Such Elequence!

This took place at a school board meeting in Virginia. The rest is self-explanatory.

When They Start Talking About Ideologies And Agendas

 ... you generally know where they are coming from.

"We must protect our children from sexual grooming and pedophilia. The sexualization agenda is robbing children of their innocence."

"I am a very concerned person who has done research on the subject of the LGBTQ ideology" .

Thus spaketh Lorraine Hackenschmidt, described in a CBC report as a constituent and grandmother making a presentation to the Brandon, Manitoba school board trustees last Monday to express her desire to have school libraries remove objectionable materials, materials she fears will taint the children and lead them into 'unnatural choices' in life.

You can watch Hakenschmidt's presentation here, starting at the 50-minute mark. I don't find her entire presentation objectionable, especially regarding puberty-blockers and gender-reassignment surgery at an early age; however. in her desperation to prove her points about the danger of books, she starts quoting 'authorities' such as Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, not a man known for political moderation, and the National Post, not exactly a balanced source of news or views.

Unsurprisingly, Hakenschmidt's views are challenged by actual experts.

Brandon Sexuality Education Resource Centre program manager Kerri Judd says it's very concerning to see people asking for LGBTQ books to be removed — especially because many children rely on their school to be a safe space of inclusion and respect.

"We're seeing this in many parts of the province. And if we look at what's going on in the United States, I think that it's not that big of a surprise ... I'm just disappointed that it's a conversation that's happening within the community I live," she said.

"It is completely inaccurate and false and actually really disgusting that people associate gender identity to pedophilia," Judd said. "It's a false narrative … and so it has nothing to do with one's gender identity."

Another expert opines,

Students must see themselves represented in school resources for their well-being, says Patty Douglas, a professor in the faculty of education at Brandon University Faculty of Education. Douglas says human sexual diversity, neurodiversity and all kinds of diversity are normal, and children, just like adults, have the right to be able to see themselves represented.

"I think that bullying ... of kids who are different is ubiquitous. It happens all the time, every day. You know, educational trauma happens every day for kids who come from, you know, non-white cultures, from non-normative family arrangements and this will just worsen that," Douglas said.

"School then becomes something to survive rather than thrive in."

And the  University of Manitoba's Sarah Hannon, a political scientist, 

says the call to remove books in Brandon shows two issues coming together: protecting transgender kids and the queer community more broadly, combined with a more general point about book banning.

"They're not pornographic materials. They are sex education materials. And schools should be in the business of educating people about their own bodies and about their sexuality," Hannan said. "That is a crucial part of ... everyone's well-being."

Manitoba Liberal Leader Dougald Lamont condemned the book ban request at the Legislative Assembly Wednesday, calling it disgusting for its "terrible accusations" against educators and librarians.

"You don't get converted to being 2SLGBTQ by reading a book," Lamont said. "I want my children to be safe and this includes being safe from extremists who want to take away our freedom of choice and freedom to read."

He called on the Progressive Conservatives to take a stance against the proposal. 

Where will this presentation lead to? It is too early to say, but here is something worth bearing in mind: books, knowledge and learning are never subversive. Ignorance, and actions based on it, are.

 

The American Taliban

One of the main joys of this part of my life is helping to look after our granddaughter, who is now 18 months old and very, very bright and engaged in the world around her. Sometimes, in order to 'coax' her to eat, we play some children's programming available on YouTube. Like the many books she has, the programs involve a diversity of characters, both White and non-White, both straight and gay, which I think is a tremendous way of teaching about the world's diversity.

Education has real power.

Unfortunately, in Ron DeSantis' world, diversity is perceived as inimical to young minds, and many jurisdictions in Florida are pursuing with real gusto his directives against materials that will enlighten young minds and ultimately help develop critical-thinking skills.

The following is from TizzyEnt (aka Michael McWhorter) whom I follow on Twitter. He makes a daily practice of calling out injustice and racism, and most of his material is quite compelling. See for yourself in the following.

It is doubtful that many people in Florida see themselves as the American Taliban, but I will be happy to hear from those who would challenge that assertion.

The Flight From Knowledge

 

There is never a moment in my post-teaching life when I have regretted retiring. The paperwork was bad enough, but in the latter part of my career, the politics were becoming very difficult for someone like me to tolerate. The careerists were always looking over their shoulders, ever fearful of obstacles on the horizon that might impede their constant upward trajectory. Even phone calls from dissatisfied parents affrighted them.

The real victims in all of this were basic educational principles and, most sadly, the students.

The following letters to the editor exemplify this fact:

York school board insults children’s intelligence in its censorship

Ontario schools cancel the Crown. How?, Sept. 17

The York Region District School Board issued guidance to teachers that discussion of the Queen’s death is “not encouraged” because it might be “triggering,” as “monarchies are steeped in problematic histories of colonialism,” and so on. Children are curious and resilient. With the help of adults, they may deal with events that are distressing: the divorce of their parents, the death of their grandparents.

Educators now have the opportunity to explain why millions mourn this woman, while others think of her as the symbol of historical colonialism and imperialism.

And yet the York board wants to silence educators on the subject.

The problem is not that the York board has a low opinion of the Queen.

It is that they have a low opinion of children.

David Mayerovitch, Ottawa

Last year, in the high school that I teach in, a teacher was temporarily removed from class for reading part of “To Kill a Mockingbird” aloud. The teacher had, of course, very carefully laid the groundwork for the book and prepared the students for its disturbing content. They had were well into reading the book. But that day, a student in the class had their phone on, recording, waiting, and after the passage was read, they asked to go to the washroom. Instead, they went right to the office.

There was a flurry of activity after the complaint, and, to make a long story short, the book has been pulled from the whole board, along with several others that the administration (or the board) deemed to be potentially sensitive.

So one student complained, and, instead of working it through, the books were taken from the hands of the rest of the students in the class, who never got to finish the story or the discussions of the issues inside it.

I wonder what exactly they learned from that experience.

Your article says “Basic civics — teaching students about the complications and contradictions in our constitutional system — can’t be taught if educators are told to duck controversy because of potential sensitivity.”

This is exactly what is happening in libraries and English classes all over the country.

We need to be able to talk about racism, and every other damaging “ism,” without the fear of being accused of being racist.

But the fear is real in the teaching profession, and I imagine everywhere else.

No one wants to be escorted out of the building and have their reputation tarnished or ruined.

These discussions are being silenced, and this is a great loss to our education system.

Kim Fraser, Holland Landing, Ont.

When Worlds Collide And Converge

 

While reading the early part of a recent column by Rosie DiManno, as a Canadian I couldn't help but feel a measure of smugness, but that sentiment quickly evaporated the further I got into her piece.

At a school board meeting last month in what I choose to call Bumf--k, Virginia, elected officials dropped all pretence of rational debate by outright calling for the immolation of books they deemed offensive because of sexual explicitness.

“I think we should throw those books in a fire,” declared one councilman. A marginally less combustible colleague chimed in about wanting to “see the books before we burn them so we can identify within our community that we are eradicating this bad stuff.”

While both books, Call Me by Your Name and 33 Snowfish, are critically acclaimed, their respective themes of gay kids and exploited homeless teenagers were just too much for the officials. 

"Standard American reaction," I thought to myself. Next, however, DiManno turned her sights on Canada:.

Some titles in particular have drawn recurring wrath. To wit: “To Kill a Mockingbird.”

Three years ago, the Peel District School Board issued a fiat declaring the literary classic by Harper Lee could only be taught “if instruction occurs through a critical, anti-oppression lens.” That followed a recommendation from a pedagogue, Poleen Grewal, associate director of instructional and equity support services.

That, in itself, is not alarming. I can't think of anyone, myself included, who would teach that novel in a historical or cultural vacuum. Indeed, I used to include a recording of Strange Fruit, as well as talk about the history of racism in the U.S. when exploring the novel.

But then things turned uncomfortable.

The Toronto school board got its knickers in a knot last month, rejecting an autobiography by renowned criminal defence lawyer Marie Henein for a book club event, essentially because she (successfully) defended Jian Ghomeshi in his sexual assault trial.

Hamilton’s public school board announced in November that it would be launching a review of all the books in its libraries — and those entering its collection — as part of an equity and learning strategy, blah-blah-blah. Because that’s all the rage now, part and parcel of a societal reckoning with our collective racist history, to hear tell. The upshot could be not just removing contentious books from the curriculum but from libraries, denying students access to books in which they might have an interest. Which surely is counterintuitive to promoting reading and independent critical inquiry.

Just down the road from Hamilton, a similar process is underway, vowing to cull books that don’t meet modern standards — “harmful to either staff or students” — by the Waterloo Region District School Board.

“As our consciousness around equity, on oppression work and anti-racist work has grown, we recognize some of the texts and collections that we have are not appropriate at this point,” Graham Shantz, the board’s co-ordinating superintendent of human resources and equity services, told trustees, as reported by the Waterloo Region Record.

From all of this, DiManno draws a lacerating and, in my view, accurate conclusion.

Where is all this equity lens forensic auditing of books leading? Answer: to an unholy alliance between the left and the right.

There’s nothing more intrinsically virtuous about censorship, whether it’s coming from reactionaries in a lather about sexual content — gender panic and trans rights the cri du jour — or activists on the progressive end of the ideology spectrum sifting for any hint of historical oppression and white or straight privilege.

The banning/burning of books has occurred in many eras, most notoriously that of Nazi Germany. The contemporary zeal for eliminating books that challenge or discomfit the reader has the same genesis and the same result: the narrowing of thought and capacity for critical thinking, no matter its official justification.

Perhaps Ray Bradbury captured this misguided messianic fervour best in his classic dystopian novel, Fahrenheit 451: "It was a pleasure to burn."

 

 

 

Book Crime

A column by The Star's Heather Mallick dredged up memories of my teaching day, memories that are not altogether pleasant.

Many years ago I was teaching a Grade 10 advanced level English course. The thorn in the side of all of us teaching it was a novel Entitled Obasan, by Joy Kogawa. An important book detailing the terrible injustices faced by Japanese Canadians during World War 11, it detailed the personal suffering resulting from the Canadian government's expropriation of their homes and businesses and forced relocation into internment camps. It is a shameful period of our history that we should never forget, and one that prompted Brian Mulroney to issue an apology to survivors and their families in 1988.

The problem was that the novel was far too advanced stylistically for Grade 10 students. Indeed, another school within my board taught it at the Grade 12 level, which was far more appropriate for such a difficult book. After many years of frustrations, we banded together and asked our department head for permission to find a substitute. She agreed, with two major stipulations: the replacement had to be written by a woman, and she had to be Canadian.

While we eventually found another novel, I objected to her selection criterion. In my view, literature cannot be judged by either gender or nationality. It either addresses universal themes or it doesn't. That being said, I am not one of those dinosaurs who insists that only the canon of dead white men is worthy of study. However, it cannot be a reason to exclude such works while at the same time seeking out works works from other cultures and sensibilities. The two are hardly mutually exclusive.

Which brings me back to Heather Mallick, who opines about the decision by the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board to remove William Golding's Lord of the Flies from the curriculum. This strikes me as an extreme overreaction to a thought-provoking piece by a 17-year-old who describes herself as a Black, Jewish, feminist, and social justice activist advocating for greater diversity in the curriculum.

The author of the piece, Kyla Gibson, writes:

The OCDSB has no right to claim that the education system is inclusive when I spend my time learning about white and male supremacy. I do not need to learn about Lord of the Flies and how these boys cannot act in a civilized manner to protect one another without desiring power, hierarchy and having a thirst for blood. I need to learn about why it is important to protect one another and to be allies to those who are less privileged.

Perhaps a little unfairly, Mallick dismisses her concerns:

I fear for students like her. The novel is at base about bullying. A plane full of children crashes on a tropical island. Their means of survival is a plot that will be re-enacted in every workplace, social justice enclave, airplane flight and Green party meeting she will ever encounter.

What she seeks, she wrote, is “to learn about why it is important to protect one another and to be allies to those who are less privileged.” But this was precisely what “Lord of the Flies” revealed.

 I can’t see how she missed the novel’s slide into group madness led by frat-boy Jack and the killing of Simon and his fat, asthmatic, bullied friend Piggy. But then I frequently finish murder mysteries and have no idea who the killer was.

As she wrote, Golding’s boys were all white so perhaps they seemed much of a muchness, fair enough, but blood is blood and by the end Simon and Piggy were simply covered in it...

Truth be told, as you may have discerned, I feel some ambivalence about this whole issue. On the one hand, as stated earlier, important themes dealing with human nature should have no cultural or racial restrictions placed upon them. On the other hand, all Ms. Gibson seems to be asking for is literature that also accommodates her cultural and racial realities. The two are not incompatible.

Is she really asking for too much, and has the Ottawa-Carleton Board been too hasty in its decision to jettison an important piece of literature?

Things Fall Apart

Can a society that regards books as threats survive? I have my serious doubts, doubts you may share after becoming acquainted with the following story, yet another nail in the coffin of the empire known as America.

This tale comes from Southlake, Texas, where many are concerned about the ability of books to make people think, feel and, God forbid, possibly act. 

The debate in Southlake over which books should be allowed in schools is part of a broader national movement led by parents opposed to lessons on racism, history and LGBTQ issues that some conservatives have falsely branded as critical race theory. A group of Southlake parents has been fighting for more than a year to block new diversity and inclusion programs at Carroll, one of the top-ranked school districts in Texas.

Late last year, one of those parents complained when her daughter brought home a copy of “This Book Is Anti-Racist” by Tiffany Jewell from her fourth grade teacher’s class library. The mother also complained about how the teacher responded to her concerns. 

Carroll administrators investigated and decided against disciplining the teacher. But last week, on Oct. 4, the Carroll school board voted 3-2 to overturn the district’s decision and formally reprimanded the teacher, setting off unease among Carroll teachers who said they fear the board won’t protect them if a parent complains about a book in their class.

The following news clip revolves around a benighted administrator with Southlake's Carroll Independent School District, Gina Peddy, urging teachers to provide balancing material for 'controversial issues' involving racism and the like; she provoked outrage when she said that if they are teaching about the Holocaust,  they should also offer students access to a book from an “opposing” perspective.

Fahrenheit 451 was written in 1953 by Ray Bradbury. It seems that in Southlake and many other areas of the Benighted States of America, his horrifying dystopian vision is edging ever closer to reality.

 

The Luddites of Education

Throughout my career as a high school teacher, I believed, as I still do, that education is one of the prime tools by which society can be bettered and critical thinking cultivated. And yet there are Luddites among us who would severely circumscribe the use of this all-important mechanism, preferring that we limit access to ideas and thinking that they find personally objectionable. Two stories from my experiences sadly attest to this reality.

Once, many years ago, one of my students had chosen Robertson Davies' Fifth Business for independent reading. Early in the novel, a Baptist minister's wife is struck in the head by a large stone encased in a snowball, an incident that starts a cascade of events with profound effects on the fortunes of the protagonist. During a parent-teacher interview, the mother of a student who had chosen the novel, herself the wife of a Baptist minister, objected bitterly to her daughter reading the novel because of its alleged disrespect toward religion (solely evidenced by the snowball incident), assertively opining that such material had no place in schools. I told her that as a parent, she had the right to object to her daughter reading the book, but that NO ONE had the right to ban others from reading any given book.

A second incident during a telephone conversation with a Muslim parent, many years later, went along exactly the same lines; in this case, the man was objecting to his daughter reading Flowers for Algernon, also chosen by the student for independent reading. He objected to a scene entailing some brief and quite circumspect sexual content, and went on to say such material should not be available to students. Again, I told him exactly what I told the Baptist minister's wife.

So how is this relevant to the world of politics? Here in Ontario, a microcosm of the larger pluralistic Canada within which we all live, there has been much heated contention by a small group of right-wing Christian fundamentalists and those from other conservative religious backgrounds, many of whom are immigrants, over the revamped sex-ed curriculum slated to go into effect in the fall.



In this morning's Star, Martin Regg Cohn observes that the same dynamic is at work that I experienced in the two above incidents, noting that parents already have the right to remove their children from class when material they object to is being taught:

Apparently that’s no longer enough. Now, the protest movement wants to prevent everyone else’s children from hearing the updated Health and Physical Education Curriculum — an update strongly supported by teachers in the public and separate school systems, and broadly supported by parents who want the best for their children.

To be clear, the protesters are not only demanding a right that they already have — an exemption from the curriculum — but are insisting that everyone else hew to their world views of sexuality, pedagogy and ideology. They want to water down a curriculum prepared by experts after years of deliberation and consultation in order to accommodate their own interpretation of sex education in 2015.

In other words, “My child, my choice” translates to: “Your child, no choice.”

Cohn points out that such intractable and intolerant thinking could provoke a backlash against our practice of reasonable accommodation, and it is a risk being made worse by the usual suspects: the political right-wing desperate to curry favour among social conservatives:

At the most recent protest, the darling of the anti-sex-ed movement, MPP and recent PC leadership candidate Monte McNaughton once again took the microphone to proclaim his fidelity to the cause. Significantly, he brought “greetings” from Patrick Brown, the new leader he helped elect at last month’s Tory convention.

Although we reside in the 21st century, it would seem that the thinking of far too many people resides yet in a much earlier time, when ignorance thrived and education was looked upon with suspicion and disdain. It is time we all grew up.

When Parents Get The Upper Hand in Education

Yesterday I wrote a post about the Hamilton parent suing the school board for its refusal to notify him when a range of topics objectionable to his beliefs was being covered in the classrooom. His intention was to withdraw his children each time topics such as marriage, environmentalism, evolution, gay people were mentioned, these subjects somehow anathema in his religious world.

Today I came across an article dealing with the consequences of giving parents too much power, as has happened in Alberta, already not the most open-minded member of our confederation:

For over a year now, parents in Alberta have had the right to compel a teacher to defend herself before a human rights tribunal for discussing topics such as gay marriage or aboriginal spirituality in the classroom.

It’s caused quite a chill — reluctance on the part of many teachers to include anything in the curriculum that might upset a parent and provide the basis for a complaint to the HRC.

The piece goes on to discuss the impact the legislation has had on education:

“Teachers started to change how they taught, with English teachers realizing they’d have to send letters home for almost any literature they studied. The quality of English education started to fall — and has continued to fall in the two years since (the legislation was passed),” [former English department head Dale] Wallace writes in a recent issue of Alberta Views Magazine.

Wallace asserts that it’s almost impossible to teach high-school English literature that doesn’t have references to sex, homosexuality or religion. Canterbury Tales has a religious theme; The Merchant of Venice includes homosexuality; Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale has sexual content as does Timothy Findley’s The Wars.

“As a result, challenging novels such as 1984 are replaced with safer ones, like Pride and Prejudice ... provocative, thoughtful films such as Apocalypse Now are replaced by films with different themes altogether, like Cast Away,” Wallace says.

I hope you will check out the entire brief article to learn of the consequences that can ensue when the intolerant are given power.

Another Reason To Be Cynical About The MSM

The implications of this are truly and deeply frightening.

The Right - Rarely Gracious, Even When In Power

One thing that I have noticed about the far right, and I think this applies both to those in the United States and in Canada, is that they have a winner-take-all attitude that rarely permits them a moment of serenity or grace. For example, even though they have largely won the battle of the airwaves, Fox News and their rabid supporters frequently grow almost apoplectic when any of their views are challenged. An examination of almost any Bill O'Reilly interview or utterance from the likes of the witless Ann Coulter offers ample confirmation of my contention.

That this affliction of spirit has permeated the Canadian political landscape is undeniable. The latest manifestation is found in Toronto City Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti who, like a prudish class monitor, videotaped the Dyke Parade this past weekend during which signs critical of Israel's treatment of Palestinians appeared. The witchhunt is now on, and, as reported in today's Star, Deputy Mayor Doug Holyday wants to examine the possibility of rescinding funding for Pride activities, and also opens the door to scrutinizing the funding of arts groups:

Holyday said art grant recipients — which are paid out of the same city fund as Pride — will also need to be scrutinized, but he isn’t sure the same rule should apply to them.

“I do think it extends to all communities, but I’d need to think a little bit more about that,” he said.

Quite an interesting position of outrage to take, given that no city official that I am aware of even raised a whimper of objection over the Islamic conference also held this past weekend which, although not publicly subsidized, saw two speakers talk about how gays would be killed in Islamic countries for their orientation.

It seems like freedom of expression in the Ford administration extends only to those whose views do not offend or threaten their personal beliefs. Or is that too harsh?