First, Virginia:
A tip line set up by new Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin for parents to report the teaching of "inherently divisive concepts" in the commonwealth’s public schools is triggering teachers and Democrats, according to a report...
The victory by Youngkin was fueled in part by his pledge to prevent critical race theory (CRT) from being taught in the schools. He appeared to make good on that pledge by including a CRT ban among a series of executive orders he issued soon after taking office.
Now, Colorado:
Are they both wrong? If one of them is right, which one, and why? I'd really like to solicit comments on this one.
4 comments:
Why should either be an issue?
The college is making known resources a student has if they have issues. Now, what the institution does once a student reports they are having issues is the actual issue. Counseling the individual to accept that not everyone feels as they do and has the right to free speech should be the correct course of action. Doing due diligence to ensure the 'trigger' event was an actual free speech event (as you and I define it) and not something nefarious is acceptable. But the burden of evidence must under the assumption that it was acceptable free speech.
The governor is providing a resource to parents whom might not know where to turn if something is being done they question. Again, what the institution getting the report does with the information is the issue. Proper investigation and due diligence is acceptable but overreaction is not.
Both cases are nothing more that telling people if they think they see a crime being committed they should call the police. The issue becomes how the police then handle the situation.
Yes, I can envision the nervous Nancy who is a frequent flyer to the reporting line. But again, how the institution handles it is the issue. Do they repeatedly investigate the same 'trigger' person/group (which would be a form of harassment) or do they focus on helping NNancy to cope with the real world?
My two cents.
If students are OK with funding these resources then they relinquish their right to complain about student-loan debt.
What are we supposed to do? Forgive student-loan debt then let them accrue it all over again?
My CSU tuition in the late 70's was $90 per semester. I never checked, but I'm betting only the "Dean of Students" existed back then (and most of us never even used THAT resource.)
Steve, of course you are correct.
ObieJuan: I, too--speaking as a generic taxpayer--fund these. It's not enough that students relinquish the right to complain about them, *I* do not relinquish such a right.
So I'm back to my original question about right and wrong....
I would say that providing the resources are good, BUT saying "if you are affected by a free speech event" is wrong. I like the listing of the affinity groups, but suspect that not all are listed (that is the wrong part.
Let's do a thought experiment. Two groups are having events in the same area, one pro-choice, the other pro-life. No baby pictures on either side. Suppose two students get affected, one by each side. Would the help that each gets be comparable, i.e. encouraging discussion and recognition that people can have different views. or would one event be either threatened with being shut down or shut down and the other allowed to remain. Unequal treatment is WRONG
Post a Comment