Censorship and the ideological divide

[prisonchaplain]

Places like TX and VA are starting to say a wave of censorship--a purging of books supporting LGBTQI morality. Of course, so many of these books are authored by BIPOC (Black Indigenous People of Color) authors, so we know what's really going on here. 😉

And...when I heard this kind of reporting in the late 1980s I, like so many conservatives, was sympathetic. We're small-government folks, with a dash of libertarianism. After all, we believe in the depravity of humanity, and so do not want too much power concentrated in too few hands. Further, it takes little morality or virtue to obey the rules, if severe punishment is the alternative.

My perspective is now officially jaded. Liberals love censorship--when they are in power. Cancel Culture. Political Correctness. The real tell was when conservatives said, "What happened to tolerance?" and liberals responded, "Why should we tolerate hate?"

I still believe we should be cautious with censorship and purges. However, those on the left have no standing to complain. They love big government and are more than happy to declare our beliefs outside the realm of civilized thought. 

[Grunt]

18 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Places like TX and VA are starting to say a wave of censorship--a purging of books supporting LGBTQI morality. Of course, so many of these books are authored by BIPOC (Black Indigenous People of Color) authors, so we know what's really going on here. 😉

And...when I heard this kind of reporting in the late 1980s I, like so many conservatives, was sympathetic. We're small-government folks, with a dash of libertarianism. After all, we believe in the depravity of humanity, and so do not want too much power concentrated in too few hands. Further, it takes little morality or virtue to obey the rules, if severe punishment is the alternative.

My perspective is now officially jaded. Liberals love censorship--when they are in power. Cancel Culture. Political Correctness. The real tell was when conservatives said, "What happened to tolerance?" and liberals responded, "Why should we tolerate hate?"

I still believe we should be cautious with censorship and purges. However, those on the left have no standing to complain. They love big government and are more than happy to declare our beliefs outside the realm of civilized thought. 

I agree with you and have wrestled with this myself.   It's hard to know where to draw the line, and I think we've made it easier for one side to control the narrative.    For me, I have no issue with determining what is taught, or available, in local schools.   We pay the bills, and the children are captive audiences.  

[LDSGator]

1 hour ago, prisonchaplain said:

Places like TX and VA are starting to say a wave of censorship--a purging of books supporting LGBTQI morality. Of course, so many of these books are authored by BIPOC (Black Indigenous People of Color) authors, so we know what's really going on here. 😉

And...when I heard this kind of reporting in the late 1980s I, like so many conservatives, was sympathetic. We're small-government folks, with a dash of libertarianism. After all, we believe in the depravity of humanity, and so do not want too much power concentrated in too few hands. Further, it takes little morality or virtue to obey the rules, if severe punishment is the alternative.

My perspective is now officially jaded. Liberals love censorship--when they are in power. Cancel Culture. Political Correctness. The real tell was when conservatives said, "What happened to tolerance?" and liberals responded, "Why should we tolerate hate?"

I still believe we should be cautious with censorship and purges. However, those on the left have no standing to complain. They love big government and are more than happy to declare our beliefs outside the realm of civilized thought. 

You touched on this in your OP, but I feel human nature is to approve of censorship when we dislike what is being censored, than play the victim when our interests get censored. We cringe when Evangelicals want to ban the BOM, but then we celebrate when the anti-LDS book “x” is banned. So like many other issues, our feelings depend on what is convenient or our personal views. 
 

Banning things causes more problems than it cures. Look at the “Barbra Streisand effect”.  In junior high our teachers banned magazines like “Seventeen” for the girls. Guess what they started to read at sleepovers? Right. Our parents banned games like “Doom” with the same success. When you ban something you make it immediately enticing. There’s a reason why forbidden fruit tastes better than supermarket oranges. 
 

It backfired big time recently. Google “Maus ban”, then look what skyrocketed to number one in sales on Amazon. If the book banners were a little wiser, they’d simply ignore it rather than bring more attention to it. 

Edited February 3, 2022 by LDSGator

[prisonchaplain]

2 hours ago, LDSGator said:

 If the book banners were a little wiser, they’d simply ignore it rather than bring more attention to it. 

By way of disclosure, we were listening to an MSNBC broadcast about "book banning" in TX. The news anchor also mentioned VA, where Gov. Younkin won election by affirming parental voice in education. Suffice to say, I agree that outright banning books is foolish and counter-productive. On the other hand, pulling books that are age-inappropriate from publically funded school libraries--especially at the elementary level, seems appropriate. 

Further, while I agree that all sides tolerate censorship that goes their way, I disagree that there is moral equivalence. Liberals are worse--much worse. They openly embrace censorship, whether by political correctness or cancel culture. They label opposing ideas as hateful, racist, etc., and have no hesitation about banning opposing thoughts. Conservatives, on the other hand, dabble in censorship and tend to back off when they are called out. 

[LDSGator]

2 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Liberals are worse--much worse

PC, you aren't going to like this, but I actually agree with you here. Leftists ARE worse with censorship. But that’s only because they are dominant now in roles where they can censor stuff.
 

If we swung back to 1977 where the local school board was flooded with church ladies, than the right would be worse. So it’s a tennis match between two annoying sides. 

[LDSGator]

15 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

the other hand, pulling books that are age-inappropriate from publically funded school libraries--especially at the elementary level, seems appropriate

I generally agree here too (sorry) and that’s why I’m not a leftist. I’ve been called “conservative” because I don’t think 8 year olds should play Grand Theft Auto or watch certain movies. So I do agree, at least in part. 

Edited February 3, 2022 by LDSGator

[prisonchaplain]

7 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

PC, you aren't going to like this, but I actually agree with you here. Leftists ARE worse with censorship. But that’s only because they are dominant now in roles where they can censor stuff.
 

If we swung back to 1977 where the local school board was flooded with church ladies, than the right would be worse. So it’s a tennis match between two annoying sides. 

My memories are of roughly 1987. Conservatism was dominant and the L word would doom a political candidate. WKRP in Cinncinati ran an episode in which conservatives were picketing them for some content. I remember being sympathetic. Yes, there was some banning and purging going on. Disney was boycotted. Yet, none of it stuck. Within a few years conservatives had backed off. Again, though we are tempted, our small-government/libertarian underpinnings pull us back. We might not be good, but we catch ourselves and stop. Or...sometimes we get called out and stop. Liberals, on the other hand, double down on their censorship and call their critics haters/racists for not going along.

[Ironhold]

I see this as people on both sides needing to get over themselves. 

It seems like whenever one group is in power, their first response is to try and forcibly censor or even destroy material that pushes POVs the other side supports. 

[LDSGator]

1 minute ago, Ironhold said:

It seems like whenever one group is in power, their first response is to try and forcibly censor or even destroy material that pushes POVs the other side supports. 

100% correct. 
 

 

2 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Disney was boycotted. Yet, none of it stuck.

Speaking of that, now leftists want to boycott Disney due to worker conditions. Once again, both sides of the spectrum hate the same thing, just for different reasons. Haters gonna hate. 

[Backroads]

5 hours ago, Grunt said:

 For me, I have no issue with determining what is taught, or available, in local schools.   We pay the bills, and the children are captive audiences.  

I get what you're seeing and as a teacher I generally have no issue with parents being involved in selecting the curriculum. But we have a few states that are making it extremely problematic. If teachers and schools are trying to please all parents at the threats of lawsuits and fines, well, that's a lot of different people to please. How does a teacher decide which group of parents to please and which to allow to sue them if the community as a whole can't decide?

[Grunt]

5 minutes ago, Backroads said:

How does a teacher decide which group of parents to please and which to allow to sue them if the community as a whole can't decide?

I don't know how it is in your area, but here it's up to the school board.  The community is never going to agree, but they elect and then petition, the school board.   I make my desire known at the ballot box and by attending every school board meeting and using the time given to me to address them.

[Backroads]

39 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I don't know how it is in your area, but here it's up to the school board.  The community is never going to agree, but they elect and then petition, the school board.   I make my desire known at the ballot box and by attending every school board meeting and using the time given to me to address them.

There's a few states around with current bills that are trying to give individual parents power to step around the school board if they don't like something. I think that's where it would cause undue chaos. 

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, Backroads said:

I get what you're seeing and as a teacher I generally have no issue with parents being involved in selecting the curriculum. But we have a few states that are making it extremely problematic. If teachers and schools are trying to please all parents at the threats of lawsuits and fines, well, that's a lot of different people to please. How does a teacher decide which group of parents to please and which to allow to sue them if the community as a whole can't decide?

I feel for the teachers here; but it seems worth noting that a subset of the parents who got frustrated with the system and wanted out (especially in Utah) did try to get out via vouchers and other programs.  And the teachers unions were at the forefront of those demanding that those programs be cancelled and professional educators retain a monopoly on state education dollars; basically dragging the dissenting families kicking and screaming back under the jurisdiction of government employees who they knew full well would give little consideration or deference to their particular values or the way they wanted to raise their children.

(I realize that many teachers disapprove of what their unions do, so I don’t mean this in a “it’s your own darned fault you’re dealing with difficult parents” sort of way.  But it’s also worth noting that from a standpoint of dissenting parents—once a gambit for freedom has been smashed, so-called Irish Democracy becomes the next logical step.)

Edited February 3, 2022 by Just_A_Guy

[Backroads]

2 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I feel for the teachers here; but it seems worth noting that a subset of the folks who wanted out (especially in Utah) did try to get out via vouchers and other programs—and the teachers unions were at the forefront of those demanding that those programs be cancelled and that they retain a monopoly on state education dollars.

(I realize that many teachers disapprove of what their unions do, so I don’t mean this in a “it’s your own darned fault you’re dealing with difficult parents” sort of way.  But it’s also worth noting that from a standpoint of dissenting parents—once a gambit for freedom has been smashed, so-called Irish Democracy becomes the next logical step.)

Very true.

I honestly have mixed feelings on vouchers. Staight up idealogy, I think the funding should follow the kid. Last time vouchers did the rounds in Utah, I was truly in favor of them. On a more practical level, I think the only people who can actually use vouchers are those who can already afford to send their kids to private school. 

Concerning the topic at hand, I think some of our issues of censorship and whatnot are truly a mob mentality. A group wants this, they find a political party to do so, and some steps of a republic sort of got lost in the process. 

[Vort]

21 minutes ago, Backroads said:

There's a few states around with current bills that are trying to give individual parents power to step around the school board if they don't like something. I think that's where it would cause undue chaos. 

That's called "home schooling", and if done conscientiously, it works really great. Warning: Home $chooling deprive$ the $chool di$trict of the fund$ a$$ociated with that preciou$ $tudent, $o $chool di$tricts are often not fan$.

[Backroads]

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

That's called "home schooling", and if done conscientiously, it works really great. Warning: Home $chooling deprive$ the $chool di$trict of the fund$ a$$ociated with that preciou$ $tudent, $o $chool di$tricts are often not fan$.

I'm all for homeschooling, but why can't the parents just... do it? 

[Just_A_Guy]

4 minutes ago, Backroads said:

Very true.

I honestly have mixed feelings on vouchers. Staight up idealogy, I think the funding should follow the kid. Last time vouchers did the rounds in Utah, I was truly in favor of them. On a more practical level, I think the only people who can actually use vouchers are those who can already afford to send their kids to private school. 

 

I think we’ve talked before about how if it was just a matter of letting parents recapture the taxes they’re actually paying and use those funds to send their kids to private school, it wouldn’t be nearly enough.  (I paid, I think, under $4K in property taxes last year; that would barely give keep one of my kids in private school for a year, let alone five.)  For any voucher system beyond that, I can see the argument that taking  money from other taxpayers and giving it to me  to spend as I wish may lead to unwise decisions on my part and perhaps even systemic tuition inflation that ultimately renders the whole voucher regimen essentially unusable.  Though, of course, in health care we essentially have a “government voucher” system via Medicare and Medicaid, so it’s not like it isn’t do-able.  

Just now, Vort said:

That's called "home schooling", and if done conscientiously, it works really great. Warning: Home $chooling deprive$ the $chool di$trict of the fund$ a$$ociated with that preciou$ $tudent, $o $chool di$tricts are often not fan$.

FWIW, Utah is remarkably accommodationist about home schooling—you basically give the district a signed affidavit saying you’re going to home school your kid, and that’s it.  No routine follow up, no proficiency tests, nada.  (I also get DCFS caseworkers routinely wanting me to file court petitions against parents because their kids are educationally such messes, and I have to explain to them that if a parent is bound and determined that their kid should grow up dumb as a box of rocks (which I hasten to add, most parents aren’t; but a few parents absolutely are), legally our hands are pretty much tied.) 

[Grunt]

7 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I think we’ve talked before about how if it was just a matter of letting parents recapture the taxes they’re actually paying and use those funds to send their kids to private school, it wouldn’t be nearly enough.  (I paid, I think, under $4K in property taxes last year; that would barely give keep one of my kids in private school for a year, let alone five.)  For any voucher system beyond that, I can see the argument that taking  money from other taxpayers and giving it to me  to spend as I wish may lead to unwise decisions on my part and perhaps even systemic tuition inflation that ultimately renders the whole voucher regimen essentially unusable.  Though, of course, in health care we essentially have a “government voucher” system via Medicare and Medicaid, so it’s not like it isn’t do-able.  

FWIW, Utah is remarkably accommodationist about home schooling—you basically give the district a signed affidavit saying you’re going to home school your kid, and that’s it.  No routine follow up, no proficiency tests, nada.  (I also get DCFS caseworkers routinely wanting me to file court petitions against parents because their kids are educationally such messes, and I have to explain to them that if a parent is bound and determined that their kid should grow up dumb as a box of rocks (which I hasten to add, most parents aren’t; but a few parents absolutely are), legally our hands are pretty much tied.) 

The issue lies in how we redistribute wealth and tax corporations.   Each school has a cost per student that varies by district.   There has been talk to allocate that to the individual child, but that drastically alters the cost per child in the school.   Last year we instituted a voucher type system that was very successful and helped some families, but not even close to everyone.  It allowed certain families to receive money to educate their children outside of public education.  It wasn't close to being enough, but was better than nothing (particularly for home-schooled kids).   

This year they really tried to expand access and funds, but the teacher's unions fought it hard and won.  The bill wasn't perfect anyway, and I expect them to try again if they retain the house/senate.  
 

I'm considering entering education soon, so have been more involved than normal on the budget side of things.   I'm not sure what a good solution would be that doesn't leave kids out.   Small districts such as ours spend large portion of their budget on special needs.  

[NeuroTypical]

7 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

Places like TX and VA are starting to say a wave of censorship--a purging of books supporting LGBTQI morality.

...

 

I still believe we should be cautious with censorship and purges. 

Glad to have you back PC!   Here's my take on things.  (My brain is small, so I use lots of pictures. :))

 

 

[NeuroTypical]

Regarding schools, there's a difference between what we choose to teach, and 'banning books'.  

The ever-so-popular CRT for example.  The catch phrase media on both sides includes the phrase "ban CRT".  But in reality, when school boards pick curricula and whatnot, it's selecting how the school will approach the sensitive topic of racial history.  There's the critical approach (institutionalized racism enshrined in our founding documents and institutions, which exists to this day, let's talk about how).  There's the patriotic approach (Our founders wanted to get rid of slavery, and Americans worked hard at it, even fought a civil war over it.  Our representative republic isn't perfect, but it's worth preserving, and pledging our allegiance to.)

 

[Backroads]

41 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Small districts such as ours spend large portion of their budget on special needs

Always bugged me. Like, really, wasn't IDEA supposed to be fully federally funded by now?

[Vort]

3 minutes ago, Backroads said:

5 minutes ago, Vort said:

That's called "home schooling", and if done conscientiously, it works really great. Warning: Home $chooling deprive$ the $chool di$trict of the fund$ a$$ociated with that preciou$ $tudent, $o $chool di$tricts are often not fan$.

I'm all for homeschooling, but why can't the parents just... do it? 

In some places, heavy restrictions are placed on homeschoolers. In many countries, such as Germany (surprise!!!), homeschooling instead of public or approved private schooling is literally illegal. You will go to jail if you don't send your children to school like everyone else.

[Just_A_Guy]

5 hours ago, Grunt said:

The issue lies in how we redistribute wealth and tax corporations.   Each school has a cost per student that varies by district.   There has been talk to allocate that to the individual child, but that drastically alters the cost per child in the school.   Last year we instituted a voucher type system that was very successful and helped some families, but not even close to everyone.  It allowed certain families to receive money to educate their children outside of public education.  It wasn't close to being enough, but was better than nothing (particularly for home-schooled kids).   

This year they really tried to expand access and funds, but the teacher's unions fought it hard and won.  The bill wasn't perfect anyway, and I expect them to try again if they retain the house/senate.  
 

I'm considering entering education soon, so have been more involved than normal on the budget side of things.   I'm not sure what a good solution would be that doesn't leave kids out.   Small districts such as ours spend large portion of their budget on special needs.  

From the school’s position—if they are funded per capital, than the (meaning no disrespect with these terms) “easy”, or relatively low-needs kids, are to some degree subsidizing the “harder” or special-needs kids.  Mass emigration of the former from the public schools may well result in government having to do a net increase in overall education funding.  Which may well be worth it, if it lets a critical mass of students thrive in schools of their choice; but it’s at least something to be aware of.

The other factor I’m mulling over lately is: we are increasingly coming to the realization that college just isn’t some folks’ cup of tea, and that in some cases trade school or direct post-high-school apprenticeships may be the better option.  But have we considered the possibility that some kids just aren’t cut out for the modern iteration of “classroom learning”; and if so, what ramifications does that have for the whole voucher debate?

Edited February 4, 2022 by Just_A_Guy

[JohnsonJones]

21 hours ago, LDSGator said:

It backfired big time recently. Google “Maus ban”, then look what skyrocketed to number one in sales on Amazon. If the book banners were a little wiser, they’d simply ignore it rather than bring more attention to it. 

From my understanding, I understand WHY it was taken out of the syllabus.  My understanding is that it was not actually BANNED, but simply removed from the school syllabus.

In some school districts this would not make a lot of sense as they already have books with bad language and graphic immorality.  In one that does not normally approve of these things, Maus itself should not have been part of the syllabus itself. 

The book in the first chapter tries to humanize the parents, or the main character who is relating the story to his son at the time.  There is an incidence of pretty horrid immorality written about during that chapter.  There are other instances of references to immoral acts and there is a little language.  In addition it addresses an issue regarding suicide and death in a way that could inspire children to feel or copy those acts in some situations.  If they ALSO remove other works that also have such material from their syllabus, I fully understand why Maus would and should be no exception.  There are other books that cover the same material without referring to such things.

On the otherhand, this does not reduce Maus in it's significance.  Maus has been selected by some schools because it presents the material in a way that is easier for some people to grasp.  It is a comic book form which makes it more entertaining for some individuals to read, and thus learn more personally about the events that took place.  Because of the medium in which it is produced, it makes it so that the events have a bigger impact upon the reader as it is a visual medium in addition to reading.  It is more personal in the attachment to characters of the book, and in it's own way can impact the reader more strongly than other historical references.  If a school district allows other materials which have such things in them (and many school districts do), accepting this book into their syllabus would be a massive boon in helping students understand WHY the holocaust was so terrible and the horrible things that occurred.  It is, in fact, less graphic than many other materials on the same subject as well.

I think many are jumping on the bandwagon regarding the book being removed from the syllabus and proclaiming it was the wrong thing to do because they have been so insensitized to differing opinions and morals found in various communities.  What may be moral in one community may not be moral in another one. 

I don't think people should condemn the school district from removing it from their syllabus.  Things are added and dropped from school syllabuses all the time.  Without understanding the views of the community in general towards works that address immorality, language, and suicide, it is almost impossible to know whether they made a choice in line with their other thoughts on the matter or not.  The book is still available, and if parents really feel it is necessary for their children to be exposed to such material, they can buy it from Amazon or another store of their choosing, or borrow it from some location that has it available.

My initial reactions are that we should not ban books, BUT, considering certain things, we already do so.  WE don't push children to go read pornographic magazines or put them in our syllabuses or place them in the children's section of the library.  We don't push certain other materials or even carry them in School Libraries.  In regards to children, I think some censoring regarding the morals of the community they are in may be necessary, as it is already done on a more limited scale already.  The question is how far and to what degree it will be done in regards to what our children should be able to consume.

I am against books being banned in general, but where children's information and material come in, I think it's already done by basically every school district out there already and I agree with that.  Materials that are Pornographic, for example, are generally not allowed in such places.  This means it is NOT a matter of whether anything will be censored or banned from those school districts or not, but HOW MUCH and HOW FAR they will censor materials allowed on their campuses or at least taught in their syllabuses.

Edited February 4, 2022 by JohnsonJones

[JohnsonJones]

17 hours ago, Backroads said:

I get what you're seeing and as a teacher I generally have no issue with parents being involved in selecting the curriculum. But we have a few states that are making it extremely problematic. If teachers and schools are trying to please all parents at the threats of lawsuits and fines, well, that's a lot of different people to please. How does a teacher decide which group of parents to please and which to allow to sue them if the community as a whole can't decide?

I am against the move that some lawmakers are trying to institute in their states where teachers can be fined by parents or sued by parents because they teach something the parent does not agree with.

It is a good way to make sure that poor teachers become paupers and unable to support themselves, as any money they have to pay for housing and food will be gone by lawsuits very quickly.  This will ensure that no one is teaching school at all.  It would seem more a move to destroy the school system and education system than anything else.