site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   31724 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 24, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

HISD to eliminate librarians and convert libraries into disciplinary centers at NES schools

Not worth a post as top level thread on it's own; but hilariously dystopic enough to post here. It's only one (admittedly large and important) SD, but this is the type of shit Margret Atwood would write about as a totally out there thought experiment.

Hopefully enough people get mad it stops there.

The less money that gets wasted on warehousing sullen kids and boosting the employment of sullen evangelists who haven't graduated to adults in their demagoguery yet is by definition a good thing, which is why it won't happen.

I mean they did fire hundreds of administrators.

To those people who are suggesting that library science isn't a real thing, I have a simple exercise for you: Suppose you are managing a very basic, but busy archive that adds dozens if not hundreds of new documents per day. Each document is assigned a sequential number, and has several names associated with it. When each document is entered, an index entry for that document must be created. Without a computer, how would you organize such an index to make it quick and easy for someone to find documents associated with a particular name?

You could use linked lists. The front desk of the archive would have a ledger that maps all names in the archive to the numerical ID of the first and most recent documents with that name, and all documents would be added to the shelves sequentially. When looking for all documents by John Doe, you would look up John Doe in the ledger and go to the first document. That document would have a cover page affixed to it that lists the ID of the second document associated with John Doe. The second document would tell you where the third one is, and so on until you get to the final one. Adding a new document would likewise be straightforward: put it in the first open space on the shelves, look up in the ledger where the last John Doe document is, affix a cover page to it that points to the new document, and then update the ledger. If a document has multiple names, simply repeat this process for each name.

I'd make a physical version of a relational database, actually pretty easy to accomplish with filing cabinets and folders.

I'm not a CS guy so I don't know what that is. If I walk into the office and tell the clerk I want to search the archive for records indexed to Michael Price, how do I find them?

If I walk into the office and tell the clerk I want to search the archive for records indexed to Michael Price, how do I find them?

literally just do that ^ ?

And what do they tell me? Do they just have the record locations memorized?

And what do they tell me?

how to find them or they find them for you?

Do they just have the record locations memorized?

probably not but they should know to find them since that is literally (a part of) their job?

This was already answered, and it was at one time taught in elementary school. You don't need a degree in library science to use an indexing system.

There's a bunch of cards/sheets/whatever containing lists of authors, each with a unique id (just a number that I increment with each new author added, though there are other ways). I find Michael Price and make a note of his id. Then there's another bunch of cards that has book/record/document titles ordered by author id. I find the sheet(s) for Michael Price's id and use that to find all books by him

There's other concerns like handling books with multiple authors, adding new sheets in the middle of others, etc. that would make it more complicated but it's nothing that can't be done by hand, especially for a smaller local/school library.

Suppose you are managing a very basic, but busy archive that adds dozens if not hundreds of new documents per day.

How many school libraries could this possibly describe? I think you and many others are conflating school libraries with public libraries. The latter are relatively large and provide all manner of community services and I could imagine a 2 year degree program could be necessary for managing such a thing. The former are small and often staffed by community volunteers or teaching assistants. I am not convinced that grad school or even a bachelor's is necessary for this function.

Without a computer

How many libraries of either variety do you think there are in US that don't any kind of computer or digital inventory management? Regardless, you could probably learn such an organization system in your bog standard 30 hour technical training class.

I'm not describing any library. I'm describing something much simpler than any library to illustrate a point that archival science is a lot more complicated than laymen think, largely in part because the professionals working behind the scenes have done such a good job that we don't notice them. And just because computers can handle a lot of our work now doesn't mean that the professionals in charge of these systems don't need to understand the underlying theory. Most people don't use 99% of the underlying theory they learned in school. I mean, why do we give a fuck if the kids can add when we live in a world with calculators?

But we do have computers. It's 2023, not 1973.

The Cutter catalog system did it pretty much the same way a computer database would: Secondary indexes. You shelve the book based on one criterion, and you have multiple card catalogs with index cards sorted by the other criteria. You don't need a master's degree (or even any degree at all) to use this system, either. When you get a new book you make up all the appropriate cards and put them in the appropriate catalogs.

I would take a collection of loud noises and leave them on the front lawn overnight until they had been lightly coated in condensation. Then I would systematically organize the documents using these dewey decibels.

Not worth a post as top level thread on it's own

The expectations of effort and not waging the culture war are the same in this thread as they are in the general subreddit. This post doesn't meet those standards. This is a warning.

The reason it's happening is quite simple: libraries are a useful weapon in the culture war that only one side has access to (school librarians being 88% Democrat), so the other side is saying, to quote Mr. Meeseeks over on DSL (and he's used it in this exact context), "that position has been completely overrun; commence shelling."

One can argue about whether this is good or bad, but I'll only say that it's sad.

Idk do you really need librarians as such in 2023? What exactly do they do that some lower level admin without a corresponding graduate degree would be able to do?

Is there much evidence that the presence or lack of presence of a librarian or library has much of an effect on student outcomes?

In some states there is a craze for advanced degrees in education. You can't teach in public school without a master's degree or an actionable short term plan to get one ASAP in Connecticut, Maryland, and New York. Other states more reasonably encourage master's degrees with a higher pay scale.

Having a graduate degree is, like it or not, just how schools hire these days. No doubt they would prefer their lunch ladies to have masters degrees in nutrition, but the job market for dietitians just isn’t bad enough for that.

Yes, the actual job of a school librarian(which is some fairly low-level management) should only require an associates degree(and even that is on the high end of necessary qualifications), but it’s a school system.

I think schools should have libraries, but I admit I'm not sold on the importance of advanced degrees in library science.

Libraries are obsolete. Books aren't expensive enough to justify them anymore.

Naturally institutions try to justify themselves and find reasons for their own continued existence. The proper response is to dismiss such efforts.

I still enjoy them. When getting into a topic I'm completely ignorant of, I'll just walk down the relevant stacks, grab books that catch my eye and skim a few sections or pages. I often find tangentially related books that I never would have otherwise if I had just searched 'Chinese history,' say, on Amazon. This was particularly valuable when I was a child and ended up with a cornucopia of books on the wild west, the Yukon and California gold rushes, the world wars, etc., none of which I even knew existed at such a young age. I feel much more nostalgic about public libraries than school libraries so this article doesn't evoke much of a reaction, but the thought of losing the former feels like a gut punch.

I also still use them to study or work if I'm not at the lab/between jobs. IMO, nothing beats a quiet, secluded desk buried in the middle of the stacks for focus.

Books aren't prohibitively expensive sure, but space for a home office can be.

I find it much easier to study in a library given the lack of family/housemates making noise and interrupting me, and how few options you have to distract yourself (I could boot up steam in a library but it seems weird enough that I don't get the temptation).

What kind of specs do library computers even have? I doubt you'd get anything more graphically intensive than Minecraft and Terraria running on one.

Oh I bring my own laptop. It's really about having a separate space for focused work.

Depending on the quality of the library just wandering through the bookshelves can be fruitful too, found some good books during university that way.

This is one of the most foolish takes I've seen in the Motte. Libraries are not obsolete - in fact they are more important than ever in my view. The primary goal of a library was never to actually educate the masses, it was to give bright young kids from poor backgrounds and opportunity to learn.

The goal is to let intelligent autodidacts teach themselves and make something of themselves in a way they couldn't without a library. It's also one of the few true community spaces we have left in the Western world. For shame.

The goal is to let intelligent autodidacts teach themselves

Exactly. This policy is precisely the type of thing that people here complain about in every other context: A policy that focuses on troublemakers, to the detriment of a talented elite.

  1. They do if they are immigrants
  2. This is high school. Other than art and PE, the kids we are talking about are mostly in advanced classes in which the troublemakers are not enrolled.

People arguing against libraries in general may be doing that, but I don't see how this policy does.

It is replacing libraries, which OP notes harms the elite minority of intelligent didacts which uses libraries, with detention centers for troublemakers. Hence, it "focuses on troublemakers, to the detriment of a talented elite."

TheDag was responding to AshLael, who was saying that libraries as a whole are obsolete. They were not discussing the policy from the OP, which still keeps the books in schools, and lets the kids borrow them.

The fact that the books are still capable of being borrowed diminishes the harm, but does not completely eliminate it. People after all, regular browse books in libraries without checking them out. I can browse 10 books in an hour in a library. I am not going to take 10 books home on the bus inmy backpack. Not to mention that every book I take home is unavailable for every other kid. Not so a book that I browse and put back on the shelf. No matter how you slice it, the costs of this policy are almost entirely borne by those intellectually curious kids.

I am not going to take 10 books home on the bus inmy backpack.

I've done this plenty of times :)

Not no matter how you slice it - it depends how well the libraries were run, and how big the problems with discipline are.

I'm also not sure I buy the idea that people would complain about "in every other context", chances are you're just misunderstanding their position.

Not everyone can afford books. Poverty is widespread. And telling everyone to pirate all the books online is not something a government can do.

Libraries are a lot more than just a warehouse for books. They provide a lot of services, including research help, internet and computer access, rooms that can be booked (hah!) for various purposes, and often a variety of other programs (tax help, kids programming, etc.). Also, just because some books are cheap doesn't mean that borrowing books as no purpose. Some people are still poor, or just have limited space, so "books are cheap" isn't that strong of an argument.

I mean more relevantly books may not be terribly expensive, but they’re durable goods that most people only use briefly, once. Libraries make sense in that context- borrowing really is the more efficient arrangement even for the non-poor.

Books are free if you have internet and know where to look.

I doubt that the particularly rare or niche books that can't be readily found online would be stocked in a school library.

A computer and reliable internet access aren't free (nor a VPN), and many people rely on the library for the internet (ironically enough).

I don't think the internet replaces what libraries currently do, even around getting books. Being able to easily browse, to find books you never even thought of... a physical space like a library is way better than the internet.

My VPN that I use for piracy is entirely free, and I very much doubt that even the poorest of Americans don't have access to cellphones, since even Indian beggars usually have a phone of some kind. Despite what manufacturers would want you to believe, a phone is a computer too.

I'm not claiming that all libraries are useless, I'm just claiming that the ones in schools are no longer anywhere near as essential as they once were.

Books are free if you have internet and know where to look.

I would add the pretty major caveat that you have to be okay with stealing them. I mean don't get me wrong, I have pirated thousands of books in my life, but let's call a spade a spade.

I would have an issue with stealing a book, pirating said book I see almost no issue at all. To me piracy is behavior on level of using adblocker or not paying voluntary fee for using toilet. I see it as a much lesser crime than theft.

Eh. Copying data you aren't authorized to copy and non-consensually appropriating physical objects that someone else was using don't seem similar enough to me to merit clustering them closely.

I don't feel like they're both spades. I think-

  • Taking a thing in such a way that it damages their livelihood because they were dependent on it to survive.
  • Copying something that someone might have otherwise have had some % expectation of being able to derive rent from you and similar minded people from that they need a certain threshold of to survive.

Have a substantial cleaving of the ethical reality in between them. In fact... I might even put stealing physical objects from sufficiently wealthy people who will tank it in a third category.

This isn't to make strong claims about the ethics just yet- there's also the consequences of disrupting societal norms around certain property rights via direct action to consider.

So all that said- yeah.

Re: "I would add the pretty major caveat that you have to be okay with [pointer at ethics around non-con copying] them."

I agree. Some issue taken with the word "steal" here and the claim that you're "calling a spade a spade" because it's equivocation in culture war debates elsewhere say- around copy-write or AI art- feel like disingenuous weaponizations.

This isn't true globally. For example, in the UK the Public Lending Right Act 1979 grants authors a small payment each time their book is borrowed from a public library.

Checking Wikipedia for "Public Lending Right" indicates that similar schemes exist in other countries, e.g. Canada, Germany, Israel.

Libraries organize books in a physical space. I can find most books free online if I know exactly which book I'm looking for. I can't, practically speaking, wander through the philosophy section in the Dewey decimal system and notice something.

There's also a significant difference between reading a physical book and a digital one.

It is impossible to browse Amazon the way you browse bookstores or libraries. Amazon is 95% less fun.

Books aren't expensive enough to justify them anymore.

This claim is going to need an in-depth number of citations showcasing that all books that libraries host are still available and purchasable, and their prices, and comparisons with past prices, all adjusted for inflation, as well as the average income of the parents who send their kids to a particular school, also adjusted for inflation.

The justification for tearing down institutions needs to have some measure of scrutiny.

I agree and have personally started hoarding physical books again because I don't trust electronic media to persist. It's happened before. A lot of info was lost when physical periodicals were converted to microfilm and destroyed.

That said, entrusting school librarians to preserve information is like asking the Christians to preserve the pagan scrolls in Alexandria. They have no problem destroying priceless artifacts of human genius (Huck Finn, Dr. Seuss) if it fits their ever-shifting ideological goals.

What do you mean by hoarding books? Do you by as many as you can or do you select certain ones you believe will become hard or impossible to find in the future? Also why don't you trust electronic media? Wouldn't it be better to just buy hard drives and then download everything you can come by via torrents, libgen e.t.c. and figure out some sort of backup plan?

I just mean that I'm buying physical books instead of electronic now. I'm not planning on being an Irish monk keeping the flame through the Dark Ages.

I suppose that a well-maintained RAID system would work too. But physical media seems idiot proof.

What I don't trust in electronic media is this:

  • Corporations controlling art. For example, publishers changing the words to old Roald Dahl books and pushing this to people's devices.

  • Flawed digital conversion and storage processes. We know that books can last for hundreds of years with little human effort. In the 20th century, there was a large-scale effort to convert books and periodicals to microfilm with the original media destroyed. This destroyed a lot of knowledge. Even if microfilm readers weren't inferior to books (they are), the process destroyed information because it was done in a low-resolution way. Sometimes the conversion didn't work at all and the text was lost entirely. In other cases, information is made inaccessible because old devices no longer work. Is there going to be a machine capable of reading my 2020s era hard drive in 100 years? Original media should be preserved.

  • Corporations controlling personal information. We've all heard tales of corporations like Google destroying people's information or locking them out of their accounts. Why would we hold media with companies like this when we can just have physical?

Is there going to be a machine capable of reading my 2020s era hard drive in 100 years?

So far in the history of electronics/computing, I feel like there have been few actual dead ends on the question of transferrability, particularly when the stored data is already digital (and my sense is that probably a majority of analog data resulted in at least one device capable of conversion to digital, even if it wasn't widely used). So, I think I'd be less worried about whether we can get your digital file off of your 2020s hard drive and onto whatever storage medium people will be using in 2120.

File interpretability seems like potentially a more difficult challenge. Look at all the old, like, DOS software that is becoming harder and harder to use. Sure, DOS emulation exists now, built to run in Windows, but if we jump to a new class of OS, who is going to write the new DOS emulator? Or are we going to end up with chains of "new OS emulates Windows, where we have a DOS emulator"? This would seem incredibly brittle and unlikely to be well-maintained enough to not inevitably have some significant number of original files become unsupportable.

That said, when it comes to digital books in particular rather than executables and other files generally, I wonder if I can reel us back a bit. If I fire up Calibre and look to convert a book, I see 18 options. Not all of them are really relevant, but there are a bunch. So I think the numbers game works in a different direction than that of the DOS example. The trend for executables seems to be toward not many different OSs, so if at any point, one backwards chain doesn't get emulated, you lose everything prior that was dependent on that chain. For pure data storage formats, if I can freely and easily replicate the same data in 10 different formats, all I need is one to make it into the new OS, and I've still succeeded. Hopefully, the same numbers game will happen in the new OS, and that one surviving format will become convertible into whatever ten new formats come along with the new OS. That the other nine died is immaterial in this case.

So, perhaps the strategy is that we just need to have people like you continuing to fill their hard drives, but make sure you don't collapse everything down to a single format. Have a script in Calibre or something that automatically converts every book into every format and store all of them simultaneously. Storage is cheap, especially with file sizes for books being so small.

I suppose that a well-maintained RAID system would work too. But physical media seems idiot proof.

Why mention RAID? I’m honestly curious because this comes up a lot with data hoarding. RAID helps with maintaining uptime and availability for an applications during a disk failure, but it does not provide backups. With RAID your capacity investment is diminished by mirroring or parity storage cost, which could be better allocated to additional backup media. Do you agree?

I disagree. The reason RAID is not a backup is because it does not protect against accidentally deleting data, and compared to an external backup the chance of something breaking both drives is greater because they're next to each other. However, it is not better than external backups in terms of capacity; the data is just as big regardless of where you store the drives or how you access them. It's less space-efficient than having a single external copy, but that's not a backup, that's your primary copy being stored elsewhere.

And practically speaking, RAID is more reliable than external backups because it's being constantly checked through normal disk usage. If your external backup has had an error, you won't find out until you access it, which is really bad if the reason you're accessing it is because your primary copy doesn't work. In a company you can make it someone's job to verify the backups by periodically restoring them to a test system, but most individuals won't be doing that.

However, it is not better than external backups in terms of capacity; the data is just as big regardless of where you store the drives or how you access them. It's less space-efficient than having a single external copy, but that's not a backup, that's your primary copy being stored elsewhere.

I mean if I have 10 disks and split 5 into a data pool with no mirroring/parity and 5 into a backup set, then I have half the total capacity of all disks. However if I turn 5 into a raid, I’ll have some number of disks capacity -N depending on raid level. I could then turn the backup set into the same raid level (online backup) to match, but in this case raid gives me less than half the total capacity of all disks due to extra parity storage.

And practically speaking, RAID is more reliable than external backups because it's being constantly checked through normal disk usage. If your external backup has had an error, you won't find out until you access it, which is really bad if the reason you're accessing it is because your primary copy doesn't work.

True, however my approach would be to have both online and offline backups. Online ZFS backup should help here. To keep costs down, this is just 3 disks for every dataset zpool I’d set up. Then, an additional 3 disks when that runs out. Add another disk or tape in to this for offsite backup if you want.

Also offline guards against ransomware.

What do you think, what is your approach?

More comments

Do you agree?

Quite possibly. I haven't really given it much thought TBH. I just think digital archival methods don't have a great (or long) track record. Certainly, any one person's efforts wouldn't be likely to survive their death.

Can somebody please steelman the case for libraries at all? Certainly there was a time when writing things down on dead trees was important, and publishing a book was an important way of contributing to the collective knowledge, but that just isn't the case anymore.

The libraries should be removed from every school, certainly the people with "library science" degrees should be removed, and the space should be used for something more in line with the original intent. Every school should get a few H100s, make a more advanced computing lab, put a CNC mill in there, etc. Libraries should basically be very well funded makerspaces at this point, not shelves of useless books.

I guess I get a library as a sortof throwback to something that was needed a long time ago, but at this point books are like vinyl records. Cool, and I love them, and dream of having a massive library in my home some day, and I am a compulsive book buyer, but...not really necessary for a school. In addition to that, it seems like L I B R A R Y has become some sort of cultural importance for the left, where scary book burning or book bans has become somehow meaningful to them.

Get rid of the libraries. Replace them with materials science labs or something cool.

Steelman: Others have brought up the tactile pleasures of physical books. A library isn't just a storehouse for books; it's a hub for curated information. Yes, so much information is available online, but 90% of my searches are garbage and a good chunk of the rest is unsourced or does not attribute its sources, and often badly needed a proofreader. Not to mention all the wingnut conspiracy nonsense that a discerning searcher has to be able to distinguish from a valuable and competent piece of writing. Most of the high quality stuff is locked down under paywalls. You can argue over whether it should be the case, but for now the current state of affairs throws up a lot of obstacles to a seeker of knowledge. "Free and open" internet is the wilderness without a map or guide.

So libraries curate. They manage books that have been through an editing and review process - not that there's not low quality junk but your ratio of low to high quality tends to be better. Because the books are physical, they can't be tampered with after they've been printed like epublishers do - it's a fixed text. Regarding online writing, libraries get subscriptions to get you behind those paywalls and help provide access to high quality online sources. If you're lucky, your library will have a friendly specialist to help you do your research, point you to the right sources, and even give classes on internet literacy and basic computer skills. Many libraries host author talks, social events, STEM programming, ESL classes and support, and I've even seen workshops on things like doing your taxes and preparing a will, financial literacy kind of stuff. And this is all free.

Generally, librarians have an important job as curators of a repository of humanity's knowledge. Now because it's curated, that can have drawbacks because you have to ask who is doing the curating and with what ideological bias. That's a fair question to consider but I do have two rebuttals. Number one, there are practical considerations. Libraries have to make decisions all the time about which books to buy and which books to keep simply because there is a finite space in which to keep them. Sometimes these decisions may be ideologically driven but more often I think it's just a matter of logistics. I believe they also have certain understandings with publishers which influence what new books are even offered or made available to them. Number two, thank god for the internet because when there is a book the local library doesn't carry, for whatever reason, Amazon is only a click away. There are very few books that are truly banned as in, impossible to get anywhere. If they're out of print it might take some searching, but my point is that libraries aren't the only source for books, as you point out, so the amount of handwringing over them not carrying this or that book does seem a bit overblown.

None of this is specific to school libraries, by the way. I just think this is getting a bit long but obviously there are further considerations when presenting material to minors and who decides what's appropriate. That's a very thorny issue IMO but it doesn't seem to be a factor in this case.

even if they had no practical purpose whatsoever, a civilized society ought to have libraries. any decent people would understand this point intuitively.

Libraries are a more romantic and sensual place to interact with words than a computer screen is. I have had dreams about being in libraries full of arcane knowledge, I cannot remember ever having had a dream about surfing Wikipedia. You yourself say that you dream of having one.

I think that what we should really get rid of is mandatory education. It is a day care program dishonestly masquerading as an educational system and it packs kids into close contact with each other right at the age at which most of them behave more like chimpanzees than at any point before or after in their lives. To force this on people is fundamentally abusive. School also trains kids that what they should expect from life is to be closely observed and trained by bureaucrats. And in the age of the Internet, school is also near-irrelevant as a source of learning when it comes to anything above very basic math and reading skills.

Tear down the mandatory education system.

@VoxelVexillologist said below that classroom discipline is red-coded. I disagree. Some boring bureaucrat loser disciplining a bunch of kids into sitting still and listening to him drone on and on is at least as blue-coded as it is red-coded. Sure, maybe classroom discipline supported by a threat of violence is somewhat red-coded (and abusive), whereas classroom discipline maintained by nagging and shaming is more blue-coded (and also abusive, just not as much), but the actual goal of the education system is not red-coded. Really the education system is neither blue-coded nor red-coded. It is corporate-coded. It keeps kids out of their parents' way so that they can work and it prepares kids for a dull life working the cogs of the machine.

A kid's proper response to the education system is to tell the teacher to eat a dick. When I read about school shootings, my usual reaction is to wish that the kid had just focused on shooting teachers and staff instead of gunning down fellow kids.

A kid's proper response to the education system is to tell the teacher to eat a dick.

Do you really think the little darlings who use that language in schools (and they already do) are the kind who are going to educate themselves via the Internet? Maybe if it's about how to get drugs, guns and hos, but nothing that will be useful for paid employment or being a productive member of society.

I don't know where you work, maybe you can get a day's work done with people screaming at you to eat a dick every time you ask them have they that file, did they finish loading that pallet, etc.

I think that what we should really get rid of is mandatory education. It is a day care program dishonestly masquerading as an educational system and it packs kids into close contact with each other right at the age at which most of them behave more like chimpanzees than at any point before or after in their lives. To force this on people is fundamentally abusive. School also trains kids that what they should expect from life is to be closely observed and trained by bureaucrats. And in the age of the Internet, school is also near-irrelevant as a source of learning when it comes to anything above very basic math and reading skills.

Tear down the mandatory education system.

Beautifully said! The mandatory education system is, along with factory farming, one of the most horrible moral abuses of our day. It's incredible how ordinary people just paper over the horror that kids must deal with, and think throwing more money at the problem will solve it.

Tear. It. Down!

I've had dreams about trying to look up information on a smartphone. It's frustrating because I can't look up anything in a dream that I don't already know.

Steelman: books are in fact cool, and zoomers would benefit from touching something that doesn't have a screen in it.

Steelman: every librarian should be a wise old man who can tell you stories and has lists and lists of books for every possible personality type and interest. He should be on call throughout the day for anyone who wants to chat about a book or author. This would motivate children to read, and influence them toward good books!

I can't imagine how jealous I'd be as a postgrad at some university if high schools were getting more H100s than me... Just stick them in the cloud for the best high-schoolers in the country to use if they can!

Books are useful for children, for developing reading skills if nothing else. Where else are they going to develop vocabularies? Tiktok? Libraries should be modernized, maybe some Kindle e-readers would be more economical. Webnovels, manga, whatever... temples to the written word are still relevant today.

Books are useful for children, for developing reading skills if nothing else.

Okay this is fair. Maybe a library for children's books? (I'm thinking like...5 years old and younger?)

I can't imagine how jealous I'd be as a postgrad at some university if high schools were getting more H100s than me

This is kindof the world I want. Some cool resources are available to high schools to the point that it makes other's jealous. Noboyd on earth is jealous of a high school library. Change that and make the "library" something cool/something to be proud of!

Why just five years and younger? Reading skills develop long after that. I can't imagine anyone here would endorse any other policy which is even remotely adjacent to "schools should not teach anything beyond what can be mastered by a 5-yr-old." (Note that I am not saying you are advocating that. Only that what you are advocating is adjacent thereto).

I don't know about anyone else but while I learned to read in early grade school, I developed my reading skill and vocabulary between maybe 12-18 reading adult fiction, plenty of it borrowed from libraries.

I don't see the purpose of people with degrees in "librarian science" though.

Wow, the state appointed superintendent is doing a lot more than expected.

Looking up the high schools that are part of the New Education System, and the system is contained to those high schools and their feeders, they're likely to be the worst performing schools in HISD also I'd bet library utilization measures are lowest in the district. This probably ends up being a beneficial move if it allows triage removal of the most disruptive students from classrooms where their ability to slow the entire class' learning rate is dramatic.

Does that really necessitate getting rid of the library, though? It's not like there's anything special about the room that makes it the only place to put these kids; I would assume you could use any room. It also means that the kids who are using the library are deprived of a beneficial resource that isn't likely to be easily replaced since there access to books probably isn't great otherwise.

This is one of those "on the one hand, on the other hand" posts for me. This is years back now, but the school I attended got a 'school library' after I left (they did new building on) but they didn't have a dedicated librarian. Which meant it ended up being used as a study room/extra classroom, not a library, even though the books were still in place. A teacher was supposed to be in charge of the library but in practice nobody bothered or wanted to do it.

Then I worked in a school where they got a project for having a libary and librarian and boy did it make a difference, to the point that our principal begged for them to extend it after the project time was up. This was a school that wasn't, let's say, for the very academically inclined and it was officially a Disadvantaged Area school. Having a proper librarian made a huge difference, it was a way of getting boys to read, it was a way of helping literacy, there were all kinds of events and projects and involving parents as well, and it became the carrot to the educational stick - it made kids want to go into the library, and so they had to improve with behaviour, attendance, etc.

So having a proper library and more importantly someone who is trained for working in schools really makes a difference.

Now, what I imagine is going on here is (1) they need space for what in the school I mentioned above was called a "Behaviour Support Classroom" but sounds basically like what is described for the 'discipline centre'; you put the kids who are having a meltdown into a room on their own or with only a couple others, which is supervised by a teacher. They do schoolwork or even if they just sit there until it's time to go home, at least they are contained, safe (very important because schools get sued into oblivion if Little Johnny tells the teacher to fuck off, storms out, and wanders around town on his own while he's supposed to be in school) and calm down, and sometimes it even works to get them one-on-one time to help them do some actual work (2) if it's like my school, space is at a premium - even when the new building was completed, it was already obsolete and needed extra room (3) they don't have, or can't get, or can't afford to pay, a proper school librarian.

So to solve all their problems they're turning the library into the support classroom and a teacher will be nominally in charge of running the library, which won't happen, but it will be used as a holding place for the meltdown kids. I don't like this, because as I said, a proper library really does make a huge difference in this kind of school, but I'm not going to reflexively assume "it's the Republicans cutting public schooling to the bone and refusing resources" because for failing schools/schools in deprived areas, there just isn't the money or the teachers who would make a difference available.

They’re keeping the books, just firing the librarians. It seems notable that the previous administration removed by the state for either incompetence or being particularly loud democrats, depending on who you believe, had a goal of putting a library in every school.

In most schools the library is essentially just a quiet study space to do homework at lunch time or whatever. The job of “library professional” is bullshit. Very old rare books at archival libraries are handled by specialist curators anyway.

Library science is a fake degree taken pretty much exclusively by staunch ideological enemies of the right, dismantling librarian provision is both justified and useful.

So the school district in question was recently taken over by the state due to the consistently failing scores of some of its schools. This is somewhat politically controversial because it's a red state but a blue district, although most at least seem to agree that the schools themselves are underperforming. The new superintendent brought in to fix this is trying some pretty aggressive reforms -- honestly I would have expected business-as-usual with maybe a hint of red politics, followed by little actually changing.

My understanding of the details from peripherally following this are as follows:

  • New Education System schools are (mostly?) the failing ones: they seem to be leaving the well-ranked ones alone.
  • Several thousand (IIRC) non-teaching administrators at the district office have been laid off.
  • Teacher salaries at NES schools have been bumped measurably, but will also be tied to test scores.
  • There seems to be a focus on the core "Three Rs" (reading, 'riting, and 'rithmetic), and honestly swapping librarians for improved classroom sizes and reducing classroom disruption might be worth it. It sounds like they are keeping the actual books.

Overall, I'm surprised they are willing to try an experiment with such large changes. Some of the changes seem a bit partisan, but "reduce classroom sizes and pay teachers more" seems to generally have bipartisan expectations of improving scores. Classroom discipline is red-coded, as is cutting non-core services. I'm modestly hopeful it will show results, but the blue teacher constituency would love to see egg on the State' face. I'm never quite sure how much we can expect the education system to solve issues at home: maybe in aggregate, but not in every case, certainly.

It's a sensible cost-cutting move on the whole. School districts tend to accumulate a mass number of redundant organizational administrative staff if allowed to over the years.

The main problem is that in schools like this, the libraries tend to be a refuge for the well-performing, high-iq students, so placing the high-iq students in the same room as the students who regularly and routinely misbehave is a problem.

If a student is regularly disruptive, one must wonder if they will be able to function in society.

It should be noted that Texas plans to pass a school choice bill in October, and most of the high-IQ students who’d been hiding in the library will probably transfer to catholic schools next year anyways.

The head of the American Library Association is someone named Emily Drabinski, who described herself as a "Marxist lesbian". While I like my local library just fine, I must say that it is not enough to be merely not Marxist, I feel that it is a moral duty to be anti-Marxist. I would prefer that libraries just not be Marxism-aligned, but if I can't get them pushed in that direction, I'm fine with just replacing them in the places that need some discipline quite a bit more than they need books on LGBTQIA2S+ theory.

Hopefully enough people get mad it stops there.

Why would anyone get mad at that?

'Cause libraries are where people with high IQ teach themselves in between being with the herd in class.

They don't matter to room temperature IQ types, but they are extremally important to poor kids that win the intelligence lottery.

I was teaching myself at home.

I understand how having a library is better than not having a library, other things being equal, and how people could get mad at a library being taken away, but if the school has other issues (and it seems it does), and this is a way of solving them (and it seems it is), it's not obvious to me at all that this is something to get mad over.

How poor were you?

Eg, I didn't have any internet access in the house I lived in until most of the way through highschool, where was I supposed to teach myself?

My parents were getting by, but I'm from a poor country, so probably poorer than you. Also old enough that non-dial-up Internet was only just starting to take off around the time I was 16.

You borrow a book, you read it at home, what's the problem?

You need the library, then.

Borrowing a book isn't a substitute for all the services that having a library with librarians in situe provides, is my point.

The school still let's you borrow books, and I doubt disagree the second paragraph.

Would you mind at least translating the headline? So far I got

  • HISD = Houston Independent School District. I think that's saying it's the public school district covering Houston (and some of its suburbs?) and the "Independent" part is just part of how school districts are named/organized in Texas?
  • NES = New Education System... whatever that is?
  • SD = School District

You’re correct, HISD is Houston schools, and prior to the state taking it over was just a bigger version of every other school district in Texas(independent is just how they’re organized), the new superintendent is an Abbott appointee with dictatorial powers within his sphere. The new education system is just the changes he’s making to HISD.

New Education System is the Houston Superintendent's plan to fix the failing schools in Houston.

I think my contrarianism is going into overdrive.

2003: I hear this news story. "Oh no! Think of the kids!"

2013: "This is almost certainly sensational click bait."

2023: "This is a good thing"

Honestly, most schools need more discipline not less. And they don't need adults with certificates censoring and controlling the information they have access to either. Not that it matters. No one's using the library anyway.

So yeah, more discipline, fewer school librarians. I'm down for that. I'd like to thank ABC13.com for this totally worthwhile piece of journalism.

My town's local library had a Celebrate Banned Books! month sign up and I immediately thought "yeah right" and tried looking up some right wing thought crime books in the catalog and found they didn't stock any.

I don't actually want to read any myself, but how cynical do you have to be to put signs like that up when you know full well you specifically filter out books on ideological basis.

Sounds about right.

The American Library Association's "Banned Books List" is based on books that patrons have requested being removed from libraries. It therefore only includes books that are stocked by libraries, and are therefore NOT banned.

Books which are actually banned can never appear on the list by definition.

You know, if school libraries were where an 11yo would go in and pick up Plato or Nietzsche, because they were interested and it was random I would be very happy. I don't think that's how it is these days.

The important thing you need a librarian for is choosing the books to go in the library, not working with the kids. Unfortunately, library science programs are just leftist indoctrination nowadays, so having a librarian is actively harmful if you don't want to further leftist indoctrination.

The important thing you need a librarian for is choosing the books to go in the library, not working with the kids.

I have to disagree there, because the results of our school being part of a specific project to get a library with a dedicated librarian, for disadvantaged schools, really did make a huge difference. Yes, choosing the books is important, but it was about working with the kids as well: finding magazines and books that boys (in particular) would read, the kind of boys who hate reading, struggle with school textbooks, have little to no support for education at home, and are in danger of falling behind in literacy. The kids who would leave school not knowing how to read beyond a very basic level, if at all.

Working with teachers and parents. Planning and holding events (e.g. getting a writer of YA fiction to come give a talk, the Darren Shan books if anyone knows them). Making the library a place the kids wanted to use. A ton of other things beside which honestly did make a huge difference.

If it's the kind of "let's pack the shelves with books about how it's okay to be a sex worker to pay for your trans hormones" librarian activism, I totally agree. But if you get a properly trained school librarian who knows about working with kids in disadvantaged schools, it really is a benefit and a resource for the school.

Do you really need a degree in 'library science' to achieve this?

It seems like the activities you're describing have little to do with the library themselves and could be performed by anyone with pedagogical experience (or any other 'social' type work with kids) and not necessarily a 'proper' librarian with a degree in 'library science' (this is your tiny school library, not the Library of Congress). Of course, modern pedagogy has also been overrun with woke ideology but that's a discussion for another time.

properly trained school librarian who knows about working with kids in disadvantaged schools

Are there very many of those, and do school districts have a way to hire them?

School district hiring policies are set by the sorts of people who go into education policy admin, who are incapable on a fundamental level of understanding the concept of non-classroom qualifications, let alone how they work on a basic level. And it would shock me if ‘ability to work with disadvantaged boys’ could be taught in schools- certainly a library science degree is not going to teach it, and educational pedagogy studies or whatever is fan fiction of reality on a good day. The population that is able to motivate disadvantaged boys has better things to do with its time than work in school libraries, mostly does not have degrees, and there’s probably no way to consistently identify these people anyways.

You lucked out and got one. Good. But why should we expect we can replicate it? Short of sending army sergeants or juvenile prison wardens to take over school libraries, I don’t think we can.

Does this have to be done at each library? Can't there be a standardized compiled list of books for a school. It hardly seems reasonable that each school needs a book procurer.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats