Jan Resseger, as always wise and compassionate, reviews the impact of the billionaire-funded culture wars on children and families. The particular focus on erasing the histories of children of color and demonizing LGBT families is harmful to them.
She writes:
Conversations about public schooling have been utterly sidetracked this year by fights about Critical Race Theory, “Don’t say gay!” laws, and whether somebody is “grooming” children at school? Where did these culture wars come from?
A NY Times analysis earlier this week tracks book banning in public schools as part of an epidemic of culture war disruption: “Traditionally, debates over what books are appropriate for school libraries have taken place between a concerned parent and a librarian or administrator, and resulted in a single title or a few books being re-evaluated, and either removed or returned to shelves. But recently, the issue has been supercharged by a rapidly growing and increasingly influential constellation of conservative groups. The organizations frequently describe themselves as defending parental rights. Some are new, and others are longstanding, but with a recent focus on books. Some work at the district and state level, others have national reach. And over the past two years or so, they have grown vastly more organized, interconnected, well funded — and effective. The groups have pursued their goals by becoming heavily involved in local and state politics, where Republican efforts have largely outmatched liberal organizations in many states for years.”
The reporters track research from PEN America: “(T)here are at least 50 groups across the country working to remove books they object to from libraries. Some have seen explosive growth recently: Of the 300 chapters that PEN tracked, 73 percent were formed after 2020. The growth comes, in part, from the rise of ‘parental rights’ organizations during the pandemic. Formed to fight COVID restrictions in schools, some groups adopted a broader conservative agenda focused on opposing instruction on race, gender and sexuality, and on removing books they regard as inappropriate.”
How is the culture war uproar affecting public schools? In a recent newsletter, the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) trackedresearch concluding: “Preparing students to participate in civil and respectful ways in our diverse democracy has long been a core mission of public schools.” Today, “U.S. high schools are struggling to fulfill this mission as they increasingly encounter hyper-partisan efforts. Those efforts have sought to spread misinformation, to encourage harassment of LGBTQ+ students, and to limit opportunities for productively discussing controversial topics. Such challenges are particularly pervasive in politically diverse areas where one party does not dominate.” The researchers surveyed 682 public high school principals and subsequently followed up by interviewing 32 of those principals. NEPC reports:
- “Public schools increasingly are targets of political conflict. Nearly half of principals (45 percent) reported that the amount of conflict in their community was higher during the 2021-2022 school year than it was pre-pandemic… Teaching about race and racism was the area where principals were most likely to report challenges from community members, followed closely by LGBTQ+ content.”
- “Political conflict undermines the practice of respectful dialogue. A majority of high school principals report that students have made demeaning or hateful remarks toward classmates for expressing either liberal or conservative views and that strong differences of political opinion among students have created more contentious classroom environments.”
- “Conflict makes it harder to address misinformation. Misinformation—much of it tied to partisan organizations and causes—makes it more challenging to encourage productive and civil dialogue. After all, it is difficult to develop a shared sense of how to move forward when different people are working from different sets of ‘facts.’ Nearly two thirds of principals (64 percent) say parents or community members have challenged information used by teachers at their schools. The share of principals saying parents or community members challenged teachers’ use of information three or more times nearly doubled between 2018 and 2022.”
- “Conflict leads to declines in support for teaching about race, racism, and racial and ethnic diversity. High schools increasingly struggle to teach students about the full spectrum of American experiences and histories, especially when it comes to issues related to racism and race… ‘My superintendent told me in no uncertain terms that I could not address issues of race and bias etc. with students or staff this year,’ said a principal in a red community in Minnesota. ‘We could not address the deeper learning.'”
- “Principals report sizable growth in harassment of LGBTQ+ youth. The survey results also suggest that schools are increasingly facing challenges related to teaching students to treat one another with dignity and respect… Fewer than half of principals said school board members or district leaders made statements or acted to promote policies and practices that protected LGBTQ+ student rights.”
“Parents’ rights” are the rallying cry for many of today’s culture warriors who want to protect the dominant culture and shield their children from uncomfortable controversy. But in a recent and very personal Washington Post column, “When Children Ask About Race and Sex, We Have No Choice But to Answer,” Danielle Allen, a political theorist and the Director of the Edmond and Lily Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University, and an African American mother, explains the point of view of many other parents and children. Allen examines why it is so urgently important for teachers to be able to respond to children’s own observations and questions when the students themselves initiate conversation about the same fraught subjects the NEPC researchers describe organized parents trying to ban from the schools.
Allen describes a conversation her own two-year-old daughter launched about race, while the child sat in seat of the grocery store cart as they were in the midst of shopping. The child declared, “Mommy, I think it’s not good to be Black.”
Allen reflects upon what her toddler had already observed about race in America: “My daughter’s statement was a question. Its subtext went like this: ‘I’ve noticed something, Mommy. It seems like it’s not good to be Black. But can that be right? You’re Black. I love you. How can these things fit together? And what does this mean for me?'”
Allen continues: “What I can assure you of is that even before any of our kids, of any racial or ethnic background, get to school, every Black family in the United States is having to teach its children about race and the history of enslavement and stories of overcoming that have played out generation after generation. The same must be true for kids raised in LGBTQ families, with regard to the history and contemporary experience of gender and sexuality… This means that the only way you can keep knowledge and questions about these histories, experiences and perspectives out of the school curriculum in early grades is to keep Black people or members of LGBTQ families out of school.”
Or, according to NEPC’s research, many school districts are enrolling Black and Brown children and children from LGBTQ families while the school districts may be imposing policies to silence such children, to make their realities invisible to other students, and to refuse to help them answer their own hard questions.
Public schools are required by law to serve all the children whatever their race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. It is not the business of school board members, school superintendents, school principals, or teachers to cater to any one group of parents’ rights advocates, no matter how well organized or well funded is their lobby.
Here, writing for The Progressive, is retired high school teacher, Peter Greene, who understands educators’ obligation to protect the interests of all the students who fill our nation’s public school classrooms: “Schools must balance the needs and concerns of all of their many stakeholders. Parents absolutely have rights when it comes to public schools, but so do non-parents, taxpayers and other community stakeholders. It’s up to the school district to balance all of these concerns, while also depending on the professional judgment of its trained personnel. It is a tricky balance to maintain, requiring nuance and sensitivity. It is correct to argue that ‘schoolchildren are not mere creatures of the state.’ But framing the issue as parents versus school has served some folks with a very specific agenda.”
I know I’m spitting in the wind here, but we HAVE to stop accepting terms and descriptions thrust upon us from fascists and the right for strategic political reasons. There are no “culture wars” and using the term cedes much, if not all, of the political and rhetorical ground to those how would invent them.
No serious initiative from the left or “center”, whatever that may be, is at “war” with anyone about anything. We are advocating for issues to support democratic governance. The “war”, if there is one, is an unreasoned, deliberate assault on the State and all its mechanisms by the right. By accepting their framing of the issue, it is entirely framed in their language.
We are in many ways our own worst enemies for not recognizing and doing something substantive to educate our own and counter this untrue narrative.
…who would invent them…
Yes. One party has thrown out all decency and is led, now, by a man who is openly calling for overthrowing the government. This party is destroying the country from within, which is exactly what Putin and Company wanted when it put its Agent Orange in power here.
In looking through my notes and reviews of others of LTI, Klemperer’s book on the language of the Third Reich, one reviewer pulls out the sentence that sums it up:
“It’s not simply that language composes poetry and thinks for me, it also drives my feelings, it directs my entire spiritual being, the more self-evidently, the more unconsciously I give myself up to it.”
There are ways in which Heidegger was right when he wrote that “Language speaks us.” But a strong version of the Sapir-Whorf hypotheses fails except among those who just don’t freaking think about much of anything, ever.
cx: The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis: “People who speak different languages live in different worlds, not in the same world with different labels attached.” This is how Edward Sapir put it in his Language: An Introduction to Speech. Harcourt Brace, 1921.
The Strong Version is that language, so conditions thought that it dictates what thought is at all possible. This is The Party’s goal for Newspeak in 1984. But this is not so. People can see the difference between green and blue even if their language does not distinguish these. People know the difference between women and fire and dangerous things generally, even though one Aborigine language has a single word for all three.
And, of course, people constantly search for ways of expressing what they think. No, no, that doesn’t quite capture what I’m trying to say. This is what writers do ALL THE TIME and why no book is ever, from the writer’s POV, actually finished. So, to a writer, “of the making of books there is no end” has a different meaning from what its author might have intended.
Interestingly, Klemperer refers to the adoption by the Nazis of “the American superlative.”
The greatest country. The greatest generation. The perfect phone call.
Greg turned me on to Klemperer’s The Language of the Third Reich, which I am reading now. It’s an astonishing historical document of enormous relevance to what is happening in our country today. Thank you, Greg. I join you in highly recommending this book to others here.
It’s been so lone. Turning on anyone, I mean.
This is a shame. Greg Brozeit is my favorite book reviewer, these days, I think.
A review by Brozeit isn’t just a Brotzeit; it’s a full-course meal.
Here’s the thing about teaching: The pay is terrible, but there are compensations. For example, the hours are absurdly long, and the class sizes are crazy. There is never enough time, even for going to the bathroom. You are micromanaged by idiot administrators who treat you like a cognitively challenged child in an eighteenth-century institution. There are constant parent complaints about how their perfect children are being mistreated and subjected to Socialism, ungodliness, whatever. There is never enough time to do anything right. Money for supplies? Forget it. There is never money for what you need. You are constantly “evaluated” by morons, using ridiculous techniques and criteria. Politicians complain constantly about how evil you are and whip of their base bases into feeding frenzies. Oh, and clueless creeps like Coleman and Gates appoint themselves the deciders for you. And you are constantly disrespected, even as people make comments about how great teachers are. But hey, there are donut holes in the Teacher’s Lounge on Teacher Appreciation Day.
Teaching should be the greatest job on earth. You, the kids, the subject of your study. Awesome. And yet all these forces collaborate to make it a living hell.
You are micromanaged by idiot administrators with heads full of incoherent, Educatese gobbledygook and fear of being sacked who treat you like an uneducated, cognitively challenged child in an eighteenth-century institution.
When I taught at the beginning of my career, the administrators I had generally thought of their teachers as “the experts” in English, History, French, Physics, or whatever. And they bragged about their brilliance and scholarship. When I returned to teaching at the end of my career, the administrators I encountered saw expertise on the part of teachers as a terrible threat and acted as though they were the experts on teaching English, History, French, Physics, or whatever. It was astonishing. Night and Day. Total lack of respect for those who worked for them. Superciliousness. Knee-jerk prescriptive panaceas like more online standards-based test prep exercises to “raise the skills” identified by “benchmark tests.” Idiots.
cx: as though they, the administrators, were the experts
Our education system is a sad state of affairs in many ways, Bob. It’s hard for any brilliant and creative person to make it in the profession for very long. I can think of many people who started out as teachers only to leave it all behind to pursue more open avenues of personal growth and development. The older you get, the more you can see how restrictive it is. Perhaps that’s why so many leave relatively quickly. It becomes stultifying. The restrictions, regulations and absurdities of it all can be soul-killing.
This breaks my heart, Mamie.
But that aside, a joyous holiday season to you and yours.
By the time I was a soph in college, I decided ‘I will never be a teacher.’ That was from soaking in the academic faculty atmosphere, which struck me as having tremendous vulnerability to backbiting, infighting, petty squabbles among egotistical people… But that same year I realized, what the heck else was I going to do with my major/ minor and skills in langs/ lit analysis? I certainly couldn’t be a “simultaneous translator at the UN” [my grandfather’s suggestion LOL]. So I checked out the NYS certificate-reqd courses [Blah-di-blah, Boloneyburger, and Following Orders levels I & II]—r u kidding me? When I could be taking ‘Sartre and Camus,’ and ‘Modern Latin-American Literature’??
So I amended my resolution: ‘I will never be a public school teacher.’
Certification requirements (and most professional development) are ridiculous. Imagine them dealing primarily about knowing something ABOUT ONE’S SUBJECT. I have written and edited over one hundred textbooks, from major publishers, on literature, grammar, composition, speech, theatre, and test taking. There most likely is no junior high or high school in America that has not used one of my texts. Early in my career, I received certifications to teach English, 9-12, in Indiana, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. At the end of my career, I decided to leave textbook publishing and go back to the classroom for three or four years, to put into practice, again, personally, the curricula and pedagogy that I had developed over many decades (including a number of major innovations in English instruction that had been adopted nationwide). But despite all this, I had to do the following to receive Flor-uh-duh certification:
Pay for and take seven–SEVEN!!!–idiotic computerized tests designed by Pearson that basically instantiated Education Deform ideology
Complete 300 hours of mind-numbingly stupid only “training” in ESL replete with errors in grammar, usage, mechanics, logic, and fact
Create a required 450-page documentation of my first year of teaching
Complete a long list of “trainings” in the obvious (gosh, blood samples can be dangerous; gosh, gangs use color symbols; gosh, if the fire alarm goes off, you and your students should exit the building)
All of this was an utter waste of time and money and an enormous drain on my time and energy, of which there was little left after the hundreds of other requirements ladled on building-level administration,
As an undergrad, I had ambitions to become an English professor. Then, in my Senior year, I went to the defense of my Honor’s Thesis. One of the professors there ripped into my in an extreme way. At one point, we took a break, and I stepped outside with my thesis advisor. I said to him, “WTF was that about?” He answered that he and this other professor were backing different candidates for one tenured position, and this had grown acrimonious, and it had nothing to do with me. And then I thought about how most of the critical essays I read by English professors were primarily about showing off their knowledge and attacking others’ positions and took forever doing this before they settled down to discussing their topics. And I wondered if I really wanted to spend the rest of my life writing articles on Sir Phillip Sidney or whatever for journals that would be read by five other scholars so that they could refute it in the next edition of the journal. What had seemed like a noble enterprise–scholarship, carrying forward the torch of culture–started to look like onanism. So, I went into publishing instead.
But I have often wondered what would have happened if. . . .
Thanks for sharing the personal background, Ginny. Here, my take on Jean-Paul the semicomprehensible:
https://bobshepherdonline.wordpress.com/2019/03/18/existentialism-in-five-minutes-bob-shepherd/
And thanks for sharing back yours, Bob! I will read your essay with great interest… after I recover from yesterday’s Xmas cooking extravaganza (slept in today & another nap is pending 🥱 )
Haaa! I also spent an entire day cooking (Christmas Eve, from 8:00 AM to after midnight!
On another note,
Slava Ukraini!
Around 2010 my elementary school was approached by parents who disapprove of the book called “Tango Makes Three”, which was in our library, because they thought the book advocated same sex parenting. We listened to the parents and consulted with the district. The district supported keeping the book in the library while patiently working with the family to assure their wishes would be honored in regard to their child. It was a delicate negotiation that was handled with care because the parents were reasonable enough to address the school and not go public to garner support. The explosion of social media has given parents the illusion that blasting their grievances on the web gives them the power to direct school content. Organizations not directly tied to public schools have determined that one way to push their agenda is through publicly shaming school boards on false pretense. Regretfully school districts have attempted to placate these loud parents and their allies, who are very much in the minority, by not supporting individual schools or employees. Politicians have been exposed as complicit, or cowards, succumbing to the loudest most radical voices. The projecting that decries “cancel culture” while advocating firings and book banning over textual content requires that leaders take a stand…Alas…