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 -
A couple of weeks ago, in the week of Jan 16 thread, there was a discussion of the kerfuffle re Florida refusing to offer the pilot of AP African American Studies. There were a couple of minor developments last week. First, the course description is available here
Second, Florida specified its objections here
Now, I am not a fan of most "studies" courses, because, in my limited experience, they tend to lack rigor and often push a political viewpoint, which is both a disservice to students and, to the extent that students are required to parrot that viewpoint, a First Amendment violation when the course is taught in public schools (and in private schools as well, in California). I have not looked closely at the course description for the AP class, so I don't know if it has those flaws. That being said, this decision by Florida seems to be more a part of the DeSantis for President campaign than a principled objection. That is because the course description is not a curriculum, and the course description, like all AP course descriptions, says:
I have attended several AP trainings in my day, and can attest that they make a big deal about individual teachers being given autonomy, as long as their syllabus addresses the content and skills set forth in the course description. So, none of the readings complained about are required, and teachers are free, as required by Florida's "Stop WOKE Act" to assign readings on all sides of the issues in question.
And, btw, the claims on the other side that Florida does not want to teach African American history is also nonsense, because teaching of African American history is mandated in FL schools
Edit: PS: There is a very odd complaint in the Florida DOE's list: It objects to a reading by one author in part because, "Kelley's first book was a study of Black communists in Alabama." Not, 'an adulatory study," but merely a "study." It is like objecting to a reading by Donald Horowitz because he wrote a study of ethnic riots.
On page 68 of the Course Framework document, we find that one of the "research takeaways" that "helped define the essential course topics" is that "Students should understand core concepts, including diaspora, Black feminism and intersectionality, the language of race and racism (e.g., structural racism, racial formation, racial capitalism) and be introduced to important approaches (e.g., Pan-Africanism, Afrofuturism)."
These "core concepts" are mostly from CRT or the cluster of ideologies to which it belongs. Presumably all variants of a course must teach its "core concepts." We can assume students will need to be familiar with these concepts to pass the AP exam and that the College Board will decline to approve syllabi that don't teach these concepts.
Why would anyone who believes this ideology to be harmful ever agree to allow this course to be taught? You might equally well argue it would be unreasonable to object to the introduction of an "AP White Studies" course in which the "core concepts" are tenets of white nationalism, on the grounds that as long as you make sure students are conversant on the Great Replacement (which will definitely be on the test), there's no rule saying you can't include other perspectives too.
As I have said several times, if Florida does not want to offer the course, that is their right. And as I also said, right up front, I tend to be skeptical of "studies" courses in general. The point is that being familiar with the concepts does not mean accepting them as true, and the College Board explicitly requires teachers to "design[] their own curriculum . . . [and] modify and adapt [it] to their local priorities and preferences."
And, your AP White Studies hypothetical is a perfect example: Yes, it absolutely would be unreasonable to object to the introduction of a course that includes the study of the tenets of white nationalism; that is an important ideology. Just as it would be unreasonable to object to the introduction of a course on Important Ideas of the 20th Century because it includes the study of the tenets of National Socialism, or Stalinism. And, just as it would be unreasonable to object to a African American Studies course because it includes discussion of ideas that were important to African Americans in 1920, such as Garveyism, it is unreasonable to object to that course because it includes discussion of ideas that are important to African Americans today. What IS objectionable is a course which advocates any of those ideas, be it white nationalism or Garveyism or Stalinism or "anti-racism." And, yes, I am sure that some teachers will teach the AP course precisely that way, but that does not mean that doing so is required, nor that the State of Florida can't teach it in, as the Stop WOKE Act says, "an objective manner without endorsement of the concepts."
This is sophistry; they will be taught from materials which assume and assert these concepts are true, and they will be required to use these concepts, as the first two bullets of "Learning Outcomes" make clear
Certainly one could remain an atheist while taking a course on Catholicism from the Bible and other Catholic theological material in which you are required to recite prayers and apply Catholic theological perspectives on the test. But such a course would still be way over the line for a public school.
Once again, Florida teachers are free to have students read materials on both sides of the issues.
In education speak, "evaluate" means "presenting and defending opinions by making judgments about information, the validity of ideas, or quality of work based on a set of criteria."
In practice how do you think this will turn out though? I have a hard time believing you are being honest with this act of “Who knows, all the teachers of AP Af Am Studies might just turn out to be David Duke, Chris Rufo and Charles Murray!”
You know damn well 99% of teachers for this course will either be true believers or willing to parrot the true believers in presenting this stuff as uncritically true
Please review my initial post, in which I said:
I have also repeatedly said that Florida is free to decide what to offer and what not to offer, and have noted that it actually requires coverage of African American history.
You seem to be trying to argue the merits of the course. But that was not my point. My point is not that the course is good or bad, or should be taught or shouldn't be taught. The point is that Florida is inaccurately claiming that the course **must **be taught that way. If the state thinks that it will be unable to ensure that its teachers follow the law when teaching this course, then they shouldn't offer it. But that is a completely different argument than the one that they made.
More options
Context Copy link
Even if you had skeptical teachers, having them read materials on the other side of the issues -- that is, those which disparaged intersectionality and denigrated the various "lenses" -- would be a waste of time from the course perspective. It would not further the course's goals and it would actively harm the student's chances on the test. Basically it's saying that the course is forbidden by law but the violation can be cured by teaching the "anti-course" at the same time.
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