Texas Senate Approves Law Preventing University Instructors From Talking About Things These Senators Don’t Like
from the RETURN-TEXAS-TO-MEXICO dept
Texas has always been a bit weird about stuff. It sometimes views itself as a separate nation or, at least, openly expresses its desire to secede from this apparently abhorrent liberal village of hundreds of millions known as the United States.
Fuck it. Maybe we just let it float off into the political sea as a rogue nation more concerned with fighting “wokeness” than ensuring residents are able to heat their homes during extreme weather.
Texas only wants state-approved viewpoints expressed. That’s why it has targeted social media platforms with unconstitutional laws. That’s why the same state reps who claimed content moderation was evil are now claiming there needs to be more content moderation, lest the women of the state seek outside assistance to access (now illegal) abortions.
Most of the time, these absurd efforts get shut down by courts that aren’t nearly as interested in playing to this particular brand of “conservative” voters. Sometimes they get the support they don’t deserve, much less have case law to back up these assertions. All it takes is a maniac in a robe to declare some Texas bullshit ACTUAL LAW and we’re off to the Supreme Court races with the entire internet on the line.
Welcome to Texas. It’s like Florida but with more Stetsons. The ideas are the same: insipid, bad, unconstitutional. But the bravado is a bit more (as in “a bit much”), perhaps emboldened by the Fifth Circuit and its willingness to ignore a century’s-worth of precedent. Performing for the base, the Texas Senate has opted to be remembered as meddling execs in the medium of life rather than true representatives of their not-nearly-as-batshit-insane constituents. Here’s Kate McGee with the extremely unfortunate details for The Texas Tribune:
The Texas Senate approved a bill Wednesday that would prohibit a college or university professor from “compelling” a student to adopt certain political beliefs, a proposal belonging to a slew of legislation introduced this session that university and community college faculty worry will restrict academic freedom in the classroom. The bill now heads to the Texas House.
[…]
“What we are not for is when professors attempt to compel a student to adopt a certain belief, require adherence to a professor’s viewpoint, to a certain viewpoint. That’s another matter entirely. That’s what this bill is about,” Hughes said.
That’s not what’s actually happening. This is Doublespeak. What the Senate wants to do is force professors to avoid discussing things like Critical Race Theory. This is compelled silence, which is indistinguishable from compelled speech when it comes to the First Amendment. The government can no more stop people from talking than demand people speak up in support of its preferred views.
On top of that, the bill presents no “compelling” government interest to engage in this restriction of speech, one made a little simpler for the government because it targets people employed by publicly-funded schools. This makes these instructors government employees, which helps limit the First Amendment claims they can raise when fighting this law.
The few rational lawmakers left in Texas are bewildered. The bill claims it’s necessary to combat some sort of nefarious, college-instituted, forceful re-education of people the state otherwise claims are adults. Here’s what the bill does:
Senate Bill 16 would bar university professors from compelling students “to adopt a belief that any race, sex, or ethnicity or social, political, or religious belief is inherently superior to any other race, sex, ethnicity, or belief.”
And here’s a long list of those victimized by the current state of affairs — a free-for-all allowed to run rampant by the lack of direct government interference:
“My worry here is that SB 16 is a solution looking for a problem that doesn’t exist,” said Karma Chávez, a University of Texas at Austin professor who testified on behalf of herself before the Senate subcommittee on higher education last month.
There may be the occasional educator who requires people to swear fealty to their chosen beliefs to secure a passing grade, but those educators are anomalies. And they can be dealt with through the normal disciplinary process. Even if educators are “compelling” students to “adopt beliefs” on the regular, the state should allow schools to handle this sort of thing on their own, rather than simply demand professors refrain from discussing competing views on controversial subjects.
We can pretend — as the Texas Senate would surely prefer us to — that the state government is on the up and up, purely concerned about in-school indoctrination. But we don’t have to pretend. None other than the state’s second-in-command has unvirtuously signaled the state’s intent.
Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick characterized SB 16 as a ban on critical race theory in higher education when he unveiled his list of legislative priorities for the session.
In essence, the governor’s office has decided it needs to silence any views that might infer that white does not make right. Critical race theory may have its flaws, but so does the status quo, which tends to gloss over this nation’s history of oppression and violence against minorities. That someone might suggest there’s something other than the state government’s approved narrative shouldn’t be grounds for criminal or civil charges.
That’s what Texans will get, though. Unfortunately, this will undoubtedly receive a warm reception from far too many Texans desiring to forget what their ancestors did to secure statehood, much less what their ancestors’ contemporaries did to continue the oppression of minorities long after the 13th Amendment was ratified and long after the federal government stepped in to ensure states complied with desegregation mandates.
This is more than simple unconstitutionality. This is hate masquerading as public interest — something fully supported by the Lieutenant Governor:
“This session, there was no question that we would ban the teaching of CRT in Texas universities,” Patrick said. “Liberal professors, determined to indoctrinate our students with their woke brand of revisionist history, have gone too far.”
This isn’t governing. This is someone thinking they’re the second coming of Rush Limbaugh helping push through rah-rah bills full of stupid sound and noxious fury in hopes that the worst people in Texas will help them get re-elected when the next election cycle rolls around. Laws like these don’t serve any collective public interest. They only serve the performative asshats currently misusing Texans’ tax dollars to argue against their interest.
It’s a dumpster fire that was ignited by Republicans willing to cater to the worst base urges of their voter bloc. They set the fire. They should be man enough to board it and ride into the nearest, deeper body of water.
Filed Under: 1st amendment, academic freedom, critical race theory, free speech, paternalism, prior restraint, sb 16, texas, woke


Comments on “Texas Senate Approves Law Preventing University Instructors From Talking About Things These Senators Don’t Like”
So no preferred treatment for Christians anymore? Can do!
Re:
You know that’s not how it’s going to play out, though. Conservative white Christian nationalists are going to be given as much leeway as possible while everyone else gets crushed under heel.
When people come up with too-clever-by-half interpretations that can supposedly be turned around on the GOP, I just have to shake my head. It wins you updoots on Reddit, but it won’t bring us any closer to discussing and organizing solutions to the GOP fascism that’s taking place.
Re: Re:
Basically, the white nationalist straight cis Christian is not a religious or racial or sexual position, it’s just the natural way of things. Other people have to conform, like they did in the fictional 50s they fetishise…
..and as long as they retain power nobody can argue.
Re: Re: Re:
This is exactly how it’s going to try and play out.
[Hey everyone, first post here but I’ve been lurking a very long time.]
Re: Re: Re:
It IS a sexual position, they want everyone else to bend over for them.
Re: Re: Re:2
If they have sex, it’s practically certain that it’s missionary position only.
Re: Re: Re:3
While wearing Night Clothes.
Re: Re: Re:4
And the twin beds pushed apart afterwards.
Re:
If there’s one thing history has proven, it’s that pointing out conservatives’ hypocrisy will totally shut them down.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Would love to see Texas actually attempt to secede only to have their new country promptly shit the bed when they lose the federal dollars they rely on.
Re:
Even a conservative, the New York Times columnist David Brooks, pointed out recently that in red-state Texas, 71% of its economic activity is the triangle of Dallas, Houston, Austin and San Antonio. The core counties are blue, and the neighboring counties (particularly around Dallas) are red but trending purple with Democrats improving their registration and turnout.
Then until El Paso, everything else is red.
Considering how big Texas is, and how most of the economic activity is produced by the people they hate in a small center of the state, how business-friendly will the state continue to be when they’ll have to take from four cities to maintain their existing spending?
Re: Re: I don't think Republicans care
I don’t think Republicans care about being business friendly as long as they’re showing their base that they’re “sticking it to the woke companies”.
Walt Disney World is the largest employer in Florida and brings in tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in tourist income. Yet DeSantis is continuing to publicly fight with them.
Sure, Disney can’t pick up Disney World and leave Florida, but it can choose to not mkve any more employees here.
In Texas, companies can either choose to move out of the state or not expand in the state.
However, the Republicans have an answer for this also, and they’ll complain that the companies are leaving because of their liberal, woke, elite executives, not because there’s anything wrong with the state laws.
Re: Re: Re: Woke in the streets, maga in the sheets
You also have to look at corporations’ behavior in this ideological triangle.
Corporations can play both sides and have the unfortunate role of having to play the role of moral moderator because politics is failing at the role.
Corporations financially support Republicans because Republicans enact policies to keep more of their profits away from communities bearing the brunt of their externalities as well as their workers. Corporations come to Texas for their corporation-friendly state laws.
But where do corporations cluster, either for headquarters or their major employment centers? The triangle of Dallas, Houston, Austin and San Antonio.
Not Lubbock, Corpus Christi, Midland/Odessa, Beaumont, San Angelo or even College Station/Bryan. (These are all metropolitan areas that remain strongly Republican.)
The workers they want are in the blue and purple parts of the state. And their workers are “woke” in the sense of desiring a diverse, inclusive workforce — just like most of their customers.
American society and culture has evolved toward diversity and secularism — it’s a trend, not a paradigm. This also means society and culture trend away from a white, male and Christian dominated society.
The white/male/Christian society didn’t go to sleep one day as oppressors and find themselves waking up as victims. No, they are becoming aware of their demographic, economic and cultural impotence and rage-compensate by clinging to what power they have. As the women in the boner-pill ads say, “Don’t worry. It happens to all men.”
This is why magas rage over seeing their favorite brands adopting rainbow logos in June, adopting bilingual messages in May, September and October, profiling high-achieving women in March and out-MLKing the Rev. King in February.
Corporations have more to lose by not doing these performances of diversity than by appealing to neutral-whiteness sentimentalities.
Corporations have brains, but they don’t have hearts or souls. They are not altruistic, benevolent or magnanimous. They make their money and survive in the transactional, zero-sum world of capitalism — which by its ecology is amoral and abhors morality.
Corporations will celebrate and embrace diversity and equality to the extent they help make money — and no more. See if that feel-good messaging applies to workers who want to unionize. Even the wokest of woke companies will turn into the Stasi.
Leftwingers must realize that we cannot entrust politics and morality to be left in the hands of the public relations, marketing and human resources departments.
Re: Re: Re:2 The triangle of Dallas, Houston, Austin and San Antonio.
A triangle with four corners?
I think there’s a word for that….
Re: Re: Re:3
‘Irregular trapezium’ doesn’t quite have the same ring to it.
Re: Re: Re:3 See a map
The placement of Dallas, Houston, Austin and San Antonio are triangular on a map.
Dallas is north. Call it Vertex A. Austin and San Antonio are vertices B and C, southwest of Dallas. Houston is Vertex D, southeast of Dallas and east of San Antonio.
I-35 forms the side that has vertices A B C, connecting Dallas, Austin and San Antonio.
I-45 forms the side that has has vertices A and D, connecting Dallas and Houston.
I-10 forms the side that has vertices C and D, connecting San Antonio and Houston.
There’s also a triangle within a triangle, Highway 290, which is a line between vertices B and D connecting Austin and Houston.
Re: Re:
So… you could not, for instance “compel” your students to adopt a belief that Democracy is superior to Totalitarianism, that Americans Should Come First in governmental spending, that citizenship is superior to being Without Official Papers, or that the Waco cult was in any way inferior to Evangelic Christianity…
Got it.
Re:
My second post here, I’m actually going to defend Matthew, who deserves to get collapsed in the thread almost always, but in this particular case I’d like to point out, he’s not wrong this time.*
Just imposing [I’m just thinking of mischief] for say, tariffs on pipeline transit, basic food his from Central Valley, Ca, aircraft parts.
Succession just wouldn’t work economically for the whole South. If they tried it their economy would collapse and the people would revolt. I’m all for it.
[* A stopped clock is right twice per day.]
Re: Re:
That’s because it’s not Matthew. This one is using an “N” as the middle initial which is the person impersonating the real Matthew, who uses “M”. Every time he does this it confuses people, and I really wish whoever was doing it would stop. It’s just annoying.
Re: Re: Re:
Good to know. I almost replied claiming astonishment at a non-inane and/or BS post. So ‘N’ is (N)ot the real Mathew who is ‘M’ as in moron. I’m wondering why it got hidden?
Re: Re: Re:2
Personally, I flag it because I want this guy to pick a less-confusing, less-trollish name. It’d be fine as an occasional joke, but it doesn’t really work as a running gag.
Re: Re: Re:
Oh. I’ll keep that in mind. Thanks.
Re:
Weren’t the people killed in your last civil war enough for you, fake Matthew?
You jig and amble, and make your wantonness your ignorance
At first I thought this out-of-touch idiot is playing to his base, but his base is largely uneducated and eschews learning, so what do they care?
The crisis du jour is “CRT”, but more of the same: no foaming MAGA can define it, yet they hate it and want to abolish it.
Re:
The problem is less that they can’t define it more that they can’t define it without tossing in a bunch of pejorative judgments (and outright lies) that cast Critical Race Theory in the worst possible light.
Re: Re: ... and they know it
The rightwing is more or less exhibitionistically shameless about this.
There’s a clear origin story and method to the moral panic surrounding critical race theory. It existed as a fringe theory within law schools. Only a small segment of law students, who are all adults with at least 17 years of education behind them.
That’s actual critical race theory. And even among its defenders, it is really radical and fringe. (In short, it argues we should replace law with storytelling. The premises are also quite repugnant.)
That’s not what everyone is panicking about, though. What we know as CRT is conservatives slipping us the Rufo.
We know who, we know when, we know how the CRT moral panic was confected. That is because Christopher Rufo openly gloats about being the architect of the moral panic, and intentionally creating the panic.
— Christopher Rufo, (@realchrisrufo), 3-15-2021 on Twitter
Notice that he’s demonstrating agency, that rightwing movements are engineering and manipulating panic. The engineering and manipulation are the point.
Re:
“no foaming MAGA can define it”
They can’t define anything. Ask when America was actually Great Again, they’ll probably give some random account of the 50s that more closely resembles TV than real life. Ask them to account for people who aren’t straight white males or the vastly high upper class tax rates at the time, they’ll probably not say anything useful.
Re: Re: The maga fallacy
Rather than asking a maga* to think through their idea — it would be as utterly absurd pointless as trying to train a python to code in Python — have them learn through embarrassment.
The maga fallacy is a logical error of using the same thinking that resulted in a predicament to try to get out of the same predicament.
In practice: Why would we want America to be made great “again” by the same people who allowed it to go to shit in the first place?
*I don’t capitalize the acronym because, let’s face it, Trump supporters are so lowercase.
Re: Re: Re:
That presupposes the idea that magas can be embarrassed.
Re: Re: Re:2 Logic
The consequent also implies that non-magas shouldn’t leave the thinking or imagination required to get out of our predicament to the magas.
Re: Re: Re:
“using the same thinking that resulted in a predicament to try to get out of the same predicament.”
Or as Audre Lorde said “The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House”
Re: Re: Re:
“Rather than asking a maga* to think…” I’m going to stop you right there. We all know it’s not about thinking.
Re: Re:
Not so. Ron DeSantis’ attorney was able to define ``woke” in court: “it would be the belief there are systemic injustices in American society and the need to address them.”
Re: Re: Re:
Hired gun, sufficiently foamless to make himself heard in court
Re: Re: Re:
A definition that says more about the person using the word than the person/people they are using it against, and none of it good.
Re: Policy by chant
What’s going on here has been a mainstay of GOP politics that has become trope since Donald Trump.
What do “CRT”, “Build the Wall” and “Lock Her Up” have in common? Besides being GOP fever dreams.
All of these phrases are three syllables. Once you notice these are three syllables, you’ll start to notice that political policies tend to be three syllables. Sometimes four. But never five or more.
What’s going on here? Populism exploits chanting as a basis for its policies. Chanting reduces politics to a spectator sport.
Politics is boring. Sports are fun. Part of the fun of spectator sports is the cacophony of chants emerging from the crowd, to rally the home team or taunt the visitors. The chants that catch on are three or four syllables, not unlike popular music scales.
This cacophony of three- or four-beat rhythms, staccato sound, and accompanied by noise like clapping or foot-stomping resonates with low-information voters, who reduce politics to catchy performance and rhythm.
Re: Re:
Catchy slogans are also easy to chant as they fucking murder the rest of us.
Yes, I know the majority of the 74-million strong shitdick army probably can’t even march in file, let alone conduct an extermination campaign, but they’ve already used violence and sold themselves to the likes of Putin and Xi.
Re: Re: Re:
Or, or … hear me out on this one … we could fight back?
We can learn a lot from Ukrainians.
Re: Re: Re:2
It has always been my implication that we fight back, using their tools, and with enough ferocity and hate to make even Xi blanch.
It is also unpalatable to a lot of people. Even if the MAGAts have already started the fire.
Re: Re: Re:3
I thought the whole point of opposing the chuds was to avoid having “re-education” camps?
Re: Re: Re:4
You can’t reeducate MAGAts within a reasonable timeframe.
And these people support politicians who, if America were in a state of war against Russia, have openly committed treason. It is very, very safe to assume that they are already traitors to America.
And there’s only one way out for these people.
Re: Re: Re:4 Ur-fascism
Umberto Eco has a great essay written in 1995 called “Ur-fascism” where he reflected upon the end of World War II through a youth’s eyes 50 years before.
There’s a list he made of what constitutes fascism and a fascist. (It is a very good Cliffs Notes version of Griffin’s and Paxton’s scholarship.)
Points 9 and 11 are prescient:
This is especially salient in magas. These features shine like a lighthouse. You can’t educate or re-educate out of this, since this is a core part of the magas’ personality.
Re: Re: Re:5
There is NO peaceful way out.
That is the point.
If we are to fight back, then we must at least realize that fighting back here means using violence.
They are already here.
They have already used violence (ineffectively).
They continue to harass us.
And they have already made their intentions clear. The MAGAts want us all dead.
Re: Re: Re:6
Mate, as someone from a country that didn’t technically have a civil war but still has people looking for the remains of family members who were killed by the police, army, insurgents, and paramilitaries, you don’t want shit to reach that point. Jan 6th should be a wake up call to engage with local democratic structures before they’re gone, because its a fuck of a lot easier to reform a society than rebuild it from scratch once the rubble has stopped bouncing.
Re: Re: Re:2
This is the way.
And this is likely how it will play out because of their target demographic – old white men, or younger gullibe men pissed off because they’re just figuring out that the American Dream got spent by the boomers.
The old white men are nothing to worry about, apart from them running you over with their golf cart. They’re not going to mount any kind of offense, despite what they think personally.
The younger or middle-aged ones who are still buying this dumb shit, despite seeing their predecessors being hauled off to jail after 1/6 might constitute a small problem, but it would be limited to very localized brief kerfuffles rather than anything lasting. They can’t support their families if they aren’t working, and civil warring takes a lot of time.
So logistically, we’re talking about a few easily identifiable loudmouths who bought out the tacticool aisle at Cabela’s, with a combined 9th grade education.
We can fight that, guns or not.
Ten bux says the people who wrote that bill would consider themselves “free thinkers”/defenders of “free thought”.
Re:
They’re major defenders of people like them having complete freedom. Then not see the irony when that requires everyone else not having freedom.
Re: Re: Looks like what it sounds like
Creating two classes of law-bound and law-protected people? Believing freedom is the right to harm others? Being mentally unburdened of irony and contradiction?
Sure sounds like the Not See Party.
Texas Senate Approves Law Preventing University Instructors From Talking About Things These Senators Don’t Like
This sounds like Rule of Man.
I thought patriots believed in Rule of Law, oh yeah – that’s for the little guys.
They are creating a reason for those seeking an education to go outside Texas, and discover they do not want to return.
"TEXAS"
Lights on in your head, amigo. Texas is a huge state with millions of citizens. It is not a single entity that wants to secede, or destroy public education, etc. Texas is a gerrymandered, voting-repressed purple state that suffers from minority rule by the Texas GOP Tea Party and a few racist mega-wealthy donors.
Re:
You have a point: Texas isn’t a single entity that wants to destroy public education and secede from the U.S.
That would be the GOP.
Malicious Compliance?
Dear Students, we, the professors, wish you to know that, in accordance with state law:
White people are not inherently superior to any other race.
Men are not inherently superior to women.
Christianity is not inherently superior to any other religion.
Political conservatism is not inherently superior to liberalism.
The belief that one must behave consistently with the social expectations of one’s biological sex is not inherently superior to the belief that nonbinary or transgender expression is socially acceptable.
Please thank your legislators for promoting this surprisingly egalitarian view.
Re:
Sounds good, now to find someone with tenure and a moat around their house
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Stick To The Curriculum
I like to perform something I call the Reverse Test. If college educators espoused beliefs that all minorities are exploting society, and that all whites are inherently disadvantaged, we would consider that speech racist. And then we’d take immediate steps to remove those opinions from classrooms. Classrooms are not an open platform.
Re:
We’d also call that “blatant lying”.
Also, your “test” strips the context out of the “reverse” of your bullshit: Not all white people exploit society, but white people do have the most inherent privileges in society thanks to centuries of running the U.S. in a way that benefits them the most—and not all Black people are inherently disadvantaged, but they do face more disadvantages (and have fewer privileges) in U.S. society thanks to the dominant racial group (white people) designing society that way since even before the founding of the country.
The real kicker is that you probably think of yourself as a “free thinker” and wouldn’t mind having kids/teenagers learn how to “think for themselves”. If that does apply to you: For what reason shouldn’t they learn about ideas you don’t like even if they have a foundational basis in facts and history?
Re: Re: Intersectionality
This is a very good, concise summary of what intersectionality is and how to apply it to real-life situations.
Re:
Why is it that you always have to create some sort of fantasy land in order to push your narratives?
Re:
Going to college is a choice. As a result of the said choice you also get to choose your curriculum of study.
Who in the fucking fuck are you to dictate what colleges can or cannot teach to adults who are choosing to go there? These are fucking grown-ups, not toddlers!
That you people think you still have to project your influence on them, lest they perceive whites in a negative light is pretty fucking pathetic. They’re 18 years old or older!
If they haven’t had that hate instilled in them by then, your problem is with the lazy parents who didn’t bring their bigoted spawn up right. The ones who let them go to college in the first place. Why don’t you stick to keeping your own children stupid and give the grown-up ones a fighting chance to not be the assholes their parents are?
Re: Re:
Really, all this could have been avoided if they just hadn’t taught their kids to read.
A floor wax and a dessert topping...
Since I work in higher education as both an instructional designer (think: architect for building courses according to standards for how humans learn) and as adjunct faculty, I think I can offer some nuance to this “compelled” thing.
First, as a college student in ’80s, ’90s, and ’10s, I was “compelled” to align with a few professors’ points of view about certain things, but only as a matter of getting through the course. Unpacked: The basis of assessment was subjective to the professor’s POV. In one extreme example in a Politics & Sex course, deviation from the orthodoxy of the professor’s POV got you a lower grade – period. That’s an unfortunate by-product of tenure and the general tendency of the Academy to attract know-it-all academics. But at least, as stated, these geeks are the exceptions, not the rule.
But even so, I would never claim that I was harmed because of it.
Second, a college worth its salt has academic standards for scholarly discourse which are based on the quality of one’s argument regardless of one’s position – not whether one aligns to a professor. Colleges that allow orthodoxy over argument deserve all the Conservative grievances they get (as well as mine).
This legislation will fail simply because no one will be able to define when a student has “adopted” such beliefs (When they wrote the paper? When they voted for AOC? Had an abortion? When they joined ANTIFA?). At what point does “harm” occur?
Sounds pretty snowflaky to me.
Re:
Harm occurs when a non-chud viewpoint is encountered.
Good thing conservatives are around to stop stuff like this
Curse those woke leftists, always trying to silence opinions they don’t agree with.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
good
A Texas House vote earlier in the day suggests Senate Bill 8 might be short of the votes needed to pass in the lower chamber. kick the buddy
to be a little more picky
Actually, Stetson (niversity) happens to be in Florida. The main campus is here in the City, and the law school is down in the St Pete area.
The school was named for a well-known Philadelphia hat-maker who was generous at its founding.
Re: Delicious
I’m amused by the fact that one of the icons of Western mythology, the Stetson cowboy hat, was made on the East Coast in a big city.
It’s like that salsa commercial where the cowboys get offended by a salsa made in New York City.
What the fuck is compelled belief?
I have taken courses in many subjects, and I can’t think of any instance when I was put in a position where I was compelled to change my personal belief in anything. You can take courses that teach everything you want to know about Islam, they don’t make you a Muslim. You can excel in courses about Black studies, they don’t make you Black. I have never taken a class that didn’t boil down to “here is a bunch of information, learn it, and prove you can apply it in some way.” I have never been made to prove that i have accepted the information in my heart as some sort of holy truth that my should no be the basis of who I am. There is no mandate to make your life choices based on course material.
If you can’t understand that teaching about a belief is different than teaching a belief, you are a small minded oaf, and you have my sympathies.
Re:
That’s the problem with conservative authoritarians like the ones in the GOP: They don’t, can’t, and won’t ever see the difference.
Re: Re: RWA
It’s not just conservatives and the GOP. Psychology professor Bob Altemeyer finds that right wing authoritarianism is not a rational policy preference but rather a personality type.
He developed an ingenious survey for measuring it, and it has applicability across cultures throughout the world — you could keep his points system and ask both sides of the question (frame a controversy as favorable to liberalism and then to authoritarianism) but examine culturally relevant controversies to get an approximation of authoritarian tendencies within a society.
Authoritarianism is culturally transmitted, and is dependent upon economics (material abundance vs. scarcity and availability of socioeconomic mobility), geopolitical security (conflict with outsiders as well as intraethnic conflict within national borders) and religiosity (do people believe present, material problems are consequences of a cosmic or supernatural creation).
Scarcity, inter- and intragroup conflicts, and prevalence of religion in public life all push societies toward authoritarian tendencies among people, rather than the prerogatives of governments.
RWA is the other side of the “people get the governments they deserve” coin. RWA measures the sufficiency of a government’s tyranny.
Re:
Your comment is so spot-on and more succinct than mine. I am humbled.
Re: Stupid, but consistent stupidity
To a group where disloyalty to the leader(s) is the worst crime you can commit it’s entirely possible that they honestly can’t comprehend the idea that someone wouldn’t just accept whatever an authority figure like a teacher told them, which would mean teaching someone about something is forcing them to believe it.
“It shall be illegal to undo the brainwashing we’re the only ones inflicting upon the youth.” – Republicans
Willful ignorance
It’s not that they can’t and don’t, it’s a choice to not seek additional info testing their worldview.
That might be like a… what do they call it? An observation?
Once we have an observation, we inherently make inferences about what might be true.
Then, we usually put together a thought. (This is the part of sciencing that befuddles many.)
Once a thought has been formed, then we get to testing the implications of our thought.
We observe the changes and document the results. However, there is science less sciencing, as demonstrated by Inhofe on the Senate floor.
Stupid is a choice.
Re:
I disagree. (See my RWA post). Ignorance and stupidity, leading to authoritarianism, are culturally transmitted and reinforced.
The problem with the phrase “You can’t fix stupid” is that it misunderstands the nature of stupidity. You have to break stupidity, because stupid is fixed, as in a frustratingly fixed worldview.
Re: Re:
Given a sufficiently long period of time, you CAN “fix” stupid.
And even then, hard evidence is needed to deal the final blow and break the cycle.
The problem is “a sufficiently long period of time” usually means upwards of 30 years at a bare minimum, and that’s with constant exposure to worldviews and evidence contrary to the environment of stupid one is raised in.
Re: Re: Re:
Sufficiently long period could be geologic time.
If stupidity were carbon, and enlightenment were a diamond …
What this demonstrates is how the GOP is impervious to facts and generally terrified of them and feel compelled to pass laws that strive to keep reality at bay.
What I find funny about this is that, even with the distorted assertion conservatives make about CRT, I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t even be banned by this law. It doesn’t say that any race is superior; it says that the history of US law has been dominated by policies that result in racial iniquities, which isn’t the same thing. Moreover, teaching CRT isn’t the same as compelling belief in CRT.
Re:
It’s not legislation, it’s intimidation. The point is to get people and institutions afraid of expensive and time consuming court cases and self-censor as a result. The fact that a judge would likely not convict (which, given some of the bullshit coming out of even SCotUS at this point, is not as certain as would be ideal) is not really a consideration.