I have never asked government not to set the curriculum in public schools. In fact, I have argued many times in many places that’s preferable to banning promotion or instruction in ideas through poorly-drafted legislation. Better curriculum > poorly-drafted “anti-CRT” laws.
-
-
Replying to @DavidAFrench @ZaidJilani
That means cutting the people's representatives out of the picture, handing over power to where the voters have a much harder time supplying supervision.
5 replies 3 retweets 87 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank @ZaidJilani
That’s not quite right. Asking legislators not to pass badly-drafted bills isn’t cutting them out of the picture. And elected official (including local school boards) make curricular decisions.
3 replies 1 retweet 30 likes -
Replying to @DavidAFrench @ZaidJilani
Drafting can always be improved. The question is the legitimacy of popular oversight via legislatures. In the long run, yes, to control implementation, conservatives need to engage more in school boards. But that is not the only power source.
1 reply 2 retweets 62 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank @ZaidJilani
Of course that’s not the only power source. My objection is to the bad bills. You framed it as objecting legislative control over public schools. That is not my position. My objection is poorly-drafted punitive measures like the measures that are actually proposed.
28 replies 1 retweet 29 likes -
I read David's piece, took away from it he was acknowledging legislative power over curricula and that Title VI (and I'd add Title VII) may be answers to the worst aspects, but that current legislation is ill-fitting. And then everyone said he was arguing something else.
3 replies 0 retweets 15 likes -
The central debate isn't about federal law, it's about state law.
1 reply 0 retweets 20 likes -
Right. But I keep seeing David characterized as saying states can’t control curricula (not so much from you) and that’s not what he argued. But he can speak for himself here. I just found it bewildering.
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
I think that was strongly implied in David's essay in spite of its to-be-sures, given the broader focus on invasions of 1A rights, and I thought it important to push back against that notion because it was so widely taken away from it.pic.twitter.com/nnsWFbVMMP
2 replies 4 retweets 33 likes -
The reason why my essay swept beyond public K-12 is that the new right legal tactics have swept beyond public K-12. The Trump EO, for example. Proposals targeting colleges. All with similar provisions. But your characterization of my K-12 position as “surrender” was just wrong.
3 replies 0 retweets 6 likes
But my point is that state-level action against k-12 is a completely different topic that we should not conflate with those other things - on which I mostly agree with you. We can and should control the content of k-12 education through the political process.
-
-
And if you’d read my work more broadly you’d see that I grant that but urge a completely different course from bad panic-bills. You mischaracterized my position as “surrender” when it’s “adopt better curriculum and vigorously use existing civil rights laws to stop abuse.”
16 replies 1 retweet 11 likes -
Replying to @DavidAFrench @baseballcrank and
You also argued this should occur at the local level, which is pretty unrealistic. The only rational level to approach this is the state level and, as I said above, let's wait for rulemaking to see how these bills are implemented.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.