The distinguished researcher Gene V. Glass writes here about legislation proposed by two Arizona legislators to prohibit the teaching of “social justice” in schools or colleges.
Schools found to be in violation would be fined 10% of their state monies.
I am not sure what the definition of “social justice” is. Fairness, equality, equal rights? The Constitution? The Bill of Rights?
‘Social Justice’, like other words in the political sphere, does not ‘have’ a definition. We have to ask, ‘how is this phrase being used?’ At the moment, means a certain approach to political issues, taken by one of strands of the left. A debate about the propositions put forward by this strand of thought would be useful, if it could be had. I think what these legislators object to is indoctrination from one point of view.
For instance, there is a debate to be had over the issue of race: to what extent are the problems of Blacks caused by white racism, and to what extent are these problems the result of Black behavior?
I suspect it would be safer just to avoid this issue, but it it is to be raised in the public schools, let’s hear all sides, not just one side.
It always helps to blame the victim. With very few exceptions, people are molded by the society and culture into which they were born. Reasonable people try to improve those circumstances
You’re absolutely right, doug1943: centuries of slavery, Jim Crow laws, restrictive deed covenants, redlining, marketing of sub-prime mortgages (even when qualified for conventional ones), etc. are all clear signs that Black people are incapable of maintaining personal responsibility and deserve what they get.
Regardless of how social justice is defined, we should all be hearing alarm bells. One of the symptoms of fascism, is to control information and restrict scholarly research. Mind control is a dangerous form of repression. http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/a-scholar-of-fascism-sees-a-lot-thats-familiar-with-trump
I’m actually avoiding the term “social justice” or “restorative justice” (for whatever it means) and encouraging all of us to think about restorative practices. “Justice” has multiple connotations (from negative to positive or losing to winning) but restorative practices (and restorative literacy) focuses on our rituals, kindness, empathy, conversation, and care in order for us to heal and bridge our understanding. All of us can learn to disagree without being disagreeable, but first, we must listen. It is a civic and moral duty for all of us to share, to carry a voice for ourselves and our kind, and to be open to other diverse viewpoints just as well. And to do this without emotional or physical harm.
When people are being robbed, they SHOULD get emotional. OUR kids, OUR, taxes, OUR communities and, we can’t protect them from the clawing of the richest 0.1%!
Predators have the luxury of emotional detachment… not the prey.
I’m actually avoiding the term “social justice” or “restorative justice” (for whatever it means) and encouraging all of us to think about restorative practices. “Justice” has multiple connotations (from negative to positive or losing to winning) but restorative practices (and restorative literacy) focuses on our rituals, kindness, empathy, conversation, and care in order for us to heal and bridge our understanding. All of us can learn to disagree without being disagreeable, but first, we must listen. It is a civic and moral duty for all of us to share, to carry a voice for ourselves and our kind, and to be open to other diverse viewpoints just as well. And to do this without emotional or physical harm.
Won’t stand in court….
The richest 0.1%, like Bill Gates, the Walton’s and Koch’s, always claw for the enactment of regressive tax systems. They are takers. It is OUR responsibility to deny them, the plot to off-load expenses, to us, for things, from which, they profit far more.
For those above questioning the need for justice (the adjective social as a modifier of justice is superfluous as all justice is by definition social). The concept of justice, needless to say, has a long history in Western thought. As it is there are two main concepts to justice: Justice as compliance with law, if it is legal it is just [and there are serious problems with that definition] and justice as fairness and equity [and there are serious concerns with that thought].
For an excellent discussion of justice as a virtue (a virtue being a human “good”) may I suggest that all read Ch. 6 Justice of Andre Comte-Sponville’s “A Small Treatise on the Great Virtues.
Thank you, Duane, for bringing up the two main concepts of justice. Equity, fairness, compliance–and their dynamic definitions that impact individuals–are all conversations that we, in a diverse society, must have in our daily lives. And I made a request for the book from my local library.
Happily, Republican Rep. Paul Boyer, House Education Committee chairman from Phoenix, confirmed Tuesday he had refused to grant House Bill 2120 a hearing. Some might like to thank him.
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/arizona-education/2017/01/18/arizona-bill-extend-ethnic-studies-ban-universities-dies/96694610/