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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
You were teaching the age of the Earth a second ago, so where's the problem? Anyway, I haven't noticed Math / Science teachers having that great understanding of Math / Science so that changes little.
The difference is that I'm only exposed to the particular topics the smartass bothers to raise his hand about, and "shut up and eat your french fries" remains a valid response, while you've committed to going down every conceivable rabbit hole, even when no one is interested in it.
Given that me, and FC have provided many arguments for how it would be the case, it would be a lot more productive if you explained which part you don't understand. Yes, it would be far superior for a local majority to be able to silence all opposing views. Generally, a direct, localized, transparent, democratic censorship process, in the hands of the parents is better than an indirect, opaque, non-democratic censorship process, that pretends to not even be a censorship process.
I'm happy to rephrase it as many times as it takes, but it would probably be a good idea if you didn't ignore the part of the comment that directly addresses your questions. Again, according to FC there are 2 ways to understand neutrality:
The "objective" / "teach the controversy" one. This one is not possible.
The "subtractive" one, where you get rid of the things people disagree about, until only the ones everyone agrees on remain. There are some caveats to this that FC mentioned, but broadly speaking this one is possible.
It doesn't matter, and the Supreme Court is wrong. First, as already pointed out, there will always be curation, and it is better that the school library reflects community values than the librarian's values. Second, I don't even believe the person who wrote that. I'm sure they could come up with a post-hoc justification for not doing it, but they've made a fully-general case for stacking the school's book shelves full of porn.
It's perfectly possible to only teach theories everyone agrees are plausible, and if people can't agree on that, not teaching social science is a perfectly valid alternative. This is proven by the fact that even though the questions you mentioned are indeed interesting, many schools never come close to touching them.
Dude, I was referring to a generic teacher, not me in general.
No, it is not a valid response to a serious question. As for non-serious questions, you obviously never taught. Everyone -- most importantly the other students -- know when a question is serious. And if it indeed serious but no one else is interested, then the obvious response is to tell the student that you will provide him with relevant resources outside class, and to then follow through. Just as one does when an advanced student asks a question that is beyond the ken or outside the interests of average students. There are certainly some difficult challenges when teaching, but dealing with this particular eventuality is not one of them.
I have addressed that. As I have noted, that doesn't work in economics nor in any of the social sciences. Many major topics do not have one correct answer.
That is irrelevant, since the question is not whose single viewpoint should be reflected, but whether the library should purge all but a single viewpoint.
And yet, despite that effectively being the law of the land for decades, school libraries are not full of porn. That is because:the issue is censorship of viewpoints, and porn is not a viewpoint. That is why one can make the sale of Hustler to minors illegal, but not the sale of Mein Kampf. Schools remove material with sexual content from libraries all the time. Prominent examples include The Bluest Eye, The Kite Runner, and Beloved.
"That's a great question! Sadly, we don't have time to cover it, come talk to me after class", or "I've got a great homework assignment for you!" would work perfectly fine.
But again, the important part is that with my approach I'd only have to deal with what comes up, by your description of your approach you'd have to teach every possible theory out there.
Whether or not you addressed it is irrelevant here. A moment ago you were acting like there was a contradiction in what he was saying, and then acting like your question wasn't answered.
It absolutely is relevant, and as far as I can tell, the only way to claim otherwise is to move the goal posts from "should the parents be allowed to purge all but a single viewpoint, if this is what they want to do" to "should libraries purge all but a single viewpoint". I have not claimed the latter, FC did not claim the latter, and the Supreme Court quote is not about the latter.
All that means is that the quote you gave is not the actual justification for the law as it is being enforced, so it was irrelevant to bring it up in the first place.
That brings up an interesting question: how many school libraries stock up on Mein Kampf?
Hardly. The amount of things not taught in school vastly exceeds that of things taught.
I'm not about to dox the schools I went to, the way the industrialization of England is covered is that it happened, and the question of why is left for the curious, and you quickly move on to how it spread to the rest of Europe. And unless you live in a conquered nation like Germany, American history is hardly given any thought.
No, as I said, the responsibility is merely to address the standard arguments on the issue. Again, perfection is impossible. But if the practical alternatives are 1) address the standard arguments on the issue; and 2) ignore all arguments and evidence other than that favored by the school, then option #1 is best.
But that is precisely the issue that we are talking about, because that was my precise proposal: "How about a law to preserve the substance of the Pico plurality decision, which is probably no longer good law, to prevent red schools from removing ideas they don't like, and blue states from doing the same?" Those were the original goalposts. It is not relevant who the specific school-level decisionmaker is.
I have no idea what you mean. The quote distinguished between curriculum and libraries. They are different in various ways, and porn has nothing to do with the matter.
Again, the point is that there are certain things that have to be taught, and in economics and the social sciences, there is no "correct" answer to any of them.
Re industrialization, I think you are probably misremembering. It is a standard part of world history standards and textbooks. Re the American Revolution, we are talking about American law and American schools. I am sure there are similar topics covered in German schools (why did Weimar fail?).
This has "haggling over the price" written all over it. First, your central examples involved geocentrism, young earth creationism, and flat earth, if these theories meet your standard, then there's a tonne of others you'll have to let in as well, to the point it's not clear to me how any one argument or idea is kept out.
This is your core value, or an axiomatic belief, or are there supporting arguments for it? Because I straight up disagree. There's not reason why 1) is necessarily better than 2). Faux-neutrality can be far worse that straight up removal of disfavored perspectives.
Repealing Pico would not force schools to remove any ideas, so you have moved the goal posts.
Yes it is. Pico removes the ability of parents to curate books in the school libraries, while still allowing librarians to do it.
Sure it does. The quote is making the point that the school library is voluntary, so parents should not be allowed to curate it according to their values. The same logic would apply to porn, except like I predicted there's some post-hoc justification for one is ok to curate and the other not.
By the way, why skip my question about Mein Kampf? Do schools stock up on it or not? If not why has Pico failed to result in punishment schools for censoring it?
I'm not the one arguing for the "objective" approach, I'm asking for coherence with the communities' values, so that's not an issue for me at all.
Sure, different parts of the world focus on different things, but that's sort of what I was driving at. You can still get a good education without learning every possible theory on everything (or even the main ones).
Those are not my central examples. I mentioned them only in response to a query from someone else.
Yes,obviously. But it would permit it, so it would presumably happen more often. Repealing the Second Amendment would not force anyone to confiscate guns, either.
This is factually incorrect. Pico applies to all removals based on viewpoint, by everyone.
A removal based on content is not the same as a removal based on viewpoint, and Pico explicitly stated that it does not apply to removals based on "pervasive vulgarity,"
I apologize; I did not see it. No, Mein Kampf should not be removed from school libraries.
The point is that "just teach things that everyone agrees on" does not work.
We are talking about topics, not theories.
You bring them up every time anything adjacent to the topic comes up. They are your central examples.
Sure, we can go with this comparison. Theoretically the Second Amendment prevents localities from banning and confiscating guns. If we were debating whether or not we should amend the Constitution so that regulating guns is completely taken out of the federal and states' government jurisdiction, but explicitly allowed for localities I would be in favor of it. It would also be extremely dishonest to frame that debate as "should local governments confiscate guns".
This example also shows why it is incorrect to say that Pico equally protects all sides. The Second Amendment also applies to everyone, but one side of the political spectrum not only doesn't want it's protection, they find it detrimental. It would be ridiculous to claim it is not hostile to that side.
No it does not. Librarians and other school bureaucrats will be free to censor, because they cannot plausibly stock up on every book in existence, and you will never be able to prove the books they're not stocking up on are excluded based on viewpoint. Case in point:
As you well know this was not my question. My question was "How many school libraries stock up on Mein Kampf? (...) Do they stock up on it or not? If not why has Pico failed to result in punishment schools for censoring it?"
Great, another avenue for abuse. So when a school bans Huckleberry Finn because of the liberal use of the hard-r, is that viewpoint- or "pervasive vulgarity"-censorship?
It does. No one said parents have to come to a consensus on one specific theory, they can just as well come to an agreement on which competing theories should be taught in school, while vetoing the ones they consider fringe.
We're talking about any content available in, and provided by the school, be it specific theories, whole topics, or books in the library.
No, I don’t. You are mistaken.
Once again, there are no perfect rules. But now you seem to be saying that you oppose permitting schools to remove sexually explicit books because that is an avenue for abuse?
That was not the proposal that was suggested. The proposal was to teach only topics on which there are no competing theories.
Again, I was referring to the proposal that only noncontroversial topics be taught.
Alright... so do geocentrism, creationism, and flat Earth make the cut to be taught in schools or not?
If not, who makes the decision, and why is it better that they make it rather than the parents?
If yes, consider whatever point you're trying to make by insisting they're a central example conceded, and just answer the point how including them would imply having to include many very fringe theories.
Yes, and the latter is an argument for why your proposal about the former is bad. All this time I've been arguing that prohibiting the removal of books will do nothing to protect from the censorship of ideas the librarians do not like. They will simply not acquire the books containing those ideas they do not like.
Censoring specific ideas by means of removal of specific books from school libraries...
Not generally, only as it relates to your proposal. What I am saying is the same thing I've been saying from the start: Pico, and your proposal to codify it, does absolutely nothing to protect the censorship of ideas, because librarians will still have many tools at their disposal to censor. It is far better that censorship is explicit and decided on by parents, rather than implicit, decided on by librarians, and hidden behind "pervasive vulgarity" and other loopholes.
Also, I think you may have taken South Park's joke about Huckleberry Finn being the most homoerotic novel of all time a bit too seriously.
Here's how our dialogue went:
There's nothing about "competing theories" there, the proposal was about "things whose inclusion is contentious". Notice how we're specifically talking about the contentiousness of the inclusion rather than the theory itself. This means that according to the proposal parents could decide to teach multiple competing theories while vetoing the ones they consider fringe, exactly like I stated.
Just as a side note, as frustrating as I found your earlier portrayal of my point on "pervasive vulgarity", I think I'd rather you ask questions to make sure you got my position right before moving on, rather than confidently stating something is impossible, only for it to turn out, 9 comment levels down the line, that you completely misunderstood the proposal.
BTW: Can you answer my questions on Mein Kampf? You seem to have skipped over them again.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Who picks the "standard arguments"? If that's a determination that can be made by a single teacher on the fly, why not just have the school actually standardize those arguments when they're designing the curriculum?
You phrase this as though the teacher is inherently doing a good job, and the school inherently doing a bad job, but why should we suppose that to be the case? It seems to me that a more straightforward phrasing would be: 1) ignore all arguments the teacher doesn't consider relevant, or 2), ignore all arguments the school doesn't consider relevant. Is that formulation less accurate in some way? If not, then why is the teacher's judgement assumed to be better than the school's?
I don't think this would be a good idea. You apparently do think it would be a good idea. I tried to explain my objection, but apparently I was moving the goalposts. I apologize for that.
Why do you think preserving the substance of the Pico plurality decisions would be a good idea? What ends would doing so serve?
You state that it would prevent both Red and Blue states from removing books from their libraries, apparently as a positive outcome. Why do you think other people think that's a good thing, such that you'd mention it as an apparent selling point? Why is removing books from a library that the library's patrons don't want there a bad thing? If a book is unpopular and no one ever checks it out, is it reasonable to remove the book and replace it with something people do want, maybe even more copies of a book that's got a long waiting list?
Do you think there are books that should not be stocked in a public library? In a public school library? I raised issues of space before, but apparently that was goal-post moving, so leave that aside and look at pure content. Is it your contention that no content should ever be removed from a library over public objections to the content? If so, what is it about libraries that make them special in this way? If not, where would you estimate the limits to be?
Your framing seemed to present this as a balanced outcome; the rules are the same for both reds and blues. Is it your view that such balance is important? If so, are there books in blue libraries that the blues want removed as much as the books in red libraries that the Reds want removed? If so, can you give some examples? If not, would it be fair to say that while both are prohibited from doing something, in practice only one side derives benefit from being able to do so, and so only one loses that benefit through the restrictions?
Does it not matter to you at all how the books are selected in the first place? What is the purpose of such selection, in your view?
At this point, I would be satisfied to simply understand your thinking.
I don’t understand where this is coming from. I haven't said anything about who creates the curriculum, nor do I particularly care. As I said in the post you are responding to, "It is not relevant who the specific school-level decisionmaker is."
There is nothing wrong with removing books because no one wants to read them. That is not the issue at all. The issue is whether schools should remove books because they disagree with the ideas expressed therein and wish to suppress those ideas.
No, it is my contention that no material should ever be removed from a library over majority objections to the viewpoint expressed therein. Content is not the same as viewpoint. Removing Playboy because it has pictures of naked women is removal based on content. Removing Playboy because it advocates for the legalization of drugs is removal based on viewpoint.
No, I am not concerned with balance at all. My concern is to prevent the majority from silencing minority views, whatever the local majority happens to be.
But, if you want examples, as I noted at the beginning, see cancel culture. As for specific examples of viewpoint-based removals, those are very difficult to find on either side, because 1) viewpoint-based removal is arguably* currently illegal under the Pico plurality opinion; 2) most school districts and libraries have policies which explicitly forbid removal based on disagreement with the views expressed therein. See, eg, this standard Texas policy
*It is complicated, since it was a plurality opinion, but most lower courts have adopted the reasoning thereof.
Where it's coming from is that I don't understand the difference between your 1 and 2 options here:
...There is no difference between these two actions that I can see. Whoever determines "the standard arguments" is in fact picking which arguments and evidence they favor, and ignoring all others. Either the teacher makes the call, or the school makes the call, but either way someone is unambiguously curating which information will or will not be presented to the students, are they not?
Only, you seem to think there is a difference between the school telling the teacher "the students will be presented with A, B, C, and not X, Y, Z," and the teacher saying "the students will be presented with A, B, C, and not X, Y, Z,". Or perhaps that's not the way it should be formulated, but I'm at a loss for what a more correct formulation would be.
Is the idea that there is some objective measure of good-faith presentation, such that "just do your best to be fair" is supposed to be a workable rule, and each community is supposed to arrive at a consensus on whether that standard is being met or not?
Okay, I get that. And your view is that how the books got into the library is an entirely separate issue that has nothing to do with the question of suppressing ideas people disagree with, and that bringing it up is changing the subject, correct?
If I've understood the argument properly, you would hold that banned books week is a good idea, because it pushes back on people who are trying to censor ideas they disagree with, correct?
So, there's this, arguing that removing racist books from libraries is just following the standard procedure, because
My understanding is that if we suppose that the above were widespread or even standard behavior among librarians generally, you would still consider it beyond the scope of the conversation you're having. Likewise, similar logic being applied to the question of whether to add a new book would likewise be a non-sequitur, correct?
In short, you hold that the question of whether a library declines to stock books or removes those already stocked because they disapprove of the book's viewpoint has nothing to do with the public's ability to prohibit or remove books because they don't like a book's viewpoint, correct?
If I've got the above correct (not something I'm assuming!), then my guess would be that you likewise hold that the ALA's stocking/weeding guidelines are robust rules that we can generally trust to be fairly implemented and followed, correct?
I agree in the abstract, but what evidence leads you to believe that this is a distinction you can defend in an adversarial environment? The article I linked above is brazenly arguing that a viewpoint is actually a sort of content, which should be removed because it fits the objective criteria of "Misleading/factually incorrect material/poor content". I think you'd agree that their argument is pretextual, but if they insist it's actually objective, what's your plan?
And if their view succeeds generally, and in fact content is commonly censored based on viewpoint in their prefered way, why insist on a principle you can't defend in the general case? Do you believe that if left-wing censorship is endemic and essentially unchallenged, nevertheless preventing right-wing censorship is still virtuous, because all censorship is bad, and allowing less is always better than allowing more?
I guess I'd repeat the above question: if you can't stop one side's cancel culture, do you think it virtuous to stop the other side's cancel culture?
I've seen it. Do you think this policy provides robust protections against viewpoint censorship on the part the libraries?
You don't understand the difference between giving only the argument on one side of an issue, rather than arguments on multiple sides? For example, the difference between 1) teaching only that Keynesian economics says that to fight an recession the govt must do x; and 2) saying, "to fight a recession, Keynesians say to do X, but monetariists disagree and say to do Y."
No, I think there is a difference between the school telling the teacher "the students will be presented with A, and only A" and "the the students will be presented with A and at least one not-A"
No, that is going too far. But my original suggestion re codifying Pico was only about book removals, because that is all that Pico relates to, and because removing a book with viewpoint X is a clear attempt to silence viewpoint X. Would I favor a similar policy re book acquisition as well as book removals? Yes, but that would obviously be logistically more difficult, and if you are not going to agree with the former you are certainly not going to agree with the latter, so in that sense it is pointless to discuss it at this point.
Book Riot is not exactly a good faith actor, IMHO (or, to be more fair, they are not interested in freedom expression in principle). And, yes, some people will always argue that ignorance is truth, that freedom is slavery, and that viewpoint is content. Such is the human condition. Perfection is not possible. But, as I have noted several times, the actual choices are 1) a rule that explicitly permits silencing of unpopular views; and 2) a rule that does not. If one is concerned with preventing the silencing of unpopular view, then one must choose #2, even if it might not be perfectly effective. As my father would say, if you promulgate a rule that forbids viewpoint discrimination, you might not prevent viewpoint discrimination. But if you don't promulgate that rule, you definitely won't prevent viewpoint discrimination.
Edit: Moreover, a policy that advocates removing racist books is not a policy about content. It is a policy about viewpoint. See Matal v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744 (2017) [Lanham Act provision prohibiting the registration of trademarks that may "disparage ... or bring ... into contemp[t] or disrepute" any "persons, living or dead" is viewpoint discrimination, and Trademark Office's refusal to register the name of the band "The Slants" is unconstitutional]
Once again, it provides more robust protection than the alternative would.
No, I don't. I do not believe that "arguments on multiple sides" is codifiable or enforceable at all in any practical sense. I see no value in attempting to doing so. Making this the rule gives bad actors plausible deniability by making the rules more ambiguous, for no actual benefit.
If I'm acting in good faith, this rule is unnecessary. If I'm acting in bad faith, this rule will not help. If this rule doesn't help in the only case where it's even theoretically useful, it is of no value, and should not be preserved.
It seems to me that this might be our fundamental disagreement. You seem to believe that rules determine or at least strongly affect outcomes, simply by existing; that if you say "present two sides of issue A", the outcome will be a greater likelihood of students leaving with the impression that issue A has two sides to it. Put another way, you don't seem to think that rules fragility is a relevant issue to this topic.
Would it be accurate to say that you think such rules are a good idea because you expect people to follow them? Expecting people to not follow them is definately why I think they're a bad idea.
Yeah, I don't like them either. Do you think you can stop them, or even slow them down?
Suppose you achieved complete certainty that Book Riot's style of censorship was completely normalized nationwide. In this hypothetical, you are certain that they are going to remove any book they disagree with from all the school libraries in the country, and will refuse to stock any books they disagree with in those same libraries. Also, they stock the libraries with books that the local parents find highly objectionable. The parents want to remove the books they object to.
Further, suppose you can think of no way to stop Book Riot's censorship campaign, but you can think of a way to prevent the parents from removing the books they object to. Do you think it is right to stop the parents' censorship, despite not being able to stop Book Riot's censorship?
Another way to phrase this might be, is censorship mathematical, or is it relational? Is censorship bad in and of itself, or is it bad because of how it shapes our relationships with each other? Is censorship bad because more speech is always better than less speech, or because it allows one group to exercise power over another? If the later is truly the concern, as some of your arguments might imply, why should balanced censorship not be preferable to imbalanced censorship?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link