Just for clarification purposes, here in broad strokes are the different elements of those "school transparency" bills out there right now. I'll organize them according to my own sense of how extreme they are, with some accompanying examples.
1. Purely symbolic.
An enumeration of existing parental rights. Minimal impact.
An enumeration of existing parental rights, but with more elaborate language and the potential for greater administrative burdens on schools. Minimal impact.
A searchable website that lists the titles/authors of all materials to be assigned to students in a given course. I don't have an example handy, but there are a few out there right now. Minimal impact.
4. Searchable Website, Public Edition
The same, but this time the website is accessible by anyone, even if they have no connection to the school. Moderate impact because you know activists are going to abuse it.
Same as above, but this time the school must place on the website digital copies of all materials, excepting those where copyright is an issue. Significant impact because of administrative burden.
Imagine a searchable website with all course material. Parents have the right to opt their students out of any assignment and teachers have the obligation to provide alternatives. Here's a relatively tame example.
There are a lot of bills like this. I don't have it handy, but I swear one of them specified the exact layout of the website, where each assignment had a little box you could check for "Yes I want my kid to get this" or "No I don't."
Huge impact, obviously.
Sorry, had to do something. Anyway, I found an example of the above.
These are the ones that are just off their rockers. Flat out madness. I actually have something coming out next week that will discuss them a bit, so check back then. But yeah, some are just total insanity.
There are some other provisions I'm not discussing here. Prohibitions on social emotional learning, restrictions around surveys, new rules about NDAs and records requests, that sort of thing. Lots of stuff too that's specific to instruction in gender and sexuality.
Oh, and I forgot to mention the penalties. Some have none, but most include stiff penalties (monetary fines, professional discipline, that sort of thing) for schools or teachers that violate the law.
Other stuff too, but this list gets at the meat of it. It's not hard to see the dynamics here: Transparency=good, but depending on design, the administrative burdens could be enormous. And the potential for unfair exploitation by activists is obvious.
We'll see what happens.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
So I'm listening to @sullydish's interview with Rufo and I have a question. In defense of his anti-CRT bills, Rufo claims that California *requires* teaching about systemic racism (as fact, presumably). What he's referring to? The Ethnic Studies mandate?
@sullydish His argument is that Red states are simply banning what Blue states are mandating. Setting aside for a moment that justification from reciprocity, I just want to establish the facts. Because the Ethnic Studies law says zero about systemic racism.
@sullydish The Model Curriculum might (I've read it, but it's been a while), but that curriculum is purely voluntary. Schools are not required to adopt it in whole or in part.
So that's my question. What is Rufo referring to? And if it is to the ES law, does @sullydish know he was lied to?
This thread from Rufo is further evidence for the theory that anti-CRT advocates know how insane this legislative session is going to be. They can see what's coming and want to ever so slightly disassociate themselves from it. I doubt it will work.
Rufo thinks he can deflate the argument further by shifting to curriculum transparency (which, to be clear, has been a part of these bills since the beginning; Rufo isn't breaking new ground here). What he fails to consider is that curriculum transparency bills can be crazy too.
Apparently I was peripherally involved in a twitter spat earlier today. Anti-CRT laws: Who's the blame? Is the Harper's Letter crowd responsible? Etc. etc. Scintillating stuff! This is the sort of high stakes cultural frisson I miss for shabbat.
But without tooting my own horn *too* much, I actually do think I have a better read on this than most. I've kind of been on all sides of the debate, and having spent the last year reading every one of these bills, I think I have a good sense of where they're coming from.
But it's such an impossible discussion to have without coming across totally obnoxious. Is it even worth writing about?
Hey free speech folks, I have a question. I know I've read articles that frame the Chicago Statement as a form of pre-commitment. That admins should adopt it so that when they're under pressure, they can point to the policy and say "My hands are tied!" Where is that case made?
@glukianoff@JoeatFIRE@adamsteinbaugh@sarahemclaugh For some. But it could also be an expression of values. The point of the original argument is that even weak admins who have only a lukewarm commitment to free speech might choose to adopt the policy as a kind of alibi for when the shit hits the fan.
Nobody on this website hates college educated blue check libs more than college educated blue check libs five inches to their Right.
The working class is lucky to have those college educated blue check libs five inches to the Right of the other college educated blue check libs on their side and ready to speak on their behalf. They really have their best interests at heart.
Someone needs to write an @olivertraldi-style tear down of these folks and their desperate status jockeying.
I missed it over the holidays, but apparently MRU has fired Frances Widdowson. It's unclear precisely what happened (everyone is keeping quiet b/c the union is taking it to arbitration), but apparently MRU is saying she created a toxic work environment.
Obviously "toxic work environment" can constitute just cause for termination, but it's also a loophole admins use all the time to discipline faculty for offensive but protected speech. Hopefully the union and @CAUT_ACPPU are watching this one closely.
@CAUT_ACPPU Here's how @mountroyal4u's collective agreement defines academic freedom. Under any plain reading of the text, there would be no grounds for disciplining faculty for their research, tweets, articles, or whatever.