An Ohio teacher, who was reading The Sneetches to her Grade 3 class, was abruptly cut off by an admin when a student said "It's almost like what happened back then, how people were treated. Like, disrespected. Like, white people disrespected Black people.” dispatch.com/story/news/edu…
There's a bit more context, but none of it is exculpatory. The occasion was a visit from NPR's Planet Money, which was recording an episode about how economics gets discussed and taught in children's books. One of the readings that day was The Sneetches. And you can see why.
Robek, the teacher, is just a page or so in when the following exchange takes place.
If you're a teacher, this is gold. Noah, a 3rd grade student, has connected the book to something else he knows. He's thinking things through, analyzing a text, applying what he's learned. Parents, you know what I'm talking about. It's magic.
Suddenly, Beeman, a school admin present for the recording, starts waving her hands and interrupts Robek. "I just don't think it might be appropriate," she says of The Sneetches.
But the kids still really want to know how The Sneetches ends! Beeman tries to fend them off with some nonsense about standing up for your bellies, but they remain unsatisfied. So she says to go ask your parents.
Bear in mind that this was a comment initiated by the student, not the teacher. And note that the teacher was already moving on before the interruption. But as Beeman explained, parents should be warned before any conversation about discrimination takes place.
And that, said Jeffrey on Twitter that day
Is the stupidest thing I've heard anyone say.
Should teachers need parents to give their consent
Before any second of class time is spent
On answering students with questions on race?
My God. How'd we ever wind up in this place?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I was recently challenged to produce examples of profs who faced significant punishment for having views (or were perceived to have views) critics associated with conservatism. The implication was that these examples don't exist.
I'll give you an incomplete list in a sec, but...
...first, I want to tell you why it is incomplete (beyond just my own lack of effort). For the skeptics, I think it will be eye-opening.
1. It's just focused on the US, but the same thing was happening in the UK and Canada too. 2. It's just from the last few years (~since 2015).
3. It's just those who've lost their jobs, either through termination or effective dismissal, e.g. not having their contract renewed despite very good reasons to suppose it otherwise would be. So we're not including suspensions, demotions, and other forms of punishment.
Anti-con discrimination in academia is real. Part of it is a self-selection problem in the pipeline (ie "I have better things to do with my time than deal with a hostile grad program,") but part is also surely active discrimination in hiring, grad admissions, publication. 1/
We have good reason to think this is happening. Surveys of academic philosophers, psychologists, and sociologists all show an explicit willingness to discriminate. Cons and libs do it at equal rates, but since academia has far more libs than cons, they tend to do more damage. 2/
I'll say that again, just so there's no misunderstanding. A significant minority of academics explicitly state that they would be less likely to hire a candidate or support publication of a paper due to political identity. It's happening. 3/
An Israeli dance prof is suing UC Berekley for allegedly discriminating against her on the basis of her nationality. Having taught at the dance department before, she was encouraged in the summer 2023 to apply for renewal.
This is what the chair said a few months later.
It's not just the chair's cowardice that's so striking. It's the hey-I'm-real-sorry-but-in-a-way-I'm-doing-you-a-favor level of stupidity that really stands out to me. YOU'RE BREAKING THE LAW!
There is absolutely nothing wrong with Jews (or any other minority ethno-cultural group) wanting to discourage intermarriage and assimilation. It’s about cultural survival. Passing on something you feel has value.
By the way, this is something that critics of cultural appropriation should be able to immediately appreciate.
The harm in assimilation is obvious. The culture, which I value, is lost. Intermarriage is fine in itself, but tends to make assimilation much more likely. I’m a child of intermarriage myself, as is my kid. Love conquers all! But it can make other goals much more difficult.
It’s gotta be said: much of the Jewish response to the Bibas family is flat-out insane. Genocidal, psychopathic, murderous, cruel, and out-of-control. And not just from the usual precincts of Jtwitter, either. It’s everywhere.
Stop. Step back from the Kahanism.
I logged on after Shabbat and found nothing but bloodlust. Dressed in a rueful “they forced us into this” fatalism, of course, but you could sense the eagerness. It’s understandable but still inhuman.
Obviously plenty of pro-Palestinian accounts are vomiting up their own brand of bile. Psychopaths like Saeed, Kiswani, El-Kurd. But I expect that sort of shit from them. They have precisely one rhetorical speed and we can all see how successful THAT’S proven to be.
Angry about Katherine Franke's "retirement"? Good, you should be. But if people are serious about stopping something like this from happening again, they need to get serious about the cause. Because the precedent was set loooong ago.
A big-ish 🧵
In fact, all of the tools now being used against pro-Palestine faculty (the DEI apparatus, Title VI complaints, collegiality discourse) were developed years ago to quash speech opposed by the left. And I have receipts to prove it.
Here's your imperial boomerang, folks. 2/
This prof worries about DEI being weaponized as a tool of repression. Buddy, that die was cast years ago. In fact, I'd wager that the use of DEI as a weapon is *less* effective now than it was five years ago. It's just that the target has (partially) changed. 3/