“Back in my day…” there was a crusade against Christian prayer and what not. Keep things neutral - to the point that teachers who were otherwise obviously religious would completely dodge the topic when my intellectually curious atheist self asked on topics.

Now we’re back at teachers here-and-they’re wanting to assert their belief system in the classroom and activist parents seeking to eliminate this issue… only the script is a bit flipped.

So, the question becomes should we keep schools neutral or not?

> So, the question becomes should we keep schools neutral or not?

What is the role of school? Is the role to prep kids to go to college? Is it to drive social change? Is it to teach what kids need to perform common jobs? Is it to teach kids how to have skills to operate as adults (like managing their personal finances)?

These are questions we don't agree on as a culture.

A bunch of debate is rooted in disagreement as to what these should be.

"What is the role of school?"

There are really only two possible answers in the current public school systenlm:

1. Whatever a broad consensus of people want them to do.

2. Whatever a slim majority can impose on the rest.

As consensus evaporates, we are left with the latter. This plays out in red/blue states differently.

Eventually, we may need to move to a voucher system so that the parents just pick a school that they like.

> There are really only two possible answers in the current public school systenlm:

There is one more option. Have a small group of people push their agenda while the masses are mostly unaware.

By asking what the role is, you presupposed that we can decide on one, and that it will somehow happen. If the adminstrators and teachers don't fulfill their role, that's a different question.

There might be slight difference between prayers in classrooms and books being available in a library for children to check out if interested. Unless you're suggesting that all material containing any religious content or characters also be excluded from libraries in the name of neutrality?

I think there's some validity to this thought process. I'm of the opinion the books shouldn't be banned, but this point gives me pause.

There's an obvious difference here via the 1st amendment, which doesn't regulate social issues, but that's more legal technicality than philosophy.

My experience as a kid (after these crusades) was that religion wasn't forbidden as a topic, but that endorsement or derision of any particular religion was forbidden. E.g. it would be fine to ask what the difference in belief is between a Catholic and an Amish, but a teacher would probably refuse to answer if asked which one is better supported by historical fact. One of the history classes spent a week or two on the various common religions.

If I'm recalling correctly, the school library had copies of at least the Bible, the Quran and a Hebrew Bible (I feel like there was a better term but I can't recall it). There wasn't an attempt to hide the information, the school just couldn't endorse a particular religion. Tolerance was generally encouraged to all religions (or lack thereof).

This feels like it's going further than the religious issues. It's an attempt to suppress knowledge, rather than to suppress opinion.

> there was a crusade against Christian prayer

Bullshit. There was a backlash against forced Christian prayer, as there should be.

> teachers here-and-they’re wanting to assert their belief system in the classroom

Bullshit. Making a wide variety of books available to interested students is literally the opposite of asserting a specific belief system.

> activist parents

Bullshit. This is very clearly neo-fascist alt-right book-burners trying to bring about white Christian nationalism. Very clearly: they're not even trying to hide this fact. Any argument that does not acknowledge this is a bald-faced attempt to instate white Christian nationalism is not in good faith.

> the question becomes should we keep schools neutral or not?

Bullshit. This is a clear attempt to set the standard for "neutral" as "white Christian nationalist" and anything other than that as non-neutral.

> my intellectually curious atheist self

Green username, bad-faith argument filled with bullshit. Why do I get this feeling this statement is similar to "as a gay black man ..."

> Bullshit. There was a backlash against forced Christian prayer, as there should be.

Need I remind you that the US is one nation _under God_?

> Bullshit. Making a wide variety of books available to interested students is literally the opposite of asserting a specific belief system.

It'll be quite "convenient" if certain books had more space on the shelves than others.

> Green username, bad-faith argument filled with bullshit. Why do I get this feeling this statement is similar to "as a gay black man ..."

Please make sure you're following the HackerNews commenting guidelines. :>

> Need I remind you that the US is one nation _under God_?

I refused to recite that fascist bullshit in school, and "under God" was added by Dwight Eisenhower in 1954. I disagree that the US is "under God". What's your point? You're going to come to my house and wreck the place if I don't kneel for your God? What are you even talking about?

> It'll be quite "convenient" if certain books had more space on the shelves than others.

What are you talking about? Say what you mean. Otherwise it'll be quite "convenient" if your grandmother turns out to be a bicycle.

> Please make sure you're following the HackerNews commenting guidelines. :>

"Assume good faith" stops when strong evidence presented that the argument is in bad faith. I stated what that evidence was.

> “Back in my day…” there was a crusade against Christian prayer and what not.

No, there wasn't.

There has historically been litigation against forced or state-agent-led prayer, and that litigation was often by Christian (or Christian-adjacent; boundaries are disputed) groups.

>Other schools [2] in the US are more explicit on change...

?> School of Education devoted to developing civically engaged children, youth, and adults for a diverse and inclusive society.

Why is developing "civic engagement" among our population a bad thing?

Why is a "diverse and inclusive" society a bad thing?

Not being snarky here, I just really don't understand how reducing civic engagement and excluding those who are "different" are good things.

Perhaps you could explain your reasoning around that?

First, let me say that I'm not attempting to give my own opinion on the direction that folks should go in. I'm most interested in bringing awareness as to what's going on so we can have deeper understanding and discussion.

With the school his is from, look at what their vision isn't. It's not to create well educated people who can excel at their jobs. Their vision isn't to create people who are self sustaining adults who can operate in society.

Their vision is to get people civically engaged around certain forms of change.

The specific forms of change are not agreed to as a culture in the US. This is an area where we don't have good in depth thoughtful conversations, either.

>Their vision is to get people civically engaged around certain forms of change.

>The specific forms of change are not agreed to as a culture in the US. This is an area where we don't have good in depth thoughtful conversations, either.

That's not what you initially said, nor do I understand how "civic engagement" is ever a bad thing. In fact, we need lots more of it.

You are applying ("The specific forms of change are not agreed to as a culture in the US") your trained-in prejudices as the right way, the only way. That's a little disturbing.

I'd add, as far as creating civic engagement is concerned, that you should never, metaphorically (and literally) speaking, hand someone a gun unless you know where they're going to point it.

I, and most reasonable humans, want more civic engagement from everyone. Including those with whom we disagree. Because that's how we make sure our society and government are working.

Discouraging civic engagement for any reason is bad, IMHO.

It's unfortunate that you don't come right out and say what you mean, rather than using inference and innuendo: You don't like what other folks want, so you want to ban it, or at least discredit those you believe disagree with you. At least that's my take on your comments.

Please do correct me if I'm wrong.

To try and be more clear, I'm not attempting to give my own opinion on what should happen with regard to these topics. I'm attempting to highlight the disconnect. To get closer to a root of what's happening. This is from direct conversations with people across the political spectrum and from reading about it.

> Discouraging civic engagement for any reason is bad, IMHO.

When we deal with things there are priorities. What's the most important, what's less important, what's mildly important, etc.

Where does pushing for civic engagement relate priority wise with things like being able to handle your finances as an adult? Or being able to take care of your home? Or being able to hold a job? Or being prepared for college (if that's your route)?

The vision, in this case, points to civic engagement. It leaves out the others which makes them less of a priority.

Now, relate that to things like skilled trades. That's not something you need a college degree for and doing those jobs doesn't relate to being civically engaged. Many schools don't provide the foundation for people to even start in skilled trades even though we have a lack of skilled trades folks that's growing.

This is a simple angle for priorities.

Even within Civic Engagement there are priorities. Who gets to choose the priorities to steer the kids into? At what age does the steering start? Who gets to prioritize that?

Should it be university professors putting together programs for teachers to go through? Then those teachers implement those ideas with their students? Should it be the general public opinions?

Priorities are multi-dimensional. The leaders who lead our school leaders are setting the agenda. And, there are a bunch of people who disagree with that.

Again, please note, I'm not stating my opinion on these topics. I'm trying to highlight a little deeper on the root.

>To try and be more clear, I'm not attempting to give my own opinion on what should happen with regard to these topics. I'm attempting to highlight the disconnect. To get closer to a root of what's happening. This is from direct conversations with people across the political spectrum and from reading about it.

Not bad. Still a bunch of mealy-mouthed bullshit, but a little better.

Keep working on it. Perhaps you might one day convince someone you're actually a reasonable human being. I won't hold my breath.

Health and good fortune to you.

> you don't come right out and say what you mean, rather than using inference and innuendo: You don't like what other folks want, so you want to ban it, or at least discredit those you believe disagree with you

> Please do correct me if I'm wrong.

The parent comment quite right out says the problem is prioritization. I'd rather see "critical thinking, first order logic and math" in place of "civic engagement". You say yourself "you should never, metaphorically (and literally) speaking, hand someone a gun unless you know where they're going to point it". In my view, inducing "civic engagement" is "giving a gun", and teaching "where ... to point it" is math.

>The parent comment quite right out says the problem is prioritization.

Actually, the grandparent comment[0] says nothing of the sort. mfer brings up prioritization in their response[1] to my comment.

>You say yourself "you should never, metaphorically (and literally) speaking, hand someone a gun unless you know where they're going to point it".

I do. And teaching civics that gun. And understanding how our government and society functions is a powerful tool. Everyone should be taught such things, regardless of how they may use them.

My point is that teaching civic engagement does not "tell people where to point" that metaphorical gun. Rather, it gives people the knowledge and understanding to engage and interact with their society and political system. For whatever purpose a person feels appropriate.

Teaching someone how our system of government works and encouraging them to make use of that knowledge doesn't tell them "where to point" that knowledge.

I'd add that if you're ignorant of such things, you deprive yourself of knowledge that will allow you to interact more effectively with our system of government.

And understanding how our system works and how to utilize the power (and responsibility) inherent in citizenship is critical to maintaining a free, open and democratic society.

That's not to say that teaching math or literacy or science or how to tie your shoes isn't important. They absolutely are, and no one here (or in any of the links provided by GP) says they aren't.

In fact, mfer didn't mention "prioritization" until I called them out for their "dog whistles"[2].

I don't know GP or what's in their mind, nor do I pretend to do so. All I can do in that respect is draw conclusions from what they write.

I did so. You apparently disagree with my assessment and perhaps I'm way off base.

But the argument made by mfer in the comment to which I replied had all the hallmarks of coded language slamming "academia" and pedagogy, with absolutely zero support for such an attitude among academics. It's a poster boy for "those academics and educated elites are indoctrinating our kids into destroying the nation."

Which is scaremongering and "othering"[3] of our fellow Americans. And I take great umbrage to anyone (including other Americans) who want to make their fellow countrymen "the enemy."

Not just because it's promoting division to advance a political agenda, but also because it's intellectually dishonest to cherry pick quotes in order to demonize others.

Finally, I'd point out that most of the rhetoric around all the bashing of civil society seems to be done by folks who don't actually understand how our systems work. Which is the best argument for teaching civics/civic engagement, IMHO.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34492386

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34493562

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics)

[3] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/other...

Edit: Added reference for the term "othering."

>Actually, the grandparent comment[0] says nothing of the sort. mfer brings up prioritization in their response[1] to my comment.

This is a rather lengthy response that starts wrong in the very first paragraph. From [0]:

> With the school his is from, look at what their vision isn't. It's not to create well educated people who can excel at their jobs. Their vision isn't to create people who are self sustaining adults who can operate in society.

> Their vision is to get people civically engaged around certain forms of change.

This reads to me clear as day as mfer saying they should prioritize ~getting educated people with skills~ over ~civically engaged~ + ~certain forms of change~.

The comment [1] that you referred to was not even published yet when I started writing mine. I will only be off to read his own response after I finish this one.

To add to that, neither mfer's comment, nor mine ever imply civics are not important and should not be taught.

Many right wingers believe "diverse and inclusive" is code for "progressive/communist indoctrination and telling our kids that LGBTQ people are better than cis straight people". They don't object to the literal words, they object to what they believe is the hidden meaning behind the words.

(this is not an exaggeration—I have a sickness that causes me to be fascinated by right-wing media, so I watch/read/listen-to quite a bit of it)

I think this already makes too many assumptions.

Teachers are responsible for teaching kids how to read, write, do math, learn the basic geography of the world, to learn sports, possibly learn music, maybe learn how to manage money, learn to use tools, program computers, and so much more.

What priorities are the highest? Should learning math be at the top? Should kids still learn cursive? Does memorizing spelling matter now?

The vision statement says that being civically engaged around diversity and inclusion sits above those other things. People chase after visions.

A lot of people don't agree on this. Even those in the middle.

So your belief is that teaching kids how our system of government works and what mechanisms are available to access and impact that system is wrong, and shouldn't be taught at all?

Is that correct?

Edit: Clarified my prose.

That book Gender Queer is terrible though. A seriously mentally ill person who suffered horrible abuse from her parents should not be writing such vile content with such pornographic imagery for children. How it ever got approved as a children's book is beyond me.

It is however a great tool for parents to see how utterly disturbed the books the schools are giving their kids are, and if they're smart pull them into homeschooling.

I just read it. Wtf are you on about? There's nothing vile in there, it's a frank memoir of growing up. You and Florida both need to chill the fuck out with this witch hunt.