Politically Correct Homework Assignment in Texas Enrages Parents

[Madmick]

"The Life of Slaves: A Balanced View"

Followed by two empty fields.

My response assumed that the teacher's motives were pure, although we have not established that, and additionally we have good reason to be skeptical of the way slavery is taught (Texas, fourth graders involved in another instance, charter schools). We would be making a mistake by assuming no foul play here- that needs to be investigated. Also, if the teacher was actually using supplemental materials approved for use, etc, then yes the suspension is certainly improper.

We would be making a mistake to presume otherwise, in the absence of any evidence, and yet they've already suspended her (it does not specify with or without pay).

But assuming pure motives nonetheless, we have to suspend the idea of slavery's pure evil to approach this subject in the way you want to approach it. I believe we can get to the same place without doing that (an understanding of the evils of slavery and the ways it was wrongly justified), and it comes with the bonus of discouraging the soft-selling of slavery that we know happens even today. That's the concern of the parents. They are not okay with their children being instructed that there might be good aspects to slave life. They want it all to come with a running caveat, and I don't blame them for that, at all. These are eighth (and fourth) graders. There is some significant degree to which they really just need to be fed this stuff.

Nothing about the format insinuates a necessary view that slavery was a "good" for slaves, or even that there are pros. So your argument is no different than nac's in that you can't produce any denotation of racism in the assignment, but rather merely object to the format in which the lesson is being delivered by virtue of subtextual readings that confirm to your own political biases.

I'm glad to have ground out this concession because this thread was introduced with this hysterical and prejudiced accusation:

Ah, Texas. You silly golden goose. The suggestion that slavery should be evaluated from a "balanced" point of view is probably the most outlandishly stupid and offensive piece of right wing political correctness today. The teacher is clearly a dolt, but it's not clear whether the teacher is just a "both sides" fool or a racist propagandist.

Kids can be "fed" the appropriate answer by the teacher if that's your philosophy for a strong education (it isn't mine-- not even at this age). She could use the opportunity to chide them for putting anything in the "pro" column if you wanted to add a theatrical shock element to the lesson. "Why did you assume that you had to put something there?"

Dear God, we might actually start grooming smart people in this country, again.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Followed by two empty fields.

Uh yes, because presumably the student is expected to fill them in themselves.

 

[Rod1]

works better if you're a Jew. You get to ride that little incident into having your own lavishly supported country for generations.

The life of Jews under Nazi Germany: A balanced view.

Positive aspects / Negative aspects

 

[Madmick]

Uh yes, because presumably the student is expected to fill them in themselves.

Nothing says you have to put entries in both columns.

That's literally how pro/con lists work.

Nothing says you have to reinforce or accept any "pro" answers as a teacher. In fact, you may discover some "unconscious biases" that aren't so "unconscious" that students have picked up from their parents, and are secretly harboring. Now you have an opportunity to address these poor arguments, and engage them, when before-- in ignorance-- the parents wielded complete authority over that narrative. Your prepared sermons on slavery might not directly address the core argument, or allow you to proactively challenge and dismiss the student's attempts to retreat and defend that idea.

 

[Islam Imamate]

The life of Jews under Nazi Germany: A balanced view.

Positive aspects / Negative aspects

Positive:
The autobahn.

Negative:
N/A

 

[Limbo Pete]

Nothing says you have to put entries in both columns.

That does not sound like a "balanced view"

 

[Islam Imamate]

Nothing says you have to put entries in both columns.

That's literally how pro/con lists work.

Nothing says you have to reinforce or accept any "pro" answers as a teacher. In fact, you may discover some "unconscious biases" that aren't so "unconscious" that students have picked up from their parents, and are secretly harboring. Now you have an opportunity to address these poor arguments, and engage them, when before-- in ignorance-- the parents wielded complete authority over that narrative. Your prepared sermons on slavery might not directly address the core argument, or allow you to proactively challenge and dismiss the student's attempts to retreat and defend that idea.

You're assuming a lot of shit there that to me seems very implausible. What we know is the assignment calls for a "Balanced" view of slavery from the perspective of the slaves and leaves two fields for the student to fill in, one for pros and one for cons. That kind of structure almost always means that the student is expected to write in both fields.

If you're trying to convince me the teacher secretly intended for the students to leave one blank in a state with a history of trying to downplay slavery you're going to have a tough time with that kind of thinking.

 

[Fawlty]

Followed by two empty fields.

We would be making a mistake to presume otherwise, in the absence of any evidence, and yet they've already suspended her (it does not specify with or without pay).

Nothing about the format insinuates a necessary view that slavery was a "good" for slaves, or even that there are pros. So your argument is no different than nac's in that you can't produce any denotation of racism in the assignment, but rather merely object to the format in which the lesson is being delivered by virtue of subtextual readings that confirm to your own political biases.

I'm glad to have ground out this concession because this thread was introduced with this hysterical and prejudiced accusation:

Kids can be "fed" the appropriate answer by the teacher if that's your philosophy for a strong education (it isn't mine-- not even at this age). She could use the opportunity to chide them for putting anything in the "pro" column if you wanted to add a theatrical shock element to the lesson. "Why did you assume that you had to put something there?"

Dear God, we might actually start grooming smart people in this country, again.

Well we're getting somewhere here which is good.

I was clear early on that I consider it possible (but difficult) to go this way with slavery lessons, and reiterated that it's not inherently racist. Takes a skillful teacher, which this one wasn't. You didn't need to pummel that bit out of me as a concession, that's common ground. It's an interesting approach to the lesson that I want to agree with, but don't. I could always fall back on something rotten in the state of Texas when they're pushing this on fourth graders, or joke about a hypothetical PTA meeting where the chorus rings out "We need to take more risks with our slavery curriculum!"

If I could choose a state of affairs where the average 14 year old was ready for this one, I would. This might even boil down to a paternal/maternal dispute where I say "the kid's not ready to hunting with his father." That's the sort of concession that might arouse you too much, though.

 

[Prime Rib]

That does not sound like a "balanced view"

Bring that balanced shit or go home, yo.

 

[Trotsky]

The teacher was placed on leave? That's fucked.

I'm actually of the opinion there is value to this. Students need to learn that slavery wasn't just sadism: it was an evil industry that was upheld by its profitability and the economic value of exploitation and denying people the value of their labor.

Reducing it to "evil slave owners" keeps a larger lesson from being taught.

That's giving the teacher the benefit of the doubt though.

 

[Overtures]

White folks getting sneaky.

 

[Fawlty]

The teacher was placed on leave? That's fucked.

I'm actually of the opinion there is value to this. Students need to learn that slavery wasn't just sadism: it was an evil industry that was upheld by its profitability and the economic value of exploitation and denying people the value of their labor.

Reducing it to "evil slave owners" keeps a larger lesson from being taught.

That's giving the teacher the benefit of the doubt though.

What age/grade? What educational/intellectual tests need to be passed to prepare for taking this step?

My opinion is still that this was most likely a soft-sell job on slavery. Possibly endemic to what is happening in education, particularly in Texas.

 

[nixkid]

At least they stopped calling slaves "workers" like they used to so I guess thats progress.

 

[Madmick]

That does not sound like a "balanced view"

That label describes empty fields. I see no instructions demanding equalization of columns. It could be a poor choice of words, but even this isn't absolute:

2. taking everything into account; fairly judged or presented.
"accurate and balanced information"
synonyms: fair, equitable, just, unbiased, unprejudiced, objective, impartial, even-handed, dispassionate
"a balanced view"
antonyms: partial

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/balanced

1.2 Taking everything into account; fairly judged or presented.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/balance

(uncountable) awareness of both viewpoints or matters; neutrality; rationality; objectivity

A "balanced view" can observe imbalance, but more importantly, it may describe the format, not the expected result. Symmetry of consideration is the modified concept.

We're wading into Deconstructionism here because you guys are so determined to assign certainty to your subtextual reading when we do not have adequate material to assess that; not even with a high level of confidence.

If she was coaxing students to equalize these columns, such as the student whose paper they photographed for the article, and to make pro-Slavery arguments, I would be greatly surprised ABC wouldn't lead with that.

 

[Prime Rib]

White folks getting sneaky.

Yup. I find a bit of humor in it. I've laughed at a few comments ITT.

 

[Gandhi]

Was it a teacher or politician who called slaves "immigrants"?

Pretty sure it was Ben fuck nut Carson

 

[Trotsky]

What age/grade? What educational/intellectual tests need to be passed to prepare for taking this step?

What age/grade was this?

As far as deciding what age is too early to inoculate kids to capitalism, I don't know that there is early enough an age.

My opinion is still that this was most likely a soft-sell job on slavery. Possibly endemic to what is happening in education, particularly in Texas.

I think your skepticism is well-warranted, but I would need some additional evidence first.

 

[Ruprecht]

That label describes empty fields. I see no instructions demanding equalization of columns. It could be a poor choice of words, but even this isn't absolute:

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/balanced

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/balance

A "balanced view" can observe imbalance, but more importantly, it may describe the format, not the expected result. Symmetry of consideration is the modified concept.

We're wading into Deconstructionism here because you guys are so determined to assign certainty to your subtextual reading when we do not have adequate material to assess that; not even with a high level of confidence.

If she was coaxing students to equalize these columns, such as the student whose paper they photographed for the article, and to make pro-Slavery arguments, I would be greatly surprised ABC wouldn't lead with that.

If you label the pro and con columns "a balanced view" you're implying that there should be equivalence in their contents. Maybe it was just poor wording, because as you say usually a pro/con list isn't balanced, it's used to weigh up the difference between the two alternatives.

 

[Prime Rib]

Pretty sure it was Ben fuck nut Carson

Carson is a fucking weird person.

 

[Limbo Pete]

That label describes empty fields. I see no instructions demanding equalization of columns. It could be a poor choice of words, but even this isn't absolute:

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/balanced

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/balance

A "balanced view" can observe imbalance, but more importantly, it may describe the format, not the expected result. Symmetry of consideration is the modified concept.

We're wading into Deconstructionism here because you guys are so determined to assign certainty to your subtextual reading when we do not have adequate material to assess that; not even with a high level of confidence.

If she was coaxing students to equalize these columns, such as the student whose paper they photographed for the article, and to make pro-Slavery arguments, I would be greatly surprised ABC wouldn't lead with that.

Mick

MICK