@Gaashk comments on "Culture War Roundup for the week of March 11, 2024

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 11, 2024

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.

FarNearEverywhere 2mo ago · Edited 2mo ago

A follow-up to the Irish referenda. Both @Follamh3 and myself posted on this a few days back, and here's one reason why the Plain People Of Ireland voted (those who did turn out to vote) 70% "No" to both - nobody trusts the government because the reality on the ground is this.

Sam Lewis turned 13 years old last week. He is autistic, is non-verbal and goes to a primary school that is outside his catchment area.

Now in sixth class, Sam's parents, Greg and Celine, have been looking for a secondary school place for their son since last October.

Separate 200-page reports, which include files from Sam's psychologist, occupational therapist, speech and language therapist, along with other documents were delivered by Sam's father to nine schools.

Greg received a no from each school, some of which were inside and outside the Dublin 11 catchment area of the Lewis family home.

Sam is in a difficult situation by virtue of his intellectual disability and his autism.

On one hand he could attend a special school. However, he could also function in an autism class within a mainstream school.

The problem in relation to special schools is that they are full.

It is understood that younger children with more complex needs are being prioritised because they cannot function in mainstream schools, which means children like Sam are left in limbo.

While Sam has done well in a mainstream environment in primary school, he is now in a position where he cannot get an autism class place in a mainstream secondary school or an enrolment into a special school.

It has left Greg and Celine in a situation where one of them will have to give up work to remain at home full-time with their son.

"We can't ring up the bank and go, one of us have had to give up work because they have to earn. They have to get their money, you know?" Greg said.

They are not alone.

In Dublin 15, which is adjacent to Dublin 11, it has been an issue for ten years according to Síle Parsons, spokesperson for Autism School Dublin 15.

A survey of primary school principals in the area showed cracks in the system last year.

It warned of a shortfall of six places in second-level autism classes for 2024/2025.

Eight children are now without a school placement this September, in a constituency with two ministers and a Taoiseach, according to Ms Parsons.

Article 24 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities places obligations on the Government to ensure that people with disabilities are not excluded from education on the basis of disability and can access education on an equal basis with others.

The national association for people with an intellectual disability, Inclusion Ireland, believes the situation regarding school places for autistic children and those with intellectual disabilities has improved in recent years.

However, CEO Derval McDonagh said that there are still significant issues in children transitioning from primary to second-level in pockets across the country.

"What we're hearing frequently is that children are applying to up to 20 to 30 schools. And unfortunately, they're only hearing at the last minute about whether they've been given access to a school place.

"So that obviously leads to unsatisfactory situations, such as a lack of careful transition planning, a lack of support for children going into that into that school place. We really need to be moving way beyond the conversation about school places. That's a very low bar that we've set," Ms McDonagh said.

While there have been improvements in the planning process in recent years according to Ms McDonagh, the problem is that it is going to take "a long time to get to where we need to get to".

"Unfortunately, while other children across the country get notification in October or November disabled children are only hearing in May, June, July, August.

"So this leaves no time for transition. It leaves families and children in stressful situations where they don't know yet where their child is going to access their right to education," she said.

The Department of Education has said that in 2023, it spent over €2.6 billion on special education and further progress would be made this year as an additional €113 million will be dedicated to providing supports for children with special educational needs.

So, is the issue a matter of funding or planning?

Ms McDonagh believes planning is one of the most significant issues because of a backlog of needs that have been identified but haven't been addressed.

That includes resource issues such as additional teaching staff.

"We're talking about special needs assistance, but we're also talking about resources in a broader context, which is about training, education, support for schools in that way too.

"We've a road to go there. To have rights based supports for children and school, we need to have access to therapies. We need access to training, so all of those supports must be built into our local schools, and we're not there yet," she added.

A spokesperson for the Department of Education said that "enabling children" with special educational needs to receive an education is "a priority" for the Government.

"The vast majority of children with special educational needs are supported to attend mainstream classes with their peers. Where children with more complex needs require additional supports, special classes and special school places are provided."

It said the department has been engaging "intensely with the National Council for Special Education (NCSE) in relation to the forward planning of new special classes and additional special school places".

"This forward planning work is well under way ahead of the 2024/25 school year. This work involves a detailed review of statistical data in relation to forecasting demand for special class places, an analysis of available school accommodation, consideration of improved data sharing arrangements and a particular focus on the provision of special classes at post-primary level."

The department has said that along with the two new special schools opening this school year, 390 new special classes - 254 at primary and 136 at post-primary level - have been sanctioned by the NCSE for opening this school year.

It has said that schools and parents will be notified over the coming weeks where new special classes will be sanctioned for the 2024/25 school year.

The question is why parents have not been assured that those notifications are coming and can those who are worried about not getting places set aside the potential of re-mortgaging their homes.

The department has said it, and the NCSE are committed to ensuring that sufficient special education placements will be available for children for this school year and future years.

However, the Lewis's are worn out.

"Our special needs kids are just treated like fourth-class citizens in their own country," according to Greg.

"Every time you've reached the hurdle, there's a brick wall in the way and to get that brick wall down, you have to fight, fight, fight all the time. Nothing comes easy when you've got kids with special needs."

The usual suspects try to pin the blame on anti-immigrant sentiment, the far-right, volatility, and just the yokels are too ignorant to know what's good for them. But the reality is, people see the disconnect between the fancy language about gender-neutral and inclusive, and what actually happens when support for carers and those in need of care is sought: you're not getting it, you're not going to get it. We think you're so special, we're going to have a referendum to put it in the Constitution! Also we can't even tell you if your kid will have a school place for the new term. Can you see why voters with that knowledge might just possibly vote "No" and still not be far-right gender-essentialist white supremacists?

Bad old sexist, misogynist, gendered language that asks the State to make sure that there won't be the necessity for choices such as the Lewis family say above about "It has left Greg and Celine in a situation where one of them will have to give up work to remain at home full-time with their son".

Article 41.2.1° “In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.”

Article 41.2.2° “The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.”

Shiny progressive new inclusive, non-gendered, non-marriage based language rejected by the backwards public:

The State recognises that the provision of care, by members of a family to one another by reason of the bonds that exist among them, gives to Society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved, and shall strive to support such provision.

I mean, c'mon! The Department of Education has been "engaging intensely with the National Council for Special Education (NCSE) in relation to the forward planning of new special classes and additional special school places". That's "striving", isn't it? Nobody said anything about actually paying out money so mothers (or fathers or non-binary babas) wouldn't have to engage in labour outside the home and wouldn't be at a loss by this, unlike the bad old 1937 Catholic bigots!

Context

SSCReader FarNearEverywhere 2mo ago

While the story is sad, as a fellow (ex?)government employee, I would imagine that we might agree a shortfall of 6 or 8 spaces in a city the size of Dublin is essentially nothing. Too many open spots and you're wasting public funds after all.

The fact the spaces needed is so close a match for those provided is a near miracle of demand prediction.

Does the government wanting to change the Constitution really have any link to decisions on special needs places by the Department of Education, that gets the predicted demand right down to single digits?

FarNearEverywhere SSCReader 2mo ago

The government blathering on about gender equality and the role of carers and how much they're going to do for carers once the wording is passed can be doubted when you see "I can't even get a school place for my special needs kid".

Why believe in "jam tomorrow" when you're being refused "jam today"? And the point is that even Dublin has a shortfall of such places, so the situation down the country is likely even worse, as it's Dublin that gets all the resources first. "We solemnly promise to strive to support carers in the family" "Great, so our local school is going to get a special needs assistant place?" "Ah now come on, why would you expect that?"

"I can't even get a school place for my special needs kid".

When 6 or 8 people can't get a place for their kid, this is bad for them, but at a city level it is a rounding error.

That government doesn't deliver perfectly seems to be Constitution agnostic, as in the UK doesn't even have a formal Constitution and has the same problems. So the question is, whether linking this particular issue to the Constitution seems to be causative and I would argue it does not appear to be. You could be in a world where Ireland does not have a Constitution and still has exactly the same issue.

Just to be clear I am not arguing the Constitution should or should not have been changed, just that this particular example doesn't seem particularly linked to the Constitution at all, rather than funding constrained. The English city I worked in had even worse problems at not delivering special needs school places, and yet that wasn't impacted by whether language about supporting mothers was or was not in the Constitution, but rather the amount of money it was taking in in taxes plus it's grant from central government.

Do you have any reason to think that a shortfall of 8 special needs places in Dublin is actually linked to the way the Constitution is written? Rather than funding, or that predicting the number of places needed in advance is difficult to do perfectly?

FarNearEverywhere SSCReader 2mo ago · Edited 2mo ago

Okay, let me explain myself. The government is the bunch that decided we needed to rewrite language in the Constitution, and they tried to sell it to the public who were, in general, "why the fuck is this considered an urgent problem when we have real urgent problems?" as among other things "we totally super promise this will mean we're fully committed legally to having to dish out the cash to pay for support for carers":

In both the Dáil and Seanad, Mr O’Gorman has argued that the term “strive” goes further than “endeavour”.

In the Dáil, he said the wording “shall endeavour” has “not actually delivered anything in terms of tangible benefits. The use of the term ‘shall strive’ introduces a clear obligation newly entered into by this Government, which I hope the public will support in this referendum by the State. In using ‘shall strive’, the Government is introducing a brand-new article with a clear mandatory obligation. This is a significant change that has legal value and legal meaning.”

In the Seanad he said using the word “strive” puts a “clear obligation on the State. It is a justiciable obligation on the State and it will be tried and tested in the courts”.

This, despite the fact that it came out that the legal advice from the Attorney-General on this was "the hell it does".

So the aftermath is all "why did people vote No, did they not believe us?" to which the answer there is "No shit, Sherlock". As to why the people didn't believe them? Cases like this: ongoing for ten years that there is a shortage of places, all the responsibility dumped on the family to make it work, and now the same guys that are telling the parents "sorry, nuffin' we can do" are going around saying "we wuv carers SO MUCH we're gonna put special language in the Constitution to say we wuv them SO MUCH!"

To get all Scriptural about this, let me quote the Epistle of St. James:

15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that?

In the same way, what good is shiny new inclusive language about "carers are awesome!" if there is no movement on "okay, for ten years there's been a shortage of school places, what are you gonna do?"

EDIT: It's not just school places, it's the entire system around special and additional needs. Like I said, I worked in a school in a designated area of educational disadvantage, and now in a day service for preschool kids with additional needs, and for parents trying to get advice, recommendations, assessments, places, you name it - struggle, struggle, struggle. Funding is key, oh yes definitely: we're constantly begging for more funding, we added five additional places and could easily add even more to cope with demand but there's no funding. We're the sole centre for such children in this geographical division of an entire county outside the city. That's why all the government rhetoric over the new amendments to the Constitution, especially selling it as gender-neutral non-sexist language, was regarded with "and pigs will fly" by me and everyone I know working in the sector. 'We will strive' commits them to nothing; 'yes, we strove to see if we could fund an extra place for your kid but oopsie, no luck!' isn't much help but it means they can go around patting themselves on the back about how progressive they are now that the definition of "family" includes "if you're shacked up together and we don't even care about which gender you are".

EDIT EDIT: Suppose we give credit to Minister O'Gorman there and if enacted, the new wording would put a legal obligation on the State. The parents in the article go to court (if they can afford the lawyers) and the case trundles on for five years or so (because the Department is going to fight it). Eventually the decision is "the State must provide a place for the child". Well, if he hasn't aged out yet, the Department comes back with "fine but we gots no place". Then what?

Build more schools and hire more staff? You know how long the planning process is, how long it will be before the school is built, the arguments around where the funding to hire the staff will come from, etc. The kid could be 30 before ever anything happens to provide a new school with places for special/additional needs kids. It will benefit that set of children coming along then, but what about the current children? They're the ones with no places and no supports. And if the State is saying that they have to be forced by the courts to carry out their duty of support, that's not very promising, either.

Gaashk FarNearEverywhere 2mo ago

If they move to the American system where the families can and do sue and receive large awards and tons of legal requirements burdening the entire state if they aren't accommodated, they'll doubtless find the places soon enough. I guess it sounds like they are able to drag the cases out too long? But it also comes with its own problems.

What is this place?

Why are you called The Motte?

New post guidelines

Rules

Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats