Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

And They Wonder Why Teachers Are Quitting

—

by

Dick Hall-Sizemore
in ,

by Dick Hall-Sizemore

Last year, a Loudoun County teacher refused to abide by the school board’s policy regarding the use of pronouns when referring to students. The school board made the mistake of suspending him because he publicly criticized the policy. Although the courts rightly overturned the suspension on the basis that he was punished for exercising his freedom of speech in a public forum, Tanner Cross continued to assert his larger right not to abide by the policy. He declared, “No government can force its citizens to say things they disagree with. This is especially true in schools, where ideas should be fiercely protected, both for the sake of freedom and the sake of truth.” Cross’s lawyer expressed his client’s position this way: “Teachers shouldn’t be forced to promote ideologies that are harmful to their students and that they believe are false.”

Fast forward to January 1, 2023. Under the provisions of legislation enacted by the 2022 General Assembly, each school board must have in place by that date a policy dealing with notifying parents of “any instructional material that includes “sexually explicit content.” Such policy must contain provisions relating to:

1. Ensuring parental notification;
2. Directly identifying the specific instructional material and sexually explicit subjects; and
3. Permitting the parent of any student to review instructional material that includes sexually explicit content and provide, as an alternative, nonexplicit instructional material and related academic activities to any student whose parent so requests.

What should happen to a teacher who, citing the “Tanner Cross doctrine,” refuses to abide by this policy? In her defense, she contends that she should not be forced “to promote ideologies” such as censorship in this case, that are harmful to students. Furthermore, she objects to compiling a list of “sexually explicit materials,” since her understanding of “sexually explicit” may differ from the understanding of some parents and she should not be forced to define material in a manner with which she disagrees. Finally, the ideas expressed in these works (for examples, let us say Beloved or Catcher in the Rye) should be “fiercely protected” in schools.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

119 responses to “And They Wonder Why Teachers Are Quitting”

  1. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    The seekers of absolute good and evil will soon post their morally arbitrary responses.

    The mistake the school board made was in acting too soon. They should have waited for Mr. Cross to violate policy and then fire him. His speech would then have been evidence that it wasn’t inadvertent.

    1. Nathan Avatar
      Nathan

      “Absolute good and evil” is the position of woke extremism, not the majority of those who object to it. For the extremist, failure to use someone’s preferred pronoun is a moral absolute that must be punished. A balanced view tries to respect the sincere beliefs of everyone.

      I don’t have a problem with using pronouns that do not correspond to someone’s original birth certificate. Some people, however, have a sincere belief that God created mankind male and female and cannot speak in a way that denies His work.

      Just because you don’t share someone’s beliefs does not make them morally arbitrary. You might try seeing another perspective.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Says the man calling people woke pejoratively.

        1. DJRippert Avatar
          DJRippert

          Woke is a pejorative in my mind. Lefties need another rebranding. You know, like from “liberal” to “progressive”. Maybe from “woke” to “culturally sensitive”.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            No matter what they do, Conservatives will come up with more pejoratives. It’s what they do these days.

          2. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            The left is “Culturally sensitive”?

            The hard left is only culturally sensitive to itself, which is about 8% of the population.

            BTW – The far right is about 6% of the population.

            https://fortune.com/2018/10/22/far-right-americans-just-six-person-study-says/

            Neither extreme should dominate the environment within public education. Public education should serve the public at large, not the extremes on either side.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            How many on the right – want Trump?

            How many on the right believe the DOJ and FBI are engaging in conspiracies

            How many on the right believe that NASA and NOAA are engaged in a worldwide conspiracy about climate?

            Call me a skeptic.

            Conservatives and Republicans who are not hard right seem perfectly comfortable with the positions of the hard right. Positions of the hard right actually “flow” to the mainstream GOP.

            Just look at some of the elected GOP representatives in Congress – both the House and Senate.

            Who in Congress on the hard left believes in conspiracy theories?

          4. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Neither extreme does dominate the environment within public education.

          5. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            Eric the…:
            “Neither extreme does dominate the environment within public education.”

            If only that were true.

          6. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Neither extreme does dominate the environment within public education.

        2. Fred Costello Avatar
          Fred Costello

          Ah, Nancy. Attacking the messenger rather than answering his argument.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            is it the messenger or the name caller?

        3. Nathan Avatar
          Nathan

          “Woke extremism” as I wrote it, is an ideology, not a person.

          Has Nancy Naive ever used pejoratives in this forum? Just wondering.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            She has but it’s usually IN RESPONSE to someone else initiating them which is fairly typical for the conservatives in BR to do.

            The blog posts themselves start off with “leftist” and “woke” and other pejoratives and name-calling.

          2. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            LarrytheG:
            She has but it’s usually IN RESPONSE to someone else initiating them which is fairly typical for the conservatives in BR to do.”

            I’m not sure, but Nancy Naive’s preferred pronoun may be “he”. I have seen that used elsewhere on this blog.

            Nancy Naive is welcome to jump in here. Wouldn’t want to use the wrong pronoun.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            It only matters if it matters to him, right?

            He’ll let you know.

  2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    Well, if it weren’t for double standards, Conservatives wouldn’t have any standards at all…

  3. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    I was recently asked by my 16-year old’s literature teacher whether I objected to the class viewing the recently released movie, “All’s Quiet on the Western Front”. The question was violence, not pornography.

    Since they had already read the book, I saw no reason to forbid watching the movie.

    Beyond that, many of the video games routinely played by teenagers make “All’s Quiet” look like Mary Poppins.

    There certainly needs to be a balance. Streaming hardcore internet porn into a classroom should certainly be banned. Having to ask whether viewing the movie version of a book already read seems excessive.

    As far as individual teachers – I’m not sure why this should bother them much. They should submit their curriculum and materials to the administration and let the administration decide whether the parents need to be notified. Lord knows, there are plenty of non-teaching administrators in today’s schools.

  4. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead

    School boards and curriculum gurus will likely turn more and more towards learning management systems. It will be the only way to tightly control what is taught, the materials used, the questions asked, the assessments given, and the expressions of both student and teacher. Looks good on paper but will not work. The nature of rebellion against conformity will undo any well-intentioned progress of an LMS.

    So good to be a retired school teacher. I think the VRS check hits the bank account tomorrow. Just like it does every two weeks.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      I think there has always been a bit of “I’ll teach it the way I want to” among many teachers of differing views.

      I’d not be surprised if Jame’s students might have felt he toward Confederate history perhaps differently than other history teachers.

      These days where there is an official “LMS” or not, what a teacher does in the classroom is easily found out and if they have strayed too far off the ranch, get called on it.

      This is why I feel the accusation of public schools, in general, without actually identifying specific teachers, as “grooming” is just plain wrong. If “a” teacher has been doing that, then deal with that teacher specifically – and I seriously doubt, you’re gonna find a whole school of teachers or a whole school division of teachers is guilty of that as if the general accusation that “public schools “groom” ” , therefore the Governor needs to intervene is anything but a scurrilous lie but more and more a norm from some folks with political motives.

      1. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
        James Wyatt Whitehead

        I don’t understand you Mr. Larry. Can you reexplain in a concise way for me?

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          James, the difference between AN individual who crosses the line and “grooms” versus accusing an entire school or school district of fostering it among the teaching staff in general…. such that the Governor needs to intervene to stop it.

          we’re talking about the spreading of disinformation, false information, plain old lies by people for political gain.

          1. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
            James Wyatt Whitehead

            Okay I can follow this. But what exactly do you mean by groom? What does that mean to you in terms of education?

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            no me James. Some of the critics of public schools accus them of “grooming”. No?

          3. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
            James Wyatt Whitehead

            Mr. Larry I did not ask you if you are grooming. What I did ask was what does groom mean to you? Something like this?

            According to the dictionary of American English, grooming (ˈɡruːmɪŋ) is a process in which a predator lures and convinces a person — usually a child or minor — into becoming the victim of a sexual offense.

          4. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            Wow! I always thought it meant brushing and cleaning the coat of an animal.

            😉

          5. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            I was under the impression that when I expressed skepticism about the claims of schools “grooming” kids, you replied I was in denial.

            True? Not True?

            Do you believe that public schools and teachers, as institutions, are engaging in: ” a process in which a predator lures and convinces a person — usually a child or minor — into becoming the victim of a sexual offense.” ?

            If I express skepticism that they are , are you saying I’m in denial?

  5. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    In the wider view…
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=k5VZjT0JE70

    “Looking at voters in Ohio and Florida, the researchers measured excess death rates between registered Republican and Democratic voters, or the percent increase in deaths above expected deaths given specific seasonality, geographic location, party affiliation and age. The study found that, between 2018 and 2021, the excess death rate for Republican voters was 5.4 percentage points, or 76 percent higher, than that of registered Democrats.”

    https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2022/12/02/yale-study-identifies-partisan-disparity-in-excess-covid-19-death-rates/

    I don’t know when I’ve laughed so true
    Watched that fever come over you
    DeSantis says vaccines are poo
    And don’t it make the Red States Bule…

    Kari Lake lost by how much?
    “The report highlights Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS) data indicating there were 16,824 more deaths total in 2020 than in 2017-2019, representing a 29% excess. COVID-19 reportedly accounted for 50% of this total excess. In 2021, overall Arizona deaths exceeded expected deaths by 24%, making it the state with the highest increase in excess deaths in the country.”

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      We don’t register by party in Virginia. We”re safe. 😉

      Back to Dick’s actual point, however, the three policy dictates really don’t apply to the teacher but the school district. A teacher who refused to tell the central office about his or her curriculum choices is not the same as a teacher who declines to follow rules on preferred pronouns.

      1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        As to your loophole, what happens if a central office employee refuses to identify a book as “sexually explicit” (I used the example of Maus below) because they firmly believe it is not (even if it meets the definition provided in the legislation)? If they are compelled by law and policy to do so, are not their rights (under the Tanner Cross doctrine) being violated? At least there isn’t some sort of hotline they can be reported to the Governor and his AG on…

      2. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Right, the latter illegally creates a hostile work/school environment based on discrimination by sex.

        Title 7 of the CRA as held by SCOTUS to include LBGTQ in the definition of sex…

        “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;”

        Title 9 of the EAA interpreted by the DofEd to include LBGTQ…

        “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”

        To refuse to acknowledge a student by their preferred pronoun is discrimination by sex. What other criterion applies?

        1. Stephen Haner Avatar
          Stephen Haner

          Now you are behaving like Larry. I never said that teacher was right. Using the preferred name or pronoun seems simple courtesy to me. But the curriculum is a different issue.

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            I have solved the problem of titles and pronouns, Citizen Haner. How are you and your spouse unit? I hope you and they are doing well.

          2. Stephen Haner Avatar
            Stephen Haner

            She is clearly she, to my joy, and we are well.

          3. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Hey! You could be FLDS (poor bastards). Then they…

          4. killerhertz Avatar
            killerhertz

            > Using the preferred name or pronoun seems simple courtesy to me.

            Except that the forced use of pronouns is largely about demanding compliance and compelled speech. Students have yet another way to control their teachers. Hell if I was a troubled student this would be the easiest way to get a rise out of my teacher. Today my pronouns are him/her/zhey tomorrow they’re beep/bop/boop. YOU USED MY WRONG PRONOUNS FASCIST!!!

        2. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          re: ” . I never said that teacher was right.”

          that seems inconsistent with your other comment.

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Who me?

        3. Nathan Avatar
          Nathan

          Nancy:
          “To refuse to acknowledge a student by their preferred pronoun is discrimination by sex.”

          Not sure you are the final authority on that.

          RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — “Lawyers for a high school French teacher who was fired after he refused to use a transgender student’s pronouns argued before the Supreme Court of Virginia Friday that the school violated his constitutional right to speak freely and exercise his religion. An attorney for the school said the teacher violated the school’s anti-discrimination policy.”

          “Peter Vlaming sued the school board and administrators at West Point High School after he was fired in 2018. Vlaming appealed a lower court’s ruling dismissing the lawsuit and asked the Supreme Court to reinstate it.”

          “Vlaming’s lawsuit was brought by Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian legal advocacy group that has filed six similar lawsuits — three in Virginia, and one each in Ohio, Kansas and Indiana.”

          “ADF attorney Christopher Schandevel told the high court that Vlaming was not fired for something he said, but “’for something that he couldn’t say.’”

          https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2022-11-04/teacher-asks-court-to-restore-suit-on-trans-student-pronouns#:~:text=RICHMOND%2C%20Va.,freely%20and%20exercise%20his%20religion.

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            What other discriminator is there? They gave a cause, not the discrimination factor.

          2. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            Nancy:
            “What other discriminator is there? They gave a cause, not the discrimination factor.”

            Compelled speech in violation of his sincere beliefs.

            “This is a case about compelled speech,” he said.

            “Schandevel told the justices that Vlaming tried to accommodate the student by using his masculine name and avoiding the use of pronouns, but the student, his parents and the school told him he was required to use the student’s male pronouns.”

            “In his lawsuit, Vlaming said he could not use the student’s pronouns because of his ‘sincerely held religious and philosophical’ beliefs ‘that each person’s sex is biologically fixed and cannot be changed.’ Vlaming also said he would be lying if he used the student’s pronouns.”

            The administration has created a hostile environment for people of faith who sincerely believe what their church as taught for the last 2,000 years.

          3. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Religion is his reason, but that reason is applied based on sex; sex is the discriminator.

          4. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            Nancy:
            “Religion is his reason, but that reason is applied based on sex; sex is the discriminator.”

            No, that’s not correct. Peter Vlaming is the Appellant. The case I am referencing is about his rights.

            To be clear, the transgender student has rights, but so does Mr. Vlaming. That’s what you fail to appreciate or acknowledge.

            AG Miyares’ brief is excellent. I recommend that you read it. It addresses Title IX and many other issues that have come up in comments.

            “The School Board’s decision to fire Vlaming violated Virginia’s robust constitutional free-exercise protections, which reflect the Commonwealth’s pioneering history of defending religious freedom.”

            “Virginia’s constitutional framers provided an inalienable right to free exercise of religion that includes the right to exemptions from otherwise generally applicable laws”

            https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/richmond.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/9/db/9db0bf2f-bc04-5b3b-ba97-32d3f7eee10c/628ebd62adfd9.pdf.pdf

          5. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            Vlaming v. West Point School Board

            More information and links to court documents may be found here.

            https://adflegal.org/case/vlaming-v-west-point-school-board

          6. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            Richmond Times Dispatch:

            Attorney General Jason Miyares’ office has filed a brief with the state Supreme Court backing a former West Point teacher who was fired in 2018 for refusing to use a transgender student’s preferred pronouns.

            Miyares’ office argues, in part, that a 2007 state law, the Virginia Religious Freedom Restoration Act, barred the West Point School Board from firing Peter Vlaming “because of his religious objection to the School Board’s pronoun-usage rule.”

            The brief also asserts that the School Board’s firing of Vlaming “violated Virginia’s robust constitutional free-exercise protections, which reflect the Commonwealth’s pioneering history of defending religious freedom.”

            https://richmond.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/ags-office-backs-teacher-fired-for-refusing-to-use-transgender-students-preferred-pronouns/article_5dd61ea4-87b1-559f-9366-5f3ed3653b3d.html

          7. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            Richmond Times Dispatch:

            Attorney General Jason Miyares’ office has filed a brief with the state Supreme Court backing a former West Point teacher who was fired in 2018 for refusing to use a transgender student’s preferred pronouns.

            Miyares’ office argues, in part, that a 2007 state law, the Virginia Religious Freedom Restoration Act, barred the West Point School Board from firing Peter Vlaming “because of his religious objection to the School Board’s pronoun-usage rule.”

            The brief also asserts that the School Board’s firing of Vlaming “violated Virginia’s robust constitutional free-exercise protections, which reflect the Commonwealth’s pioneering history of defending religious freedom.”

            https://richmond.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/ags-office-backs-teacher-fired-for-refusing-to-use-transgender-students-preferred-pronouns/article_5dd61ea4-87b1-559f-9366-5f3ed3653b3d.html

      3. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        As to your loophole, what happens if a central office employee refuses to identify a book as “sexually explicit” (I used the example of Maus below) because they firmly believe it is not (even if it meets the definition provided in the legislation)? If they are compelled by law and policy to do so, are not their rights (under the Tanner Cross doctrine) being violated? At least there isn’t some sort of hotline they can be reported to the Governor and his AG on…

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          When you are in the employ of another entity, you are essentially their agent representing their policies and values.

          no?

          If you do not agree with their policies and values, you do have a choice about working there but you don’t have a choice in asserting your own personal values in the performance of that job.

          You work for Microsoft or GM, you’re abiding by their policies and if they say you refer to others by their preferred pronouns and you disagree, and go to court to “defend”, I think you’d likely lose.

          1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            I don’t disagree… the Tanner Cross doctrine does, however, as does the current Youngkin policy…

          2. DJRippert Avatar
            DJRippert

            When the employer itself is part of the state, I assume that things may be different. My amateur level understanding is that the First Amendment applies to government, not private corporations. So, is a public school part of the “government” and do those schools fall under the “Congress shall enact no law …” doctrine?

          3. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
            Dick Hall-Sizemore

            A public school is part of the state and local govenment. The Supreme Court long ago ruled that the First Amendment applied to states via incorporation in the 14th Amendment.

          4. DJRippert Avatar
            DJRippert

            That was my thought. And the US Supreme Court never held that the First Amendment applied to private employers. At least, that’s my understanding.

          5. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
            Dick Hall-Sizemore

            You are right. The First Amendment does not apply to private employers in the sense that a private employer can fire you for cursing in his place of business or public criticizing him.

          6. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Nope. Pretty sure you can’t assert your personal views while in the employ of the govt. Just imagine someone being a LEO and asserting they don’t agree with some of the laws they’re supposed to enforce. Or someone who works at Social Security saying to customers that they personally are opposed to it.

            When you work for the govt, you are bound by the govt policies that you are carrying out.

          7. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Imagine someone who works for VDH or VEC stating publicly in the course of their job that they disagree with VDH/VEC policies.

            Imagine the person they are serving hearing such objections and wondering what kind of service they will receive.

  6. Nathan Avatar
    Nathan

    You have written many fine articles, but this is most definitely not an example of your best work. It’s utter nonsense.

    From your article:
    “What should happen to a teacher who, citing the “Tanner Cross doctrine,” refuses to abide by this policy? In her defense, she contends that she should not be forced “to promote ideologies” such as censorship in this case, that are harmful to students.”

    How exactly is she being forced to promote censorship? Is she being asked to teach and endorse the “Tanner Cross doctrine”? No.

    Would this same teacher advocate teaching conservative religious doctrine? Is the prohibition against a state religion taught in public schools censorship?

    The argument makes no sense.

  7. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    The biggest question is what happens if a teacher believes (on a religious level) that the requests of a student to be addressed with a pronoun different from their birth pronoun and NOT have their parents involved should be respected and followed. Youngkin’s current policies would compel them to use birth pronouns and notify the parents (or notify administration who would be compelled to notify the parents) and such would violate the Tanner Cross doctrine.

  8. WayneS Avatar
    WayneS

    What should happen to a teacher who, citing the “Tanner Cross doctrine,” refuses to abide by this policy? In her defense, she contends that she should not be forced “to promote ideologies” such as censorship in this case…

    Which of the three steps in the policy represents censorship on the part of the school system?

    Notifying children’s parents of the sexually explicit books and material being assigned to those children? No, notification is not suppression.

    Identifying sexually explicit material which may be objectionable to a child’s parents? No. Identification is not suppression.

    Providing alternate books/materials which are not sexually explicit to the children of parents who object to such material? No. Allowing parents to choose to have their child receive alternate learning material is not suppression – at least not on the part of the school system.

    If there is any ‘censorship’ going on, it is in the form of individual parents controlling what, if any, sexually explicit materials their children are exposed to. And that, under the laws of Virginia, is perfectly legal until the child is 18 – as it should be, in my opinion.

    Code of Virginia – § 1-240.1 – Rights of parents. A parent has a fundamental right to make decisions concerning the upbringing, education, and care of the parent’s child.

    Also, censorship is not an ideology, it is an activity. Certain ideologies may promote censorship of certain material, but the censorship results from the ideology, it is not the thing itself. That being said, please point out what ideology is being promoted by the policy.

    1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      “Identifying sexually explicit material which may be objectionable to a child’s parents? No. Identification is not suppression.”

      Dick’s argument is that the requirement to identify “sexually explicit material” would compel the teacher to publicly state that Maus, for instance, is a “sexually explicit” book even though they firmly believe that to not be true and that it would not be in their students’ best interest to categorize it as such. This would violate the Tanner Cross doctrine.

      1. WayneS Avatar
        WayneS

        I see what you are both saying, but I’m pretty sure the “sexually explicit” decision will be made by the school system/administration, and the notifications will almost certainly be standardized. To assign that duty to individual teachers would result in chaos and, no doubt, many lawsuits. And parents have an absolute right to know what is being taught their children in their classes.

        With that said, individual teachers must have the right to tell a child’s parents that they personally do not consider the material inappropriate for the students’ age/grade level, and to try to convince them to allow their child to be exposed to it. Telling a teacher he/she could not do that would violate the “Tanner Cross doctrine”.

      2. WayneS Avatar
        WayneS

        I see what you are both saying, but I’m pretty sure the “sexually explicit” decision will be made by the school system/administration, and the notifications will almost certainly be standardized. To assign that duty to individual teachers would result in chaos and, no doubt, many lawsuits. And parents have an absolute right to know what is being taught their children in their classes.

        With that said, individual teachers have the right to tell their students’ parents that they personally do not consider the material inappropriate for the students’ age/grade level, and to try to convince concerned parents to allow their child to be exposed to it. Telling a teacher he/she could not do that would violate the “Tanner Cross doctrine”.

        1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          It is not in identifying what material will be used in class to parents that the problem lies. It is in the classification of specific material as “sexually explicit”. As Deborah noted below, it looks like the definition is already set in law. Since there is a drawn depiction of nudity in Maus, it would meet the definition and someone (be it teacher, or administrator) will be compelled by law to categorize it as “sexually explicit” even though they very well may not believe it to be true (I certainly don’t and I don’t think most would). That is where the Tanner Cross doctrine violation lies. Cross did not contend he was precluded from stating he did not agree with the pronoun usage but would follow the student’s (and their parent’s) requests. His objection was in being compelled to use them in the first place… period.

        2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
          Dick Hall-Sizemore

          The two local policies that I consulted (Richmond and Chesterfield) do provide that the principal notify parents, not teachers. However, principals and central office staff can’t be expected to know the contents of all the books and material assigned by all the teachers. They will have to rely on input by the teachers. Principals, to be on the safe side, will probably list everything that could possibly be considered sexually explict, whether the teacher agrees or not. Another example: To Kill a Mockingbird. That books discusses rape and sexual excitement pretty explicitly. I, as a teacher, would not consider that book “sexually explicit” material. A principal, to be on the safe side, might. I can also foresee some parents feeling that it is.

          What is a teacher to do? Perhaps, to avoid the hassle, the teacher may say, “To hell with it” and not assign the book. Is that in the best interest of the students?

          1. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            What is a teacher to do? Perhaps, to avoid the hassle, the teacher may say, “To hell with it” and not assign the book. Is that in the best interest of the students?

            It depends on the book.

            Maybe follow Nathan’s “rule of thumb”, below.

            If you can’t read from it, or display pictures from it, at a School Board meeting it is probably not appropriate for children.

          2. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            Dick Hall-Sizemore:
            “Is that in the best interest of the students?”

            Peter Vlaming was by all accounts a dedicated and gifted French teacher who also cared for his students – including a transgender student. He was fired.

            Was that in the best interest of the students?

            “Schandevel told the justices that Vlaming tried to accommodate the student by using his masculine name and avoiding the use of pronouns, but the student, his parents and the school told him he was required to use the student’s male pronouns.”

            “Vlaming once inadvertently referred to the student as “she” in class, but immediately apologized.”

  9. Deborah Hommer Avatar
    Deborah Hommer

    So what about those books that have illustrations of sucking each other’s dicks and talks of sucking dicks and or other scenes and descriptions of sexual content? Or how about books that talk of gang rape and bestility?

    How can these books be reconciled with laws designed to protect children from this type of obscenity?

    The Department of Justice Citizen’s Guide to U.S. Federal Law on Child Pornography states: “Images of child pornography are not protected under First Amendment rights, and are illegal contraband under federal law. Section 2256 of Title 18, United States Code, defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (someone under 18 years of age). Visual depictions include photographs, videos, digital or computer generated images indistinguishable from an actual minor, and images created, adapted, or modified, but appear to depict an identifiable, actual minor. … Any violation of federal child pornography law is a serious crime, and convicted offenders face severe statutory penalties. For example, a first time offender convicted of producing child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2251, face fines and a statutory minimum of 15 years to 30 years maximum in prison.”

    Virginia state law: “§ 18.2-374.1. this article and Article 4 (§ 18.2-362 et seq.) of this chapter, the term “sexually explicit visual material” means a picture, photograph, drawing, sculpture, motion picture film, digital image, including such material stored in a computer’s temporary Internet cache when three or more images or streaming videos are present, or similar visual representation which depicts sexual bestiality, a lewd exhibition of nudity, as nudity is defined in § 18.2-390, or sexual excitement, sexual conduct or sadomasochistic abuse, as also defined in § 18.2-390, or a book, magazine or pamphlet which contains such a visual representation. An undeveloped photograph or similar visual material may be sexually explicit material notwithstanding that processing or other acts may be required to make its sexually explicit content apparent.”

    “§ 18.2-372. “‘Obscene’ defined. The word ‘obscene’ where it appears in this article shall mean that which, considered as a whole, has as its dominant theme or purpose an appeal to the prurient interest in sex, that is, a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, excretory functions or products thereof or sadomasochistic abuse, and which goes substantially beyond customary limits of candor in description or representation of such matters and which, taken as a whole, does not have serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.”

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      There are certainly books around for kids today that I, personally, would find objectionable. The vast majority of teachers, I think, would have the good taste and sense not to include such books in their curricula. For those that do, principals can deal with on an individual basis, without their having to be a broad policy that pulls in stuff that does not have to be pulled in.

      1. Deborah Hommer Avatar
        Deborah Hommer

        You know, you make a good point. Unfortunately there’s parents all over the United States that are putting these books on display at school board meetings because teachers don’t have the discernment. There are a minority of teachers on TikTok and other social media bragging about indoctrinating children on taxpayer dollars. Our Founding Fathers stated our form is government is for a moral people. It appears that we have now turned the corner with certain teachers. This broad policy is for those amoral teachers who have no ability to discern what is appropriate from what is not appropriate. I have mentioned on this blog previously some of the amoral books that is in the local public high school that I had to withdraw my children from due to its whole inappropriate content. To your point, my son’s public middle school did a fantastic job with our middle daughter and now our son.

        1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
          Dick Hall-Sizemore

          Where do the Founding Fathers state our form of government is for “a moral people’?

          1. Deborah Hommer Avatar
            Deborah Hommer

            On October 11, 1789, John Adams wrote a letter to the Massachusetts Militia (link enclosed) stating, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” – last sentence in second paragraph. The sentences prior give context. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-3102;

            Then there are other quotes as stated in this article: George Washington said: “Virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government,”[6] and “Human rights can only be assured among a virtuous people.”[7]

            Benjamin Franklin said: “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.” [8]

            James Madison stated: “To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical [imaginary] idea.”[9]

            Thomas Jefferson wrote, “No government can continue good but under the control of the people; and … their minds are to be informed by education what is right and what wrong; to be encouraged in habits of virtue and to be deterred from those of vice … These are the inculcations necessary to render the people a sure basis for the structure and order of government.”[10]

            Samuel Adams said: “Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. He therefore is the truest friend of the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue.”[11]

            Patrick Henry stated that: “A vitiated [impure] state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom.”[12]

            John Adams stated: “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”[13]

            https://mountlibertycollege.org/without-virtue-there-can-be-no-liberty/

          2. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            The term virtue is not the equivalent of moral. It means the willingness to forego personal interests for the sake of the community. Secular morals necessary to the social contract of society to prosper do not require religion only respect among members.

          3. Deborah Hommer Avatar
            Deborah Hommer

            Well, I don’t know where you get your definition. If it’s from the secularists, I totally reject the secularists view.; I will save the rant of the unbalanced secularization leading to the destruction of this country – just as led the the destruction of Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome. We are headed down the same path with the same vices.
            In any event, it begs the question: Why in the world would you use the secular meaning of the word “virtue” when clearly the Founding Fathers would not have used the secular meaning? These men were well-versed in Ancient Greece, and Ancient Rome, including other parts of history.

            I am speaking of virtue as the Philosophers spoke of it – as I am sure the Founders spoke of virtue. According to Plato, there are four cardinal virtues – wisdom, courage, temperance and justice. Plato thought that happiness (eudaemonia) is the highest aim of conduct and moral thought. He was in search of the Good and an ideal city; namely, a city of virtue will have virtuous people and vice versa.

            Aristotle was the first virtue ethicist. He spoke of virtues as on a spectrum in Nicomachean Ethics in the third book, section 6. One end of the spectrum is too much, a just-right middle, and the other end of the spectrum too little. Take courage – too much is recklessness and too little is cowardice, both are vices. The virtue of courage is in the middle. For Aristotle the highest human good is eudaemonia.

            For both Plato and Aristotle a well-lived life is one that practices virtuous behavior.

            Now my definition fits well within the meaning of the quotes I provided above.

          4. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            There is also this from Federalist 55 – [most likely] James Madison –

            As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust, so there are other qualities in human nature which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be, that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self-government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another.

          5. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            There is also this from Federalist 55 – [most likely] James Madison –

            As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust, so there are other qualities in human nature which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be, that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self-government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another.

          6. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            And,


            “I have observed that gentlemen suppose that the general legislature will do every thing mischievous they possibly can, and that they will omit to do every thing good which they are authorized to do. If this were a reasonable supposition, their objections would be good. I consider it reasonable to conclude that they will as readily do their duty as deviate from it; nor do I go on the grounds mentioned by gentlemen on the other side — that we are to place unlimited confidence in them, and expect nothing but the most exalted integrity and sublime virtue. But I go on this great republican principle, that the people will have virtue and intelligence to select men of virtue and wisdom. Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks, no form of government, can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea. If there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men; so that we do not depend on their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who are to choose them.”
            James Madison (speech at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, 20 June 1788)”

          7. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            The term virtue is not the equivalent of moral. It was used in colonial times to apply to a willingness to sacrifice one’s personal interests for those of the community.

          8. Deborah Hommer Avatar
            Deborah Hommer

            You’re wrong

          9. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            from Oxford Reference:

            virtue

            A quality considered morally good or desirable in a person; the important virtues are traditionally the four cardinal virtues (see cardinal 2), justice, prudence, temperance, and fortitude, valued by the classical philosophers and adopted by the scholastic philosophers, and the three theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity, enumerated by St Paul.

            virtue is its own reward proverbial saying, early 16th century; meaning that the satisfaction of knowing that one has observed appropriate moral standards should be all that is sought. The saying is found earlier in Latin, in the works of the Roman poet Ovid (43 bc–ad c. 17)

            Virtue has been synonymous with morality since at least the 16th century, possibly even since Roman times.

          10. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            from Oxford Reference:

            virtue

            A quality considered morally good or desirable in a person; the important virtues are traditionally the four cardinal virtues (see cardinal 2), justice, prudence, temperance, and fortitude, valued by the classical philosophers and adopted by the scholastic philosophers, and the three theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity, enumerated by St Paul.

            virtue is its own reward proverbial saying, early 16th century; meaning that the satisfaction of knowing that one has observed appropriate moral standards should be all that is sought. The saying is found earlier in Latin, in the works of the Roman poet Ovid (43 bc–ad c. 17)

            Virtue has been synonymous with morality since at least the 16th century, possibly even since Roman times.

          11. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            The term virtue is not the equivalent of moral. It was used in colonial times to apply to a willingness to sacrifice one’s personal interests for those of the community.

            Not true..

            from Oxford Reference:

            virtue

            A quality considered morally good or desirable in a person; the important virtues are traditionally the four cardinal virtues (see cardinal 2), justice, prudence, temperance, and fortitude, valued by the classical philosophers and adopted by the scholastic philosophers, and the three theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity, enumerated by St Paul.

            virtue is its own reward proverbial saying, early 16th century; meaning that the satisfaction of knowing that one has observed appropriate moral standards should be all that is sought. The saying is found earlier in Latin, in the works of the Roman poet Ovid (43 bc–ad c. 17)

            Virtue has been synonymous with morality since at least the 16th century, possibly even since Roman times.

            Furthermore, the context in which the word virtue is used in Federalist 55, juxtaposing it with the word depravity, makes it clear the the writer was not using your definition of virtue.

            Finally, I can find no evidence in old dictionaries or historic writings of virtue having the meaning you ascribe to it. Being willing to put the needs of your society over your own is considered an example of virtue/morality but it is not wholly synonymous with it – it is not the thing itself..

          12. DJRippert Avatar
            DJRippert

            It was stated many times but not included in The Constitution.

          13. DJRippert Avatar
            DJRippert

            It was stated many times but not included in The Constitution.

      2. Nathan Avatar
        Nathan

        “The vast majority of teachers…”

        Policies and laws are almost never created for the “vast majority.”

        Numerous parents have been silenced at public meetings for reading materials that were required to be read in school.

        Good rule of thumb would seem to be that if it can’t be viewed or spoken in public, parents should have some say as to whether their children are forced to be taught it.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          You mean if it is unanimous ? what if there is not agreement?

        2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
          Dick Hall-Sizemore

          But, that is not the criteria set out in law.

          1. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            Perhaps not, but I see that you did not respond to my main point.

            Cultural awareness, sensitivity, and self-restrain are clearly preferable to legislation. Recent events, however, have demonstrated that some schools don’t practice that.

            For some, in spite of all their talk about multiculturalism and sensitivity, have shown themselves to be not only insensitive to cultural conservatives and people of faith, but openly hostile to them.

            Public schools should serve the public at large, not just the hard left.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            re: ” Cultural awareness, sensitivity, and self restrain are clearly preferable to legislation.”

            according to who?

          3. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            The “victims”, of course…

          4. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            Larry:
            “according to who?”

            My comments about cultural awareness, sensitivity, and self-restraint being preferable to legislation were not in quotes, so that is me speaking. It reflects my opinion.

            You have made over 20 thousand comments via Disqus and you are confused by that?

        3. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          More likely silenced for exceeding their allotted 3 minutes of public comment and refusing to leave the microphone…

  10. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    I was recently asked by my 16-year old’s literature teacher whether I objected to the class viewing the recently released movie, “All’s Quiet on the Western Front”. The question was violence, not pornography.

    Since they had already read the book, I saw no reason to forbid watching the movie.

    Beyond that, many of the video games routinely played by teenagers make “All’s Quiet” look like Mary Poppins.

    There certainly needs to be a balance. Streaming hardcore internet porn into a classroom should certainly be banned. Having to ask whether viewing the movie version of a book already read seems excessive.

    As far as individual teachers – I’m not sure why this should bother them much. They should submit their curriculum and materials to the administration and let the administration decide whether the parents need to be notified. Lord knows, there are plenty of non-teaching administrators in today’s schools.

    1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      As pointed out below, administrators are citizens as well. That being said, I really don’t think many (if any) teachers object to sending certain curriculum materials home to parents for their review/intervention. The problem Dick is pointing out is with his so-called Tanner Cross doctrine (and Youngkin’s policies now) place the school employee’s (be it teacher or administrator) supposed right not to be compelled to make a statement they disagree with over the rights of students and their parents. Dick’s point is that this sword can cut both ways.

      1. DJRippert Avatar
        DJRippert

        Nothing is black and white. The question is where to draw the line. I see Dick’s argument as somewhat suffering from the ad absurdum fallacy. Because Tanner Cross did not want to use various pronouns when addressing students it should now be OK for any teacher to present any type of material to children. So, streaming hard core internet porn into an 8th grade classroom would be OK since having the teacher even ask if that’s OK violated the teacher’s rights.

        Society has to draw lines.

        1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          Not the argument Dick is making, not even close. Dick’s argument is because Tanner Cross says he can not be forced to address students by their requested pronouns, other school employees can not be forced to make statements they do not agree with (like a controversial book is “sexually explicit”). You are the one making the ad absurdum argument here.

        2. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          “society” , who?
          how?

          If SCOTUS and Elon Musk define what “free speech” is (and not) then how would schools do it differently?

          You’re talking about an arbitrary line that is being decided , as far as I can tell, not by SCOTUS.

          And pretty sure if you go to different schools especially in different states , you’ll get different “lines”.

          “model policies” are also different between states and in time also as they are “updated”.

          What process “adds to” or “removes” banned material?

          Are Conservatives the arbiters?

      2. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        Dick points this out while others in the Conservative realm think THEIR views are the “correct” ones and can’t fathom others having differing views that are perfectly legitimate also.

        How is it decided which material is “ok” and which is not? Is it what guy or is it a group that takes a vote?

        If the vote is not unanimous, then what?

        1. DJRippert Avatar
          DJRippert

          I guess that’s why the number of school administrators, compared to classroom teachers, has been growing so much and for so long. So they can manage situations like this.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Well, of course, you also have the issue of WHO will be appointed to such committees. Don’t have to hire more folks, just decide who already employed will be on such committees.
            And again, does it require a unanimous vote to take an action to keep or ban?

  11. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    The Usual Suspects have an unusually weak argument on this one. Clearly smut passes as literature in their world. When I first read about DH Lawrence’s famous frustrated lady, it wasn’t a class assignment and I wasn’t analyzing his paragraph structure or moral arguments. No other high school student will either, assuming today’s high school students even read at that level. The debate now is over smutty graphic novels for morons who cannot read (but are going to get in at UVA Law.)

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Smut? I know what it is, but have yet to see any.

    2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      Personally, I would ban the use of graphic novels, smutty or not, in schools.

    3. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      Most folks know it when they see it, but the problem is there are differing views. If you have a committee and they take a vote, and it’s not unanimous what do you do?

      Answer that Mr, Usual Suspect!

      1. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        Look, facts are easy. The book includes explicit descriptions of sex acts or it doesn’t. Thus it is sexually explicit. Add artwork and even easier to say yes or no. If yes, the parents can opt them out. Go read about Lady Chatterley (again) as your homework.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          and that’s uniform across all individuals?

          My question goes back to HOW it is “decided” that something is or is not.

          Is it decided by one individual?

          Is it decided by a written law?

          Is it decide by a group and does the decision need to be unanimous to be codified?

          I don’t disagree that there is such a thing as phonographic or obscene but I am asking who decides when it’s not unanimous across the board?

        2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          Go back and read the definition in the law. It is actually not that easy. By the legal definition cited by Deborah above, for instance, the entire Captain Underpants series would have to be classified as “obscene”. But the issue is that the law requires school employee to make a statement that they may not agree with (nor think is in the best interest of their students) when it comes to some curriculum items. The Tanner Cross doctrine (and Youngkin’s policy) says that is not allowed.

    4. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      Personally, I would ban the use of graphic novels, smutty or not, in schools.

      1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        In school libraries…? My sons, who are fully educated, literate, and successful, cut their young reading teeth on graphic novels. More than comic books to be sure… By and large they should probably be avoided as core curriculum items but I am sure there are exceptions.

    5. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      One vote against Maus…

  12. Nathan Avatar
    Nathan

    You have written many fine articles, but this is most definitely not an example of your best work. It’s utter nonsense.

    From your article:
    “What should happen to a teacher who, citing the “Tanner Cross doctrine,” refuses to abide by this policy? In her defense, she contends that she should not be forced “to promote ideologies” such as censorship in this case, that are harmful to students.”

    How exactly is she being forced to promote censorship? Is she being asked to teach and endorse the legislation cited? No.

    Would this same teacher advocate teaching conservative religious doctrine? Is the prohibition against a state religion taught in public schools censorship?

    The argument makes no sense.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      By what right does the State have the authority to “ban” speech like referring to someone with “N” word or other words that someone wants to claim is their “free speech” “right”?

      1. Nathan Avatar
        Nathan

        Huh? You are advocating use of the “N word”? That word is almost universally understood to be unfit for public discourse.

        I say almost because bigots and rappers seem to like it.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          No I’m not. I’m asking how/why it cannot be used without consequences if it is truly “free speech”.

          We have a lot of discussion here in BR about preventing “free speech”.

          I’m just asking ..

          1. do we?

          2. on what basis?

          3. who decides?

          1. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            Within the context of the scenario presented in the article above, Tanner Cross was publicly critical of the policy.

            “…the courts rightly overturned the suspension on the basis that he was punished for exercising his freedom of speech in a public forum.”

            I believe the hypothetical teacher who disagrees with the law concerning sexually explicit materials should also have the right to disagree publicly with that.

            My personal view is that the pros and cons of public policy should be openly discussed in a high school setting, since that is where potential voters take civics classes and prepare to become voters. That would allow Tanner Cross to express his views against the gender affirmation policies, and the hypothetical teacher to express her opposition to the law regarding sexually explicit materials.

            I believe it would be the left which would be most bothered by my suggestion. They want any views contrary to their own to be prohibited.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            You sure about that? Is it the left than wants to censor books ?

            What the left does object to is someone using offensive or insulting, threatening language towards individuals they don’t even know but based on their skin color or gender or similar.

            We see this with idiots on social media threatening public officials – teachers, election officials, elected representatives.

            That’s “free speech” and Twitter and FB are full of it these days.

            And what the left is okay with is condemning those who do it and criminal charges for actual threats.

            In a public school environment – which is a workplace also, can/should employees disagree publicly with a policy of their employer? Can they violate a policy of the employer?

            If the employer says that an employee will NOT use pejorative words towards others or be sanctioned or fired, is that “violating” their “free speech” rights?

            A public school CAN …REQUIRE you to address students per a policy and if you violate that policy you CAN be subject to sanctions. Just try addressing a fellow worker with the “N” word and see how far your “free speech” will go.

          3. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            Larry:
            “Is it the left than wants to censor books?”

            Absolutely! Don’t you read the news?

            It’s normally different books and for different reasons, but the left and right both want to censor books in schools.

            “Schools in Burbank will no longer be able to teach a handful of classic novels, including Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird, following concerns raised by parents over racism.”

            “Middle and high school English teachers in the Burbank Unified School District received the news during a virtual meeting on September 9.”

            “Until further notice, teachers in the area will not be able to include on their curriculum Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird, Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, John Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men, Theodore Taylor’s The Cay and Mildred D. Taylor’s Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry.”

            “Four parents, three of whom are Black, challenged the classic novels for alleged potential harm to the district’s roughly 400 Black students.”

            https://www.newsweek.com/kill-mockingbird-other-books-banned-california-schools-over-racism-concerns-1547241

    2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      The teacher has to classify a book under the law as “sexually explicit” even though they do not believe it to be true and even though they know that doing so will create a desire on the part of some to censor it (hence the promotion of censorship) which they know is not in the best interest of their students. This scenario clearly violates the Tanner Cross doctrine.

      1. Nathan Avatar
        Nathan

        You are not being candid.

        I seriously doubt that anyone would advocate for absolutely no restraints on individuals or teachers with respect to what words, images and content should be considered acceptable in public K-12. It is a false to suggest conservatives are “for” censorship while Progressives are against it. I recall controversy in times past about unredacted Mark Twain books that contained the “N” word.

        One need not agree that something is “sexually explicit” to recognize that it may be deemed so to others. It’s called cultural awareness.

        Teachers are not required to label something to be “sexually explicit”. They are only required to disclose their use of potentially problematic content to the administration. There’s also no requirement that the administration proclaim it to be sexually explicit, only that they disclose what might be deemed so to parents.

        The law as explained in the above article does not appear to require censorship of these materials, only that they be disclosed to parents who will decide if they wish to have their child excused from participating in that assignment.

      2. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        Yep. No contest. Interested in hearing responses.

  13. Nathan Avatar
    Nathan

    For years we’ve heard about the need for cultural awareness, sensitivity and respect for cultures different from our own.

    The law that many find objectionable was enacted precisely because some teachers and administrations have proven to be irresponsible in this regard.

    “Sex is a normal and essential part of life. For Muslims however, the open discussion of sex is frowned upon usually for cultural reasons but mostly because Islam considers sexuality to be a private matter between husband and wife.”

    https://themuslimvibe.com/featured/sex-in-islam-the-benefits-and-etiquette-for-a-healthy-sex-life

Leave a Reply

Read More