view the rest of the comments
politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
Well all I can say is they need to first teach the meaning of the words inherently and should in that state.
Teaching people about historical injustice (let alone about a movie) in itself doesn't normally involve either promulgating essentialism (that people are inherently this or that) or telling people how to feel.
It's bizarre that the law as worded here is used to stop people from teaching about facts or art.
@hiddengoat sorry, to be more specific I don't mean I'm surprised that the establishment in a society built on settler colonialism wants to suppress the past (and present).
What surprises me is that they can do so with legislation that simply says you can't pretend DNA causes racism etc and you can't order people to feel guilty. No teacher worth their salt would be doing either of those things.
Surely this law is ripe for being tested by limit cases?
You would think the law wouldn't apply to this, as the story features virtuous white people too, but I think the issue is that getting sued is bad enough, and Oklahoma is conservative enough that a judge might go along with a prosecution despite what the first amendment says. The supreme Court might even let it stand, like they do with anti-BDS laws.
@jonne I don't get how the law would apply to it even if all the white people in it were totally evil.
No history teacher is ever going to claim that the reason historical figures were racist was because it's inherent in their biology.
But yeah I can see how it might have a chilling effect on ordinary people who don't want to be sued. Is there any kind of organization over there that helps to test the meaning and limits of laws like these? Is it something the Civil Liberties Association would be interested in?
All it takes is for one parent to complain- even if the complaint isn't justified- and the teacher's job is on the line, if they aren't in legal hot water.
@FlyingSquid that's so terrible. It's a wonder any science or history even gets taught.
The ACLU would definitely love to be involved to test a case like this, but if you're a regular teacher, are you prepared to lose your job and then be involved in a years long court case?
@jonne good point, thanks for explaining. I always forget how easy it apparently is to fire people in some parts of the US.
In many parts of the US, lunch and breaks are not guaranteed. Companies can also fire someone for any or no reason as long as it's not a very narrow and specific set of reasons without any legal repercussions. They can fire a person for those reasons as well and, if the person fired can't find a lawyer or afford a lengthy case, get away with it.
The US is very much pro-employer.