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 -
This is a popular narrative that people in education, especially teachers, like to push (at least from my experience as a student), and as a result, plenty of former-students (i.e. almost everyone in the West) also seem to believe it, but I'm skeptical. Have we ever done any studies measuring stuff like "how much does a teacher bringing their hobbies into the classroom affects how much students see them as an individual versus a bureaucrat?" or "how does the students' perception of the teacher as an individual versus a bureaucrat affect the effectiveness of the teacher in [important dimensions], whether it be positive or negative, and how much?" or "if a teacher bringing their hobbies into the classroom and that does increase how much students see them as individuals, then does that particular method of increasing how they see the teachers as individuals cause an increase in effectiveness of the teacher in [important dimensions]?"
Given how convenient this narrative is for the teachers who tend to push it - how nice it is that bringing things I like into my workplace also makes me better at my work! - I think there should be a pretty high bar of evidence for this, to rise above the default presumption that it's a narrative that's just too convenient not to believe.
Why, if it does no harm? If a teacher has a pennant of his favorite sports team, or a picture of his family, etc. etc, what possible harm could that do? Shouldn't the burden of proof be on those who seek to bar such displays?
The harm is the complexity of creating a policy that allows innocuous things but does not permit obnoxious or offensive things. The bureaucratic burden of having to decide that, say, posting pictures of a ski trip is fine, but posting pictures of a religious retreat is not, pictures of political protesting, or posting pictures of a gay wedding reception - it's all just so tiresome. It's a given that there are people who constantly push the limits of any policy in an obnoxious way, so it's entirely reasonable to set a simple bright-line rule that veers widely on the side of inoffensiveness.
And yet somehow thousands of schools manage to negotiate that ostensible labyrinth with little trouble.
Presumably those schools have fewer people trying to push the limits of the policy.
You can't assume that teachers are going to follow these policies in good faith, which is why we can't have nice things.
Fewer than what? When I said "thousands of schools manage to negotiate that ostensible labyrinth with little trouble," I meant virtually every school allows teachers to decorate their rooms as they see fit, as long as they don't violate controversial issues policies or include decorations that are inappropriate for children somehow. You are making a claim based on zero evidence of what constitutes the norm.
How do you know the schools are successfully navigating it, rather than the controversial nature of said decorations just being hidden from parents, or schools just ignoring complaints?
Experience.
More importantly, the burden of proof is on schools to justify limitations on the personal liberty of their employees. So the burden lies on OP to show that the problem exists, not on me or anyone else to show that the problem does not exist.
Wait, how'd we get to civil liberties? We're talking about decorations on public property. As far as I know there is no such liberty and demanding the walls be painted blank white would violate no actual rights.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link