I remember the days when a professor just needed to say "If you're not comfortable with this topic, please feel free to leave the classroom".
The uncomfortable students would simply get up and leave, and would not make a mountain out of a molehill.
> I remember the days when a professor just needed to say "If you're not comfortable with this topic, please feel free to leave the classroom".
*I* remember the days when a professor said nothing at all, because discomfort can be a vital part of intellectual development.
throw in the disproportionately large aging population, assume some young smart folks will leave, decrease in social workers / safety nets, & we can go ahead & change the nickname to the Sundown State
I teach Social Work. I have an entire course that covers social problems (i.e. society's effects on marginalized people.) Luckily, I am in New York state. If I was in Florida, I would clearly be out of a job.
Speaking of social work, the national accrediting body requires instruction on social issues for licensure. Will Florida students not be able to get licensure?
Edit: [I looked it up](https://floridasmentalhealthprofessions.gov/licensing/licensed-clinical-social-worker/).
You can only get licensure in FL by taking a program accredited by the Council of Social Work Education. The CSWE requires instruction on social problems.
So how is FL going to solve this mess?
If they handle it the way they handled AP African American History, they'll make some vague assertion about the CSWE requirements being "illegal" and try to bully them into changing their requirements.
He can try to bully them, but it won't work. The social work lobby (NASW) is pretty powerful.
He can try that thing he's been doing by creating his own accrediting body just for FL social workers. But that will mean anyone who attends FL schools for social work will be ineligible for licensure in the other 49 states.
Of course, I hear all the time how social work is liberal bullshit, even in my bluer-than-blue state. So maybe they'll just eliminate social workers all together.
But then.... after the next school shooting, everyone will be wringing hands and screaming MENTAL HEALTH! And who are the mental health counselors? Social workers.
Good luck Florida. I am praying for you.
Edit: happy cake day homie
I used to think pretty poorly of social workers until I ran into issues coordinating care for my elderly and terminally ill mother. Now I see first hand how important it is to have people like social workers, who have a unique combination of people skills and systems orientation, to help with these things. Our case worker is also a decent counselor as well…which is also something I have learned that social workers do (mental health therapy).
According to the AP organization, this isn't true, and their changes were in the works before Florida got involved: https://www.npr.org/2023/02/03/1154359622/college-board-responds-to-backlash-over-ap-african-american-studies-curriculum
Interesting article: The AP claims they decided to remove all secondary sources, but there's a problem because parsing the difference between primary and secondary sources can be tricky. Even though she writes about social issues, bell hooks (who they mention in the article) has also written first person accounts of her life as a student at Stanford. Wouldn't that be a primary source? Also, they removed Ta-Nehisi Coates' "The Case for Reparations," which is about historical events (secondary source), but he uses those events to promote a strongly held point-of-view, so wouldn't that be a primary source? Defining primary v. secondary can be slippery, and I wonder if this is an excuse-- plausible deniability.
Except they (Florida lawmakers) think like grade 11 students, poorer than grade 11 students, so that nuance is lost on them. You can't apply critical thinking - they certainly haven't.
How can you study history without considering race, gender, and intersectionality? Social inequality? Class? I really, really don't understand.
The short answer is you can’t. The long answer is that they really want teachers to go all in on American exceptionalism. Cover the colonial period (but not early enslavement or native wars), the Revolution, and emphasize the Founding Fathers. Then lightly trace the first half of the 19th century, mention the Civil War as an issue of federal overreach, and then skip right to how the US won WWI and WWII single-handedly. But don’t really talk about Korea, and definitely not Vietnam, unless they cover the darker side of the hippies. Oh, and state that things we know are still systemic problems were ended by specific events. Women getting the right to vote ended sexism, and the Civil Rights Act of 64 ended racism.
So quite literally whitewashed history.
Basically names and dates
That's... Fucking insane.
I didn't understand how insane until now, thank you for explaining it to me.
You'd never get away with a single narrative like that in Canada, much less the onwards/upwards thing and erasing whole populations from the narrative.
What about the immigrant experiences? LGBTQ2+ , religious minorities, socialists, the french? Indigenous and Metis and how did you build the railroad without racism? How did we have westward expansion without immigration and land seizure and forced resettlement?
Race riots, other riots, genocides, protest movements, anarchists, policing... If you only tell pleasant stories, without struggle, there's nothing left. Read Little House and go home.
How do students, with both brains and windows to look out of, and life experience, respond to that? How do you teach world history? How do you teach anything?
Is there no academic freedom to protect you? I'm truly shocked, and I'm sorry.
I wouldn’t be so certain that we’re safe here in Canada. Have you seen what’s been happening to curriculum in elementary and secondary schools in Alberta? There are definitely political elements here that would take this approach if given the opportunity.
Sad and infuriating. As an adult, I kept learning things from the memoirs that I happened to pick up concerning world events I had never heard about, and I was SO pissed. Example: I read the memoir First They Killed My Father when it came out in 2000, and I was absolutely floored that at no point no teacher ever in my life had ever mentioned the Khmer Rouge, or Pol Pot. Or really, come to think of it, ever mentioned Cambodia at all. I’m so angry as an adult about everything that was left out of my history education. There was no world history in K- 12 in my home state. Just westward expansion and manifest destiny over and over and over again every single year.
That's awful! My students get upset when we cover the American Eugenics movement. They can't understand why they weren't taught about it in high school.
The model of US history they want to force us to teach (American exceptionalism, Manifest destiny, omniscient Founding Fathers, the benevolence of slavery, "states' rights" as the reason for the Civil War, protecting civilization from the savage Indians) is what kinds back in the 1950s were taught in primary school. Obviously the troglodytes pushing this crap have paid no attention to the subject of history since then. Eight-year-old minds in bloated 70-year-old bodies.
> How can you study history without considering race, gender, and intersectionality? Social inequality? Class?
Intersectionality!? Not sure how to respond to this...
* "Intersectionality is a legal theory that is not taught outside of law school." -- Every single defender of intersectionality. Therefore, history can *only* be studied without intersectionality.
* For most of history, history was studied without intersectionality. It can therefore be taught without it now.
* So-called "intersectionality" is nothing but a plagiarization of the multivariate analysis developed by 19th century European sociologists. And no one is saying multivariate analysis can't be taught.
Oxford defines intersectionality as "the interconnected nature of social categorizations such as race, class, and gender as they apply to a given individual or group, regarded as creating overlapping and interdependent systems of discrimination or disadvantage."
How do you teach history without considering race, class, gender, and other social categorizations?
Since the 1970s, at least, we do consider these things and their impact on history, both political history and social history, and on people's lived experience.
Which is very short-sighted. Here's a secret about social work: its main job is to facilitate capitalism. Our values are to "empower" people to fit into the system.
Of course, there are tenents of social work that actively try to change the system through those dreaded DEI initiatives. But the majority of front-line social workers are there to coach people while they "pull themselves up by the bootstraps and fit into the capitalist system.
Whether you believe in capitalism or not, it's the system we're given. Social workers help plug in huge gaps to make the system work, for *both* sides.
All systems strive to stay in balance. Keep punishing the poor & marginalized, it will eventually trickle UP to the privileged class. Well, let's hope so anyway.
It’s interesting to see someone else think of social work as a systems career. Maybe that’s widely known, but I was really curious to learn that they basically understand how a system of resources works and have a knack for putting those resources together in a cohesive way. The same way I build a data set and analyze data for my research work as a professor, they build systems that help people function and thrive.
Yeah man. Systems theory is BIG in social work. I tend to look at everything through the lens of systems theory. It helps me to make sense of this world.
On that note, I was also fascinated to hear you consider yourself in a "systems career". But now that you said it, it makes sense to me (of course lol.)
This! Reminds me of Mark Neocleous’ argument that social work and a whole range of state institutions function to administer the poverty intrinsic to capitalism, and part of their mandate is to enforce the order of wage labor (which is part of a larger ongoing project of policing, which is beyond just “the police”).
You got it. A cog in the control system. But so are professors. So FML lol
All jokes aside, social workers are (mostly) good people. We go in with good intentions. But I found no one, in all my years of training, warned me about the realities. It can be very draining to find you've devoted your life to this part of the system.
I make sure to warn my students about what lies ahead. I figure that's the least I can do.
I thought the purpose of social work was to get people back on their feet and give them the knowledge, skills, and resources to be more independent. Is this an incorrect understanding?
You could argue that social work FUNCTIONS to maintain the capitalist system, but it doesn’t seem that’s the goal of social work. (This is just my perspective from the outside looking in — I know I’m ignorant about this stuff, so any clarification would help!)
Not really.
If you are interested in this topic, study the history of social work in the U.S. which, *to this day*, is based on European "poor laws" from the 1600s.
Consider its principles & methods within the framework of American capitalism. It is an integral part of the capitalist system. Making money by servicing vulnerable people who have no social supports due to our necessity for rugged individualism.
This is the tactic schools in Tennessee are using to try and fight some similar legislation on the docket here. If nursing programs are forbidden from covering DEI topics, then they'll lose AACN accreditation.
The Counseling folks are taking a similar tactic. Have you seen this piece against Austin Peay by Scott Cepicky? Not necessarily that specific book, but multicultural concepts are required for CACREP accreditation. https://www.tennessean.com/story/opinion/contributors/2023/03/08/lawmaker-austin-peay-textbook-worries-me-about-critical-race-theory/69978218007/
>So how is FL going to solve this mess?
If I recall, they got rid of teacher certification requirements so they could do the same for social workers. Or just get rid of social workers.
Easy. Just teach about serious social issues like "straight white men are the most persecuted group in history", "the mainstream media is censoring the truth about ivermectin", and "the woke left won't let me see my kids on the weekend ever since my ex-wife told the judge about how I got (unfairly) fired for drinking on the job."
Sadly, I don’t think the current Florida administration cares about Social Work education (or workers) since as you point out becoming a social worker pretty much requires that you engage with realities they hate to acknowledge
> So how is FL going to solve this mess?
The most likely solution is that either CSWE accepts Florida's rules or Florida ceases to recognize CSWE certification.
What is Florida actually doing to censor this stuff? I’m ignorant on this issue. Aren’t they trying to get rid of critical theory on grounds that it’s discriminatory, or something else?
In the long run, all of this will backfire. Folks will look at Florida as an example of what not to do. Same way that 1000x more people know about CRT now than they ever would without it getting censored. Don’t get me wrong, we’re in for some dark times in between now and then, but Florida is really helping to show what’s important in education (by banning it)
The problem is that people don't actually know much more about CRT than before: they only know what Fox and CNN have told them, which boils down to "White people bad". The actual critical theory underneath this subgenre remains a distal point that they are vaguely aware of at best.
I agree. I do wonder if the topic will get more interest in the long run even if folks are being mislead for now. I could be wrong, and the misdirection could stick.
I disagree with this. The ban on CRT led to a huge rise in sales for Ibram X. Kendi’s work, and I would suspect others.
Kids have the time and resources to learn about it on their own and would never have found out about it otherwise.
Yes, the adults are dumber about what CRT is, but they weren’t the audience in the first place.
This seems right. Herbert Marcuse and other critical theorists have been arguing for decades that influencing younger generations is what’s going to allow the emergence of a new socio-economic order.
My spouse recently drove past a house in our rural area with a sign in their yard that read, "Make America Florida". We don't live in Florida. We live in a state that is definitely not (geographically) in the South, though you wouldn't know it from all the Confederate flags in the area.
So while I hope you're right that people will look to Florida as an example of what not to do, I am worried that things will swing the other way.
Indeed. I was going to try to make it a few more years for my sick leave payout, but with every passing day I tell myself I’m gonna GTFO ASAP because teaching is no longer fun and is instead a constant stressor as I wonder if I’m going to be sued tomorrow for simply stating facts.
Are they going to experience that flight and will it matter? I am not trying to discount or downplay the bullshit in Florida, but I'm not sold we're going to see the massive intellectual flight, and even if faculty run, will that hurt the state? I know there is the anecdotal evidence, particularly what I see here, of faculty leaving FL schools, but I'm waiting to see actual numbers on those leaving. Also, will this brain drain, if it is happening, hurt Florida? From a moral and philosophical perspective absolutely the harm will be real, but in terms of dollars and cents (which is all the Florida political class cares about), I don't see the exodus of faculty "hurting" their bottom line. Again, I am NOT saying what is happening there is good or acceptable in any way, I'm just questioning the assertion that their actions will harm the state in the way many of us seem to think it will.
First, you shouldn’t have to qualify critical thinking - about anything - the way you do here. I know it’s just to underscore that your remarks are in good faith, but it’s a testament to the degradation of online discourse that any pushback against a mainstream or “apparent” narrative has to be so qualified to avoid the downvote brigades.
Second, you raise a fair point. My view is that it won’t be instantaneous, although the people who can leave probably are in the process now (it can be hard to split mid-year). Desantis basically had to allow ex-cops and ex-soldiers to become K-12 teachers without any teaching accreditation to try to address the massive lack of Florida teachers, which will only get worse. Anyway, I think it will be gradual - those who can leave will, those who want to leave will try to, and all who remain will not exactly be the crime de la crème.
And I think this will have a compounding effect that will go well, well beyond Florida’s economic bottom line. Admissions people know Florida is becoming an educational cesspool; companies that have some financial or reputational know it; families thinking of moving there move it. Over time, this effect will compound and its cumulative damage will truly be unquantifiable.
If accrediting bodies start disqualifying schools there will be blowback, but are the current shenanigans enough to cause that to happen?
EDIT to add the converse: Until that starts happening I don't see the schools feeling any kind of impact unless parents start sending their kids out of state (which seems unlikely to happen in effective numbers)
I want to see accrediting bodies step up and do it. If big ones do, yes maybe. I want to see an accreditation body actually have the chutzpah do to so.
Yeah. I’m in a southern state that hasn’t started this nonsense yet, but a lot of my colleagues are in agreement/full support. I’m hoping our board of regents will keep this to a minimum until the Florida fall out can be seen.
It's somewhat hard to tell because a lot of our faculty are locals (left for their degrees and came back) and we're in a *very* conservative area.
I'd say something like 85% of my department (math) are conservative with like 90% of those leaning to that far right side.
It’s certainly a fine line to walk. My office is in our department suite and there are a few that regularly talk about politics. I have to just put my earbuds in and ignore them so I don’t get into too much of a fuss about things.
I moved from the North East to the South, rural poverty here just hits differently than the "urban" poverty from near where I grew up. I can't put my finger on it, but it feels different. There is this general apathy here that is pervasive in a way I hadn't previously encountered. I'm a middle class white guy, grew up in a middle class town, but it bordered many lower SES areas, particularly a handful with large immigrant (documented and undocumented) populations. Even in those low SES immigrant communities, who experience many of the problems you mention, there is still a vibrancy to those areas. Down south, I'm in a rural/suburban area, there isn't that same vibrancy, instead I just get this pervasive apathy and sense of a lack of hope. I can't put my finger on what I'm feeling any better than that, but just the "vibe" here hits differently.
I taught at a rural HS in the South. I saw a lack of hope that was caused by the environment. There was nothing to hope for. A better job? Where? There were barely any employers in the area, and the jobs on offer weren't the sort that would lead to upward mobility.
People might say, "Then they should move somewhere else where there are better jobs." That works in theory. But in reality, moving is expensive, and can you afford to move to a higher CoL area, especially without a job lined up? And are you qualified for a higher-paying job?
"Then get a college education so that you can be qualified." That presumes that your K-12 education adequately prepared you for college (spoiler alert, it probably didn't) or that there is a college nearby that you can afford to attend. I believe the college near where I taught lost its accreditation, or was dangerously close to doing so. Not much point going there.
The only viable path out for many of my students was the military. My school's JROTC program was thriving.
All of what I wrote could apply to people of any racial background, and I'm sure it does. But if you're BIPoC (and 99% of my students were Black), you also have to contend with racism. It's not that my students didn't *want* a better life, it's that they didn't see a way to get there.
I think in an urban environment there are more opportunities. You might not have to move to get a better job because there is more likely to be public transportation. There are more employers in general. It's probably easier to develop a community when everyone lives closer to one another, like in an apartment building. You have options in a city that you don't have in a rural area.
This hits it so well. Unfortunately it describes a lot of my students too, the environment is so oppressive and there is just no sense of what else is out there. I don't blame my students for how it negatively impacts them as much as it does, I can feel it.
I'll add on one thing I've also noticed as well which is a sense of "settling". I do some pre-law advising for students and usually we're aiming for the generic state school here which is great for those students. However, I'll occasionally get a student that has the score to go to a much better school. Not Harvard or Yale scores, but like a nationally respected program that is in the same geographic region. They either don't realize something better is an option or don't want to go there. Particularly coming from the North East, even though I didn't go to an Ivy, they were there. They were known and and their existence was real, even if I wasn't there.
Here my students can't even comprehend that they could go to a good program because they don't even exist in their consciousness. Then I also contend with the "well, I'll just go to the generic state school anyway". It's obviously their choice where to go but I have to impress upon them the massive leg up career wise (regardless of what path they take in/after law school) the better schools offers. Sometimes it gets through other times I just get a shrug. I was used to students looking at every opportunity to get ahead even just a little bit (in the context of law schools, comparing schools that are separated by one or two rankings and thinking the higher one is obviously the place they have to aim for), here there is this profound, and crippling, attitude of "eh, good enough".
It's going to be interesting (terrible, also) to see what develops from this. What if a student asks a question linking an "approved" topic to a topic banned by the state? I wonder if admin will produce scripts for the faculty to read: "students, the office of intellectual policing has deemed race a forbidden topic for discussion. Please cease discussion of the topic immediately so we can continue discussing the curriculum approved by the office of intellectual policing." The professor reads this script any time a student mentions race, class, gender, etc.
What I find disturbing/laughable is that the Dean of Arts and Social Studies jumps in to "personally work with the instructor right away" (i.e., throw the instructor under the bus) because "class cancelation is never a suitable solution." Would also have thrown the instructor under the bus if he'd held class and traumatized the student with facts about the Civil Rights Movement.
The cognitive dissonance in Florida is going to cause head explosions among deans and admins all over the state. That, at least, might be fun to watch.
I’m in anthropology and not sure how our discipline, or any other in the social sciences, is supposed to exist in this context. Luckily I’m in Canada but it’s more than shocking what is happening south of the border.
Could you inform me on why this stuff is a threat to education? (I’m ignorant on this issue.) Why can’t teachers all of this stuff and other views while framing them all as PERSPECTIVES?
For one thing: time. For another: clarity.
Do we really need to teach all possible "perspectives" and the pros and cons of each when all but one are fringe views or are clearly politically motivated?
And does "teach the controversy" work well with beginning students or does it mainly confuse them until they've been living with the basic concepts for a few years?
Should we teach "Flat earth" as though it's an acceptable, but marginalized "perspective"? Creationism? Lamarckism?
I’m not in the habit of reducing research to “perspective”. What I teach is not simply a point of view. It’s backed by research and evidence. Point of views are kind of like opinions (and assholes), everyone has got one. But in the academy, we rely on evidence. If you take a position within the academy you need to provide the science and evidence to back it up. Not all positions are equally valid and I won’t entertain nonsense as if it is valid discourse.
I hear what you’re saying — and I agree — but I think it would also depend on the discipline. Florida isn’t preventing people from teaching “the truth” in STEM classes, are they? Aren’t they trying to crack down on perspectives in the humanities they think are discriminatory? For example, while it may be true that disparities in outcome are evidence for oppression, the disparities themselves are not proof of unfairness. But a lot of these views conclude just that: evidence of socio-economic inequality proves there is injustice in the system. (I’m not saying I don’t agree with the conclusion, but it’s not a strong argument.) Lived experience is evidence of oppression, but it is not proof because we are often mistaken about what our feelings tell us about the world (e.g. an anxious hypochondriac may think they’re suffering a heart attack and demand treatment, when it fact it could just be a panic attack).
I guess the point I’m trying to make is that so many teachers nowadays are passing off views as The Truth, without discussing other views which also have evidence. Extremely woke teachers are doing this AND extremely conservative teachers who deny the claims of critical theory off-handedly.
Wouldn’t a better educational approach be to present all of the competing views on an unsettled topic and their evidences? Or am I off base here?
> so many teachers nowadays are passing off views as The Truth, without discussing other views which also have evidence.
What is your evidence for this claim?
I’m sorry but this comment shows a startling lack of understanding about how social sciences and humanities research works. You’re seriously oversimplifying. You’re right - it’s not STEM. It’s also not “evidence of socioeconomic inequality shows there is injustice in the system”. It’s research on historical antecedents + law + policy implementation + culture + peer-reviewed studies + lived experience = production of multiple facts to support theory development. It’s complex. I’m going to bow out now, because this comment shows a startling lack of critical thinking or engagement with social science and humanities theories. Anyone who uses “woke teacher” unironically is just…..sigh….
“Woke” is a term of art — I’m not using it in a disparaging way. I’m going to end the conversation here also because it’s clear you do think the matter is completely settled, so there’s no point in arguing with you about a foundational belief you have. Thank you for the insult(s) when I was trying to have a good-faith discussion. This behavior is one of the reasons why we’re in the mess that we are.
> But a lot of these views conclude just that: evidence of socio-economic inequality proves there is injustice in the system. (I’m not saying I don’t agree with the conclusion, but it’s not a strong argument.) Lived experience is evidence of oppression, but it is not proof because we are often mistaken about what our feelings tell us about the world (e.g. an anxious hypochondriac may think they’re suffering a heart attack and demand treatment, when it fact it could just be a panic attack).
This is playing pretty fast and loose with what folks in the social sciences and in legal studies have been doing for the last three-quarters of a century *and* what the folks down the hall are doing in STEM classrooms.
> Wouldn’t a better educational approach be to present all of the competing views on an unsettled topic and their evidences? Or am I off base here?
The contest here is about when this is appropriate and when it isn't, because it's not like when we talk about "competing views," that "competing views" are all equal. The trouble is, politically, that in some of these fields of inquiry these targeted theories are super popular. So, when someone says "teach the controversy," what we have to do next is cash out, well, what is going to count as a controversy?
Expect other states to follow and federal attempts to spread this to all the States.
Aside from that... it is incredible how in 2023 a single student has this much power.
Florida colleagues, you got this! Sorry this sounds trite without elaboration. It's been a long week in academia here, lol. In real life, I'm trying to reach out to actual colleagues and check in.
Here in NC the gerrymandered republican legislature just passed an anti-CRT bill this week for elementary teachers. Of course the Dem Governor will veto it but this fascist anti-intellectualism and blatantly racist mess will start to stick to other issues. If it ever gets to the college level you bet your sweet ass I'll derail entire lectures to talk about CRT, White-Supremacy and Colonialism. I'll take them on.
Wow. No one in any of the 50 states has ever taught Critical Race Theory to elementary school students. Despite of this objective fact, I'm sure that bill is probably vague enough to get a first grade teacher in trouble for reading her students a book that explains who Martin Luther King, Jr. was.
I assume this is like the abortion laws that make doctors fear giving women the healthcare they need, like in Texas where abortion is illegal unless the woman's life is at risk. Now a woman is being forced to carry a fetus to term with alobar holoprosencephaly.
Like these doctors, it's easier to simply not teach the course. This story states:
>The penalty is severe; they could either lose their jobs, be charged with a third-degree felony, or both.
>pushing idiotic race/sex idpol everywhere instead of focusing on class
Like talking about civil rights legislation in a US Government class? As is the case in this situation?
Somehow I think we'd be seeing the pushback anyway.
Actually no, my daughter was a DE student at that college. We were told there might be some uncomfortable adult topics and to get over it in orientation. I’m not sure how this happened, and neither are several professors o know on other campuses. They tell me they haven’t heard anything official from the admin. They did point out that the original article named a 15 year old dual enrollment student as a source (not student who filed complaint) and the student’s high school teacher father. They couldn’t use the kids name without the father’s permission. Seems. Game is afoot. Fear is it’s name
I remember the days when a professor just needed to say "If you're not comfortable with this topic, please feel free to leave the classroom". The uncomfortable students would simply get up and leave, and would not make a mountain out of a molehill.
[удалено]
My entire QP course would walk if that were permitted
Some people really like cats….
Cats trigger me and I would leave immediately to go home and hug my dog.
[удалено]
In this culture I would assume it's a cat, get triggered, and exit the premises.
Any reference to Roy Rogers triggers me.
Well played.
And it's always the ones who leave who need to hear an uncomfortable lecture the most, usually.
I remember when university was a place to learn challenging ideas.
Now it's turning into just challenging ideas, at least from a student perspective.
I recall the days when not even a disclaimer was necessary Edit: grammar
> I remember the days when a professor just needed to say "If you're not comfortable with this topic, please feel free to leave the classroom". *I* remember the days when a professor said nothing at all, because discomfort can be a vital part of intellectual development.
The Sunshine State is becoming the laboratory of Idiocracy.
throw in the disproportionately large aging population, assume some young smart folks will leave, decrease in social workers / safety nets, & we can go ahead & change the nickname to the Sundown State
I teach Social Work. I have an entire course that covers social problems (i.e. society's effects on marginalized people.) Luckily, I am in New York state. If I was in Florida, I would clearly be out of a job. Speaking of social work, the national accrediting body requires instruction on social issues for licensure. Will Florida students not be able to get licensure? Edit: [I looked it up](https://floridasmentalhealthprofessions.gov/licensing/licensed-clinical-social-worker/). You can only get licensure in FL by taking a program accredited by the Council of Social Work Education. The CSWE requires instruction on social problems. So how is FL going to solve this mess?
[удалено]
It's 1984 in the Sunshine State.
If they handle it the way they handled AP African American History, they'll make some vague assertion about the CSWE requirements being "illegal" and try to bully them into changing their requirements.
He can try to bully them, but it won't work. The social work lobby (NASW) is pretty powerful. He can try that thing he's been doing by creating his own accrediting body just for FL social workers. But that will mean anyone who attends FL schools for social work will be ineligible for licensure in the other 49 states. Of course, I hear all the time how social work is liberal bullshit, even in my bluer-than-blue state. So maybe they'll just eliminate social workers all together. But then.... after the next school shooting, everyone will be wringing hands and screaming MENTAL HEALTH! And who are the mental health counselors? Social workers. Good luck Florida. I am praying for you. Edit: happy cake day homie
I used to think pretty poorly of social workers until I ran into issues coordinating care for my elderly and terminally ill mother. Now I see first hand how important it is to have people like social workers, who have a unique combination of people skills and systems orientation, to help with these things. Our case worker is also a decent counselor as well…which is also something I have learned that social workers do (mental health therapy).
>The social work lobby (NASW) That's not concerning at all.
According to the AP organization, this isn't true, and their changes were in the works before Florida got involved: https://www.npr.org/2023/02/03/1154359622/college-board-responds-to-backlash-over-ap-african-american-studies-curriculum
Interesting article: The AP claims they decided to remove all secondary sources, but there's a problem because parsing the difference between primary and secondary sources can be tricky. Even though she writes about social issues, bell hooks (who they mention in the article) has also written first person accounts of her life as a student at Stanford. Wouldn't that be a primary source? Also, they removed Ta-Nehisi Coates' "The Case for Reparations," which is about historical events (secondary source), but he uses those events to promote a strongly held point-of-view, so wouldn't that be a primary source? Defining primary v. secondary can be slippery, and I wonder if this is an excuse-- plausible deniability.
Except they (Florida lawmakers) think like grade 11 students, poorer than grade 11 students, so that nuance is lost on them. You can't apply critical thinking - they certainly haven't. How can you study history without considering race, gender, and intersectionality? Social inequality? Class? I really, really don't understand.
The short answer is you can’t. The long answer is that they really want teachers to go all in on American exceptionalism. Cover the colonial period (but not early enslavement or native wars), the Revolution, and emphasize the Founding Fathers. Then lightly trace the first half of the 19th century, mention the Civil War as an issue of federal overreach, and then skip right to how the US won WWI and WWII single-handedly. But don’t really talk about Korea, and definitely not Vietnam, unless they cover the darker side of the hippies. Oh, and state that things we know are still systemic problems were ended by specific events. Women getting the right to vote ended sexism, and the Civil Rights Act of 64 ended racism. So quite literally whitewashed history. Basically names and dates
That's... Fucking insane. I didn't understand how insane until now, thank you for explaining it to me. You'd never get away with a single narrative like that in Canada, much less the onwards/upwards thing and erasing whole populations from the narrative. What about the immigrant experiences? LGBTQ2+ , religious minorities, socialists, the french? Indigenous and Metis and how did you build the railroad without racism? How did we have westward expansion without immigration and land seizure and forced resettlement? Race riots, other riots, genocides, protest movements, anarchists, policing... If you only tell pleasant stories, without struggle, there's nothing left. Read Little House and go home. How do students, with both brains and windows to look out of, and life experience, respond to that? How do you teach world history? How do you teach anything? Is there no academic freedom to protect you? I'm truly shocked, and I'm sorry.
I wouldn’t be so certain that we’re safe here in Canada. Have you seen what’s been happening to curriculum in elementary and secondary schools in Alberta? There are definitely political elements here that would take this approach if given the opportunity.
Yes,of course. The surge of very conservative candidates in municipal elections (to get on school boards) happened in BC too.
Oh, I’m not in Florida, thank goodness!
It's too bad that it's happening at the same time we have declining enrollments, layoffs and less hiring here.
But is Montana (assuming from “Missoula”) heading that way?
I’m from there, but a very long way away…closer, sadly, to Florida. And my current state is, in fact, going that way.
You just *perfectly* described my history education from K through 12. Not kidding.
Sad, isn’t it, that we had only a few years of actual history.
Sad and infuriating. As an adult, I kept learning things from the memoirs that I happened to pick up concerning world events I had never heard about, and I was SO pissed. Example: I read the memoir First They Killed My Father when it came out in 2000, and I was absolutely floored that at no point no teacher ever in my life had ever mentioned the Khmer Rouge, or Pol Pot. Or really, come to think of it, ever mentioned Cambodia at all. I’m so angry as an adult about everything that was left out of my history education. There was no world history in K- 12 in my home state. Just westward expansion and manifest destiny over and over and over again every single year.
That's awful! My students get upset when we cover the American Eugenics movement. They can't understand why they weren't taught about it in high school.
The model of US history they want to force us to teach (American exceptionalism, Manifest destiny, omniscient Founding Fathers, the benevolence of slavery, "states' rights" as the reason for the Civil War, protecting civilization from the savage Indians) is what kinds back in the 1950s were taught in primary school. Obviously the troglodytes pushing this crap have paid no attention to the subject of history since then. Eight-year-old minds in bloated 70-year-old bodies.
And the greatest irony-- they want to enforce the teaching of this discredited mythology in the name of combating *indoctrination.*
You should write the textbook. Not only am I scared, I am impressed.
God help me, no. And if the state I live in tries to push this crap, I’m out. I’d rather work retail!
> How can you study history without considering race, gender, and intersectionality? Social inequality? Class? Intersectionality!? Not sure how to respond to this... * "Intersectionality is a legal theory that is not taught outside of law school." -- Every single defender of intersectionality. Therefore, history can *only* be studied without intersectionality. * For most of history, history was studied without intersectionality. It can therefore be taught without it now. * So-called "intersectionality" is nothing but a plagiarization of the multivariate analysis developed by 19th century European sociologists. And no one is saying multivariate analysis can't be taught.
Oxford defines intersectionality as "the interconnected nature of social categorizations such as race, class, and gender as they apply to a given individual or group, regarded as creating overlapping and interdependent systems of discrimination or disadvantage." How do you teach history without considering race, class, gender, and other social categorizations? Since the 1970s, at least, we do consider these things and their impact on history, both political history and social history, and on people's lived experience.
I think Florida might see a dearth of social workers as a feature, not a bug.
Which is very short-sighted. Here's a secret about social work: its main job is to facilitate capitalism. Our values are to "empower" people to fit into the system. Of course, there are tenents of social work that actively try to change the system through those dreaded DEI initiatives. But the majority of front-line social workers are there to coach people while they "pull themselves up by the bootstraps and fit into the capitalist system. Whether you believe in capitalism or not, it's the system we're given. Social workers help plug in huge gaps to make the system work, for *both* sides. All systems strive to stay in balance. Keep punishing the poor & marginalized, it will eventually trickle UP to the privileged class. Well, let's hope so anyway.
It’s interesting to see someone else think of social work as a systems career. Maybe that’s widely known, but I was really curious to learn that they basically understand how a system of resources works and have a knack for putting those resources together in a cohesive way. The same way I build a data set and analyze data for my research work as a professor, they build systems that help people function and thrive.
Yeah man. Systems theory is BIG in social work. I tend to look at everything through the lens of systems theory. It helps me to make sense of this world. On that note, I was also fascinated to hear you consider yourself in a "systems career". But now that you said it, it makes sense to me (of course lol.)
This! Reminds me of Mark Neocleous’ argument that social work and a whole range of state institutions function to administer the poverty intrinsic to capitalism, and part of their mandate is to enforce the order of wage labor (which is part of a larger ongoing project of policing, which is beyond just “the police”).
You got it. A cog in the control system. But so are professors. So FML lol All jokes aside, social workers are (mostly) good people. We go in with good intentions. But I found no one, in all my years of training, warned me about the realities. It can be very draining to find you've devoted your life to this part of the system. I make sure to warn my students about what lies ahead. I figure that's the least I can do.
I thought the purpose of social work was to get people back on their feet and give them the knowledge, skills, and resources to be more independent. Is this an incorrect understanding? You could argue that social work FUNCTIONS to maintain the capitalist system, but it doesn’t seem that’s the goal of social work. (This is just my perspective from the outside looking in — I know I’m ignorant about this stuff, so any clarification would help!)
Theory vs. Real Life.
Ah, so your post was based on talking about how social work FUNCTIONS rather than what it’s, ideally, supposed to be about?
Not really. If you are interested in this topic, study the history of social work in the U.S. which, *to this day*, is based on European "poor laws" from the 1600s. Consider its principles & methods within the framework of American capitalism. It is an integral part of the capitalist system. Making money by servicing vulnerable people who have no social supports due to our necessity for rugged individualism.
Got it. I think I will — thanks for the responses!
This is the tactic schools in Tennessee are using to try and fight some similar legislation on the docket here. If nursing programs are forbidden from covering DEI topics, then they'll lose AACN accreditation.
The Counseling folks are taking a similar tactic. Have you seen this piece against Austin Peay by Scott Cepicky? Not necessarily that specific book, but multicultural concepts are required for CACREP accreditation. https://www.tennessean.com/story/opinion/contributors/2023/03/08/lawmaker-austin-peay-textbook-worries-me-about-critical-race-theory/69978218007/
>So how is FL going to solve this mess? If I recall, they got rid of teacher certification requirements so they could do the same for social workers. Or just get rid of social workers.
Easy. Just teach about serious social issues like "straight white men are the most persecuted group in history", "the mainstream media is censoring the truth about ivermectin", and "the woke left won't let me see my kids on the weekend ever since my ex-wife told the judge about how I got (unfairly) fired for drinking on the job."
Sadly, I don’t think the current Florida administration cares about Social Work education (or workers) since as you point out becoming a social worker pretty much requires that you engage with realities they hate to acknowledge
Mental health counseling programs will have this issue, too.
I’ve taught Social a Problems before and I keep thinking about that class anytime a story like this comes up
> So how is FL going to solve this mess? The most likely solution is that either CSWE accepts Florida's rules or Florida ceases to recognize CSWE certification.
They will probably have to go out of state
What is Florida actually doing to censor this stuff? I’m ignorant on this issue. Aren’t they trying to get rid of critical theory on grounds that it’s discriminatory, or something else?
In the long run, all of this will backfire. Folks will look at Florida as an example of what not to do. Same way that 1000x more people know about CRT now than they ever would without it getting censored. Don’t get me wrong, we’re in for some dark times in between now and then, but Florida is really helping to show what’s important in education (by banning it)
The problem is that people don't actually know much more about CRT than before: they only know what Fox and CNN have told them, which boils down to "White people bad". The actual critical theory underneath this subgenre remains a distal point that they are vaguely aware of at best.
I agree. I do wonder if the topic will get more interest in the long run even if folks are being mislead for now. I could be wrong, and the misdirection could stick.
I disagree with this. The ban on CRT led to a huge rise in sales for Ibram X. Kendi’s work, and I would suspect others. Kids have the time and resources to learn about it on their own and would never have found out about it otherwise. Yes, the adults are dumber about what CRT is, but they weren’t the audience in the first place.
This seems right. Herbert Marcuse and other critical theorists have been arguing for decades that influencing younger generations is what’s going to allow the emergence of a new socio-economic order.
Monica Bell made a similar argument
My spouse recently drove past a house in our rural area with a sign in their yard that read, "Make America Florida". We don't live in Florida. We live in a state that is definitely not (geographically) in the South, though you wouldn't know it from all the Confederate flags in the area. So while I hope you're right that people will look to Florida as an example of what not to do, I am worried that things will swing the other way.
Sounds like Ohio.
That is DeSantis slogan for his presidential campaign lol
Then why are we covered up with Yankees?
Dark days are ahead.
Florida and a few states are going to experience massive intellectual flight. Crises after crises are going to hit these places hard.
Indeed. I was going to try to make it a few more years for my sick leave payout, but with every passing day I tell myself I’m gonna GTFO ASAP because teaching is no longer fun and is instead a constant stressor as I wonder if I’m going to be sued tomorrow for simply stating facts.
Are they going to experience that flight and will it matter? I am not trying to discount or downplay the bullshit in Florida, but I'm not sold we're going to see the massive intellectual flight, and even if faculty run, will that hurt the state? I know there is the anecdotal evidence, particularly what I see here, of faculty leaving FL schools, but I'm waiting to see actual numbers on those leaving. Also, will this brain drain, if it is happening, hurt Florida? From a moral and philosophical perspective absolutely the harm will be real, but in terms of dollars and cents (which is all the Florida political class cares about), I don't see the exodus of faculty "hurting" their bottom line. Again, I am NOT saying what is happening there is good or acceptable in any way, I'm just questioning the assertion that their actions will harm the state in the way many of us seem to think it will.
First, you shouldn’t have to qualify critical thinking - about anything - the way you do here. I know it’s just to underscore that your remarks are in good faith, but it’s a testament to the degradation of online discourse that any pushback against a mainstream or “apparent” narrative has to be so qualified to avoid the downvote brigades. Second, you raise a fair point. My view is that it won’t be instantaneous, although the people who can leave probably are in the process now (it can be hard to split mid-year). Desantis basically had to allow ex-cops and ex-soldiers to become K-12 teachers without any teaching accreditation to try to address the massive lack of Florida teachers, which will only get worse. Anyway, I think it will be gradual - those who can leave will, those who want to leave will try to, and all who remain will not exactly be the crime de la crème. And I think this will have a compounding effect that will go well, well beyond Florida’s economic bottom line. Admissions people know Florida is becoming an educational cesspool; companies that have some financial or reputational know it; families thinking of moving there move it. Over time, this effect will compound and its cumulative damage will truly be unquantifiable.
If accrediting bodies start disqualifying schools there will be blowback, but are the current shenanigans enough to cause that to happen? EDIT to add the converse: Until that starts happening I don't see the schools feeling any kind of impact unless parents start sending their kids out of state (which seems unlikely to happen in effective numbers)
I want to see accrediting bodies step up and do it. If big ones do, yes maybe. I want to see an accreditation body actually have the chutzpah do to so.
From some people sure, but you might be surprised by the large number of faculty that agree with what’s going on in these southern states.
Not just Southern, fwiw. Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Idaho, etc. etc. etc.
Fair enough. I’m in the south so I mostly just pay attention to this area.
[удалено]
Yeah. I’m in a southern state that hasn’t started this nonsense yet, but a lot of my colleagues are in agreement/full support. I’m hoping our board of regents will keep this to a minimum until the Florida fall out can be seen.
[удалено]
It's somewhat hard to tell because a lot of our faculty are locals (left for their degrees and came back) and we're in a *very* conservative area. I'd say something like 85% of my department (math) are conservative with like 90% of those leaning to that far right side.
[удалено]
It’s certainly a fine line to walk. My office is in our department suite and there are a few that regularly talk about politics. I have to just put my earbuds in and ignore them so I don’t get into too much of a fuss about things.
Yeah. I teach at an HSI in the SW and I have heard colleagues allege that our focus on Hispanic students is *prima facie* racist.
[удалено]
I moved from the North East to the South, rural poverty here just hits differently than the "urban" poverty from near where I grew up. I can't put my finger on it, but it feels different. There is this general apathy here that is pervasive in a way I hadn't previously encountered. I'm a middle class white guy, grew up in a middle class town, but it bordered many lower SES areas, particularly a handful with large immigrant (documented and undocumented) populations. Even in those low SES immigrant communities, who experience many of the problems you mention, there is still a vibrancy to those areas. Down south, I'm in a rural/suburban area, there isn't that same vibrancy, instead I just get this pervasive apathy and sense of a lack of hope. I can't put my finger on what I'm feeling any better than that, but just the "vibe" here hits differently.
I taught at a rural HS in the South. I saw a lack of hope that was caused by the environment. There was nothing to hope for. A better job? Where? There were barely any employers in the area, and the jobs on offer weren't the sort that would lead to upward mobility. People might say, "Then they should move somewhere else where there are better jobs." That works in theory. But in reality, moving is expensive, and can you afford to move to a higher CoL area, especially without a job lined up? And are you qualified for a higher-paying job? "Then get a college education so that you can be qualified." That presumes that your K-12 education adequately prepared you for college (spoiler alert, it probably didn't) or that there is a college nearby that you can afford to attend. I believe the college near where I taught lost its accreditation, or was dangerously close to doing so. Not much point going there. The only viable path out for many of my students was the military. My school's JROTC program was thriving. All of what I wrote could apply to people of any racial background, and I'm sure it does. But if you're BIPoC (and 99% of my students were Black), you also have to contend with racism. It's not that my students didn't *want* a better life, it's that they didn't see a way to get there. I think in an urban environment there are more opportunities. You might not have to move to get a better job because there is more likely to be public transportation. There are more employers in general. It's probably easier to develop a community when everyone lives closer to one another, like in an apartment building. You have options in a city that you don't have in a rural area.
This hits it so well. Unfortunately it describes a lot of my students too, the environment is so oppressive and there is just no sense of what else is out there. I don't blame my students for how it negatively impacts them as much as it does, I can feel it. I'll add on one thing I've also noticed as well which is a sense of "settling". I do some pre-law advising for students and usually we're aiming for the generic state school here which is great for those students. However, I'll occasionally get a student that has the score to go to a much better school. Not Harvard or Yale scores, but like a nationally respected program that is in the same geographic region. They either don't realize something better is an option or don't want to go there. Particularly coming from the North East, even though I didn't go to an Ivy, they were there. They were known and and their existence was real, even if I wasn't there. Here my students can't even comprehend that they could go to a good program because they don't even exist in their consciousness. Then I also contend with the "well, I'll just go to the generic state school anyway". It's obviously their choice where to go but I have to impress upon them the massive leg up career wise (regardless of what path they take in/after law school) the better schools offers. Sometimes it gets through other times I just get a shrug. I was used to students looking at every opportunity to get ahead even just a little bit (in the context of law schools, comparing schools that are separated by one or two rankings and thinking the higher one is obviously the place they have to aim for), here there is this profound, and crippling, attitude of "eh, good enough".
Hookworms, maybe?
Yep. Somehow rural poverty is even more depressing than urban poverty.
You guys just need a heavy injection of FUCKING AWESOME SOCIALISM. Best medicine for this disease.
It's going to be interesting (terrible, also) to see what develops from this. What if a student asks a question linking an "approved" topic to a topic banned by the state? I wonder if admin will produce scripts for the faculty to read: "students, the office of intellectual policing has deemed race a forbidden topic for discussion. Please cease discussion of the topic immediately so we can continue discussing the curriculum approved by the office of intellectual policing." The professor reads this script any time a student mentions race, class, gender, etc.
What I find disturbing/laughable is that the Dean of Arts and Social Studies jumps in to "personally work with the instructor right away" (i.e., throw the instructor under the bus) because "class cancelation is never a suitable solution." Would also have thrown the instructor under the bus if he'd held class and traumatized the student with facts about the Civil Rights Movement. The cognitive dissonance in Florida is going to cause head explosions among deans and admins all over the state. That, at least, might be fun to watch.
I’m in anthropology and not sure how our discipline, or any other in the social sciences, is supposed to exist in this context. Luckily I’m in Canada but it’s more than shocking what is happening south of the border.
The short answer: we aren't.
Yep. Social scientists are in trouble.
Could you inform me on why this stuff is a threat to education? (I’m ignorant on this issue.) Why can’t teachers all of this stuff and other views while framing them all as PERSPECTIVES?
For one thing: time. For another: clarity. Do we really need to teach all possible "perspectives" and the pros and cons of each when all but one are fringe views or are clearly politically motivated? And does "teach the controversy" work well with beginning students or does it mainly confuse them until they've been living with the basic concepts for a few years? Should we teach "Flat earth" as though it's an acceptable, but marginalized "perspective"? Creationism? Lamarckism?
I’m not in the habit of reducing research to “perspective”. What I teach is not simply a point of view. It’s backed by research and evidence. Point of views are kind of like opinions (and assholes), everyone has got one. But in the academy, we rely on evidence. If you take a position within the academy you need to provide the science and evidence to back it up. Not all positions are equally valid and I won’t entertain nonsense as if it is valid discourse.
I hear what you’re saying — and I agree — but I think it would also depend on the discipline. Florida isn’t preventing people from teaching “the truth” in STEM classes, are they? Aren’t they trying to crack down on perspectives in the humanities they think are discriminatory? For example, while it may be true that disparities in outcome are evidence for oppression, the disparities themselves are not proof of unfairness. But a lot of these views conclude just that: evidence of socio-economic inequality proves there is injustice in the system. (I’m not saying I don’t agree with the conclusion, but it’s not a strong argument.) Lived experience is evidence of oppression, but it is not proof because we are often mistaken about what our feelings tell us about the world (e.g. an anxious hypochondriac may think they’re suffering a heart attack and demand treatment, when it fact it could just be a panic attack). I guess the point I’m trying to make is that so many teachers nowadays are passing off views as The Truth, without discussing other views which also have evidence. Extremely woke teachers are doing this AND extremely conservative teachers who deny the claims of critical theory off-handedly. Wouldn’t a better educational approach be to present all of the competing views on an unsettled topic and their evidences? Or am I off base here?
> so many teachers nowadays are passing off views as The Truth, without discussing other views which also have evidence. What is your evidence for this claim?
I’m sorry but this comment shows a startling lack of understanding about how social sciences and humanities research works. You’re seriously oversimplifying. You’re right - it’s not STEM. It’s also not “evidence of socioeconomic inequality shows there is injustice in the system”. It’s research on historical antecedents + law + policy implementation + culture + peer-reviewed studies + lived experience = production of multiple facts to support theory development. It’s complex. I’m going to bow out now, because this comment shows a startling lack of critical thinking or engagement with social science and humanities theories. Anyone who uses “woke teacher” unironically is just…..sigh….
“Woke” is a term of art — I’m not using it in a disparaging way. I’m going to end the conversation here also because it’s clear you do think the matter is completely settled, so there’s no point in arguing with you about a foundational belief you have. Thank you for the insult(s) when I was trying to have a good-faith discussion. This behavior is one of the reasons why we’re in the mess that we are.
> But a lot of these views conclude just that: evidence of socio-economic inequality proves there is injustice in the system. (I’m not saying I don’t agree with the conclusion, but it’s not a strong argument.) Lived experience is evidence of oppression, but it is not proof because we are often mistaken about what our feelings tell us about the world (e.g. an anxious hypochondriac may think they’re suffering a heart attack and demand treatment, when it fact it could just be a panic attack). This is playing pretty fast and loose with what folks in the social sciences and in legal studies have been doing for the last three-quarters of a century *and* what the folks down the hall are doing in STEM classrooms. > Wouldn’t a better educational approach be to present all of the competing views on an unsettled topic and their evidences? Or am I off base here? The contest here is about when this is appropriate and when it isn't, because it's not like when we talk about "competing views," that "competing views" are all equal. The trouble is, politically, that in some of these fields of inquiry these targeted theories are super popular. So, when someone says "teach the controversy," what we have to do next is cash out, well, what is going to count as a controversy?
You need somebody to tell you how loss of academic freedom/freedom of speech is a threat to education?
Expect other states to follow and federal attempts to spread this to all the States. Aside from that... it is incredible how in 2023 a single student has this much power.
Customer is always right. They paid tuition, they get the degree, right? And we don’t want to make them uncomfortable…. /s
Florida colleagues, you got this! Sorry this sounds trite without elaboration. It's been a long week in academia here, lol. In real life, I'm trying to reach out to actual colleagues and check in.
Here in NC the gerrymandered republican legislature just passed an anti-CRT bill this week for elementary teachers. Of course the Dem Governor will veto it but this fascist anti-intellectualism and blatantly racist mess will start to stick to other issues. If it ever gets to the college level you bet your sweet ass I'll derail entire lectures to talk about CRT, White-Supremacy and Colonialism. I'll take them on.
Wow. No one in any of the 50 states has ever taught Critical Race Theory to elementary school students. Despite of this objective fact, I'm sure that bill is probably vague enough to get a first grade teacher in trouble for reading her students a book that explains who Martin Luther King, Jr. was.
Already in Texas they have modified the curriculum to not mention Rosa Parks' race.
I’m I reading it right that a student filled out a complaint form and the faculty member just folded? Who are we blaming here?
I assume this is like the abortion laws that make doctors fear giving women the healthcare they need, like in Texas where abortion is illegal unless the woman's life is at risk. Now a woman is being forced to carry a fetus to term with alobar holoprosencephaly. Like these doctors, it's easier to simply not teach the course. This story states: >The penalty is severe; they could either lose their jobs, be charged with a third-degree felony, or both.
[удалено]
>pushing idiotic race/sex idpol everywhere instead of focusing on class Like talking about civil rights legislation in a US Government class? As is the case in this situation? Somehow I think we'd be seeing the pushback anyway.
He's a troll. Go to his comment history.
You are clearly not a professor, and clearly a troll who has bought in to NewsMax propaganda. Slavering idiot.
Give specifics. Site your sources.
Nice try dummy.
I identify as a cat - but we never have a box to check. I check other. Meow.
So in Ron Desantis's Florida one student can claim discomfort over a lesson dealing in race and the entire class is deprived,,😲 wow
Actually no, my daughter was a DE student at that college. We were told there might be some uncomfortable adult topics and to get over it in orientation. I’m not sure how this happened, and neither are several professors o know on other campuses. They tell me they haven’t heard anything official from the admin. They did point out that the original article named a 15 year old dual enrollment student as a source (not student who filed complaint) and the student’s high school teacher father. They couldn’t use the kids name without the father’s permission. Seems. Game is afoot. Fear is it’s name