166

High school teacher and students sue over Arkansas' ban on critical race theory (apnews.com)

submitted 2 years ago by Stopthatgirl7@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

15 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A high school teacher and two students sued Arkansas on Monday over the state’s ban on critical race theory and “indoctrination” in public schools, asking a federal judge to strike down the restrictions as unconstitutional.

The lawsuit by the teacher and students from Little Rock Central High School, site of the historic 1957 racial desegregation crisis, stems from the state’s decision last year that an Advanced Placement course on African American Studies would not count toward state credit.

all 19 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] tal@lemmy.today 24 points 2 years ago

“It absolutely chills free speech”

I don't think that this angle is going to be successful.

States do have the right to set the content of their curriculum.

They can't stop the teacher from saying what he wants outside the school, but in the context of the education system, they do get to decide what goes.

The Scopes trial dealt with this point:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_trial

The Scopes trial, formally The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes, and commonly referred to as the Scopes Monkey Trial, was an American legal case from July 10 to July 21, 1925, in which a high school teacher, John T. Scopes, was accused of violating Tennessee's Butler Act, which had made it illegal for teachers to teach human evolution in any state-funded school.

Second, the lawyers argued that the statute violated Scopes' constitutional right to free speech because it prohibited him from teaching evolution. The court rejected this argument, holding that the state was permitted to regulate his speech as an employee of the state:

He was an employee of the state of Tennessee or of a municipal agency of the state. He was under contract with the state to work in an institution of the state. He had no right or privilege to serve the state except upon such terms as the state prescribed. His liberty, his privilege, his immunity to teach and proclaim the theory of evolution, elsewhere than in the service of the state, was in no wise touched by this law.

[+] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world -12 points 2 years ago

Yeah, because a famously anti-science trial against a teacher accused of teaching science in science class is a GREAT jurisprudence to look to! 🙄

[-] Wooster@startrek.website 10 points 2 years ago

It's not about the material in question, it's about if a state employed teacher has the right to override the curriculum. They do not.

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Yeah, I still call bullshit. Legislating against the right of a teacher to teach well-documented science in science class isn't about the teacher "overriding the curriculum".

It's about the state trying to override reality with lies and compelling teachers to do so as well.

[-] Wooster@startrek.website 2 points 2 years ago

Say I believed the earth is flat, and provided 'well documented science' that the earth is flat. Who's to say that I shouldn't be doing that? Or what if in social studies class I provided proof that men were superior to women?

The law is clearly in the moral wrong in our current situation, but in general it provides more protections than it does harm. The problem isn't with Tennessee vs Scopes. The problem is with the Republican agenda.

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world -3 points 2 years ago

Say I believed the earth is flat, and provided 'well documented science' that the earth is flat

That's not equivalent since there is no such thing.

Who's to say that I shouldn't be doing that?

Every person who doesn't subscribe to your fringe hypothesis. So roughly 8.1 billion people.

Or what if in social studies class I provided proof that men were superior to women?

Again, you don't seem at all familiar with how scientific proof works.

The law is clearly in the moral wrong in our current situation

Also: factually and in every other way.

in general it provides more protections than it does harm

Nope. It's states trying to remove every mention of LGBTQ+ people and racial equality, not rogue teachers.

The problem isn't with Tennessee vs Scopes. The problem is with the Republican agenda.

[-] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

You don’t have to like it for it to be the reality of the situation, and the fact is that the precedent is extremely relevant. Your little fantasy world where teachers choose the material ignores the other side of the equation too, as I’m sure you wouldn’t want some evangelical deciding on his own to override the curriculum to suit his beliefs.

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Your little fantasy world where teachers choose the material

I'm not talking about teachers choosing the material. I'm talking about scientific consensus arrived at through abundantly peer reviewed proof dictating what is taught in science classes, not the equivalent of the Catholic Church insisting that the sun revolves around the earth.

I’m sure you wouldn’t want some evangelical deciding on his own to override the curriculum to suit his beliefs.

Sure wouldn't. For the reasons I already mentioned.

Science is real and testable no matter whether you believe it or not. It's not a matter of opinion. It's not equivalent to creationism.

[-] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee -1 points 2 years ago

That’s a fun idea you have but you’re wrong. Who decides what the scientific consensus is? Is there some governing body that is accepted as the source of truth on what constitutes “abundantly” peer reviewed proof? No? Then it’s still subjective.

[-] stanleytweedle@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

Is there some governing body that is accepted as the source of truth on what constitutes “abundantly” peer reviewed proof? No? Then it’s still subjective.

The fun part of living in a society with low public education standards is that this argument can work for anything from creationism to holocaust denial. Doesn't matter if the Earth is a sphere, only matters if the schoolboard has the collective IQ to understand the abundant proof that the Earth is round. If they don't- then the shape of the Earth is just 'subjective' ;)

[-] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago

That’s exactly the point. The only remedy to this problem, given the structure of our government, is through the legislature. If you live in one of the shithole states, that’s going to be a challenge.

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago

That’s a fun idea you have

Could you possibly be any more condescending?

but you’re wrong

I objectively am not, according to the best way of arriving at truth without opinion or faith.

Who decides what the scientific consensus is?

Who do you fucking think? You can't possibly be this ignorant of how science works and what a consensus is and expect to be taken seriously when discussing science.

Is there some governing body that is accepted as the source of truth on what constitutes “abundantly” peer reviewed proof?

No, that's nowhere near what a scientific consensus is. Since you apparently ARE that clueless, allow me to inform you:

Scientific consensus is the generally held judgment, position, and opinion of the majority or the supermajority of scientists in a particular field of study at any particular time

In this case, "evolution is how life works" being the almost universally held position of anyone with expert knowledge about biology that isn't paid by pseudoscientific and usually religious organizations to pretend otherwise.

Then it’s still subjective.

Nope. That's not what that word means. A scientific consensus is the most objective thing there is in human knowledge.

Since you seem to have trouble with the meaning of key words, let me clarify: objective and subjective are antonyms. Antonyms are words with opposite meaning.

[-] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Hard not to be condescending in the face of such a childlike understanding of the world. Everything you’re arguing would be true in an ideal world, but that’s not what we have. I mean, have you been living under a rock while the science around climate change has been politicized and manipulated by monied interests?

I’ll remind you we are talking about the courts, and the autonomy of the States to make their own laws, and not about what makes good science.

And don’t police my tone while acting like an ass all over this thread, as you lack any moral high ground.

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

I’ll remind you we are talking about the courts

Ah, now I see the problem. I'm talking about what makes sense while you're talking about what a broken legal system wrongly thinks make sense.

the science around climate change has been politicized and manipulated by monied interests?

Corrupt people trying to deny the science doesn't change the science. That's why I alluded to the very few scientists not being part of the overwhelming consensus being paid for lying.

autonomy of the States to make their own laws

Yeah, because "state's rights" have always been an argument used for good laws.. 🙄

and not about what makes good science.

Call me old-fashioned, but I am of the opinion that science education should be about good science, not the ideological opinions of demagogues without so much as a relevant degree.

Hard not to be condescending in the face of such

Right back at you. You'd give Dunning and Kruger daily aneurysms if you had been a part of their famous study.

[-] UnpluggedFridge@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

The recent trend of transferring individual rights to the state en masse is alarming. Even worse, the states are working in direct contradiction to experts in the fields they are regulating. Skimming over some of these recent laws, we see legislatures working against medical associations (reproductive health care and gender affirming care), sports rules authorities (trans athlete participation), and education accreditation bodies (this article).

The result is a gigantic state power that sees fit to decide what health care you receive, what the rules of your sports should be, and what constitutes a good education. We have set up institutions to tackle these problems due to the (now less) common assumption that these decisions should be made by experts and/or local stakeholders, and that politics should have no place in our doctors' offices, football fields, and classrooms.

But let's assume that politics and state power should reach into these spaces. Why would the laws work in direct opposition to the most trusted authorities in these fields? What legitimate purpose could that serve?

this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2024

166 points (98.3% liked)

News

36221 readers

295 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.

Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.

7. No duplicate posts.

If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.

All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

rjc@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

jeffw@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world