 |  |  |
| 0:00 | -1:14:47 |
After our hosts catch us up on the latest goings on at the Supreme Court, Sarah tells about another copyright case involving none other than the great Andy Warhol. Plus, David and Sarah chat about the legality of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn’s call for a coup, an updated indictment involving the Oath Keepers and their January 6 activities, a lawsuit against Florida’s Big Tech law, whether public schools should ban critical race theory, whether you should defer law school if you have the chance, and so much more!
Show Notes:
-Tuesday’s Supreme Court orders
-Conversation between David and Christopher Rufo moderated by Bari Weiss
-“The Sliming of Bari Weiss” by David French in National Review
As a public school teacher, I'm very interested in how this anti-woke legislation plays out. However, I thought the discussion in this episode was a little bit confused. One reason this might have been the case is that the difference between facts and opinions can be kind of confusing. See this article: https://www.philosophersmag.com/essays/26-the-fact-opinion-distinction
Another problem is that with the distinction being brought to the forefront, it neglects teachers teach opinions all the time. As Sarah rightly pointed out, if a teacher introduces a particular book by saying, "This is a really excellent piece of literature," that teacher is promoting a viewpoint on that book. If a teacher says, "I don't think that seeing a gay coming-of-age subtext in Huck Finn is the most appropriate or well-supported reading of the text," that teacher is promoting a viewpoint. Now, I actually try, in my teaching, to avoid stating that sort of viewpoint whenever possible, and just provide evidence to allow students to process and come to their own conclusions. In the Huck Finn example, I would rather say, "These are the reasons that this reading might not be well founded. I'll leave it to you to decide if you think that reading still holds up given these reasons." But I'm still teaching the viewpoint.
Likewise, if I were teaching CRT, I would begin a unit with a question like, "Has the US realized its stated goals of freedom and equality for all of its citizens?" and then pick texts and information that showed that it hadn't. Now, because I think that this topic deserves nuance, I would also pick texts and information that showed that it had, and I would try to help my students to also develop a nuanced view of this question. But that's still me teaching a viewpoint. If that state can declare that the viewpoint I must teach is that CRT is 100% bogus and everything is rainbows and butterflies for black people in the US, than what other viewpoints could they declare I must promote? Maybe Florida bans the teaching of CRT, and California mandates it?
I believe that once upon a time there was a general consensus that, "complicated subjects required nuanced perspectives." Unfortunately, that consensus is gone and the demand now is that students be taught complicated subjects in a way that flattens them and eliminates nuance. This demand exists on both the left and on the right, and the outcome is going to be the elimination of good teaching.
I love episodes when David & Sarah talk education!
Teaching in a private Christian international school in Japan, the legal implications of me sharing my own opinion have been far less important to me than the professional implications and the ever-present question of what is best practice. In my first few years of teaching, as a matter of what I viewed to be professional courtesy, I tried hard to stay objective and to not tip my hand too much. The Trump years changed all that as I realized that my students were (mistakenly) equating support for Trump with conservatism. I decided that trying to be neutral, pretending like Trump's behavior was within the bounds of normal for a president from our so-called conservative party would be a dereliction of my calling as an educator (and conservative). That's when the gloves came off for me. No judgment on other teachers who did not feel at liberty--or see it prudent--to go in this direction, but I've been grateful to teach in an environment that allows me to freely follow my conscience in making professional judgments such as this one.
I also teach debate and argumentation as part of my Humanities (blended US History and English) course, so want to encourage and model constructive discussion and disagreement. In my civics unit earlier this year, I allowed students to choose from several prompts including the question of court packing, eliminating the filibuster, effectively abolishing the electoral college via the interstate compact, etc. I gave them a couple resources on each side of each debate to get them started, let them know where I stood on each issue, and then basically said "feel free to come at me if you disagree!" And a decent number of students took me up on that! I had the whole range--students who agreed with me but did a flimsy job on researching or building their argument, so scored lower, and students who disagreed with me, but made a good-faith effort in building a case based on their research, so scored higher. I care less that students can parrot a particular viewpoint that I happen to agree with, and more that students can engage thoughtfully and responsibly with complex issues. That's a big part of where the fun of teaching comes from for me!