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 -
Your hypothetical Important Ideas of the 20th Century course, and I think the way you're choosing to imagine the white nationalist course, aren't quite the same as what's happening here. You're ignoring the social and academic context in which this course is being introduced.
This isn't just the equivalent of a course having high school students learn the tenets of white nationalism — which most people would already find wildly objectionable, even if you don't — it's the equivalent of white nationalists themselves introducing such a course, in which students are not only taught about white nationalist beliefs but are presented with history interpreted through a white nationalist lens and taught how to perform such interpretation themselves. Also white nationalists get to write and grade the exam, can veto syllabi that deviate from their understanding of what the course should be, and know they can rely on most teachers interested in teaching the course either being white nationalists themselves or at least naively willing to accept white nationalist framing.
So, sure, in some extremely hypothetical sense a state where the consensus was against CRT could adapt this African American Studies course to "local priorities and preferences" by having students learn its CRT-derived "core concepts" via James Lindsey. Those students might even have a clearer picture of those concepts than they'd get from reading the often obfuscatory writings of their proponents! But in practice, no, you couldn't remotely do this. The College Board wouldn't approve your syllabus, on the contextually reasonable basis that it didn't represent African American Studies as taught in colleges. Your students wouldn't be able demonstrate "correct" (that is, politically correct) understanding on open-ended exam questions.
Almost certainly, the "local priorities and preferences" language just cashes out as "you can add some modules about local history," not "you can refocus the course on questioning the validity of the analytical framework that underpins the entire academic field it's situated within."
As mentioned previously, I have taken several AP trainings, and that is absolutely NOT what what that language means. They make a rather big deal about teacher autonomy.
Yes, they probably would, as I argued in another response.
That is conflating the TOPICS that are taught with HOW they are taught. The AP course audit looks at coverage, and at whether students are asked to use analytical skills, etc. It is of course possible that this course will be an exception, but a claim that it will be is based purely on the assumption that the course is intended to be indoctrination. As I said in my initial post, "studies" courses often are, in my very limited experience solely at the HS level. But that does not mean that they must be.
The bigger problem with a James Lindsey-based course is that it would fall afoul of Florida's Stop WOKE Act, because it would be teaching the subject in a non-objective manner. You have inadvertently set up a strawman, since my point all along has been simply that a course which assigned students both Kimberle Crenshaw and her critics would meet the criteria of both the College Board and FL law.
I feel like I've addressed this already. Reading Crenshaw and her critics might be a reasonable basis for a class, but not if Crenshaw supporters get to define the "core concepts" of the class, the syllabus has to be approved by Crenshaw supporters, and the exam will be written and graded by Crenshaw supporters. It is entirely unreasonable to ask people who disagree with Crenshaw to accept this.
Again, I think you are addressing an argument that I did not make. As I have said, if Florida doesn't want to offer the class, or any class, that discusses topic X, that is fine. So, I agree that there is nothing unreasonable about that. What is unreasonable is claiming that the College Board requires that the course be taught in a one-sided manner, which is what FL seems to be claiming.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link