Post by Layla Littlenymph on May 25, 2016 23:19:41 GMT -5
Portland, Ore., School Board Seeks To Ban Books.
From time to time I run across something that truly astounds me... in a bad way. Well, let's be honest. I run across that most every day, but some things astound me more so than others. This is one of those days.
Anyone that has followed me for a length of time is probably aware that I am an advocate of free speech. I am also an advocate of responsible speech. While we have the right in this nation to speak freely, we also bear a responsibility for that which we say. This is one of the unpleasant aspects of that right. An even more unpleasant aspect of that right is the fact that free speech can not be defended on a selective basis. While you may not like what someone has to say, the fact remains that they have a right to say it that is no less equal than your own.
Sadly, there seems to be a growing attitude in this nation that we have a right to shut down those we disagree with. Not to simply disagree with and counter that which they say, but to actually stop them from saying it in the first place. Nowhere is this attitude more noticeable than on our college campuses where students demand the right to protest against speakers but then use that right to disrupt the speaker and drive him from the campus. To demand the speaker not be allowed to speak at all. A more reported instance of this attitude is in the news in regard to Presidential candidate Donald Trump, who draws a protest at seemingly every rally. Not being a tremendous supporter of Mr. Trump, I can understand the desire to protest to some degree. What I do not understand is how starting fires, assaulting police officers, blocking roadways and buildings, causing property damage, and disrupting the rally itself can be seen as free speech and expression. I suppose it is that in a way, but if so, it is free speech divorced from responsibility. Free speech perverted to destroy the free speech of others.
The difference between a protest or assembly as opposed to the mob rule of a riot is not such a thin line. While an honest protest can quickly shift to a lawless mob, that does not mean that one can be confused with the other. A point on which this nations press and I seem to disagree as they continue to call these riots a protest, and continue to credit the speakers as being responsible for the mobs attitude and actions. While I continue to be astounded at this attitude, there are still two iconic examples of the perversion of free speech that I feel to be even more repulsive than the mob mentality increasingly common to college campuses and political rallies. The first of these is a book burning. A close second is book banning. And thus, we come to the subject of this post.
The Portland school board is strongly considering a ban on, and removal of all books which contain a view on climate warming that is in dissention with that of the current administration. The justification for this action is that a dissenting view on climate warming promotes attitudes and actions that are harmful to the environment, which in turn is harmful to the welfare of the the student population. It is the determination of the board that the science is in, and is conclusive. To debate the issue is invalid in the eyes of the school board. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the school board to remove the debate by banning discussion of it entirely. Put another way, the school board is of the opinion that it is their responsibility to teach the "facts" of climate warming, as they have determined them, and deny the "false opinions" of the opposition from being heard.
Contrary to the attitude of the Portland school board, the "facts" of climate change are not as conclusive as they insist. While it is true that a large body of scientists have predicted dramatic man made climate changes, it is also true that there is a large body of scientists with an opposing view. It is also true that many past predictions from these scientists have failed to come true, and current models are not matching the most recent predictions. By the same token, there is little doubt that mankind could be a better steward of its environment. The fact of the matter is that neither side has all the facts, but the school board is adamant that it has the only facts worth knowing, so the "opinions" of others should not be expressed or known. Regardless of where you stand on the issue of climate change, I ask you; Is this free speech?
There are several things which both puzzles and offends me concerning this issue. The first is that most climate change advocates are Progressives (political left). It is the progressive faction in this nation that most strongly advocates free speech, yet it is that same faction that insists dissenting opinions should not be heard.
Second is the fact that in relation to this particular post, the movement to censure speech is being led by a school board. Is it not the function of a school to teach students HOW to learn? Is it not the function of a school to encourage students to weigh all the facts? Open their minds to all possibilities? To use logic to make their own determinations? Are schools institutions of learning, or indoctrination centers run by whichever party happens to hold majority within the department of education? It would seem to me the most obvious lesson the students of Portland are getting is in how to shut down an opposing view, not by facts, but by political manipulation. God help us when these students come of age to lead this nation.
The last and most telling thing which bothers me is the source which brought this story to my attention in the first place. It should come as no surprise that I should find this story on The Literacy Site which is after all a site that deals with literary issues. It is not uncommon for The Literacy Site to do features on censorship, to include many articles on book banning. To their credit they have come down time and again against censorship and book banning... until now. While they do not... can not come right out and endorse the Portland decision, they go to an extreme to soft peddle the notion of book banning in relation to this one issue. They have decided to defend free speech as always, but... in a selective fashion. To defend not all free speech, but that speech with which they most strongly agree.
That said, I'll leave it up for you to decide whether or not you find the blog that prompted me to write this post to be as biased as I feel it to be.
Is Portland Justified In Banning Textbooks If It’s In Support Of Climate Change?
by Will S
Source: The Literacy Site Blog
When is it OK to censor books? Most people would say, “never.” But what if it was banning books that could be damaging to the environment. That was the thought process behind the Portland, Ore., school board decision to remove books that cast doubt on the legitimacy of climate change from their curriculum. While this decision was made in order to push back against the oil industry's influence on textbook publishers, we're left asking ourselves one question. Even after understanding the whole story, is it ever OK to censor books in schools?
So what is the whole story?
The best place to start would be in Texas. Over the years, the state's school board has amassed a large amount of power over the publishing industry. Texas is the second largest buyer of textbooks in the country, second only to California. Because they control such a large part of the market, Texas has taken advantage of publishers, favoring personal agendas instead of what may be the best and most objective education for students. Decisions to keep Texas happy end up trickling down through the entire publishing market, leaving other states with books containing lone-star bias.
An organization, called the People for the American Way (PFAW), put it this way:
“Textbooks written and edited to meet Texas standards end up being used all over the country. So Religious Right leaders in Texas can doom millions of American students to stunted, scientifically dubious science books and ideologically slanted history and social studies books.”
Some of the “dubious” fears of the PWAY have come true. This year there were reports of textbooks in Texas making racially insensitive statements regarding Mexicans and Mexican-Americans. In 2015, there was even a case south of Houston where a parent found passages in her child's books referring to slaves as “workers,” (which the textbook company apologized for, admitting that it was a “misnomer”). These are the types of things we can expect from the educational system once objectivity is sacrificed for personal beliefs.
So how is what happened in Portland different?
The difference lies in scale and in intent. Portland's decision to remove climate-change-critics from their curriculum is in support of the science. By keeping the debate over climate change alive, it encourages children to live lives that are environmentally conscious. The EPA has even said that reducing carbon emissions is a boon to public health.
Some also feel the decision was made in order to push back against the fossil fuel industry's presumed intent to discredit climate change.
The Opposition's Opinion.
Others are critical of Portland's decision, claiming that “this is further proof that public schools are not interested in education, only political indoctrination.” Sounds like the argument against Texas, doesn't it? Critics are making the same argument against censorship as those making these decisions.
In the wake of Portland's decision, there will undoubtedly be more debate. Censoring books is never acceptable in a free society, but the alternative here would be to include potentially hazardous teaching materials. Is censoring books OK if it's for the right reasons? Or should school districts encourage all perspectives in their curriculum, despite the limited veracity of the opposition?
Notice how the Opposition is an "opinion" while the rest of the article is cited as fact? Note also how short said opinion is, as well as the fact that it is written with a degree of bias. Small wonder when the "opposition opinion" is not actually written by the opposition.
So here we are.
The party that defends free speech is pushing for a limitation on speech.
The nations schools which encourages the free flow of information are demanding a limitation on that information.
A major literary site that speaks against censorship feels that perhaps some censorship might be a good thing.
Logic is dead.
The victor determines what the facts are.
Hypocrisy is the new God.
At what point does the narrative and agenda of political correctness grant us the right to desecrate all that we hold dear? At what point do the ends fail to justify the means... at any cost?
~LL
From time to time I run across something that truly astounds me... in a bad way. Well, let's be honest. I run across that most every day, but some things astound me more so than others. This is one of those days.
Anyone that has followed me for a length of time is probably aware that I am an advocate of free speech. I am also an advocate of responsible speech. While we have the right in this nation to speak freely, we also bear a responsibility for that which we say. This is one of the unpleasant aspects of that right. An even more unpleasant aspect of that right is the fact that free speech can not be defended on a selective basis. While you may not like what someone has to say, the fact remains that they have a right to say it that is no less equal than your own.
Sadly, there seems to be a growing attitude in this nation that we have a right to shut down those we disagree with. Not to simply disagree with and counter that which they say, but to actually stop them from saying it in the first place. Nowhere is this attitude more noticeable than on our college campuses where students demand the right to protest against speakers but then use that right to disrupt the speaker and drive him from the campus. To demand the speaker not be allowed to speak at all. A more reported instance of this attitude is in the news in regard to Presidential candidate Donald Trump, who draws a protest at seemingly every rally. Not being a tremendous supporter of Mr. Trump, I can understand the desire to protest to some degree. What I do not understand is how starting fires, assaulting police officers, blocking roadways and buildings, causing property damage, and disrupting the rally itself can be seen as free speech and expression. I suppose it is that in a way, but if so, it is free speech divorced from responsibility. Free speech perverted to destroy the free speech of others.
The difference between a protest or assembly as opposed to the mob rule of a riot is not such a thin line. While an honest protest can quickly shift to a lawless mob, that does not mean that one can be confused with the other. A point on which this nations press and I seem to disagree as they continue to call these riots a protest, and continue to credit the speakers as being responsible for the mobs attitude and actions. While I continue to be astounded at this attitude, there are still two iconic examples of the perversion of free speech that I feel to be even more repulsive than the mob mentality increasingly common to college campuses and political rallies. The first of these is a book burning. A close second is book banning. And thus, we come to the subject of this post.
The Portland school board is strongly considering a ban on, and removal of all books which contain a view on climate warming that is in dissention with that of the current administration. The justification for this action is that a dissenting view on climate warming promotes attitudes and actions that are harmful to the environment, which in turn is harmful to the welfare of the the student population. It is the determination of the board that the science is in, and is conclusive. To debate the issue is invalid in the eyes of the school board. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the school board to remove the debate by banning discussion of it entirely. Put another way, the school board is of the opinion that it is their responsibility to teach the "facts" of climate warming, as they have determined them, and deny the "false opinions" of the opposition from being heard.
Contrary to the attitude of the Portland school board, the "facts" of climate change are not as conclusive as they insist. While it is true that a large body of scientists have predicted dramatic man made climate changes, it is also true that there is a large body of scientists with an opposing view. It is also true that many past predictions from these scientists have failed to come true, and current models are not matching the most recent predictions. By the same token, there is little doubt that mankind could be a better steward of its environment. The fact of the matter is that neither side has all the facts, but the school board is adamant that it has the only facts worth knowing, so the "opinions" of others should not be expressed or known. Regardless of where you stand on the issue of climate change, I ask you; Is this free speech?
There are several things which both puzzles and offends me concerning this issue. The first is that most climate change advocates are Progressives (political left). It is the progressive faction in this nation that most strongly advocates free speech, yet it is that same faction that insists dissenting opinions should not be heard.
Second is the fact that in relation to this particular post, the movement to censure speech is being led by a school board. Is it not the function of a school to teach students HOW to learn? Is it not the function of a school to encourage students to weigh all the facts? Open their minds to all possibilities? To use logic to make their own determinations? Are schools institutions of learning, or indoctrination centers run by whichever party happens to hold majority within the department of education? It would seem to me the most obvious lesson the students of Portland are getting is in how to shut down an opposing view, not by facts, but by political manipulation. God help us when these students come of age to lead this nation.
The last and most telling thing which bothers me is the source which brought this story to my attention in the first place. It should come as no surprise that I should find this story on The Literacy Site which is after all a site that deals with literary issues. It is not uncommon for The Literacy Site to do features on censorship, to include many articles on book banning. To their credit they have come down time and again against censorship and book banning... until now. While they do not... can not come right out and endorse the Portland decision, they go to an extreme to soft peddle the notion of book banning in relation to this one issue. They have decided to defend free speech as always, but... in a selective fashion. To defend not all free speech, but that speech with which they most strongly agree.
That said, I'll leave it up for you to decide whether or not you find the blog that prompted me to write this post to be as biased as I feel it to be.
Is Portland Justified In Banning Textbooks If It’s In Support Of Climate Change?
by Will S
Source: The Literacy Site Blog
When is it OK to censor books? Most people would say, “never.” But what if it was banning books that could be damaging to the environment. That was the thought process behind the Portland, Ore., school board decision to remove books that cast doubt on the legitimacy of climate change from their curriculum. While this decision was made in order to push back against the oil industry's influence on textbook publishers, we're left asking ourselves one question. Even after understanding the whole story, is it ever OK to censor books in schools?
So what is the whole story?
The best place to start would be in Texas. Over the years, the state's school board has amassed a large amount of power over the publishing industry. Texas is the second largest buyer of textbooks in the country, second only to California. Because they control such a large part of the market, Texas has taken advantage of publishers, favoring personal agendas instead of what may be the best and most objective education for students. Decisions to keep Texas happy end up trickling down through the entire publishing market, leaving other states with books containing lone-star bias.
An organization, called the People for the American Way (PFAW), put it this way:
“Textbooks written and edited to meet Texas standards end up being used all over the country. So Religious Right leaders in Texas can doom millions of American students to stunted, scientifically dubious science books and ideologically slanted history and social studies books.”
Some of the “dubious” fears of the PWAY have come true. This year there were reports of textbooks in Texas making racially insensitive statements regarding Mexicans and Mexican-Americans. In 2015, there was even a case south of Houston where a parent found passages in her child's books referring to slaves as “workers,” (which the textbook company apologized for, admitting that it was a “misnomer”). These are the types of things we can expect from the educational system once objectivity is sacrificed for personal beliefs.
So how is what happened in Portland different?
The difference lies in scale and in intent. Portland's decision to remove climate-change-critics from their curriculum is in support of the science. By keeping the debate over climate change alive, it encourages children to live lives that are environmentally conscious. The EPA has even said that reducing carbon emissions is a boon to public health.
Some also feel the decision was made in order to push back against the fossil fuel industry's presumed intent to discredit climate change.
The Opposition's Opinion.
Others are critical of Portland's decision, claiming that “this is further proof that public schools are not interested in education, only political indoctrination.” Sounds like the argument against Texas, doesn't it? Critics are making the same argument against censorship as those making these decisions.
In the wake of Portland's decision, there will undoubtedly be more debate. Censoring books is never acceptable in a free society, but the alternative here would be to include potentially hazardous teaching materials. Is censoring books OK if it's for the right reasons? Or should school districts encourage all perspectives in their curriculum, despite the limited veracity of the opposition?
Notice how the Opposition is an "opinion" while the rest of the article is cited as fact? Note also how short said opinion is, as well as the fact that it is written with a degree of bias. Small wonder when the "opposition opinion" is not actually written by the opposition.
So here we are.
The party that defends free speech is pushing for a limitation on speech.
The nations schools which encourages the free flow of information are demanding a limitation on that information.
A major literary site that speaks against censorship feels that perhaps some censorship might be a good thing.
Logic is dead.
The victor determines what the facts are.
Hypocrisy is the new God.
At what point does the narrative and agenda of political correctness grant us the right to desecrate all that we hold dear? At what point do the ends fail to justify the means... at any cost?
~LL