Ohio Republican legislators have drafted a bill to require teachers to teach “both sides” of controversial issues. The sponsor wants teachers to teach the Holocaust from the perspective of German soldiers. Concentration camp guards?
COLUMBUS— Today, State Reps. Brigid Kelly (D-Cincinnati) and Casey Weinstein (D-Hudson), demanded House Bill (HB) 327, the ‘Both Sides’ bill, be barred from any further consideration by the Ohio House after the Republican bill sponsor said in a recent interview that educators should teach “German soldiers’” perspective of the Holocaust. The bill sponsor then proceeded to make several inaccurate and anti-Semitic claims about the Holocaust during the interview.
“Claiming there are two neutral and legitimate sides to the Holocaust is nothing short of denial,” said Rep. Weinstein, a Jewish member of the Ohio House. “Trying to wipe out and ignore our history while imposing big government on school districts to limit First Amendment rights in an unconstitutionally broad and vague way is chilling and reminiscent of the ‘thought police.’”
The ‘Both Sides’ bill would make “failing to fairly present both sides of a political or ideological belief or position” conduct unbecoming of an Ohio educator, which prompted widespread alarm from teachers and concerned parents. Educators and potentially-impacted organizations across the state have asked how teachers would be expected to confront difficult subjects. How do you teach both sides of the Holocaust? Of 9/11? Of slavery? Of Ukraine?
“These comments are absolutely reprehensible, and reveal HB 327’s true intent: to force our educators to teach ‘both sides’ of topics like the Holocaust, slavery or 9/11 that unequivocally have only a right side and a wrong side. This is exactly why we must trust well informed educators, not partisan politicians, to determine what is taught in our classrooms so our children are best prepared for the future,” said Rep. Kelly.
As they’ve worked through four public versions and at least 12 unofficial drafts of the legislation, Republican lawmakers have been forced to grapple with what a requirement to teach both sides of topics like Communism, Christian values, and even American traditions like standing for the National Anthem might look like in the classroom. Putting restrictions on what people can and can’t say, as it turns out, is a difficult task.
That said, the impossible choice the bill would present to teachers – false equivocacy or firing, is one of the most straightforward provisions in the far-reaching and ambiguous censorship bill.
The bill is intentionally broad, making it nearly impossible for schools, universities, police stations, libraries, and local governments to predict when they cross the line into legal liability. Even business-minded organizations have expressed concerns behind closed doors about the legal uncertainty it would impose.
Seriously F*d up.
Fed?
I have to disagree with them on this one. I want it debated, preferably live on CNN and all Ohio media outlets. It would open the eyes of some and remove all doubt that Republicans are the party of American fascism. I really want to hear the bill’s supporters explain every little detail of their motivations and intentions.
Here’s the text of the bill. Skimming it, I didn’t see anything about “both sides,” unless the admonition that divisive concepts “in an objective manner and without endorsement” is being construed as “both sides.”
https://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/solarapi/v1/general_assembly_134/bills/hb327/IN/00/hb327_00_IN?format=pdf
These laws are terrible government intrusions. They also seek unconstitutionally vague and ripe to be struck down by a court (which of course requires the power of much-maligned judicial review).
Seem, not seek.
How about “taking no sides”? Does that have the same potential outcome as “both sides”?
It could. It does seem more accurate to call it a “No Sides” bill.
Then the logical follow up question is, I would think, should we be mandating all teachers to take no sides on any issue about which they teach and make them potentially legally liable should they ever cross that imaginary line? And who should set and administer the legal interpretations of that line? Does this have a chilling effect on the profession of teaching? Does it change the nature of the definitions of citizenship, civic virtue, and the role of government in facilitating freedom or enforcing suppression?
My own view is that teachers should strive to present information as objectively as possible. I know the concept of “objectivity” is considered quaint by a lot of people today (“There is no such thing as objectivity!”), but I think it has value. But it should be a professional standard that teachers try to meet as a best practice with a fair amount of play in the joints, not a legislative mandate, which certainly will have a chilling effect, assuming it’s not completely ignored.
Can’t you teach objectively about slavery and the Holocaust while condemning genocide and human enslavement?
“Can’t you teach objectively about slavery and the Holocaust while condemning genocide and human enslavement?”
I think so. I also don’t know if a teacher needs to condemn genocide and human enslavement. Some things are so horrifying that they speak for themselves. “Res ipsa loquitur.”
I don’t agree. Right and wrong do not teach themselves. Look at it from the slavemaster’s point of view. He was trying to maximize efficiency and profit by utilizing the labor of people who were born into slavery. You can carry this kind of rationalization a long way, as the South did for decades (a century) after the Civil War.
I was going to end because I thought we had reached agreement. You must go into detail about “I think so.” No prima facie assumptions, please. This is not personal. I really want to know how a teacher should do that. To take it away from this to a specific event, how would one be objective about the Lincoln assassination? Does one give equal weight to both sides in order to be objective? Should students draw any conclusions beyond the events that took place?
I’m not sure I understand what the two “sides” of the Lincoln assassination are. But as a general matter, I suppose a teacher, who necessarily has limited time to spend on any subject, has to make judgment calls about what the historically significant events are. The teacher then should give the appropriate amount of time to those events, relative to their historical significance. And the goal of the entire exercise should be to draw conclusions about the historical causes and effects of those events.
Of course I’m not a history teacher, or even a particularly avid student of history. (I wish I were, but I have a big pile of regrets.)
“Objectivity” and “taking no side” are not equivalent.
In fact, what is undoubtedly the most objective of all human approaches, the scientific method, always involves “taking a side”, when one formulates a hypothesis. A hypothesis that does not “take a side” simply can not be tested.
But that doesn’t mean the scientific method is not objective. Far from it. The objectivity comes from testing the hypothesis and rejecting it if the evidence contradicts it.
And after a hypothesis has been rejected or supported based on evidence, it is no longer treated on equal footing with other hypothesis. In other words, as evidence piles up either for or against a hypothesis, scientists “take a side” regarding it’s validity.
So, scientists “take sides” on all sorts of scientific issues all the time — both before and after evidence gathering and testing — but that certainly does not mean they are not being “objective”.
Equating the two — “taking no side” and “objectivity” — just confuses terms that do not mean the same thing.
Well, I’ll quit here. Thought this was going to be civil, but that first sentence shows that you’re into semantic games to cynically and dishonestly mess with the argument. You know full well the answer to that question.
Greg, you are really difficult to have a conversation with. I truly don’t know what the “two sides” of the Lincoln assassination are. I answer your questions as best I can, but you seem to always leave in a huff.
SDP, that’s a fair point, and it’s a good example of why it’s not desirable for legislatures to try to mandate how teachers should teach. This is related to the vagueness problem.
Who decides what subject has “two sides”? FLERP!?
There are “two sides” to recent history that teachers much teach. One side says Biden won the election. The other side says Biden stole the election from Trump. Both sides, equally valid, must be taught by teachers now.
Gay people are evil. There is nothing wrong with being gay. “Both sides” must be taught.
FLERP! unsurprisingly (or intentionally) misses the bigger picture, which is about TRUTH and LIES. If those who say that lies are truth are passing laws saying that teachers must give “both sides” and some useful idiots defend it as perfectly reasonable to show “both sides”, that is propaganda which intentionally leaves out that truth and lies are not “both sides”.
NYCPSP, why do you think it’s “not surprising” that I “miss the bigger picture,” as you say? Is it because I’m unintelligent?
FLERP!,
Precedent.
You are the only one who knows your own motives.
Sorry I somehow missed this post yesterday. In my opinion, teaching requires making the best of attempts to take no sides. Teachers ask more questions than we answer The students are the ones who are supposed to think critically and take sides after being presented with information from primary and secondary historical sources. The wrongness of murder and enslavement should be a given. When a student takes the side of white supremacy or misogyny, as I have seen a lot recently, the rest of the class will give the student valuable feedback about his or her opinion, and they teach each other a lesson. The opinions of adolescent peers matter to adolescents.
The question for a teacher is what primary and secondary historical documents to use in class. That’s tricky. I knew a teacher who showed *Gone with the Wind”, telling her students it was historically accurate. Not something I would do. It must be the decision, however, of the teacher with the rest of the school site subject department. Here’s an example a difficult choice: https://www.dailynews.com/2022/07/18/criticism-of-a-graphic-novel-available-to-children-in-la-libraries-is-defended-by-officials/.
My point is that teaching is almost never as simple as showing one side or another. It’s ridiculous that anyone would try to legislate which side of an issue to teach. Teaching doesn’t work that way. The dynamics of human learning prevent it. If teaching was so easy, so black and white, there would be an app for that.
NYCPSP, ah, so you’re accusing me of being dishonest. The usual thing. With a reference to “precedent,” although presumably you’re not able to identify any instance in which I’ve lied here.
LCT, I agree with your perspective.
FLERP!,
You must have a guilty conscience – are you accusing yourself of being dishonest?
Your post is not surprising because you have made comments similar in type in the past. Someone else I respect described it as “you’re into semantic games to cynically and dishonestly mess with the argument.”
You are the only one who knows your own motives. Let’s agree about that and move on.
FLERP, the language about not teaching “divisive concepts” and teaching “without endorsement” is both sides language. How do you teach the Holocaust without saying that genocide is wrong? Is that subjective? Is it an endorsement of one side? I recently posted a piece where an Ohio legislator said that teaching the Holocaust should include the perspective of German soldiers. Would these be the kid on the front line who was drafted or a concentration camp guard?
The perspective of German soldiers is certainly an interesting one. But I’m not it’s one that absolutely needs to be taught in a high school history class, where time is limited. Politicians shouldn’t be micromanaging that sort of thing, anyway.
If I, as a teacher, chose to include that in a lesson and leave out other things when “time is [necessarily] limited”, should I have the professional freedom and autonomy to do so? Or do I need to adhere to a lesson plan approved by a committee? When does the legal interest kick in?
Of course you should have the freedom to make those decisions. That’s what I mean when I say that politicians shouldn’t be micromanaging decisions like that.
Of course you’d answer that way! Your question allowed you to choose any answer you wanted. Why then include the caveat, “But I’m not [sure?] it’s one that absolutely needs to be taught in a high school history class, where time is limited.” Even that statement allows a lawyerly ambiguous answer. The second parenthetical phrase is justification for mandates. Which of those is more important and should guide policy decisions? I’m not saying either is, but this statement is designed to say nothing.
At the risk of making you even angrier, Greg, I have to say I don’t understand what you’re asking me now.
I also don’t understand why you have a problem with my statement that teachers should have the professional freedom and autonomy to make their own decisions about what to cover in their classes.
There’s a false distinction here. Subjective matters (e.g., how people feel about having their relatives and acquaintances taken to extermination camps and murdered) are as much facts about the world as are matters like the chemical composition of water and the size of the population of Idaho. They are a little more difficult to get at, but they admit to falsifiable generalization and are thus scientific (How do people feel about having their relatives murdered en mass? Well, they aren’t too happy about that). One must be very careful about throwing around this loose and falsifying distinction between the subjective and the objective. The subjective experiences of entities, including the significance, positive and negative, of experiences to those entities, are objective facts about the world, discoverable by scientific means, including observation and hypothesis testing.
Since I very much appreciate your answer on another thread and hope that will continue, I’ll answer the question. I have no problem and completely agree with your first and third sentences above. It is the connecting sentence that is filled with ambiguous meaning and can be interpreted in many ways, unlike the other two sentence. In my view, the connecting sentence should be something like, “That is for the teacher to decide using their best professional judgment.” Instead, there are many caveats in your sentence that could be used equally by people who agree or disagree with that sentiment. Most disquieting to me is the phrase, “…where time is limited”, which, as you know as a lawyer, is a phrase by which any mandate is justified. The teacher should decide how time is limited and to be used, together with their master teachers and principals, not legislators or misinformed parents or corporate “educators.”
I see this a directly analogous to federally-funded medical research. Congress provides the funds and suggestions, but it is the scientists who make the decisions. Yes there is lots of politics in that process as well, as there is anything in life. But I’d rather have people who know what they’re talking about make the decisions and then report back to Congress on why they did so if asked. Indeed, the mantra for federal funding up until a few years ago was to invest in “investigator initiated studies,” which is a technical way of saying, “you got good ideas, show ’em to us and we’ll see if we give you funding to keep doing what you’re doing.” They actually rewarded scientists for thinking autonomously, for coming up with new ideas and approaches.
Understood, and point taken, thanks.
When I wrote “But I’m not it’s one that absolutely needs to be taught in a high school history class, where time is limited,” I simply meant that a focus on German soldiers’ perspective seems like something better suited to a college course or a graduate seminar, rather than a high school course where the goal is to provide a overview of the most essential points. To the extent I seem to hedge, it’s because I thought to myself, “Although now that I think about it, I could imagine a high school teacher doing something interesting with the perspective of German soldiers.”
“I could imagine a high school teacher doing something interesting with the perspective of German soldiers.”
Why? Is the perspective of German soldiers more interesting that the perspective of American soldiers? How about the perspective of Polish soldiers and British soldiers and French soldiers and Norwegian soldiers and Belgian soldiers? What about the perspective of Russian soldiers and Chinese soldiers? What about Japanese soldiers? The perspective of Australian and Italian soldiers might be interesting, too.
It is disingenuous not to recognize that folks who are so quick to defend the choice to teach the Holocaust “including the perspective of the German soldiers” are making a political statement.
Do right wing Ohio politicians also demand that students learn about “the perspective” of British soldiers during the Revolutionary War? Or “the perspective” of North Vietnamese soldiers during the Viet Nam war? Or do Nazi German soldiers have a special place in their heart?
Interesting. I was about to make some comment about how stupid it was to assume there were ‘two sides’, but that type of wording isn’t there! Instead, it was introduced in the article, above!
And, I agree with you that the job of a State Legislature is to fund Public Schools, not tell them what to teach.
I suspect the real danger of this bill is that it could be used to justify religious education in Public Schools at taxpayer expense.
How about the whole class watching the movie La Rafle/The Roundup?
Available on Prime and other Streaming Platforms. At least place the title on a Resource List for students, faculty, families who want to learn more about “Both Sides.”
Most of this side got rounded up and shipped to Auschwitz. Police did the Nazi’s bidding.
Educators are smart and they do their research. So GOPee better be careful what it asks for. There are many compelling, life-enlightening ways to Listen & Learn.
Vélodrome d’Hiver/Vél d’Hiv.
The largest French roundup & deportation of Jews.
Paris July 16–17 1942.
Vichy French Police mass arrested 13,000.
Majority sent to Auschwitz.
La Rafle/The Roundup/Gaumont Wide Pictures
Thanks for the suggestion, Kathy!
Ohio’s lesson plans for students could include the thinking (using the term loosely) of Ky. Rep. Danny Bentley. Amid the abortion debate, “Lawmaker invokes Holocaust, Jewish women’s sex lives …” (Louisville Courier Journal, 3-2-2022). I don’t know what demographic Danny represents but, I’m embarrassed for them.
No surprise, a CAP scholar has moved over to employment at AEI, along with other men, who were formerly with Fox, Heritage, Trump’s government appointees, etc. One of the new hires is also a visiting professor at Bard’s Arendt Center- of course.
This really is a new low, even for Ohio. How incredibly, unfathomably stupid.
I remember the good old days of saying the same about Louisiana and then ended up in Ohio. Never take my investment advice. I guess this is kind of what it felt like to flee to Austria right after Hitler took power.
Hahahahaha! Thanks Greg. You live in Ohio? I’ve visited Cleveland several times and really enjoyed it. In fact, I’ve considered living there several times. But now that the state has become an asylum for the politically insane, that no longer seems wise–as you say here.
It is a wonderful place to live, but it is changing. The biggest shock for me since 2016 is seeing how many of the cult are around me. The politics of times give them the confidence to spew and advocate for things they never used to say out loud, thus fooling me. It’s impacting public education here in the most subtly vile way. I finally realized you can’t escape it in the U.S. of A.
This is a billboard in my neighborhood.
I took a picture of the same thing in November to send to a friend as a joke!
Don’t come to Ohio thinking it has the midwestern values that have been promoted as a thing for years.
Last week, “Former council member (Cincinnati) P.G. Sittenfeld found guilty of bribery; attempted extortion.” The Sittenfeld family were stars. P.G.’s sister is author of 6 bestselling novels. One of them, Rodham, explored what Hillary would have been like if she hadn’t married Bill.
Those who have studied A.G. Yost’s career report he has a history of wanting 10-year-old rape victims to have babies.
In Ohio, you may find the drivers are courteous.
Did not know that about Sittenfeld. (For those of you who think NE and SW Ohio are in the same state, only in political geography.) Very sad, he seemed like a good candidate a few years ago.
What I find most frustrating about living in this state is having discussions with people who seemingly agree with me on on the issues that are important only to vote Republican because they don’t know how to do anything else. But what it really comes down to is that they would never vote for what “the Blacks” support. And, on cue, a few months after the election they complain about everything they voted for and blame it on Democrats. Who the f#@k needs a Lewis Carroll or a William Burroughs when you’re surrounded by stuff like this?
They actually complain about ECOT and charters, vote for DeWine, Portman, Brenner, and all the other [r]epublicans who made this possible, and then complain further that if the libs didn’t want to undermine education with CRT, they should vote Republican, the party that cares about local education. I am not making this up nor is it satire. Hey! Jeffrey Daumer grew up here. As did Jim Jordan.
Greg-
We feel the same pain.
Yesterday, I met with a GOP voter who bragged about her Quaker roots (Wilmington, Ohio) in relation to the religion’s abolitionist efforts
back in the day. Now, she also knows that Quakers were about the only religious group opposed to Germany’s fascism (my reading of the Kertzer book you recommended).
She, at least, seems abashed unlike the people you encounter. I saw the hopelessness years ago when a Democratic farmer running for office in Wilmington wrote about the GOP’s intent to make farmers pay for privatization of water. Even, when most Ohio small farmers know they will be screwed with the election of the GOP, they still vote Republican.
White (male) supremacy is veiled over by this “both sides” trickery. Oh, so there are other sides…racist, homophobic, sexist, christian fascist, earth-destroying, and just downright greedy sides.
It’s funny, this is the same Republican Party that preaches ‘hands off’ from government intervention, yet wants to dictate how and what the education professionals teach. A bit of irony mixed with politics here
The new GOP doesn’t want to keep government’s nose out of anything. It wants government to censor books, to impose what teachers may and may not teach, and to watch you in your bedroom.
It’s called irunyee.
Republican Irunyee
Irunyee
And what you teach
Iownthee
And all you reach
Beautifully observed, Ms. Olive!
Funny interesting; not funny ha-ha.
So they want to teach Nazi soldiers’ “side” of the Holocaust, but cancel enslaved persons’ and their descendants’ “side” of U.S. history from 1619 on. Sounds about wrong.
Which of the following comments do you prefer?
(i) Oy.
(ii) Feh.
Oy and feh!
Not for the first time, the best possible answer was not among the multiple-choice options.
The best answer was left off because Diane does not allow such language on her blog.
Sometimes you can slip it through. Not always. Sometimes. I’m back in my element; trying to figure out ways to annoy the teacher while staying out of trouble. And no fear of detention!
My element, too! LMSAO! (the “S’ is for “sweet”)
Teach Alternative Viewpoints
I’m here to beseech
That teachers should teach
The views of the Master
(And not just disaster)
In slavery case
Of Masterful race
Who gave to his slave
From birth to the grave
A home to enjoy
For girl and a boy
Sorry, Joni
I’ve looked at genocide from both sides now.
I have no brain and still somehow,
it’s Trumpy delusions I recall.
I really cannot think, at all.
Title of this ditty:
Bleat of the Ohio Legislator
This is getting weird. I was thinking of posting the final verse to Both Sides Now yesterday but thought it might be too ambiguous. No ambiguity in this one!
Haaaa!!!!
That last verse is really appropriate here.
Or, rather, the revised, last version of the chorus, if I remember correctly.
Hi. I think that this is a great idea. Then the kids can vote: which do they like better, Holocaust or no Holocaust, slavery or no slavery. Nothing like inserting democratic thinking into the study of history. There could also be a vote on whether the extermination if the US indigenous population was a good idea or not. This column of mine on “SS Guards at Play” presents one aspect of the study of Auschwitz: https://buzzflash.com/articles/ss-guards-at-play-lynching-and-donald-trump?rq=Jonas
Considering your concern for things wokeism I thought you would want to add this to your list.
?
Ohio teachers: Please make sure that you teach both the positive and negative aspects of having complete morons as legislators, both the pro-imbecilic legislator and anti-imbecilic legislator points of view.
As I tell my students, you are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
These “leaders” cannot possibly fire everybody. And they don’t even know it yet.
In order to combat the hate & harm in HB 327, HB 322, and HB 616, we have formed Honesty for Ohio Education, a coalition that fights these bills at the state level, and also works for honesty at the local level and in our State Board of Education. We invite interested readers to join our mailing list so that they can stay informed and be ready to take action. While it seems like HB 327 hasn’t had much traction at the committee level the past few months, we know it takes vigilance to ensure harmful, anti-honesty language (like the language of HB 327) isn’t added as an amendment or re-purposed as a local school board resolution. Please connect with us: http://honestyforohioeducation.org
Thanks, Lisa. Honesty for Ohio Education is worth following because its members keep track of several of these noxious bills in our state along with other important advocacy.
Thanks, Ivahey