site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   29464 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 7, 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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This is clearly not what happened. The FDE statement doesn't say the gender identity and sexual orientation stuff must be omitted; the relevant law is quite clear that such instruction may be offered in grades 9-12.

Although I suspect that you are probably correct that the College Board is being disengenuous when it says that the course cannot be offered without the gender/sexuality stuff (it is a small part of the course; in my experience, albeit re AP World rather than AP Psych, teachers are not expected to have time to cover literally anything; hence, I suspect but do not know that the AP Course Audit has in the past approved individual teachers' syllabi that do not include coverage of gender/sexuality), the FDE's May 19 letter to the College Board says the following:

On April 19, 2U23, the State Board of Education amended Rule 6A-10.081, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida, to prohibit Florida educators from intentionally providing classroom instruction to students in grades 4 through 12 on sexual orientation or gender identity unless such instruction is either expressly required by state academic standards as adopted in Rule 6A-1.09401, F.A.C., or is part of a reproductive health course or health lesson for which a student's parent has the option to have his or her student not attend.

Since AP Psychology is neither required by state academic standards nor a reproductive health course, that certainly sounds like they were saying at that time that including those subjects in an AP Psych class is unlawful, or at least that an AP Psych teacher who taught that material would be subject to discipline.

Rule 6A-10.081 seems to be going beyond the law. The restriction to required or reproductive health courses in the law is not about classroom instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity but on instructional materials which "depict or describe sexual conduct". Could be administrative error in creating the rule, could be malicious compliance.

I think perhaps you are looking at a different law (HB 1069).

HB 1557 indeed applies to instruction:

Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.

I agree that the State Board of Education has indeed interpreted the latter part broadly (though perhaps not incorrectly).

HB 1069 (2023) in part amends HB 1557 (2022). It does have the "age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate" language, but neither bill applies "unless such instruction is either expressly required by state academic standards as adopted in Rule 6A-1.09401, F.A.C., or is part of a reproductive health course or health lesson for which a student's parent has the option to have his or her student not attend" to instruction on sexual orientation; that is only applied to depictions and descriptions of sexual acts.

There is separate language in 1069 re instruction on sexual orientation:

Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in prekindergarten kindergarten through grade 8, except when required by ss. 1003.42(2)(n)3. and 1003.46. If such instruction is provided in grades 9 through 12, the instruction must be 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards. This subparagraph applies to charter schools.

See page 7 of enrolled version of bill.

That's the same language, amended. You may note that if you remove the italicized sections and restore the struck-out sections, you have the HB 1557 version. HB 1069 basically just extended the prohibition from K through 3 to pre-K through 8. For high school (grades 9-12), the requirement is the same: "age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards"

In neither bill does the "unless such instruction is either expressly required..." appear in that section; that's from a totally different part of the law.

This is a good point, and I am inclined to agree with you. On the other hand, I would point to the boring-seeming reference to "state academic standards as adopted in Rule 6A-1.09401", which when you look it up just establishes standards under various names like "Sunshine Math" for each subject. AP Psychology is definitely not part of those standards.

Still, if I were a lawyer representing a teacher accused of professional misconduct for teaching about sexuality and gender identity, I would argue that the clear intention of that reference was to authorize teaching about sexuality and gender identity, if such teaching was integral to a course recognized as important by the Florida Board of Education. In other words, teachers shouldn't just "go rogue" and teach whatever they want to students about sexuality and gender that has nothing to do with meeting state standards, but if the sexuality and gender identity content forms an established part of the course they are teaching, then they will be okay.

Like I said, I'm inclined to agree with your interpretation, but I do think if you read past the letters and numbers of Rule 6A-1.09401 there is an argument there that the law does not impact teachers' ability to teach about sexuality and gender identity to the extent that such teaching is necessary for the AP Psychology curriculum.

Yeah, I would make the same argument, were I the lawyer for a teacher. But I wouldn't expect to win!

Since AP Psychology is neither required by state academic standards nor a reproductive health course, that certainly sounds like they were saying at that time that including those subjects in an AP Psych class is unlawful

But the amount of material incorporated by reference there is... daunting, I guess I want to say. Rule 6A-1.09401 leads with--

These standards, benchmarks, and access points are contained in the following publications which are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this rule.

--and then bullet-points and hyperlinks fifteen more documents. In SC.912.CS-PC.2.3 (part of the science standards) we read, for instance, that the Grade 9-12 benchmarks include

Discuss and analyze the impact of values and points of view that are presented in media messages (e.g., racial, gender, and political)

In SS.912.HE.2.5 (part of the social studies standards) we read that the Grade 9-12 benchmarks include

Students will explain the effects of Nazi “racial hygiene” policies on various groups including, but not limited to, ethnic (e.g., Roma-Sinti, Slavs) and religious groups (e.g., Jehovah’s Witnesses), political opposition, the physically and mentally disabled and homosexuals.

So some understanding of both gender and sexual orientation is essential to meeting Grade 9-12 benchmarks, which were incorporated into the rules here. Either the College Board has shitty lawyers (a real possibility, I admit!) or they just didn't want to make the argument. And as @netstack suggests, maybe the College Board was just tired of making arguments after the African-American Studies thing, maybe they think it's futile and the DeSantis bureaucracy is just out to get them regardless of what they say. Maybe they're right about that! But that doesn't get the College Board off the hook, I think, for the blatant mischaracterizations they decided to trot out instead.

Either the College Board has shitty lawyers (a real possibility, I admit!) or they just didn't want to make the argument.

I don’t think that would have been much of an argument. The AP Psych course requires teaching, as part of unit on developmentalpsychology, "how sex and gender influence socialization and other aspects of development." That is nowhere close to what your examples from state standards relate to, and an argument that a standard that requires teaching how the Nazis treated homosexuals somehow brings within its ambit "how sex and gender influence socialization and other aspects of development" would seem to be frivolous.

Edit:

Maybe they're right about that!

I doubt that they have it out for the College Board. But I do note that DeSantis is running for President on an anti-"woke" platform.

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