Do we have to teach about Nascar?
Pearce is a well-known tool here and bombasts quite a lot, pandering to his base. I don’t think his bill will get much traction, but I find it ironic that ASU is squawking today about diversity of opinion having just last week ‘requesting’ the company that runs thier on-campus shuttle buses ban a local news-talk station from being played on the buses. The request came after receiving exactly two complaints, six months apart, from the same student about the station’s content. Some diversity, it would seem, is more equal than others.
[QUOTE=Dead Badger]
I beg your pardon? Can you not fucking read? I’ll have none of your fucking paraphraseology. You complain that people aren’t using the bill’s own text, then when it’s presented to you on a fucking plate, you fucking ignore it? Fuck that. I repeat:
This quite explicitly says that you cannot even teach as a separate subject those modes of thought that are considered contrary to American ideals (whatever the fuck those are). This means I am not even allowed to tell you about Communism without leavening it with a nice capitalist homily, lest it corrupt your fragile little mind.
I will happily concede that your mind appears to be more fragile than most, but I maintain that this is not an observation on which to base education law.
[/QUOTE]
You do understand what an “exclusive focus” is, right? Teaching a history class that includes the impact of Marxist communism is not an exclusive focus. There’s nothing in the text of that bill which says you must “leaven with a nice capitalist homily” any lesson about communism. It says that you may not exclusively focus on Marxism, and you may not attempt to persuade students to a Marxist cause. It says that a school may not financially support a “Sharia now!” club with taxpayer money.
Lay off the personal attacks if you want to have a serious discussion. I won’t respond if you insult me again.
.
But a history class about Marxism would be illegal, no?
And what about the rest of the clause:
What the fuck does that even mean?
.
I’m surprised by the inclusion of religious toleration as a western value that cannot be questioned. Wouldn’t this mean no public support for any organizations that imply one religion is superior to others? And being as all religions pretty much are based on the premise that they’re true and other religions are not, this seems to mean that no religious groups, including mainstream Christian ones, will be allowed to operate on public school grounds in Arizona.
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
I’m surprised by the inclusion of religious toleration as a western value that cannot be questioned. Wouldn’t this mean no public support for any organizations that imply one religion is superior to others? And being as all religions pretty much are based on the premise that they’re true and other religions are not, this seems to mean that no religious groups, including mainstream Christian ones, will be allowed to operate on public school grounds in Arizona.
[/QUOTE]
Doesn’t it just say that Arizona tax money wouldn’t go to any religious groups trying to operate on public school grounds? That part sounds reasonable.
[QUOTE=andros]
.
But a history class about Marxism would be illegal, no?
And what about the rest of the clause:
What the fuck does that even mean?
.
[/QUOTE]
It sounds like legalese to prevent people from claiming they didn’t “promote” Marxism by presenting it to their students in a way calculated to make it appealing.
You don’t have to say “we should all be Marxists” to be promoting Marxism. A history class ABOUT Marxism seems especially narrow for a course offered a public school. Even so, a hypothetical course called “Marxism in the 20th century” ought to be about the causes and effects of Marxism, and the social and political environment in Eastern Europe. I don’t think a course exclusively studying the Marxist manifesto would be appropriate.
[QUOTE=Mosier]
I don’t think a course exclusively studying the Marxist manifesto would be appropriate.
[/QUOTE]
It would not be especially valuable (except, perhaps, at the collegel level), but why would it be inappropriate?
Or by “inappropriate” do you mean “prohibited by this bill”?
[QUOTE=Mosier]
A difference between “membership based in whole or in part based on race”, and “mebership that descriminates based on race”?
Sorry, not seeing it.
[/QUOTE]
The first one would seem to ban affinity groups. Affinity groups generally allow a person of any race or ethnicity to join and participate, but they still might fall under a “membership based …” definition. I see no reason to ban affinity groups. In fact, they contribute to educational and social development.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
It would not be especially valuable (except, perhaps, at the collegel level), but why would it be inappropriate?
Or by “inappropriate” do you mean “prohibited by this bill”?
[/QUOTE]
What I meant was the same thing you’re saying. It would be as appropriate for a school course as “how to make the perfect peanut butter and jelly sandwich”.
It would also be prohibited by this bill (at least in AZ), but that’s not what I was talking about.
[QUOTE=DesertDog]
Pearce is a well-known tool here and bombasts quite a lot, pandering to his base. I don’t think his bill will get much traction, but I find it ironic that ASU is squawking today about diversity of opinion having just last week ‘requesting’ the company that runs thier on-campus shuttle buses ban a local news-talk station from being played on the buses. The request came after receiving exactly two complaints, six months apart, from the same student about the station’s content. Some diversity, it would seem, is more equal than others.
[/QUOTE]
That’s the kind of thing I was alluding to when I talked about ASU in the '90s. Hasn’t changed much. You hear what ASU is saying now about the KTAR thing? They’re not banning the station, they’re just telling drivers to turn the radio down so students can’t hear it any more. So they’re not technically shutting it off. :rolleyes:
One of the most cherished principles of Western civilization is that everything can be questioned, even Western civilization itself and its values.
Since that’s manifestly true, the bill, if enforced rigorously, would essentially require that anti-Western thought be taught and examined in schools. Is the sponsor entirely sure that’s what he wants?
Sailboat
[QUOTE=RickJay]
What constitutes “denigrating Capitalism?” Can you explain where the line is?
[/QUOTE]
Denigrating Capitalism = employing only white people.
Sailboat
Also, how far west does your civilization have to be to be Western? Are we going by the Greenwich Meridian? The eastern border of Turkey? Nova Scotia? Lambeau Field?
[QUOTE=Mosier]
They’re not suddenly going to stop teaching about the Bolshevik Revolution. The bill would prevent teachers from endorsing or encouraging Bolshevik-style socialism. Does that really bother you, or do you think a bunch of you might be overreacting a little bit?
[/QUOTE]
I’m no Bolshevik, but yes, that really bothers me. I don’t like the idea of the government deciding which ideas are “safe” enough to be taught in colleges.
[QUOTE=Mosier]
I won’t respond if you insult me again.
[/QUOTE]
It’s not an insult to point out that you’re being stupid here, it’s merely an observation of objective reality.
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
Also, how far west does your civilization have to be to be Western? Are we going by the Greenwich Meridian? The eastern border of Turkey? Nova Scotia? Lambeau Field?
[/QUOTE]
In Samuel P. Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” theory, “Western” civilization includes Europe west of the Catholic-Orthodox dividing line, Canada, the U.S., and Australia and NZ; it does not include Orthodox Europe, nor Latin America.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
In Samuel P. Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” theory, “Western” civilization includes Europe west of the Catholic-Orthodox dividing line, Canada, the U.S., and Australia and NZ; it does not include Orthodox Europe, nor Latin America.
[/QUOTE]
ahem
As I have asserted several times before, Samuel Huntington is an idiot, and with the passing of the Bush Administration his ideas about geopolitics will have about as much influence as Pauly Shore’s.
His theory is a thinly-veiled excuse to begin a race war, which the invasion of Iraq owes a great deal to. (Guess where the idea of a preemptive strike came from?)
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
ahem
As I have asserted several times before, Samuel Huntington is an idiot, and with the passing of the Bush Administration his ideas about geopolitics will have about as much influence as Pauly Shore’s.
His theory is a thinly-veiled excuse to begin a race war, which the invasion of Iraq owes a great deal to. (Guess where the idea of a preemptive strike came from?)
[/QUOTE]
Indeed.
I wonder if this Pearce has ever read him?
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Is there any Doper familiar with Arizona politics who can explain just WTF is going on here?!
[/QUOTE]
Well, there are several different answers.
It’s a state rep (one step above Wal-Mart Greeter) trying to get attention, just like that lady from Oklahoma who recently said those things about the gays.
We’re one of the most racist states in the nation when it comes to those god damned old mex-ee-cans. Seriously. There’s a general sentiment here that racism is only discrimination against blacks - which is a huge no-no, but only, I think, because there aren’t any here - and hating latin Americans is just fine. I can’t set foot on a college campus or library grounds without someone waving a ballot measure in my face to further restrict the rights of immigrants, increase punishments for them, or otherwise somehow disenfranchise them further, and I can’t drive by a Home Depot without people pointing “Go Home Mexicans” signs at me.
“Illegal immigrant” here, I think, is used in much the same way “Jew” was used in 1930s Germany, i.e., for anyone or anything that you don’t like for any reason. It’s a terribly common scapegoat term.
The good news is that any talk of the repercussions of this bill need only be hypothetical because, even if it somehow managed to pass, it’d be shot down faster than you can say John Adams the first time it was challenged.