humdrum routine reports on the bookmobile, library hours, and plans for a new branch until the lectern was opened for public comments.

"Everything that has happened in the past 18 months with this board and to the library has basically been a dystopian nightmare," declared one unhappy library patron.

Since conservatives took over the Lafayette library board last year, the controversies have come fast and furious:

"Hold up your signs for Cara again," one speaker told the audience. "We don't support fascism in the Lafayette Public Library."

Lafayette Parish is deeply religious, conservative Trump country red as a boiled crawfish. So others in the community have applauded the board's rightward shift.

"I'm a father of four young children," said a man in a tie and blue blazer, "and my daughter found a cartoon book that was basically pornographic. It encouraged children to explore themselves in a variety of ways. It was in the children's section."

The father concluded, "These are local libraries which should reflect the prevailing local community standards."

For many critics, this is the crux: whose community standards?

A somber librarian named Connie Milton stepped up to the podium and explained that libraries are struggling to keep pace with societal changes that emphasize the inclusion of diverse genders, races, and sexual orientations.

"We just want everybody to be able to come into a library and see themselves represented. That's all we're doin'," she said to hearty applause.

Milton announced that she had just given her two weeks' notice.

"Morale is not good," she said. "People are afraid to lose their jobs."

Lafayette Parish is by no means unique. Across America, fractious debates over free speech in public and school libraries have turned these hushed realms into combat zones. Cops are regularly called to remove rowdy protestors.

Texas leads the country in book bans. In the towns of Katy and Granbury, uniformed peace officers came into school libraries to investigate books with sexual content after criminal complaints from citizens. And the school district in Keller, Texas, pulled 41 challenged books off its shelves, including a graphic adaptation of "Anne Frank's Diary," "Gender Queer: A Memoir," and the Bible.

Traditional-values groups are demanding the removal or restriction of books with explicit sex education, and books that unflinchingly document LGBTQ realities and the Black American experience. The American Library Association in its unofficial tally reports that challenges of library books have jumped fourfold, from 416 books in 2017 to 1,597 book challenges in 2021.

In Lafayette, the president of the library board is Robert Judge, a retired insurance claims adjustor and high-school science teacher, and a devout Catholic. He gets criticized for imposing conservative church teachings on library policy, for instance, regarding LGBTQ topics.

"I think the idea that I have to drop off my Catholic Christian worldview at the door when I walk into serving the public is silly," he said in an interview at his kitchen table.

Judge believes the library's mission should submit to a traditional notion of family values and community standards, not the other way around.

"This is where we get into the sticky ground," he said, "Do we allow a governmental agency and the library is a governmental agency to supersede parents' rights? And do we protect parents' rights, or do we just say, 'Well that's the stuff that we have and we put it anywhere and if your kid stumbles on it, it's not our problem?' "

Judge sought to have several books banned outright, but the board didn't go along with him. As a compromise, the library moved all 1,100 nonfiction books from the young adult section to the adult collections. No books have been banned, says Danny Gillane, director of the Lafayette Public Library System.

"I don't care if they [the board] want to censor the library, if I don't have to remove things from my collection," he said. "That is my goal is to keep all of the materials we have in the library."

But some critics consider making a book harder to find is a form of censorship.

"We don't need to refile it in another section like it's something shameful," said Christopher Achee, parliamentarian with the Louisiana Library Association.

"We encourage you as a parent to know what your child is reading," he said. "That parent has every right to tell that child, 'No, this isn't appropriate for you.' But that right ends when another parent comes in looking for that exact same information."

The changes at the library since conservatives took over the governing board have infuriated liberal patrons.

"We're really upset that the library is being used in the culture wars," said Jean Menard, a home-school mom who says she depends on Lafayette libraries for her two teenagers' education. Menard started an anti-censorship Facebook group, Supporters of Lafayette Public Libraries. The group has more than 2,000 members.

"It is not the board of control's position to micromanage the library," she said. "Librarians need to be able to manage the library. This is a public library. It's for everyone. [If] they don't like the programs or materials, don't attend, don't check out the material!"

That argument has gone nowhere with conservatives on a crusade to cleanse Louisiana libraries. Standing in their way can have severe consequences.

Amanda Jones, president of the Louisiana Association of School Librarians, made a speech against censorship and now she says she's hounded by conservative activists on social media who say she advocates pornography. John Burnett/NPR hide caption

Amanda Jones, president of the Louisiana Association of School Librarians, made a speech against censorship and now she says she's hounded by conservative activists on social media who say she advocates pornography.

Last month, a middle-school librarian named Amanda Jones stood up and spoke out against censorship at a meeting of the library board where she lives and works in Livingston Parish, near Baton Rouge.

"The citizens of our parish consist of taxpayers who are white, black, brown, gay, straight, Christian, non-Christian people from all backgrounds and walks of life," she said in prepared remarks. "No one portion of the community should dictate what the rest of the citizens have access to."

She concluded, "Hate and fear disguised as moral outrage have no place in Livingston Parish."

Though 19 other people spoke up against censorship at the meeting, Jones's speech got all the attention. She's won several national Librarian-of-the-Year awards and is currently president of the Louisiana Association of School Librarians. But she was completely unprepared for what happened.

"A few days later," she said, "I open the internet and there were pictures of me, awful memes, saying I advocate teaching erotica and pornography to 6-year-olds. It gave my school's name. None of that is true. I gave a blanket speech on censorship. And they decided they wanted to make me a target."

"They" is Citizens for a New Louisiana the same group behind the conservative takeover of the Lafayette library board. The group has harshly criticized Jones on its Facebook page which has 19,000 followers for defending books they consider obscene and inappropriate for children.

Michael Lunsford is director of Citizens for a New Louisiana, which he describes as a government accountability group.

In his office in Lafayette, he pulls out one of the controversial sex-ed books, "Let's Talk About It: The Teen's Guide to Sex, Relationships, and Being a Human."

"We have this page that actually shows intercourse," he said, showing an illustration. "Then we have things like this that have closeups of genitalia. We've got a page here on masturbation and how to do it."

"Any reasonable person who looks at this material I hope would say an 11-year-old doesn't need to see this," he said.

Michael Lunsford, director of a conservative citizens group, has pushed to remove graphic sex education books they consider inappropriate for children, and he says anyone who disagrees with him is promoting smut. John Burnett/NPR hide caption

Michael Lunsford, director of a conservative citizens group, has pushed to remove graphic sex education books they consider inappropriate for children, and he says anyone who disagrees with him is promoting smut.

In ultra-conservative Louisiana, sex education in public schools, grades 7 to 12, is at the discretion of the local school board, with an emphasis on abstinence until marriage and no discussion of abortion or homosexuality.

But why attack a librarian for a book that's in her library? Is defending a graphic sex ed book the same as promoting smut?

"I don't know that we attacked her personally," Lunsford said. "We asked a question: What type of influence does she have over what our children see in school libraries as the president of the association? I think that's a valid question."

In the current toxic political climate, school librarian Amanda Jones says she has begun to fear for her life. When asked how the social media onslaught has affected her, she broke into sobs.

"It's horrible. My anxiety is through the roof. I live in constant fear that some person that they've incited is going to come and get me or get my child. Or come up to the school where I work and harm a child. It's been a month of this and it just won't stop."

Last week, Amanda Jones sued Michael Lunsford, Citizens for a New Louisiana and a local individual she says is trolling her. The lawsuit asks for a state district court judge to issue a temporary restraining order to stop what it calls the harassment and defamation.

Meanwhile, with their successes in Lafayette, Lunsford's group plans to expand its campaign to purge library books and programs that it finds offensive in Louisiana's other 62 parishes.

Go here to read the rest:
Cultural war moves to libraries as some groups demand removal of books. - NPR

From rent strikes to free-speech walkouts how did Durham University become a frontline of the UKs culture wars? – The Guardian

It was 3 December 2021, and South College, Durham University, was having its Christmas formal. Formals happen every week here, says Miatta Pemberton (not her real name), who is in her second year at the college. Its a longstanding Durham thing. You put on a gown that cost 60, or, if youre like me, you buy it off eBay for 20. For a special occasion, it would be normal to have a speaker and announce them in advance. By 5pm, the speaker hadnt been announced, and Pemberton found out who it was by chance from the colleges vice-principal, Lee Worden. She couldnt immediately place the person; she just knew shed heard the name for all the wrong reasons.

About 15 to 20 students more familiar with Rod Liddles work in the Spectator and the Sunday Times (sample headline on one of his columns from 2018: Im identifying as a young, black, trans chihuahua), walked out before hed started speaking. As they did so, Tim Luckhurst, the college principal who had invited Liddle, shouted: At South College, we value freedom of speech, and Pathetic!. So the mood wasnt great, but there were still upwards of 180 students in the hall as Liddle stood up to speak. He began by saying he was disappointed not to see any sex workers there, a reference to a controversy from the previous month, when the students union was attacked for offering safety training to students involved in sex work. The story was picked up by the tabloid press, which mobilised the opinion wing of the Daily Mail, which then brought in the then further education minister, Michelle Donelan, who accused the union of legitimising a dangerous industry which thrives on the exploitation of women. If you were a culture-war correspondent looking for the frontline, youd go to Durham: it is where things kick off.

Liddle continued his speech: A person with an X and a Y chromosome, that has a long, dangling penis, is scientifically a man, and that is pretty much, scientifically, the end of the story. Which is objectively a weird thing to hear when youre trying to eat, says Pemberton. At this point a further 20 or so students walked out and missed the bit about colonialism not being remotely the major cause of Africas problems, and Liddles contention that structural racism has nothing to do with educational underachievement among British people of Caribbean descent. Speaking to me over the phone from his home in the Pennines, Liddle says his point was: Weve got not to be scared of other peoples opinions, no matter what they are. There are things I believe in, which you almost certainly wont. We think the same thing transgender people have a right to dignity and respect. We just disagree on whether theyre biologically a man.

Luckhurst and Liddle have a friendship dating from the mid-80s, when they worked in adjoining rooms on the shadow cabinet corridor in Westminster, writing speeches for Labour MPs. The left has always been our enemy, says Liddle; and its true that long before wokeness existed, before cancellation was a culture, even before its ancestor political correctness was born, the party of the left has been at war over who was the right kind of left. Both men then worked for Radio 4s Today programme, Luckhurst going on to become editor of news programmes at BBC Scotland, and later, briefly, editor of the Scotsman. When he became an academic in 2007, he had an august CV in both print and broadcast media, and quite a wonky, old-school passion for news values. Free-speech provocations dont seem to be his primary interest, though his and Liddles self-fashioning as thorns in the side of pearl-clutching liberals is at the centre of their friendship.

The two men differed on something, though: Liddle had no problem with students walking out, nor with the fact that the ones who remained sat in silence when he finished. Apparently theyre all meant to stand at the end, and they didnt. I thought, frankly, who gives a fuck? By contrast, Luckhurst was upset that they hadnt listened respectfully. After the dinner, scenes ensued, culminating in Luckhurst telling a student (off-camera) that they shouldnt be at university, and his wife, Dorothy, shouting: Arse, arse, arse, arse, arse youre not allowed to say arse, apparently, and asking students what they were so frightened of.

It was all a bit Animal Farm looking from face to face, trying to recall which ones are the stoics and which the snowflakes. Which ones are the grownups and which the kids? Whos trying to cancel who? And why is it such catnip to the rightwing press?

The South College debacle, and the sex worker training scandal before it, along with the many headlines and thinkpieces they generated, were just a typical season in Durhams culture-war calendar. From the universitys Bullingdon-style social clubs, the rightwing provocations are reliably eyebrow-raising: in 2017, the Trevelyan rugby club staged a Thatcher versus the miners pub crawl, while five years earlier, St Cuthberts rugby club had an event where guests dressed as Jimmy Savile. In 2021 a Durham student posted a clip of a white man blacked up to dress as Kanye West (though an investigation found that he wasnt a student at the university). Periodically, therell be a leak of WhatsApp or Facebook messages containing sometimes hair-raising misogyny (it was alleged that one informal group launched a competition in 2020 to see who could fuck the poorest fresher) or enough outright neo-nazism to see established groups the Durham University Conservative Association (DUCA), along with its Free Market Association (DUFMA) closed down, as they were in 2020.

On the left, the actions are those youd recognise from any undergraduate arena: climate marches, usually small in scale; racial awareness training; pressure to decolonise the curriculum. In the case of the sex worker training, loads of unis have it, says Niall Hignett, a leftwing campaigner at South College. Students are doing it because of their financial situation. Giving them support and advice wasnt encouraging it it was trying to make sure they were safe. In the topsy-turvy world with which we should now probably be familiar, its this rather muted leftwing activism that generates most of the whither intellectual freedom? debate in the Spectator and among Conservative MPs and ministers; the Daily Mail will cover absolutely anything, left or right, so long as it happens in Durham. The academic William Davies, at Goldsmiths, has noted that this fascination stems from perhaps the fundamental battle of the culture wars: who has the right to narrate British identity newspapers or universities?

Durham University finds the coverage frustrating, and says it doesnt reflect the campus experience at all. Professors and post-grads describe an atmosphere very like the general student population: broadly progressive in stance. One member of the Durham People of Colour Association says, tellingly, that when they have been subject to abuse, its been keyboard warriors coming at them because of the Daily Mail misquoting things, or misrepresenting us in biased ways. But how does a university become a hotbed for these extreme political schisms? Is it all a media confection and, if it isnt, why does anyone go there?

As soon as I step off the train for the first time, in April, I am hit by that very distinctive atmosphere of a place that can seem entirely its university from the demographic (everyone seems to be 18 or 45), to the town planning, which drives you towards the colleges, to the lack of regular retail outlets and proliferation of tea shops. It even smells like students. Josh Freestone, 19, in his second year studying philosophy and politics, is in the Durham University Labour Club, and describes both his and its politics as to the left of the Labour party Corbynite. The Liddle event distilled for him a sense of disillusionment: I very much believe the students are the beating heart of the university, but theres been very little attempt to centre us.

The university is informally divided into Hill (10 colleges outside the dead centre, either side of Elvet Hill, mostly built since the 1960s South College was built in 2020); and Bailey (five colleges clustered around the cathedral, built in the 1800s or very early 1900s).

The Bailey area is overwhelmed by signs saying private. Stand still for one second and some officious retiree will try to give you directions one makes me wait while she tells a tourist about the cathedral, and I have to listen to her yawing on about St Cuthbert, when I never asked for directions in the first place. When youre used to an urban environment, in which the baseline assumption is that space is public unless its somebodys house, its hard to overstate how irritating this is, but it also must feel quite containing if youre from a boarding school. The Hill area has nothing but colleges. Max Kendix, now 20 and in his final year, is the ex-editor of the student newspaper Palatinate, and at University College, known as Castle. Hes skinny, droll, serious-minded, incredibly nice: Id first met him in the holidays in London, where hes from. He says: I lived on the main street in Bailey in my first year, and Id be woken every Friday night by a crowd of people, a huge crowd, running down from the Hill shouting, If you live on the Bailey youre a cunt. But the irony is that we wouldnt do the same. Wed never go to the Hill. Theres nothing there. Apart from the freestyling tour guides, theres very little sense of town versus gown, because theres almost nothing in either the centre or the Hill that isnt gown-related.

The university as a whole has the highest proportion of privately educated students in the country, at nearly 40%, and the Bailey colleges, particularly Hatfield, have the most intense concentration of students from a small clutch of boarding schools. Sophie Corcoran, a Durham student and a maverick rightwinger with an already significant profile on GB News and talkRadio (I speak to her over the phone as she is still at home in Thurrock), says: A lot of people who dont necessarily know each other from school, know of one another from school. Corcoran is extremely opinionated on social media (anti-immigrant, anti-benefit-claimant, anti-trans). A slip recently, where a separate account replied as if they were her, suggests that her online profile may be a group effort not exactly a sockpuppet account, since she is definitely real; more of a sock chorus. There is no issue on which she cannot summon a callous view, but one-to-one she has a kind of studs-first life force. I wouldnt be surprised if, one day, she flipped the other way politically, but maybe thats wishful thinking.

Figures like Corcoran are marginal in student politics, as she readily admits: she gained no traction when she stood for election to the students union I had more chance of winning North Korea than Durham students union, she says blithely and has no foothold in its rightwing political scene, whose members, she says, only like women there if they can sleep with them. If you have an opinion, they hate you. Besides, she says, theyre all on drugs. If working-class people like us did drugs like they do, wed be called crackheads. Its a completely different story with rich people.

Much more influential than any nebulous cultural atmosphere is the lack of diversity, in the Bailey colleges particularly. Kendix describes one Hatfield tradition: They were the last college to let women in, and when they were voting on it, the JCR [junior common room, which is the student body in a college] voted against. This was the 80s. The authorities at the college went ahead with it anyway, and as a form of protest the students started banging their spoons against the tables at the start of formals. Thats now a tradition. Every formal starts with that the girls do it, too.

Can you draw a straight line from people banging spoons to mourn the decline of male supremacy to an alleged competition to see who could fuck the poorest fresher? Its hard to say, and I dont know that the behaviour reflects attitudes that are real; sometimes these Durham scandals feel manufactured as debate points for an insatiable media.

Katie Anne Tobin is a PhD student who became involved in activism around sexual violence when she was an undergraduate at Sussex. Durham is a mixed picture, she says: in the university as a whole, there are figures like Clarissa Humphreys and Graham Towl working tirelessly to root out sexual violence in higher education settings, having authored a Good Practice Guide thats well respected nationally. Yet Tobin says the collegiate system often thwarts the universitys efforts: The colleges create their own policy, they execute their own discipline, and theyve got their own reputations to maintain. I know a lot of people who have been made to feel like feminist killjoys if theyre open about the issues in their college. The whisper networks are insidious.

Plus, the lack of diversity definitely tells in the student experience. In 2020, Lauren White compiled A Report on Northern Student Experience at Durham University, after being relentlessly mocked for having grown up in Gateshead, 15 miles away. The report quotes one student as saying: In the college dining hall I have been called a dirty northerner, and a chav A fellow student asked me: Are you going to take the spare food home to feed your family?

Sign up to Inside Saturday

The only way to get a look behind the scenes of our brand new magazine, Saturday. Sign up to get the inside story from our top writers as well as all the must-read articles and columns, delivered to your inbox every weekend.

According to Kendix: Youre more likely to meet someone from the same London borough as you than you are to meet someone from a different county. Pemberton says, You wont have someone hurling insults at you day to day. But you feel it. You walk into a room thinking: why do I feel so on edge? Oh, Im the only brown person in a room full of 200 people.

The university points to its efforts in this area theres a programme to support black-heritage students, a number of scholarships available to state school students, particularly in the north-east. In 2010/11, 79.9% of Durhams student intake was white. In 2020/21, it was 67.6%. Its efforts may have been hampered somewhat by the collegiate structure, since colleges make their own individual decisions about intake and convention.

One English professor, who Ill call Sanders, says of the Liddle debacle: This is the sort of thing that makes me unhappy. South College is our newest college. You can build a culture from the ground up, and he [Luckhurst] built a college with a high table and a Latin grace. When were not thinking on our feet, we fall into these old habits. Sanders is speaking to me in their sprawling, book-messy faculty room, a David Lodge-style picture of the idealised academic life. They are in their early 50s, take seriously the decolonisation of the curriculum if anyone came out of my classes thinking the moral impact of the British empire was railways, I wouldnt have done my job and only want to be anonymous for professional courtesy reasons, not because they see themselves as a besieged wokey. As for the culture as a whole, Durham does, Sanders says, have some posh boys who behave really badly. We probably have a higher percentage than the University of Salford, say. Often the picture is not wrong, but its very partial.

Part of this institutions failure to dramatically improve diversity, Sanders speculates, is risk-aversion due to anxiety about keeping their Russell Group status: they were only admitted in 2012, its quite hard to cling on without a medical school, and that went to Newcastle when the two universities separated in 1963. When I first arrived, Sanders says, the rhetoric was: the group of large universities with medical schools who call themselves the Russell Group. Once we got admitted, it was the elite universities known as the Russell Group.

I meet Niall Hignett in the shared kitchen of his student halls at South College; the summer term is just beginning, and the windows across the campus are still studded with Post-it notes, reading Bin Tim, Transphobes are not welcome here Tim, Eat the rich and Council college. Hignett is a member of the Labour Club and the Working-Class Students Association, and president of Durham Against Rough Sleeping; he is relaxed, very funny, indefatigable. He comes from an estate in Cheshire new-build social housing, which is really tacky. So to me this felt like luxury and has been a bete noire of the rightwing press due to the protests he organised after that Christmas formal. He finds this amusing showing me photos the Telegraph took of him, in which they try to make him look like an unsmiling, incredibly large-chinned trade unionist and very useful.

For Hignett, the purposefully provocative culture war stuff is mainly driven by the myopia of privilege. If youve only ever been a public school and been surrounded by people who are like you, youve never really experienced enough of the world to know that running around dressed as Jimmy Savile is its not offensive, I dont even know how to describe it. When youre on the doorstep of mining communities who were ravaged by Thatcherism, and youre dressing up as Thatcher theres micro-aggression and theres aggression-aggression. But he uses these flashpoints to his advantage: when he organised the protests against Liddles speech, it was reported by the Daily Mail, as well as the Times and on GB News, with an almost audible eyeball roll (Now Durham students threaten a rent strike over Rod Liddle). It was misleading, but it was also true: Hignett had devised, with open consultation, a list of demands, one of which was a rent freeze. Many were about money rather than hate speech or inclusion. This was deliberate and strategic: it is quite hard to mobilise students who are mainly affluent on matters such as establishing a guarantor scheme (if your parents arent homeowners, you need to pay a large deposit to guarantee your private rental agreement; basically a tax on not being middle-class).

If you want anybody to talk to the issues that you care about, you have to rile them up, Hignett says. Loads of rich kids just dont get it, and the ones who arent rich are too ashamed to talk about it. But they understand trans rights. With cultural-issue protests, we just get more people. There were also demands to proscribe hate speech on campus, and set up a hate-speech committee, and those were, Hignett admits, bait for the rightwing press; when youre trying to pressurise an institution, the real battle is to make yourself impossible to ignore.

While Hignett and I are talking, Tim Luckhurst is outside, doing a tour for what look like parents of prospective students. I mean, everything looks desultory in the rain, but there is a sad, slightly shifty atmosphere when I walk past, as Luckhurst describes the amenities and the tour group studiously avert their eyes from all the Post-it notes that want to bin him.

The protests, which ran throughout December 2021 and January 2022, drew an unusual, even unprecedented, number of students. Durham is a lot less politically engaged than most universities, says Poppy Askham, another former editor of Palatinate. If half the things that happen at Durham happened in Manchester, theyd be protesting all the time. Kendix remembers that the first protest at South College had over 300 people. By contrast, a climate change protest would have maybe 15 people. While it was reported as fact by the Mail on Sunday that the silent majority supported Luckhurst, a student pollster colleague of Kendixs at Palatinate found that 80% of students wanted him to leave.

But never mind silent majority if there were any students at all on Luckhursts side, why were there no counterprotests, no free speech demos, no Leave Liddle Alone placards? It turns out that when DUCA and DUFMA were effectively disbanded in September 2020, and removed from the Durham students union group register, their funding was withdrawn and they were no longer allowed to use the universitys name in their title. It was a decision made by the students union, supported by the university. It was all lumped together with Durham cancelling Tories, says Kendix, who covered it for Palatinate. But it doesnt fit that narrative at all. Were talking about neo-nazism, essentially.

WhatsApp messages between key members of the groups had been leaked, and revealed a cesspit, sorry, culture where old-fashioned nazism met new, 4chan-adjacent violent misogyny, Holocaust denial and white replacement theory, to create a conversation too extreme for the student newspaper to print, and actually too extreme, mainly on racist and antisemitic grounds, for the Guardian to print, either. (A sidebar on the resilience, or perceived lack of it, in this generation: Kendix is Jewish, and had to wade through this swill. He laughs out loud when I ask him if hed requested any pastoral support; life is actually quite tough at the free speech frontier, but students, in the main, are tougher.)

In the investigation that led to DUFMA and DUCA being shut down, one of the students involved was expelled for three years, which was reduced to one year on appeal, and then overturned altogether. The Conservative MP Richard Holden celebrated the exoneration as he addressed a reformed Conservative group, the Durham University Conservative Society, saying: For too long weve seen free speech being eroded at our universities and colleges. Ill always stand up for academic freedom and against those who want to impose their unsubstantiated worldview as unquestionable fact.

These interventions from Conservatives transform Durhams rightwing outbursts from attention-seeking pranks into moments of real consequence. Each fresh event is addressed by the government as an issue of free speech, which has become elided with academic freedom; as absurd as it sounds, it is now in defence of academe that former minister Michelle Donelan sought to enshrine in law the right of any staff member or visitor to voice controversial or unpopular opinions without placing themselves at risk of being adversely affected. In April 2022, a motion was passed in the Commons to enable the free speech bill to pass over into the next session of parliament. Donelan yes, the same person who objected to sex-work training celebrated that, should the bill pass, universities, including their student unions, will face fines for engaging with or supporting cancel culture. What this means is that there would be an actual financial penalty for walking out of a speech by Rod Liddle, a notion that even he, I feel sure, would find hilarious.

Since the publication of God and Man at Yale, the seminal 1951 work by US conservative commentator William F Buckley Jr, the right has had the stated intent of depoliticising tertiary education. Its not a realistic goal: you cant go to any countrys epicentre of thought and reading and expect it not to take a view on politics. But underneath that is a more concrete agenda. Even in the 50s, but in a much more pronounced way now, the two factors predicting progressive leanings are youth, and being educated to degree level. For the right, tertiary education has to be presented as a site of live conflict, a vivid fight between left and right, or the gigs up.

Tim Luckhurst was temporarily barred from duties after Rod Liddles speech while an investigation took place, and those findings were kept private. A statement from the acting vice-chancellor and provost, Antony Long, insisted that the University does not intend, in any way, to exclude any speakers from our campus. Yet he also said that no member of our University community should be subjected to transphobia, homophobia, racism, classism and sexism. The university has a pretty reflexive understanding of the difference between free speech and hate speech, but the battles, amplified on the national stage, picked apart in newspapers and crowbarred into legislation, have blowback. Its salient that not one woman of colour would use her real name for this piece. Mal Lee, 25, studying for a postgraduate degree in biology, is president of the LGBT+ association and identifies as trans masculine. Lee describes a trans femme friend having projectiles and abuse hurled at her; Alisha (not her real name), 21, is biracial and was with a black friend when they were both chased down the street by men making monkey noises. Lee didnt report it because we just expect it. Alisha didnt because to be honest, Im quite exhausted. Neither thinks their assailants were other students, just passing bigots, empowered to act by a wider narrative that has made university life in Durham its emblem.

Go here to read the rest:
From rent strikes to free-speech walkouts how did Durham University become a frontline of the UKs culture wars? - The Guardian

One culture war, two cities, three statues, and two levels of government – rabble.ca

Throughout history public art has been controversial, and no form of art is more public than sculpture. Naturally, publicly displayed sculpture in Alberta was bound to get caught up in the ideological culture wars of the early 21st Century.

So it was an interesting coincidence that Thursday, a day after lame-duck Premier Jason Kenney announced he would soon have a sculpture of Winston Churchill to shove up Calgarys nose, the City of Edmonton decided to leave another in storage out of concern it could be interpreted as a celebration of colonization.

The Buffalo and the Buffalo Fur Trader actually two bronze sculptures that were commissioned in 2012 by the city and the Edmonton Arts Council to be installed at the south end of the iconic Walterdale Bridge has now been transformed into another set of creatures entirely.

That is to say, two large and heavy white elephants on which the city had spent $375,000 by the time they were completed.

While some audiences may find the artwork thought provoking, for others it may cause harm and induce painful memories, the city said in a news release. For this reason, it is not considered inclusive to all Edmontonians.

The artist, Vancouver-born Ken Lum, now a professor in the University of Pennsylvanias school of design, was not happy. He disputed the city officials concern, saying in an email to media that perhaps the city is not ready for a real dialogue about its colonial past and the condition of coloniality that continues to mark the present. That was my intention with the work, not to celebrate colonialism as the city suggests.

Earlier this month, he told the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network (APTN) that his goal was to depict the troubled relationship between the settler state and Indigenous peoples.

He told APTN he believes a non-Indigenous artist was chosen for the project because the city was wanting an artist with engineering and infrastructure experience to be a part of the bridge design as well as the public art.

The sculptures one 10 feet tall have been in storage since 2016, when they were completed by Lum. They will remain there until someone can figure out what to do with them.

It is tempting to portray this as a tale of two cities, but its really about two levels of government: a city council that leans progressive, and which is bound to be accused of suffering from a surfeit of sensitivity, and a provincial government that unquestionably brings an excess of insensitivity to every issue.

Given its inherently political nature, a surprising amount of public sculpture ends up in storage, outright exile, or subject to modifications to hide very public private parts, all of which happened to Reginas statue of Louis Riel, which disappeared from public view the same year Lum completed his work on The Buffalo and the Buffalo Fur Trader.

After a week during which Advanced Education Minister Demetrios Nicolaides is reported to have personally called every member of the board of Athabasca University, board members are scheduled to meet this afternoon.

Presumably Nicolaides has a plan in mind to square the circle of his original admittedly impossible demand that 500 AU employees be required to move to the town of 2,800 souls 145 kilometres north of Edmonton and President Peter Scotts determination to continue with a completely different plan to convert the distance-education institution to a virtual entity existing mostly in cyberspace.

Whatever the board decides to do, fallout is likely.

In response to the brouhaha over the Alberta Legislatures embarrassing and ham-handed essay contest for young women, in which one of three winning entries turned out to be a screed replete with sexist and racist themes, Public Interest Alberta has announced an essay contest of its own.

Unlike the Her Vision Inspires disaster by Associate Status of Women Minister Jackie Armstrong-Homeniuk and her Parliamentary Secretary Jackie Lovely, which prompted thousands of face-palms but only garnered five entries, the Edmonton-based progressive group hopes to gather considerably more essays answering two questions:

What does a just future for all look like in Alberta?

How do we ensure a future with economic, social, and climate justice at the core?

The contest is open to young people from Alberta aged 14-to-30 regardless of gender and entries can be submitted in a variety of formats, including 500-word essays as in the provincial competition.

There will be three prizes, gift certificates of $250, $100 and $50 to Glass Bookshop, an independent Edmonton-based book store focused on Canadian writing with special attention paid to LGBTQ2SIA and IBPOC writers.

Submissions can be emailed or arrangements made for delivery here. The deadline for entry is September 16, at 11:59 p.m.

Judging from the lively commentary on social media last night about the UCP leadership debate sponsored by an Alberta separatist group and a far-right video blog site, the three candidates who showed up performed pretty much as you would have expected given their audience and political predilections.

You could watch the event online for $7, but that would be $7 too much for a couple of very bad causes, so I thought Id save it for a yuppified coffee this morning and just go by what commentators made of sterner stuff than I am had to say about the performances by Danielle Smith, Brian Jean, and Todd Loewen.

Smith, Loewen, and Jean make it clear that the real purpose of replacing RCMP with a provincial force is not to combat rural crime, or exercise autonomy from Ottawa, it is to have the police report to provincial govt and not enforce federal gun laws, tweeted Mount Royal University political scientist Duane Bratt.

Not just report, added University of Calgary Law professor Martin Z. Olszynski. They made very clear that they have no problem meddling in specific enforcement matters, eg staying charges against their buddy pastors. Apparently, interfering w/ attorney generals & prosecutorial discretion is only a problem when its Trudeau doing it.

Danielle Smith just said she wants to Uber-ize Albertas health care system in case anyone outside AB is wondering how the UCP leadership race is going, said environmentalist and researcher Emma Jackson.

Noted independent journalist Jeremy Appel: BJ agrees that there should be no sex Ed. But he says kids should be taught scientific, biological facts.

And, really people, I think thats all we need to say about that right now.

Related

Read this article:
One culture war, two cities, three statues, and two levels of government - rabble.ca

Education and Indoctrination – thepointmag.com

Whats the difference between education and indoctrination?

We have been arguing about this question since the emergence of public schooling in the mid-nineteenth century. We shouldnt be surprised, then, that charges of indoctrination are essential ammunition in the culture wars currently rending our public schools.We need to be educating people, not trying to indoctrinate them with ideology. So said Ron DeSantis when the Florida Board of Education voted to ban critical race theory from K-12 schools last year. In a separate statement, touting the benefits of the Stop WOKE Act, DeSantis declared, We wont allow Florida tax dollars to be spent teaching kids to hate our country or to hate each other.

The late educational philosopher Kieran Egan observed that we use the term indoctrination whenever children are taught ideas, beliefs and values that conflict with our own. Its a pattern with a long history, reaching back to the emergence of common schools in the 1840s. Horace Mannfirst secretary of the Massachusetts Board of Educationand other leaders of the common school movement were terrified by the prospect of sectarian religious divides and partisan politics blowing up what was a fragile new experiment in universal education at public expense.

If parents find that their children are indoctrinated into what they call political heresies, will they not withdraw them from the school? Mann fretted in 1848. And, if they withdraw them from the school, will they not resist all appropriations to support a school from which they derive no benefit?

Manns solution to the problem of indoctrination was for teachers and schools to remain scrupulously nonpartisan and nonsectarian. Students would receive instruction in the great essentials of political knowledge, including the Constitution, the three branches of government and elections, but any and all political proselytism would be forbidden.

In terms of religion, Mann affirmed the public school system earnestly inculcates all Christian morals. [The] Bible, he said, is in our Common Schools, by common consent. At the same time, Mann declared schools are not Theological Seminaries, nor should they act as an umpire between hostile religious opinions. On the dangers of injecting doctrinal disputes into public schools, Mann explained:

This year, the ordinance of baptism is inefficacious without immersion; next year one drop of water will be as good as forty fathoms. the fiercest party spirit will rage and all the contemplations of heaven be poisoned by the passions of the earth.

Rather than wade into esoteric theological debates, the Common School would convey universal religious truths such as the existence of God, the Creator of all things and the immortality of the soul. Public schools likewise instilled Christian virtues, including piety, industry, frugality and temperance. Popular textbooks such as the McGuffey Readers contained nondenominational religious lessons and prayers such as Creation of the World, Praise to God and The Lords Prayer. They also featured homespun parables with titles like An Early Riser, Honesty Rewarded and Waste Not, Want Not.

Manns lowest-common-denominator approach to religion in public schools may have been informed by his own religious upbringing and his shift away from the fire-and-brimstone Calvinism of his parents to a kinder, gentler Unitarianism. When Mann was fourteen, his older brother Stephen drowned after skipping a Sunday church service to swim in a local pond. The family minister devoted his eulogy to castigating Stephen for profaning the Sabbath, proclaiming that his future life would be one of eternal damnation.

It was harsh, uncompromising views like these that Mann wanted to keep out of public schools. Controversial topicsthe hot and virulent opinions, in politics and religion, that agitate our community, in his wordswere to be avoided at all costs. Mann worried that if the tempest of political strife were to be let loose upon our Common Schools, public education would devolve into gladiatorial contests among hostile partisans. Everything from the election of school board members to the selection of textbooks would be contentious. Town meetings would become tinderboxes, prone to fierce combustion with intense, devouring flames. When Mann wrote these words in 1848, he would have already witnessed tremendous upheaval and controversy in public schools across the northeast, including a deadly riot in Philadelphia. He may not have wanted to admit it, but the tempest was already raging.

Even before the 1845 potato blight spurred massive migration from Ireland, the Irish made up a significant proportion of the foreign-born population in the United States. From 1820 to 1840, about one in three immigrants to the United States hailed from Ireland. They were greeted with fierce anti-Irish sentiment fomented by the Protestant establishment. The genteel version referred to Irish immigrants as degraded, ignorant and in thrall to Catholic bishops in Rome. The popular press, meanwhile, presented vicious caricatures of the Irish Paddy who looked like, in the words of one historian, a cross between monstrous ape and primitive man.

For the chattering classes of the mid-nineteenth century, the Irish presented an existential threat to American democracy. They saw a basic conflict between the centralized, supreme authority of the Roman Catholic Church and the practice of republican government. As historian Kevin Kenny posed the question: Would these new Americans be loyal to the United States or to Rome? (Some beliefs die hard. When JFK ran for president more than a century later, there were fears that he would be taking orders from the Vatican.)

In the fledgling public schools of Boston, New York and Philadelphia, Catholics found that the ostensibly nonsectarian common-school curriculum was in fact steeped in Protestantism. Students recited Protestant prayers, sang Protestant hymns and read the King James Bible. (The Douay-Rheims Bible, preferred by Catholics, was nowhere to be found.) Moreover, textbooks consistently denounced popery, a synonym for Roman Catholicism, which Catholics themselves viewed as a term of insult and contempt.

What Mann had perceived as a safely nondenominational pedagogy was not seen that way by all who were subjected to it. In 1840, the influential bishop John Hughes, nicknamed Dagger John for his sharp-elbowed temperament, made the following announcement in an open letter to the City of New York: We are unwilling to pay taxes for the purpose of destroying our religion in the minds of our children. In a petition written to the New York Board of Aldermen that same year, New Yorks Catholic community lamented that the Catholic children who attended public schools become intractable, disobedient, and even contemptuous towards their parents. Petitioners drew attention to a particular passage from one popular textbook that matter-of-factly reported on deceitful Catholics. With this kind of matter prejudicial to the Catholic name and character pervading the school curriculum, the petitioners could not in good conscience entrust their children to the public schools.

A group of New York Methodists responded in short order to the Catholic petition, arguing that it would be a grave mistake to invest the citys Roman Catholics with the power to select school textbooks, as they would look to bishops abroad, even the Pope himself, to weigh in on which books were appropriate. We were content, the Methodists wrote about the Catholics, with their having excluded us, ex cathedra, from all claim to heaven, for we were sure they did not possess the keys. But investing them with the power to determine the public-school curriculumsubject to the censorship of a foreign potentatewas wholly unacceptable.

This war of words between Catholics and Protestants on the subject of public schools exploded into real violence in Philadelphia in the spring of 1844. Allegations that Catholic residents wanted to remove the King James Bible from the citys schools led to widespread rioting, with pitched battles between Protestants and Irish Catholics on the streets of Philadelphia featuring stones, torches, sabers and muskets. At least fifteen Philadelphia residents died in the fighting. Dozens of homes and two Catholic churches were razed to the ground. Two months later, at the Fourth of July parade, Protestants marched with banners proclaiming Foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of a Republican Government and The Bible is the basis of Education.

Religion was not the only divisive topic in public education during this period. In Southern schools, abolitionism was also a massive bugaboo. Politicians and public school leaders in the South alleged that teachers and schoolmasters from the North were poisoning the minds of their children with abolitionist teachings. These itinerant ignoramuses were so full of guile, fraud, and deceit, according to the Richmond Examiner, that the deliberate shooting of one of them should always be deemed perfectly justifiable. Why, a commentator wrote in DeBows Review, should the next generation be taught doctrines which are in direct conflict with what we now believe?

This questionwhy parents and taxpayers should support public schools that teach content that conflicts with their most cherished beliefshas reverberated across the decades, sometimes registering only as a faint echo and sometimes, such as today, resounding at top volume.

In different times and places, parents and citizens of all backgrounds and political orientations have accused public schools of indoctrinating their children. In the past century, however, white religious conservatives have been the loudest, most well-organized contingent. You can track this conservative culture wars movement from opposition to the teaching of evolution in the 1920s and campaigns against Un-American textbooks in the 1950s to crusades against sex education in the 1970s and todays anti-CRT campaigns.

This rolling conservative backlash to a public education system that supposedly undermines traditional values and beliefs has always been informed by a parents-know-best orientation. The architect of the most recent backlash, Christopher Rufo, has cannily framed todays fight to take back the schools around parents rights. At a Forsyth County, Georgia school board meeting last year, one parent testified: If you have materials that youre providing where it says if you were born a white male, you were born an oppressor, you are abusing our children.

Emphatic claims like this are the stock-in-trade for conservative culture warriors, and it is true that grandstanding media personalities, politicians and right-wing activists have manufactured most of the controversy surrounding critical race theory in schools over the past year. Thats how you end up with someone filing a complaint about a Civil Rights Heroes reading unit in Tennessee, under the auspices of the states new anti-CRT law. (The complaint alleges that books about the likes of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Ruby Bridges cause elementary school students to hate their country, each other, and/or themselves.) Indeed, it is tempting to simply dismiss all such concerns as being products of residual ignorance or bigotry; and that is what most of us liberals and progressives have done.

And yet, beyond all of the noise, there is a signal that is worth paying attention to. It pertains to a discomfort with the model of antiracism most closely associated with Ibram Kendi, or what I call Antiracism, Inc. The bible of the Antiracism, Inc. enterprise is Kendis How to Be an Antiracist, a runaway bestseller that has shaped DEI and antiracist initiatives in nonprofits, corporations and schools across the country. From my own research on American educational trends, it is clear that Antiracism, Inc. has been embraced by schools of education and is quickly gaining traction in public K-12 schools through trainings, teacher professional development and the implementation of antiracist curricular materials.

The debate about whether CRT is taught in schools has been maddeningand is ultimately a red herring. Schoolchildren are as likely to know the names of Derrick Bell, Kimberl Crenshaw and Mari Matsuda as they are to know the names of Earl Warren, Hugo Black and Felix Frankfurter. But many of them will have been introduced to Antiracism, Inc., which is like a cheap, knockoff brand of critical race theory. Its Antiracism, Inc. that has popularizedand dilutedkey CRT concepts such as white privilege and systemic racism. Kendi himself noted that he has been inspired by critical race theory and that Crenshaws intersectionality framework is foundational to his own work.

Conservatives and other skeptics have portrayed antiracism in the Kendi mold as ideological, dogmatic nonsense. They arealasspot-on.

According to the Antiracism, Inc. model, people, policies and institutions can always be neatly divided into racist and antiracist camps. The whole saga of race in the United States is like an epic Marvel movie, with the forces of justice on one side battling the forces of injustice on the other. All you need to do is join the good guys.

This academic year, lets imagine that my sons seventh-grade math teacher will be following A Pathway to Equitable Math Instruction, a recently published antiracist toolkit for teachers, funded in part by the Gates Foundation. Embarking on her antiracist journey, my sons teacher will have learned that standard mathematics instruction is plagued by the toxic characteristics of white supremacy culture such as perfectionism, worship of the written word and objectivity. In math classrooms, the workbook explains, white supremacy culture manifests whenever math is taught in a linear fashion, rigor is expressed only in difficulty and grading practices center what students dont understand rather than what they do. To dismantle white supremacy in collaboration with her students, my sons teacher must identify and challenge the ways that math is used to uphold capitalist, imperialist, and racist views; and expose students to people who have used math as resistance.

Or consider Courageous Conversations About Race, a highly influential book for promoting racial equity in schools (now expanded to a consulting company with a much broader purview). Author Glenn Singleton maintains that white folks use white talk, which is task-oriented and intellectual, whereas people of color use color commentary, which is process-oriented and emotional. Like most frameworks under the Antiracism, Inc. umbrella, Courageous Conversations conflates race with culture. In a chapter called Lets Talk About Whiteness, Singleton declares that Whiteness represents a culture and consciousness that is shared by White people. The variation within my own extended white family invalidates this absurd, quasi-mystical claim. With all due respect to my evangelical Christian, Trump-supporting relatives in rural Texas, we share neither a culture nor a consciousness.

If standard antiracism training and curricular initiatives were open to any real scrutiny or criticism, their shortcomings and excesses wouldnt be so concerning. But from what Ive observed, the basic assumptions that undergird Antiracism, Inc. are rarely up for debate. Antiracism, Inc. lesson plans are highly scripted and proceed as if there are obvious right and wrong answers for everything from what to call people of Hispanic or Latin American descent (Latinx) to whether affirmative action is wise public policy (it is). In this way, they arent so different from the Protestant catechisms taught in the nations first common schools.

Kieran Egan, the educational philosopher I mentioned before, said that what distinguishes education from indoctrination is openness of inquiry. So here is the diagnostic test: when teachers present ideas, beliefs and values as unquestionable truths, thats a good sign indoctrination is at work.

By these lights, Antiracism, Inc. bears a stronger resemblance to indoctrination than education. The problem is not, as many on the right contend, that schools make everything about race. As Ive written elsewhere, any social studies or U.S. history curriculum that doesnt address race and racism is like a biology class that doesnt include carbon. The problem is that Antiracism, Inc. only approves of one way of thinking and talking about race in the United States. I wouldnt want my own sons in Antiracism, Inc. classrooms. As racially mixed kids (white father, mother of Asian descent), they wouldnt even fit into any of the prescribed Antiracism, Inc. identity boxes.

Returning to culture-wars territory, the claim that our public schools are full of teachers who abuse their positions of trust to engage in political activism and political indoctrination, as Kevin Williamson wrote earlier this year in the National Review, strikes me as an insulting exaggeration. Based on my personal experience and professional knowledge as an educational-studies scholar, the overwhelming majority of public-school teachers are much more interested in helping students develop their critical thinking skills than in brainwashing them. Even so, to the extent that Antiracism, Inc. takes hold in schools, it makes classroom indoctrination more likely. Liberals and progressives shouldnt be afraid to acknowledge this.

Conservative politicians have hit dizzying heights of hypocrisy in responding to indoctrinationreal or perceivedin public schools. While railing against cancel culture, nineteen red states have passed anti-CRT laws or regulations that directly restrict what can be said in a classroom. As outlined in a report published by UCLA earlier this year, these laws are creating a newly hostile environment for discussing issues of race, racism, and racial inequality. How can public schools possibly serve as training grounds for citizenship if teachers have to avoid controversial questions about public policies and current events?

An especially corrosive feature of these bills is how they erode trust in public education itself. The bills introduced this year, as PEN America documents, have been strikingly more punitive, including heavy fines or loss of state funding for institutions and termination or even criminal charges for teachers. This is bad news, to put it mildly, for those of us who see public education as the cornerstone of our democracy. The assault on public education by some on the right only reinforces my belief that liberal critiques of public schooling must be constructivewe can air our concerns, while simultaneously supporting teachers and championing public education as an essential public good.

Horace Mann got it dreadfully wrong that public schools could somehow avoid getting caught up in partisan politics. In our pluralistic, democratic society, there will always be fierce battles about public schools, from how they are funded to what they teach. But I think Mann was onto something when he stressed that teachers should not act as proselytizers. Students, and here Im paraphrasing former ACLU president Nadine Strossen, should be encouraged not just to answer every question but also to question every answer. Public education, at its best, gives students the foundation of knowledge and skills to make up their own minds.

If you liked this essay, check out our back-to-school sale, now through Labor Day: whether youre a student, a teacher or long done with formal education, all back issues in our shop are 50 percent off, and when you subscribe, well also throw in a bonus copy of issue 25, featuring the symposium What is college for?

Read more from the original source:
Education and Indoctrination - thepointmag.com