[wat0n]

Last time I checked, parents have the right to decide what kind of political speech their children are exposed to.

In private schools, parents make that choice the moment they enroll their children in.

In public schools, they don't really have such a choice.

[Fasces]

@wat0n Nobody could speak politically in public if that absurd premise were true. It completely negates the first amendment.

You'd have to put all books in porn bags. Can't have a kid inadvertently reading a political message their parents don't want to be exposed too!

Good lord, it's no different than the constitutional right all Chinese have to "not be offended" that is used as a blanket justification for their own speech restrictions. Parents have no such right.

For a bunch of guys who insist China is repressive, you sure are eager to implement a version of their worst practices.

[wat0n]

@wat0n Nobody could speak politically in public if that absurd premise were true. It completely negates the first amendment.

You'd have to put all books in porn bags. Can't have a kid inadvertently reading a political message their parents don't want to be exposed too!

Good lord, it's no different than the constitutional right all Chinese have to "not be offended" that is used as a blanket justification for their own speech restrictions. Parents have no such right.

School attendance is effectively compulsory for those who cannot afford to pay for private schools or homeschooling. Again, are you saying parents don't have the right to decide what type of politics their children are exposed to? Outside the classroom, they can in principle decide what type of media their kids are exposed to. But not in school.

By the way, would you be OK if a teacher started "teaching" his school students African Americans are genetically inferior and should be segregated because there are papers finding they have a lower IQ on average than Caucasian Americans? Would it be OK for parents, specially Black parents, to complain about this and for the district to take the appropriate corrective measures or this would be an intolerable violation of the teacher's right to free political speech? I will note it is currently illegal for a teacher to do this in states like Florida, and has been for several years there for that matter.

[Fasces]

Again, are you saying parents don't have the right to decide what type of politics their children are exposed to?

Yes. If I pass by a guy promoting Islam with my kid on the way to the grocery store, can I sue him for exposing my kid to other ideas without my consent?

You don't have the right to keep other people from talking to your child, or the right to police what they say or don't say. If someone says something to my kid that I disagree with, I have to suck it up. That's what free speech is.

Your argument ultimately becomes: people have the right to free speech under the first amendment, unless they are teachers.

By the way, would you be OK if a teacher started "teaching" his school students African Americans are genetically inferior and should be segregated because there are papers finding they have a lower IQ on average than Caucasian Americans?

I'm not a free speech absolutist. There is good speech and bad speech. I'm ok with the state policing speech it has determined to be undesirable - for example, China exercising editorial control over books marketed to children, as in the OP. Are you?

I am OK with hate speech legislation, to speak to your example. However, this should apply generally - to everyone. An exemption shouldn't be carved out for teachers in public schools, only. The teacher shouldn't be allowed to preach that black Americans are genetically inferior - and neither should anyone else, in any media.

[Fasces]

I mean, what is really the endgame here @wat0n

"China is a repressive state that regulates the content of what people can say, and the US should also?"

[wat0n]

Yes. If I pass by a guy promoting Islam with my kid on the way to the grocery store, can I sue him for exposing my kid to other ideas without my consent?

You don't have the right to keep other people from talking to your child, or the right to police what they say or don't say. If someone says something to my kid that I disagree with, I have to suck it up. That's what free speech is.

Actually, you can indeed keep your child away from that guy or strangers in general. What are you talking about?

You can always grab the child and get away. You don't even need to infringe of this third person's right to free speech, since the option of getting away and ignoring him is available. Yet you cannot do this while the kid is compulsorily attending school, can you?

No, but I'm not a free speech absolutist. There is good speech and bad speech. I'm ok with the state policing speech it has determined to be undesirable - for example, China exercising editorial control over books marketed to children, as in the OP. Are you?

Depends.

Yes, if they are used in schools required in the curriculum. Quite evidently, ministries of education have the right and duty to decide what kind of books they will require and that can indeed include political content. I am fine with schools deciding Mein Kampf, even an adaptation for children, has no place in the required curriculum. I am also fine with them deciding phrenology or astrology are not subjects worth teaching at all, and firing teachers from doing so as they are outside the curriculum.

No, if they are not and it's up to families to decide if they are going to use them in their privacy, subject to the usual limitations that go for any speech (e.g. laws against defamation, endangering national security, etc). Again, because they can always decide they don't want to - not really the same as the case above.

By the way @Fasces have you read American children's books lately? The ones they sell in bookstores, that is. You can find plenty that encourage children to protest or that try to pin political concepts on them.

[Fasces]

Yet you cannot do this while the kid is compulsorily attending school, can you?

Again, because they can always decide they don't want to - not really the same as the case above.

A child must attend an educational institution. No law forces a child to attend a specific educational institution. If I don't like the public option, the onus is on me to find an acceptable alternative - I don't get to demand that the state change it.

If you care that much about what content a child is exposed to, find a different one.

(Not that I think home schooling or private schooling in the US is desirable; it is rife with abuse and the practice should be policed much more than it is).

By the way @Fasces have you read American children's books lately? The ones they sell in bookstores, that is. You can find plenty that encourage children to protest or that try to pin political concepts on them.

Yes, and if my kid stumbles across a book and reads it, at the mall, a library, or elsewhere... should I have the right to sue the publisher or owner for putting in the 'child' section? Nope.

What you're asking for is no different than article 38 of the Chinese constitution; the very law that underpins Chinese speech regulations.

We're not that far out from debates about teaching creationism in biology class; a nebulous retriction against 'political' speech in a classroom is easily abused. I mention evolution or climate change... am I being political? I mention that me and my wife saw the parade on Labor Day. Is that political? What if its me and my husband? If I say the Pledge of Allegiance? Can I sing the National Anthem? Can I sing Canada's National Anthem? North Korea's? Can teachers go on strike? Can they talk about it? If a new 9/11 happens, we gonna prosecute teachers for putting CNN on?

If a teacher goes on and on about politics world of warcraft, and doesn't teach the curriculum or standards... if the students are below grade level in achievement because all day they go on and on about BLM their raid leader and doesn't discuss trigonometry, he'll get fired for poor performance anyway.

[wat0n]

A child must attend an educational institution. No law forces a child to attend a specific educational institution. If I don't like the public option, the onus is on me to find an acceptable alternative - I don't get to demand that the state change it.

If you care that much about what content a child is exposed to, find a different one.

(Not that I think home schooling or private schooling in the US is desirable; it is rife with abuse and the practice should be policed much more than it is).

What happens to those who must attend some type of schooling and can only afford public schools?

Also, am I understanding correctly private schools should indeed have the right to teach whatever politics they want to students? Like there could be white supremacist schools for white supremacist families able to afford them that teach white supremacy?

Yes, and if my kid stumbles across a book and reads it, at the mall, a library, or elsewhere... should I have the right to sue the publisher or owner for putting in the 'child' section? Nope.

What you're asking for is no different than article 38 of the Chinese constitution; the very law that underpins Chinese speech regulations.

I'm not asking for that though. As I said, the real difference between a bookstore and schools is that you can simply make sure your kid doesn't read those books or even enter the bookstore grounds for free since nobody forces you to go there, this is not the case for schools.

There is also a distinction between printing books and teaching them in schools or as part of the curriculum and also between teaching something as part of a requirement and as part of an optional class.

[Fasces]

What happens to those who must attend some type of schooling and can only afford public schools?

Patients on Medicaid can't choose their doctors freely either. You don't get to choose your court appointed lawyer. Public options are standardized, not personalized.

The parent can talk to their child about the political views they have been exposed to and contextualize them at home.

Also, am I understanding correctly private schools should indeed have the right to teach whatever politics they want to students? Like there could be white supremacist schools for white supremacist families able to afford them that teach white supremacy?

In the US, they are. That's why the GOP is so transparently dishonest about their concerns about 'public workers' discussing politics but they're real quiet about their jesus camps, liberty charters and patriot curriculums. It's why they're so gung-ho about shutting down public schools and replacing them with voucher systems for private ones.

There is also a distinction between printing books and teaching them in schools or as part of the curriculum and also between teaching something as part of a requirement and as part of an optional class.

Can we stick to the issue of: 'teachers expressing political opinions in a classroom' without going on tangents about curriculum?

If a student asks me who I'm voting for in an upcoming election, it is absurd to me that answering that question should be a firable offense. Parental rights do not trump the rights of others to speak freely.

[Unthinking Majority]

1. Talking about the US specifically, not the nebulous West.

2. Elsewhere in the thread I've shown cases of public school teachers being fired for political speech outside the classroom. Unless you're advocating that the full fifth of Americans that work in some capacity for the 'government' shouldn't have constitutional rights at all?

3. The fact that they are employed by the government is utterly irrelevent - I don't see the outrage about a national park ranger teaching about climate change; a geological surveyor talking in favor of the Clean Water Act; or President Biden making a political speech. All government employees, saying political things in the course of their work, and perfectly fine. The real problem is with teachers, specifically public school teachers (because of course we want to protect teachers at our right-wing charter or biblical schools making political speech in the classroom) and generally because public school teachers skew young, female and Democrat - 3 for 3 on the shitlist for half of American politicians.

1. No reputable human rights org would say the US has as few human rights as China. No author in America is going to get arrested simply for writing a book critical of the government. On page 1 @Rancid was also correct in predicting CCP apologist whattaboutism in this thread.

2. Sounds like they have a good legal case.

3. Civil servants are supposed to be politically neutral. Joe Biden isn't a civil servant he's a politician. Would you be in favour of public school teachers preaching pro-Trump, anti-LGBT rhetoric in the classroom? Their job is to leave their political biases at home and teach the curriculum. Private schools are a totally different situation. In China they propagandize educational curriculum to ensure compliance with the current governing party.

[Fasces]

1. No reputable human rights org would say the US has as few human rights as China. No author in America is going to get arrested simply for writing a book critical of the government.

Yes, the US exports its worst abuses. Though the GOP is well on its way to bringing it home.

2. Sounds like they have a good legal case.

Nope.

The Constitution does not entitle teachers to present personal views to captive audiences against the instructions of elected officials.

Sounds right at home with the Chinese rulebook, to be frank. The blind adulation many Americans have for their country, against all recognizable reality, really puts the CPC to shame. Bringing me back to my only point:

It's hard to swallow the idea that this is an ideological clash of civilizations between good and evil that demands a new Cold War when there's little real difference between the oligarchic regime with a veneer of democracy and the oligarchic regime without it.

viewtopic.php?p=15182682#p15182682

[wat0n]

We're not that far out from debates about teaching creationism in biology class; a nebulous retriction against 'political' speech in a classroom is easily abused. I mention evolution or climate change... am I being political? I mention that me and my wife saw the parade on Labor Day. Is that political? What if its me and my husband? If I say the Pledge of Allegiance? Can I sing the National Anthem? Can I sing Canada's National Anthem? North Korea's? Can teachers go on strike? Can they talk about it? If a new 9/11 happens, we gonna prosecute teachers for putting CNN on?

If a teacher goes on and on about politics world of warcraft, and doesn't teach the curriculum or standards... if the students are below grade level in achievement because all day they go on and on about BLM their raid leader and doesn't discuss trigonometry, he'll get fired for poor performance anyway.

This is why curriculums exist and there are often laws regulating how it should be crafted, don't you think? Ultimately, the decision to ban/require teaching X is essentially a curricular decision, and yes that part is indeed political and the politics happens outside school for the most part.

I don't think the examples you mentioned are the same as the CRT and white supremacy bans either. In those examples, I don't think the teacher is actually teaching anything or grading based on it. And students can opt out of singing the National Anthem or the Pledge of Allegiance, it's their right to. But they cannot opt out of tests or classes...

Patients on Medicaid can't choose their doctors freely either. You don't get to choose your court appointed lawyer. Public options are standardized, not personalized.

Indeed, which is why it makes sense for curricular decisions to be so contested in practice.

The parent can talk to their child about the political views they have been exposed to and contextualize them at home.

What happens if the child never tells the parent and it's not part of the curriculum?

As in, is it against the teacher's speech to force adherence into the curriculum? If so, is it an acceptable restriction on the teacher's speech?

In the US, they are. That's why the GOP is so transparently dishonest about their concerns about 'public workers' discussing politics but they're real quiet about their jesus camps, liberty charters and patriot curriculums. It's why they're so gung-ho about shutting down public schools and replacing them with voucher systems for private ones.

This goes both ways, though. Their position also accepts the existence of private progressive schools with a progressive curriculum, deconstruction camps and anti-racist charters.

Also, I don't think this would apply to charter schools since they operate under the terms of an agreement signed with the state.

Can we stick to the issue of: 'teachers expressing political opinions in a classroom' without going on tangents about curriculum?

If a student asks me who I'm voting for in an upcoming election, it is absurd to me that answering that question should be a firable offense. Parental rights do not trump the rights of others to speak freely.

But the curriculum is important. As you said, teachers are not supposed to veer out of it to begin with!

An informal conversation in break, I think, is a different matter. It's not teaching, at least not formally and not open for grading. Students are thus not required to listen to whatever the teacher is saying.

The CRT ban is a curricular decision, I agree that if it's solely a matter of sharing opinions that should not be banned. But that is not what the law regulates, at all, and FWIW I think there is nothing wrong with simply debating the issue.

If it's about sharing political opinions, I've actually seen US laws banning that but in the workplace.

[Unthinking Majority]

We're not that far out from debates about teaching creationism in biology class; a nebulous retriction against 'political' speech in a classroom is easily abused. I mention evolution or climate change... am I being political?

A public teacher is essentially a civil servant and an agent of the government. The government shouldn't be telling your kid what is the one true religion or what political ideologies or parties are better than the others. You would be the first parent to get angry if your child came home and said their teacher was handing out anti-abortion stickers and telling kids how evil homosexuals and trans people were and how climate change was a giant fraud. A teachers job is to stfu and teach the approved curriculum because their personal opinions and moralization is not appropriate.

[Unthinking Majority]

Nope.

MAYER v. MONROE COUNTY COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION (2007) wrote:

The Constitution does not entitle teachers to present personal views to captive audiences against the instructions of elected officials.

Inside the classroom that's exactly right, teachers do not have free speech in the conduct of their duties as employees, they are to follow the curriculum. I assume there's likely different standards outside the classroom.

What you originally said to me was: "Elsewhere in the thread I've shown cases of public school teachers being fired for political speech outside the classroom."

You then quoted a court case of a teacher being fired for expressing their political opinions to her students about the Iraq War inside the classroom:

The U.S. Supreme Court declined last week to hear the appeal of a former Indiana teacher who alleged that she lost her job because she had discussed the Iraq war in her classroom.
...
“The First Amendment does not entitle primary and secondary teachers, when conducting the education of captive audiences, to cover topics, or advocate viewpoints, that depart from the curriculum adopted by the school system,” the appeals court said.

https://www.edweek.org/education/teache ... ed/2007/10

[Fasces]

Did you read what "discuss" meant in that case?

She attended an anti war rally. A student recognized her and asked her if she had attended in class the next day. She said yes, she had attended. A different student told her parents and they complained to the school.

She wasn't sitting there on a pulpit talking about the evils of war. She didn't spend a whole class discussing the Iraq War. She was having an informal conversation with a student.

Brian Covey got fired for filming a TIKTOK in an empty room; no captive audience present.

Sarah Juree (and others) got fired for having an OnlyFans - entirely out of classroom speech.

When we start talking about how great they are for freedom of speech except if their boss let's them or if they have certain jobs or if they're expressing certain viewpoints in certain ways... It rings very hollow to me.

My comment was initially written two years ago, and the US isn't getting better about it, either. Whether is disinformation bans or the culture wars.

[Fasces]

This goes both ways, though. Their position also accepts the existence of private progressive schools with a progressive curriculum, deconstruction camps and anti-racist charters.

I know you like to give the benefit of the doubt wherever possible, but I have no such good faith with the GOP. The Florida legislature banned any school from teaching CRT or 'woke' but continues to give tax funded vouchers to denominational schools. Abbot is pushing for having the Ten Commandments in every Texan classroom. The GOP feels very strongly that the American left has 'captured' the American classroom, and has shifted from an essentialist position on education to a perennialist one - a very Christian nationalist version (which is what I have a problem with).

[wat0n]

I know you like to give the benefit of the doubt wherever possible, but I have no such good faith with the GOP. The Florida legislature banned any school from teaching CRT or 'woke' but continues to give tax funded vouchers to denominational schools. Abbot is pushing for having the Ten Commandments in every Texan classroom. The GOP feels very strongly that the American left has 'captured' the American classroom, and has shifted from an essentialist position on education to a perennialist one - a very Christian nationalist version (which is what I have a problem with).

The FL law (at least as applied to K-12 education) is specifically about public schools (and charter schools too, since they sign a contract with the state).

Private schools that don't get government money are another business.

[Fasces]

The FL law (at least as applied to K-12 education) is specifically about public schools (and charter schools too, since they sign a contract with the state).

That's exactly my point - that the FL legislature, and others around the country, are specifically trying to promote a 'patriotic' education and are picking and choosing which ideologies students are exposed too. Florida's voucher system doesn't exclude religious education, or schools which require prayer in the classroom. The GOP hides behind neutral language of the law but is actively promoting an ideological education and I'm not going to pretend otherwise.

The debate isn't "China is bad because their government intervenes in education." It is "China is bad because the worldview their government promotes is one I disagree with." I'm tired of having the fake debate with you people.

Private schools that don't get government money are another business.

These hypothetical schools that receive zero taxpayer money do not exist.

[wat0n]

That's exactly my point - that the FL legislature, and others around the country, are specifically trying to promote a 'patriotic' education and are picking and choosing which ideologies students are exposed too. Florida's voucher system doesn't exclude religious education, or schools which require prayer in the classroom. The GOP hides behind neutral language of the law but is actively promoting an ideological education and I'm not going to pretend otherwise.

Just like in other government programs. I don't see how this conflicts with the First Amendment.

Woke private schools are also eligible for getting vouchers as far as I'm aware.

In fact, it seems Florida is treating CRT as just another religion basically.

These hypothetical schools that receive zero taxpayer money do not exist.

So independent schools are not, in fact, independent of government funding? Their enrollment is small, but it is there and they do not are legally required to conform to state curricula (but chances are they won't be accredited in this case).

[Fasces]

So independent schools are not, in fact, independent of government funding? Their enrollment is small, but it is there and they do not are legally required to conform to state curricula (but chances are they won't be accredited in this case).

They will receive some form of taxpayer money, yes. Find me one independent school that "don't get government money".

Whether its a grant for providing at cost school lunches or others, a subsidy for vouchers they choose to accept, reduced price electricity available to educational institutions, tax relief for bus services. I sincerely doubt there is a single school in the US that doesn't receive some form of government money and thus would be eligible for backdoor oversight.

But only if they teach leftwing concepts - we're perfectly OK with taxpayer money going to ideological schools on the right, such as the millions the Florida GOP is sending toward Christian schools in the state.

Again, the debate isn't really "China is bad because their government intervenes in education." It is "China is bad because the worldview their government promotes is one I disagree with." I'm tired of having the fake debate with you people. It is OK for any government to intervene in education, to limit what political concepts students are exposed too, and to limit what content can be marketed to children. The GOP is ok with it. The Dems are ok with it. You're ok with it. The CPC is ok with it. The disagreement isn't about that.