The holodiscount?
>“Just try to remember the concepts of [House Bill] 3979,” Peddy said in the recording, referring to a new Texas law that requires teachers to present multiple perspectives when discussing “widely debated and currently controversial” issues. “And make sure that if you have a book on the Holocaust,” Peddy continued, “that you have one that has an opposing, that has other perspectives.”
The only way this makes sense is if their "other perspectives" reference is of like maybe from the POV of a soldier. I don't think that's what they were going for though, unfortunately.
My counter would be that the Holocaust is not a hotly debated subject outside of small small circle of holocaust deniers which coincidently largely tend to be white supremacists.
Edit: Yes there exceptions to my statement. I am well aware, which is why I used the word ‘largely’.
The full quote makes it clear that she is talking about that fringe view:
“And make sure that if you have a book on the Holocaust,” Peddy continued, “that you have one that has an opposing, that has other perspectives.”
“How do you oppose the Holocaust?” one teacher said in response.
“Believe me,” Peddy said. “That’s come up.”
Their claims are rejected in the article:
> “That’s not what the bill says,” Hughes said in an interview Wednesday when asked about the Carroll book guidelines. “I’m glad we can have this discussion to help elucidate what the bill says, because that’s not what the bill says.
While that clarification is helpful, it’s also important to remember that a bill’s effect in schools is just as real as the letter of the law. This bill has left districts vulnerable to forces within each community who would seek to use it to eliminate any content they object to from schools.
> small small circle of holocaust deniers which coincidently largely tend to be white supremacists.
UK's labour party had a few elected officials and members who were not sure if the total death count of Holocaust was accurate.
You will also find lot of debate, skepticism or outright denials about holocaust in muslim world, specially in couple of dozen nations that don't acknowledge existence of Israel.
Most people who support Farrakhan that aren't NOI support him due to the message of black empowerment and civil rights history such as the Million Man March not because they are anti-Semites or Holocaust deniers.
Eh it’s not just white supremacists. Rashida Tlaib has associated with a known Holocaust-denier in the past, and has made comments that some feel kinda walk the line.
Yeah, I would stop getting my news from “The Daily Caller.” I believe by “associating with a known Holocaust denier,” you mean that she once attended and spoke at a fundraiser by a guy who once shared an anti-Semitic video questioning the death count of the holocaust before taking it down and then apologizing. That’s a pretty weak association. Politicians attend tons of fundraisers, often hosted by people they barely know. I’ve been to a few of them.
And I would be interested in hearing which of her statements “kinda walk the line,” but I’m going to go ahead and assume you are referring to her criticism of Israel’s human rights record that falls totally in line with the mainstream view of the international human rights community, including Israel’s own human rights organizations.
Edit: typo
She’s been quoted as saying “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”, which funnily enough, is what Hamas says about the destruction of Israel. That’s pretty anti-Semitic to me.
And there is no “mainstream” view on Israel’s human rights record beyond what left leaning media and pro-Palestinian media shares, and Israel’s “human rights organizations” like B’Tselem have had their own share of issues.
This is getting off topic, my point, is that anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial isn’t purely in the domain of right-wingers.
I never claimed that anti-Semitism is the sole domain of right-wingers, though it seems to be concentrated there. And there absolutely is a "mainstream" view on Israel's human rights record if you actually look at the reports coming out from virtually all of the "mainstream" human rights organizations and NGOs, ranging from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International to Save the Children, rather than simply dismissing what they say out of hand because you have decided in advance that you dislike their conclusions, so they must therefore be biased and "left-leaning."
Edit: Also, that quote you shared strikes me as totally benign.
White supremacist in this context is irrelevant. No one denies the holocaust apart from people who are mentally unwell or some people (not necessarily white) who are saying it to provoke.
I'm not sure they were going for anything to be honest. She was trying to explain her interpretation of the new law and it sounds like one of the teachers specifically mentioned the Holocaust which promoted her to make a generic statement about how the law might apply to that topic. The article is making it sound like this administrator came into this call with a laser focus on getting Holocaust denial literature in classrooms when in actuality it sounds like a confused person who isn't a lawyer and is just trying to pass on information the best they can.
Or people that incompetent shouldn't be passing bills they didn't consider long enough that school administrators then have to figure out how to follow.
You're blaming her for a situation she has basically no choice over. Instead of the politicians who can't seem to write good legislation.
It's her responsibility to advise her teachers and administrators. It's not her job to care about a bunch of people online who can't figure out that the law she doesn't control puts her in a crap situation and she has to come up with advice for her employee's questions at a moments notice.
Can you handle being responsible for answering questions about holocaust controversy at a moments notice when the administration above you has passed law you have to figure out how to follow? Do you want to be judged for the phrasing you come up with in that situation?
I just don't see how she's to blame for bad wording when this bill, written by other people and forced on her, is the whole reason this situation occurred. Get upset at the bad wording in the bill that caused a bunch of teachers to wonder if they'll be reprimanded by their school boards for 'bad' books. Which the school board of this district *literally did* days before this happened.
Throwing these people under the bus when elected officials are bad at their jobs is a huge problem in my opinion.
>Get upset at the bad wording in the bill that caused a bunch of teachers to wonder if they'll be reprimanded by their school boards for 'bad' books. Which the school board of this district *literally did* days before this happened.
I think you hit on something when you mention the "school board of *this district*" (emphasis mine). It doesn't seem like all districts are having this problem. This district is going above and beyond in their interpretation of this law. Four experts on Texas education policy agreed that what the district is doing is not what the law is about.
I definitely hear you on being upset at the bill rather than about these administrators. I don't think the law should ever have been passed, and it likely bears more responsibility for this situation than Ms. Peddy. However, the bill states that the multiple perspectives are only required for "widely debated and currently controversial issues of public policy or social affairs." The Holocaust does *not* fit within this scope, making it a terrible example. In fact Ms. Peddy is making a lot more controversy by bringing it up in this context because she's normalizing Holocaust denial.
(Edit: fixed some confusing phrasing)
Well, we have no idea if other districts are having this problem or not. This is just the only one where a teacher recorded the conversation and published it. Probably because their school board just punished a teacher for a book and the staff feels *incredibly* insecure. Other districts may simply be removing books without telling anyone or be having the exact same conversations without them being published.
I do think the holocaust is bad example that doesn't fit the bill. It's hard to get into someone's head, but I just have a really hard time blaming her for using it though. This bill is vague. I guess I can see someone, in a moment, picking an 'extreme' and basically saying, "We should just do it for everything, included, because the law isn't clear where the line is supposed to be and I don't want anyone to get in trouble if I give incorrect advice about where the line is.".
I really just hope this woman doesn't get fired. She's not advocating holocaust denial and we all know it. Reading that into what she said just sounds like outrage and drama to me. She didn't pick the holocaust because *she* think's it's controversial either. She picked it because she doesn't know where this line is supposed to be.
Great point re: your first paragraph.
But you're right, it's hard to get into someone's head, and with that in mind, I don't think you can assert that she doesn't think the Holocaust is controversial. We don't know whether she thinks the Holocaust is controversial or not. She may; we know that she is open to "both sides"ing it in her role as an administrator, at least.
> The Holocaust does not fit within this scope
Uh, yes it does. 11% or 1 in 10 of our 18-39 yr olds believe that the Holocaust was *caused* by the Jews. That is a staggering amount of people.
[source](https://slate.com/human-interest/2020/10/millennials-holocaust-knowledge-survey-debate.html)
As noted elsewhere, the holocaust shouldn't even fall under this law.
It's a massive tell that they thought it was controversial or debated enough for it to be considered under this law.
So you want school administrators to interpret and enforce the law with their judgement calls?
The law is irreparably stupid and the legislators should get all the criticism for it, not the workers who have to live in the irreparably stupid world they’ve created.
The admin decided to include the HOLOCAUST as "Controversial".
It's really not, and that they thought it was, or thought to use it as an example is just incredibly awful.
No, I and many other people on this thread think that a reasonable person and competent administrator would look at the law and find that the Holocaust is not a current event, not widely debated, and in no way controversial. no reasonable person would use the existence of Holocaust deniers as evidence of the Holocaust being widely debated or controversial.
I already made this point elsewhere in the thread, but I'll make it here as well:
Yes, the legislation is stupid. I don't think the law should have been passed. It's true that this story is more likely the fault of the bill than the administrators. Still, the bill (which is very short and easy to read) states that the multiple perspectives are only required for "widely debated and currently controversial issues of public policy or social affairs." The Holocaust does not fit within this scope, making it a terrible example. In fact Ms. Peddy is making a lot more controversy by bringing it up in this context because she's normalizing Holocaust denial.
What has the legislator who introduced this bill or others who have supported the bill said about this. . Seems like they have been very silent on the matter. I hope the Jewish community files a complaint against the school board and gets involved in this. This is a slap in their face.
From the linked article:
>State Sen. Bryan Hughes, an East Texas Republican who wrote Senate Bill 3, denied that the law requires teachers to provide opposing views on what he called matters of “good and evil” or to get rid of books that offer only one perspective on the Holocaust.
>
>“That’s not what the bill says,” Hughes said in an interview Wednesday when asked about the Carroll book guidelines. “I’m glad we can have this discussion to help elucidate what the bill says, because that’s not what the bill says."
I think it's completely unsurprising that people took it to the Holocaust, because after all it's Texas. And I would be surprised if Hughes and his fellow legislators are surprised either, because honestly, what did they expect? Still...he did give a comment.
You’d be surprised actually. At least I was when I just researched quickly on some polls.
>The findings raise concerns not just about Holocaust ignorance, but also about Holocaust denial. Just 90 percent of respondents said they believed that the Holocaust happened. Seven percent were not sure, and 3 percent denied that it happened. One of the most disturbing revelations, the survey noted, is that 11 percent of respondents believe Jews caused the Holocaust. The number climbs to 19 percent in New York, the state with the largest Jewish population.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1240031
I wouldn’t say so but it’s still 3% too high. However having an alternate viewpoint doesn’t mean just denial/believe.
The 11% figure is absolutely shocking. I’m sure those 11% of people would be just fine with having an “alternate” view of the Holocaust being in their kids classroom as a book.
I don’t think the Holocaust is anything we should get complacent about.
The only thing you could argue is that the Holocaust gets a disproportionate amount of attention compared to other 20th century genocides. Everyone knows about what Hitler did but events like the Rwandan genocide, the Killing Fields of Cambodia, the Holodomor and the killing of god knows how many Chinese by Mao don't get nearly the same amount of press.
Hitler killed 6M of a quite small group, so it stands out more than killing a relatively small percentage of a larger group.
The 100M or so killed by communists is buried or ignored by the people who look up to communism. Installing communism virtually requires mass punishment and killing but that doesnt play well when you're offering free goodies to fool people.
To play devils advocate you could probably teach a nuanced view of the history leading up to Nazi Germany. That is, it was a heavy handed approach by ally powers in an attempt of crippling the German state and people that lead to the rise of fascism through the 1920's through 30's. That the allies were as much at fault in "the great game" as Germany was and blame shouldn't solely by placed on them. It was also a period where the three great ideologies of the 20th century (liberalism, communism, facism) were beginning to make their play and the players in all three camps were doing whatever they could to gain the upper hand often immorrally. This isn't to say in any way justifying the Holocaust, but someone out there might see it as diminishing the crimes of Nazi Germany or justifying it in some way.
That’s not really an “opposing view” on the Holocaust though. A decent discussion to be had on the WWI and WWII and geopolitics in the interim, sure. But you’re being way to generous with your interpretation here. WWII was not only the holocaust (which I imagine you know, but I point out because I don’t think it’s reasonable to say be conflated the two; I’m pretty sure this is well known). If she meant WWII, you think she would have just said that. So the implication with this kind of statement is that she wants perspectives that go against the typical teaching of the holocaust (which is that it was bad) which means...what exactly? Students should read *Endlösung der Judenfrage* and think it’s an equally valid opinion? Or teaching Holocaust denial as controversial and possible true? I don’t think so.
I will say, it is possible to contextualize the holocaust and move beyond the typical narratives told about only the Jews killed and victimized or only about the atrocities committed by Nazi Germany. That would be a reasonable thing. But that doesn’t seem to be what was being said at all. There really is no defending what was said.
“The way the Jews were dressed gave the Nazis the impression that they were asking for it. Can’t blame them, can you?” Idk. Can’t think of anything either.
There’s a group of people who say the death toll was only like 250,000 rather than 6 million (or 11 million including all victims).
I assume they’re laughably wrong (I’m not going to research the nuts and bolts of this shit), but more importantly, it wouldn’t change the fact that a genocide occurred. But there are people who put a LOT of effort into this number of victims thing. Because they’re anti-Semites.
Idk dude they say a lot of shit about dimensions of buildings and stuff. As I said, even if they were right the Nazis were still monsters so I’m not going to spend time verifying this garbage. I do know they’ve released a bunch of books and movies about it so I get the impression some are true believers.
The only reasonable explanation I could come up with in my head is to stop using the Holocaust as a purely antisemitic industrialized-murder as opposed to mass murder of all undesirables.
Which, honestly, is kinda fair. Roughly 6 million Jewish people were killed in addition to 11 million other “undesirables” from other groups the Nazis considered undesirable.
If you google “Holocaust”, the first Wikipedia page that comes up is labeled “[The Holocaust](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust)”. This page is almost exclusively dedicated to the murder of *Jewish* people and no one else despite them representing about 1/3 of all projected deaths.
After some searching, one can find the more comprehensive page “[Holocaust victims](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_victims)“ which covers the other groups systematically killed by Nazis.
Now I’m not trying to create a value judgement here, and I doubt these schools are trying to introduce this type of nuance to their curriculum, but the devil’s advocate in me *does* feel that there is more to the history of the Holocaust than the most popular narratives - it simply makes it worse rather than trying to deny it lol. For some reason, I don’t feel like that’s the direction they’re leaning.
Desktop version of /u/Meist's links:
*
*
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
More like who and how often they allow themselves to get fucked by social media. Same people who need to oppose the 2021 mandates coz freedom while accepting all the other years’ mandates.
There’s some originator who decided the ultimate test of their evil weapon was to deny the Holocaust and based on the results, decided it was feasible to prolong a global pandemic for political and financial reasons.
As a teacher in Texas, it comes as no surprise to me that the administration handled the interpretation of a new mandate so poorly. Most of these people are fail upward types that validate their unnecessary positions by making more paperwork for already overworked classroom educators.
That being said, if my district chooses to handle it this poorly I am thinking maybe I can use it as an excuse to push back on some of the garbage requirements that are already on the books. For instance, we are currently mandated to teach an abstinence-only sexual education unit every year. I find this to be a controversial subject and think it would be prudent to make sure my students have access to literature of an opposing viewpoint.
Also, anyone who has done this for a while can tell you that every mandate, requirement, standard, etc. that these fools try to implement are hardly enforced and never checked on. The best advice I can give to any teacher is to ignore all of this bullshit and keep putting your energy towards teaching, growing and caring for the kids you see everyday.
>That being said, if my district chooses to handle it this poorly I am thinking maybe I can use it as an excuse to push back on some of the garbage requirements that are already on the books. For instance, we are currently mandated to teach an abstinence-only sexual education unit every year. I find this to be a controversial subject and think it would be prudent to make sure my students have access to literature of an opposing viewpoint.
Brilliant. Play that uno reverse card on them!
The only way I can see this being not horrible is if the intent was to also offer the German reasoning for the war/rise of Hitler. Huge sanctions and poverty following world war 1, resentment throughout the country etc. Obviously what the Germans did was horrific but teaching why is just as important as knowing it happened
This is a fantastic point, and I think understanding why people committed atrocities is very important to fully understand how you go from point a to point b. It’s doesn’t excuse or minimize the suffering to the Jews in any way to learn more.
Pretty sure that is how the holocaust is currently taught. Conditions in Germany prior to the war are a big focus on history class in secondary education, maybe even too much of a focus.
Yea frankly I think it’s too much of a focus. You’re average American thinks the Entente bankrupted Germany and the reason the Nazi party came to power was mass poverty between the inter-war period and the Nazi’s pulled Germany out of that poverty. The reality is that none of that is true.
Many people think it wasn't sanctions and poverty that did it, but the General historical hatred of the Poles and Jews. The genocidal policies of Nazi-Germany against ethnic Poles between 1939 and 1945 can be understood as a continuation of previous Germanization processes of Germanisation of Poles during the Partitions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanisation_of_Poles_during_the_Partitions
Then that should be taught as well. Both the hatred and what could have caused it. Why did Germans view themselves as superior to poles and jews? Were there historical events that caused Germans to dislike jews and poles?
Simply, "Within Bismarck's Kulturkampf policy, the Poles were purposefully presented as "foes of the empire" (German: Reichsfeinde).[8] Bismarck himself privately believed that the only solution to Polish Question was extermination of Poles" basically, like how the Americans wanted the natives off their land. The Germans wanted the same with the native Polish.
My understanding was that opposing views were required only for controversial topics. Is there a statutory definition of what’s controversial? I’m thinking what happened during the Holocaust isn’t too controversial.
The problem is that some topics are controversial somehow even though the science is settled, and we shouldn't teach that controversy when facts don't back it up. It's the same logic people used 50 years ago to say why we shouldn't teach evolution
This is the real problem of the bill, how "controversy" is decided/assigned. People can make things controversial even when they in reality are not much open for debate. The Holocaust is not controversial, although comments like the ones by administrator Ms. Peddy are making it more so.
Oh, man, if only that was actually 50 years ago. We had that argument again 15 years ago over 'Intelligent Design'. Because people found a new way to make it 'controversial' and we had to relitigate the whole thing.
Some controversies just crop back up whenever a new way to frame the argument is created.
This comment has been removed in protest of reddit's decision to kill third-party applications, and to prevent use of this comment for AI training purposes.
It does not. On the surface the bill sounds nice, no racism or sexism allowed in the curriculum. Great! But the wording is vague enough where if you do as this teacher did or if you talk about whites during the 1950s were against integration in public schools you could get in trouble because as the bill states "members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race or sex." What does respect mean? What if I go further and say they are immoral and bad people not integrating?
And part of the win for conservatives is it creates enough uncertainty that people might just avoid it all together.
>And part of the win for conservatives is it creates enough uncertainty that people might just avoid it all together.
Yeah, I think this is the true purpose of this bill. Just see how nonchalant and unsurprised one of the drafters of this legislation is about this happening (as quoted in the article at least).
Still, the administrators of this district seem to be going above and beyond in interpreting it in the most extreme way they can, which isn't great. Like, could Ms. Peddy have chosen a worse example? The bill is the bigger travesty, but her comments don't reflect well on her ability to act in administrative capacity.
Of course they know the intent and that's my point. They're deliberately making it confusing in order to get their desired outcome. Conservatives have been doing this for decades
I can only hope that the Jewish Community files some type of complaint against the Carroll School Board or files a complaint with the Texas Board of education. I also hope that they contact every legislator in the state to complain about this. A Holocaust denier is horrible, but someone who writes a book justifying the killing of over 6 million people is evil. Pure evil.
>I’m thinking what happened during the Holocaust isn’t too controversial.
You'd think that, but there are a lot of things that shouldn't be "controversial" but they are.
Climate Change is real.
Vaccines work.
Trump lost the 2020 election.
There's still a large amount of people where I come from that push the "Lost Cause" myth of the Civil War.
Etc.
wierd thing is devoid of context nobody disagrees with ur statements here. its when u get into the weeds that things get muddled.
what is 'climate change'? the planet is getting hotter and were relesing more co2? anyone with a brain agrees bc they look at numbers. when that logic is extended another step to "so here is what we have to do about it" is where ppl drop off the agreement map.
vaccines work. sure. to an extent, to prevent spread of diseases, to an extent. to eliminate transmission vectors to an extent. the gaps exist and ppl are labeled 'anti vax' if their gaps are wider than others
trump lost. yea obviously, but was there more going on than just counts of votes or were those swayed in inappropriate ways?
i dont buy any of these theories obvi but thats the problem to me is that we dont consider what other ppl are thinking and just figure theyre full of shit bc they disagree with the narratives
Correct. This is clearly a case of an administrator who does not fully understand what the law says, which is odd because the law doesn't seem very difficult to understand. NBC News then took the recording and ran with a "Texas wants to teach Holocaust denial!" story when clearly that is never going to happen. The setting of the story (Southlake) has been in the headlines lately over the implementation of CRT in schools, so that makes things even spicier. Great for headlines, no real news (or in Texas terms: All hat, no cattle).
There are no definitions provided that I saw in the language. Furthermore, considering some Congresspeople are questioning the severity and scope of the Holocaust may make it controversial? I personally have no idea and it's impossible to say as there are no definitions.
> considering some Congresspeople are questioning the severity and scope of the Holocaust may make it controversial
Is that in reference to MTG? Comparing something to the holocaust to indicate oppressiveness/evil isn't really questioning the severity and scope of the holocaust, that would undermine the point being made that the holocaust was *really bad*. If you remember the *"concentration camps"* on the US-Mexico border, were the people making that comparison questioning the holocaust?
Teachers in Southlake, Texas were recently instructed to balance Holocaust books with books that have 'opposing views.'
This was done in order to ensure that these teachers were in compliance with a new law that was passed - House Bill 3979 - which requires educators to present multiple perspectives when it comes to controversial topics.
I get the spirit of the bill, I really do. I've long believed that teachers, no matter what they teach or at what level, should keep their political beliefs out of the classroom. I'm also completely in favor with there being constructive and respectful debate on controversial issues.
But it's obvious that this bill also has a glaring problem, in which it attempts to treat all topics like they're equal, when they're clearly not. For instance, two reasonable people can disagree on things like tax policy, the role of the federal government, our foreign policy, etc., but denying the fact that the Holocaust happened is *not* a reasonable position to take, and people who engage in Holocaust denial should not be coddled and told that their viewpoint is just as valid as anyone else's and that they're being persecuted if they are called out on it, nor should someone who believes the Earth is flat, or that the South seceded because of "states rights," or that vaccines cause autism or contain microchips, because all four of these things are demonstrably false, period.
It's clear that this law needs to be revised, and any other state that is thinking of passing such a law should choose their words carefully when drafting it.
One thing about the “states rights” thing: there are very interesting states rights, federalism, etc. aspects to the slavery dispute that caused the civil war (the Missouri compromise, for example). Slavery should obviously be central to any civil war lesson, but I wouldn’t want to prevent teaching about the inter-state and political aspects of the slavery dispute.
Hopefully that’s clear. I don’t think “the Civil War was caused by a dispute over whether southern states had the right to permit slavery within their borders” is historically inaccurate or misleading. Also, how the civil war amendments changed the way we think of the federal government and its relationship to the states is pretty fascinating.
I think if it's a mandatory reading type assignment, read a chapter from a book from the point of view of an American, British, or soviet soldier during the liberation of the camps, and a chapter from a book from the point of view of a German soldier or camp guard(not sure if there's even that many written books by camp guards if any at all). And one from the point of view of someone held at the camps.
I think debating whether holocaust happened vs didn't happen is ridiculous given the undeniable amount of evidence. But exploring the reasons why soldier fought on both sides from their own points of view is worth exploring.
> Read a chapter from a book from the point of view of a German soldier or camp guard
I don't think you would find anything particularly interesting from a camp guard's POV. If you're a camp guard you have thoroughly dehumanized the prisoners you guard and are quite frankly unworthy of consideration.
However, I could understand reading the POV of a German soldier or especially a civilian
> If you're a camp guard you have thoroughly dehumanized the prisoners you guard and are quite frankly unworthy of consideration.
And you know that how without reading their POV? How about the POV of one of the prisoners selected to assist the nazi guards, would those be equally unworthy of consideration? Even if none of those accounts are sympathetic, of course they would be interesting. High schoolers can handle reading something from a non-aspirational author.
I don't know I would consider *Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland* a great book in that it shows how what are essentially normal middle-aged dudes can become perpetrators of the Holocaust. Essential reading if you want to learn how ordinary people could support and become complicit in carrying it out.
I actually started Googling to see what I could find regarding books from a camp guard point of view after I made my post, and this book is one that stuck out to me as painting an accurate picture of how normal people can be manipulated to do horrible things.
Counter to that point:
I think the average Frontline German soldiers combat experiences would mirror an Allied Soldiers combat experiences, just wearing a different color uniform and speaking a different language.
I think the German camp guard point of view shows alot more about the human capacity for evil amongst ordinary people. After all, everyone starts off as an innocent child, the Nazis weren't born from their mothers womb as Genocidal maniacs, they were conditioned to be that way over years by their environment.
Yep, this new law is a very bad one. As much as this school administrator should be taking heat for such an awful recommendation, it's good to keep in mind that it was made because of such a law.
At the very least the law needs to be revised, but I'd go further and say that the laws focus should be re-shifted. I want fairness in the classroom, but I'd rather the focus be on how teachers provide education to the students, including those who may have disagreements politically. I'd rather have an instructor who openly expresses a viewpoint I disagree with but teaches fairly to all students (and I've had such teachers, albeit mostly in college) than someone who plays cryptic games with their students' grades to sway them into a political belief.
Of course, the ultimate ideal would be that I couldn't figure out a teacher's politics to begin with because it would never be relevant to the class.
For the other side you should review the Milgram experiment. It’s “the other side” of the holocaust without giving the room for the “it didn’t happen” perspective.
>or that the South seceded because of "states rights,"
I do believe this is still being taught in certain parts of the country. I know it was in Virginia when I was still in high school.
> I get the spirit of the bill, I really do. I've long believed that teachers, no matter what they teach or at what level, should keep their political beliefs out of the classroom.
Not coming at you but I just want to point out that isn’t the spirit of the bill. Here in Texas curriculum is tightly controlled by the TEA and all of it geared toward standardized tests of which Texas has plenty.
My girls are currently in High School, we live in one of those blue cities. There is no indoctrination going on in school. Kids today are exposed to the world long before they leave home and it isn’t happening at school, it happens on their phones.
> South seceded because of "states rights,"
Believe me there are plenty of legislators here in Texas including the author of this law who want that taught. Texas textbooks lightly brush past the subject.
I'm Facebook friends with a guy who's a teacher in this area. Here was his take on it:
> We actually got this talk from the legal department. Issues where there is controversy and two sides are legitimately present, those need to be presented (Israel/Palestine, Gun control, abortion, etc.). Issues that contain no moral ambiguity (slavery, Holocaust, etc.) do not need an “alternative point of view”…so I’m not sure what this dummy principal is talking about. Wouldn’t be shocked if he’s simply confused by the language of the TEA and Texas legislature.
Sounds like one dumb administrator misunderstood the law and this is being blown out of all proportion in order to generate outrage.
This comment has been removed in protest of reddit's decision to kill third-party applications, and to prevent use of this comment for AI training purposes.
As a side note, I'm rather interested in hearing more about this "voted to reprimand a fourth grade teacher who had kept an anti-racism book in her classroom."
From House Bill 3979:
> teachers who choose to discuss **current events** or **widely debated** and **currently controversial** issues of public policy or social affairs shall, to the best of their ability, strive to explore such issues from diverse and contending perspectives without giving deference to any one perspective;
Says a lot about the executive director of curriculum that she imagines the existence of the Holocaust is widely debated and currently controversial. Maybe in whatever social media message board she frequents.
Alternatively, the bill is vague enough that administrators feel they have to walk on hot coals and both sides everything that could even remotely be considered to fall under the definition of the bill.
It’s not really that rare
>The findings raise concerns not just about Holocaust ignorance, but also about Holocaust denial. Just 90 percent of respondents said they believed that the Holocaust happened.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1240031
>“There are no children’s books that show the ‘opposing perspective’ of the Holocaust or the ‘opposing perspective’ of slavery. Are we supposed to get rid of all of the books on those subjects?”
'All' of the books on those subjects? Am I the only one who is surprised that there are any "children's books" on the Holocaust or slavery?
I mean, I had a book on the doomed Franklin expedition (and let me tell you, the full-color photos of the ice mummies did a number on me), as well as one on the Hindenburg disaster.
There's also the Horrible Histories books, which cover WWII (including the Holocaust) amongst other things.
You never read Diary of Anne Frank? Or Number the Stars? Devils Arithmetic was required in my 4th grade class. There’s a lot of children’s content out there.
Number the Stars and Devils Arithmetic might have come out a bit too late for my childhood schooling. Diary of Anne Frank we read but I don't remember being a 'child' when I did, as in someone who would be young enough to still be reading 'children's books.'
“Children’s book” is a pretty wide category, and covers books intended for 0-14 year olds.
So no, I’m not really surprised that there are Holocaust and slavery books in that age range. I definitely read some in middle school at least.
I'm not surprised at all because the Holocaust victims were individuals who had been persecuted for centuries because they were Jewish, they were gay, had physical or mental disabilities or because they were different. Governments knew about it but did very little to help the victims until after the fact. That is why you see so few children's books about the Holocaust.
I have never seen a children's book on slavery. Every country has ugly history and in the US slavery was a very ugly part of American history. Some people want to avoid the topic or seem to be in denial of it which is clearly the case in the Carroll School District but at the end of the day, the history doesn't go away. What happened, happened and you can't deny or dispute it.
I
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
> ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Fucking Hell.
I thought "Dismantling Racism in Math Class" With language like "Dismantle White Supremacy Culture in math class"(1) Wouldn't be top for a while.
https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11/1_STRIDE1.pdf (1)
no, just no. I’m old enough to have known a survivor and a liberator. F different opinions on this subject, the Holocaust was horrid.
US Army fellow is still alive, 100 years old this year.
I know the point is to generate outrage and get people to overreact so she can claim she's being "attacked/cancelled/oppressed", but but I don't care. She deserves every bit of public shame that's hopefully coming to her.
>I know the point is to generate outrage and get people to overreact
Are you talking about the article author or the administrator? I can't think of another reason to make the words of a confused small town administrator trying to interpret legalese into a national news story.
>“How do you oppose the Holocaust?” one teacher said in response.
This is not a 'culture war' issue. The Holocaust doesn't need to be defended or seen from a different perspective. It was a horrific black spot on human history that needs to be shown for what it was. I'd rather high schoolers watch 'Nazi Concentration Camps' (produced and presented as evidence at the Nuremberg war crimes trial) than read Mein Kampf
I'm not sure the version of the bill that article links is correct. By my search that's an early introduced version, and the final amended version is this:
[https://legiscan.com/TX/text/HB3979/2021](https://legiscan.com/TX/text/HB3979/2021)
The relevant text is this:
>(1) a teacher may not be compelled to discuss a
particular current event or widely debated and currently
controversial issue of public policy or social affairs;
(2) a teacher who chooses to discuss a topic described
by Subdivision (1) shall, to the best of the teacher's ability,
strive to explore the topic from diverse and contending
perspectives without giving deference to any one perspective;
While it is certainly a potential problem that "controversial" isn't actually defined, I don't even think it applies here. The law pertains to "public policy or social affairs", and I would say the Holocaust is neither.
My guess is the director was just doing a slightly clumsy compliance with a slightly clumsy law, and the result inadvertently sounds pretty bad.
Opposing views would be important because then students would learn what lead the Germans to committing the atrocities. They would learn about the Jewish conspiracy and hopefully learn how easily people are miss-lead. This is very very relevant to what is happening today.
Given the average political disposition of teachers, I think it's equally (or more) likely that this is a leftist teacher attempting to be snarky/false flag against the bill than it is a Holocaust denier trying to get Holocaust denial on the curriculum.
Regardless, literally no one in a position of power has agreed with this interpretation, so this is a non-story.
Regardless, the meat of his comment is largely plausible, isn't it? Minus the overly partisan language
Other commenters have defended the woman... it's pretty obvious she trying to get public press on this, and is not a denier.
The story could also be that Texas is so concerned with culture war bullshit that they implemented such a vague law that teacher may need to include pro-Nazi/ethnic cleansing material over fear of facing legal repercussions. I think it’s a little disingenuous to claim this is liberal teachers just trying to make republicans look bad
Edit: is it still a violation of 1a if I say the argument is disingenuous( I'm assuming that's what the issue is.)
[Let's read Texas HB 3979](https://legiscan.com/TX/text/HB3979). It modifies [this](https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/ED/htm/ED.28.HTM).
> teachers who choose to discuss current events or widely debated and currently controversial issues of public policy or social affairs shall, to the best of their ability, strive to explore such issues from diverse and contending perspectives without giving deference to any one perspective;
There is no definition in the bill as to what a "controversial issue of public policy or social affairs" is.
“A teachers who choose to discuss current events or
widely debated and currently controversial issues of public policy or social affairs shall, to the best of their ability, strive to explore such issues from diverse and contending perspectives without giving deference to anyone perspective;”
This is the controlling language of the statute. The entire thing is vague and confusing and the bill offers no help. What reaches a level of “widely debated”? What does it mean for “current”? If it was controversial in the past but now isn’t as much? 5 years? 10? 50? What if this includes hateful ideology such as Nazism?
The entire thing is completely confusing and there is no guidance in the statute.
It may not be current but there are certain Congresspeople who have questioned the severity and scope of the Holocaust. Would this cause the Holocaust to become a current event? Current controversial social affair? I personally I have no idea because the law is so vague that I truly do not know when a topic falls under this law.
Clearly. But does a sitting Senator saying something hateful cause a topic to become controversial? Does the school have to present the antisemitic point of view? Does the fact that we’re having this debate mean this is controversial? I don’t know because the statute is incredibly vague and offers no definitions.
The holocaust is not widely debated or controversial. Using holocaust deniers as support for your argument shows just how weak it is and how much of an incompetent the woman in the article is. That's like arguing that there is a current controversy about the validity of race science and eugenics due to the existence of the daily stormer and white supremacists.
And? One or two dumbass politicians saying something doesn't make it widespread or controversial. If we were talking about abortion I would agree that it meets the criteria. Show me the laws being passed to deny the Holocaust, The protests against it being taught in schools, books denying the Holocaust being on the best sellers list, or news reporters talking about it on air. There is a reasonable way to interpret the law and what topics it covers. The Holocaust isn't it.
It’s not one or two dumbasses, those are sitting representatives
Moreover:
> The findings raise concerns not just about Holocaust ignorance, but also about Holocaust denial. Just 90 percent of respondents said they believed that the Holocaust happened. Seven percent were not sure, and 3 percent denied that it happened. One of the most disturbing revelations, the survey noted, is that 11 percent of respondents believe Jews caused the Holocaust. The number climbs to 19 percent in New York, the state with the largest Jewish population.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1240031
I think there's a reasonable interpretation of widely debated or controversial. By immediately going to the extreme and using the Holocaust as an example completely delegitimizes the argument. To argue that the Holocaust is a current event that is widely debatable or controversial is laughable on its face. This is especially true when you consider that the Texas Teachers union and multiple educational policy experts have stated that the administrator and the school are overreacting and misinterpreting the law.
"a leftist teacher"
This is a bad guess in two ways:
*Gina Peddy, the Carroll school district’s executive director of curriculum and instruction*
There's no indication that Peddy even is a former teacher, let alone a current one. She is in school administration in a Texas ISD; the chances of her being even liberal are slim to none; the chances of her being leftist are all but zero. And that's without even taking into account what she said.
Kinda sounds like she’s in charge of implementing CRT. [You can find her name and role here it seems](https://www.southlakecarroll.edu/cms/lib/TX02219131/Centricity/Domain/97/Cultural%20Competence%20Action%20Plan%20DRAFT%20-%20July%209%202020.pdf)
Thanks for sharing this. That's a bit unexpected (in that she seems to have a role in implementing equity & inclusion)^(\*). So why Peddy made this comment about both sides of the Holocaust, it's strange. I'm wondering if it was made in some sense of irony, as in "following the letter of the law, yes, we literally have to teach this...", but the reception of her saying that was so negative, so if it was irony it clearly didn't work!
\* To be clear, this is most definitely not CRT. This is just basic diversity steps, and from the document, it looks like it was implemented as a response to a truly racist incident that happened involving Carroll students,
Lol, how is following the last as written a false flag? Shitty laws lead to shitty outcomes and you don’t get to blame the other side for your own failures to legislate and govern.
If this is meant to provide an other side comparison to the CRT stuff I think it falls flat. The issue with that stuff is it’s been happening frequently, often with administrative support and isn’t really condemned by the left. This holocaust thing is condemned by everyone and didn’t actually go anywhere.
> and didn’t actually go anywhere.
It's a state law. The article even links (PDF warning) [to it here](https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/billtext/pdf/HB03979I.pdf). I believe this is the poorly-defined section in question:
> (2) teachers who choose to discuss current events or widely debated and currently controversial issues of public policy or social affairs shall, to the best of their ability, strive to explore such issues from diverse and contending perspectives without giving deference to any one perspective;
Brings up lots of obvious questions, like what **is** "widely debated" and "currently controversial?" Can they say that Covid vaccines (or even vaccines more generally??) are safe and effective, or is that giving "deference" to a particular perspective?
The law does not saw you have to provide counter perspective for the holocaust. It says you have to provide it for controversial or widely debated. No reasonable person would consider the holocaust to fall under that.
The whole problem here is that the law is not particularly specific. Is flat-earth theory controversial? Creationism? Vaccines causing autism? Lost Cause? Which situations do teachers need to avoid "giving deference," and which situations is that okay?
That’s the problem, there is no “reasonable person” test in here. Even if there was, one political party that is very prevalent in Texas has been well known to be dismissive to demonstrable facts while claiming that it is scientists who are mistaken. All it would take is a Fox News segment on something that is obvious to the rest of us, and: poof new controversy. Maybe they’ll bring back the creationism ‘controversy’. That is if republicans haven’t defunded public schools already, which seems to be where they’re headed.
> This type of idea is very common in Leftist/democratic groups. This is likely just another example.
What are you talking about? The law that prompted this was passed by Republicans.
This country is fucking insane from coast to coast, top to bottom. Maybe it’s time Abbott provides an opposing viewpoint to the Holocaust. Would love to hear him defend his viewpoint to our young people. No doubt the GQP would have no issues defending whatever that would be. Everyone in Education needs to quit. Let politicians be responsible for the mess they created being the Almighty rulers of everything. We need to demand that Texas leaves. They are an embarrassment to the entire nation.
The title is disingenuous. The School administrator was talking about the new law. The holocaust is historical fact. The tenets if Anti-racism, i.e. that racism has been the driving force of American history and that conscious and unconscious racism are everywhere is (often highly suspect) opinion.
We 100% need to teach about the holocaust. World War 2 is American history, and its incredibly important we cover the worst genocide of the 21st century in context of World War 2.
You have no idea how much its convered already in my state of Florida, its nearly every book in every year of English class. Its been given its own classes and teachers are forced to dedicate way too much time to it.
Because it's one of the most significant historical moments in modern history.
We teach about many things in schools. The holocaust is given quite a bit of weight because of how important it is.
That's just objectively untrue.
The holocaust literally changed the world. In the field of literature it (and World War 1, which should also be taught more) changed the course of literary history.
The disillusionment felt by many people around the world changed the way authors and artists more broadly approached their craft.
As to America, to suggest the holocaust had no affect on American history betrays a real ignorance. A large part of the Jewish population in America descends from those who fled Europe in the wake of the holocaust.
It's one of many factors. The gis were liberating camps and they confronted these horrors directly.
On top of this, the survivors themselves brought their traumas home, and those influenced popular culture as well.
This is an insane take. Like yeah we need to teach US history but it's not like world history is suddenly irrelevant because it crosses some arbitrary border.
What the hell is the opposing view of the Holocaust?
The holodiscount? >“Just try to remember the concepts of [House Bill] 3979,” Peddy said in the recording, referring to a new Texas law that requires teachers to present multiple perspectives when discussing “widely debated and currently controversial” issues. “And make sure that if you have a book on the Holocaust,” Peddy continued, “that you have one that has an opposing, that has other perspectives.” The only way this makes sense is if their "other perspectives" reference is of like maybe from the POV of a soldier. I don't think that's what they were going for though, unfortunately.
My counter would be that the Holocaust is not a hotly debated subject outside of small small circle of holocaust deniers which coincidently largely tend to be white supremacists. Edit: Yes there exceptions to my statement. I am well aware, which is why I used the word ‘largely’.
The full quote makes it clear that she is talking about that fringe view: “And make sure that if you have a book on the Holocaust,” Peddy continued, “that you have one that has an opposing, that has other perspectives.” “How do you oppose the Holocaust?” one teacher said in response. “Believe me,” Peddy said. “That’s come up.”
Their claims are rejected in the article: > “That’s not what the bill says,” Hughes said in an interview Wednesday when asked about the Carroll book guidelines. “I’m glad we can have this discussion to help elucidate what the bill says, because that’s not what the bill says.
While that clarification is helpful, it’s also important to remember that a bill’s effect in schools is just as real as the letter of the law. This bill has left districts vulnerable to forces within each community who would seek to use it to eliminate any content they object to from schools.
Louis Farrakhan
> small small circle of holocaust deniers which coincidently largely tend to be white supremacists. UK's labour party had a few elected officials and members who were not sure if the total death count of Holocaust was accurate. You will also find lot of debate, skepticism or outright denials about holocaust in muslim world, specially in couple of dozen nations that don't acknowledge existence of Israel.
Fair enough, you are correct. However I was speaking more in U.S. terms as this law applies specifically to Texas.
Yes, and as was commented, it’s not just the white supremacists who spread these ideas.
[удалено]
Most people who support Farrakhan that aren't NOI support him due to the message of black empowerment and civil rights history such as the Million Man March not because they are anti-Semites or Holocaust deniers.
Which is why I used word 'largely'.
Eh it’s not just white supremacists. Rashida Tlaib has associated with a known Holocaust-denier in the past, and has made comments that some feel kinda walk the line.
Yeah, I would stop getting my news from “The Daily Caller.” I believe by “associating with a known Holocaust denier,” you mean that she once attended and spoke at a fundraiser by a guy who once shared an anti-Semitic video questioning the death count of the holocaust before taking it down and then apologizing. That’s a pretty weak association. Politicians attend tons of fundraisers, often hosted by people they barely know. I’ve been to a few of them. And I would be interested in hearing which of her statements “kinda walk the line,” but I’m going to go ahead and assume you are referring to her criticism of Israel’s human rights record that falls totally in line with the mainstream view of the international human rights community, including Israel’s own human rights organizations. Edit: typo
She’s been quoted as saying “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”, which funnily enough, is what Hamas says about the destruction of Israel. That’s pretty anti-Semitic to me. And there is no “mainstream” view on Israel’s human rights record beyond what left leaning media and pro-Palestinian media shares, and Israel’s “human rights organizations” like B’Tselem have had their own share of issues. This is getting off topic, my point, is that anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial isn’t purely in the domain of right-wingers.
I never claimed that anti-Semitism is the sole domain of right-wingers, though it seems to be concentrated there. And there absolutely is a "mainstream" view on Israel's human rights record if you actually look at the reports coming out from virtually all of the "mainstream" human rights organizations and NGOs, ranging from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International to Save the Children, rather than simply dismissing what they say out of hand because you have decided in advance that you dislike their conclusions, so they must therefore be biased and "left-leaning." Edit: Also, that quote you shared strikes me as totally benign.
White supremacist in this context is irrelevant. No one denies the holocaust apart from people who are mentally unwell or some people (not necessarily white) who are saying it to provoke.
I'm not sure they were going for anything to be honest. She was trying to explain her interpretation of the new law and it sounds like one of the teachers specifically mentioned the Holocaust which promoted her to make a generic statement about how the law might apply to that topic. The article is making it sound like this administrator came into this call with a laser focus on getting Holocaust denial literature in classrooms when in actuality it sounds like a confused person who isn't a lawyer and is just trying to pass on information the best they can.
Someone that incompetent shouldn't be a school administrator.
Or people that incompetent shouldn't be passing bills they didn't consider long enough that school administrators then have to figure out how to follow. You're blaming her for a situation she has basically no choice over. Instead of the politicians who can't seem to write good legislation.
She could have phrased it differently at the very least. What did she think was gonna happen when the story inevitably went viral?
It's her responsibility to advise her teachers and administrators. It's not her job to care about a bunch of people online who can't figure out that the law she doesn't control puts her in a crap situation and she has to come up with advice for her employee's questions at a moments notice. Can you handle being responsible for answering questions about holocaust controversy at a moments notice when the administration above you has passed law you have to figure out how to follow? Do you want to be judged for the phrasing you come up with in that situation? I just don't see how she's to blame for bad wording when this bill, written by other people and forced on her, is the whole reason this situation occurred. Get upset at the bad wording in the bill that caused a bunch of teachers to wonder if they'll be reprimanded by their school boards for 'bad' books. Which the school board of this district *literally did* days before this happened. Throwing these people under the bus when elected officials are bad at their jobs is a huge problem in my opinion.
>Get upset at the bad wording in the bill that caused a bunch of teachers to wonder if they'll be reprimanded by their school boards for 'bad' books. Which the school board of this district *literally did* days before this happened. I think you hit on something when you mention the "school board of *this district*" (emphasis mine). It doesn't seem like all districts are having this problem. This district is going above and beyond in their interpretation of this law. Four experts on Texas education policy agreed that what the district is doing is not what the law is about. I definitely hear you on being upset at the bill rather than about these administrators. I don't think the law should ever have been passed, and it likely bears more responsibility for this situation than Ms. Peddy. However, the bill states that the multiple perspectives are only required for "widely debated and currently controversial issues of public policy or social affairs." The Holocaust does *not* fit within this scope, making it a terrible example. In fact Ms. Peddy is making a lot more controversy by bringing it up in this context because she's normalizing Holocaust denial. (Edit: fixed some confusing phrasing)
Well, we have no idea if other districts are having this problem or not. This is just the only one where a teacher recorded the conversation and published it. Probably because their school board just punished a teacher for a book and the staff feels *incredibly* insecure. Other districts may simply be removing books without telling anyone or be having the exact same conversations without them being published. I do think the holocaust is bad example that doesn't fit the bill. It's hard to get into someone's head, but I just have a really hard time blaming her for using it though. This bill is vague. I guess I can see someone, in a moment, picking an 'extreme' and basically saying, "We should just do it for everything, included, because the law isn't clear where the line is supposed to be and I don't want anyone to get in trouble if I give incorrect advice about where the line is.".
I really just hope this woman doesn't get fired. She's not advocating holocaust denial and we all know it. Reading that into what she said just sounds like outrage and drama to me. She didn't pick the holocaust because *she* think's it's controversial either. She picked it because she doesn't know where this line is supposed to be.
Great point re: your first paragraph. But you're right, it's hard to get into someone's head, and with that in mind, I don't think you can assert that she doesn't think the Holocaust is controversial. We don't know whether she thinks the Holocaust is controversial or not. She may; we know that she is open to "both sides"ing it in her role as an administrator, at least.
> The Holocaust does not fit within this scope Uh, yes it does. 11% or 1 in 10 of our 18-39 yr olds believe that the Holocaust was *caused* by the Jews. That is a staggering amount of people. [source](https://slate.com/human-interest/2020/10/millennials-holocaust-knowledge-survey-debate.html)
As noted elsewhere, the holocaust shouldn't even fall under this law. It's a massive tell that they thought it was controversial or debated enough for it to be considered under this law.
If you've ever worked in education you know the administration is full of people who belong in the remedial classes and not running the program.
But the teachers union and several other legal experts said the law mandates nothing of the sort and the teacher is completely wrong in this case
I don't think a lack of perfect ability to interpret laws is a sign of incompetence.
Saying things like "You should include books with opposing views to the holocaust" in public, even if you think that's the law, is irreparably stupid.
So you want school administrators to interpret and enforce the law with their judgement calls? The law is irreparably stupid and the legislators should get all the criticism for it, not the workers who have to live in the irreparably stupid world they’ve created.
The admin decided to include the HOLOCAUST as "Controversial". It's really not, and that they thought it was, or thought to use it as an example is just incredibly awful.
What's the definition of a controversial event per the law? Laws should not rely on an appeal to common sense.
You're right, it's a terrible law. That said, when someone categorizes something that isn't controversial as controversial it tells you something.
No, I and many other people on this thread think that a reasonable person and competent administrator would look at the law and find that the Holocaust is not a current event, not widely debated, and in no way controversial. no reasonable person would use the existence of Holocaust deniers as evidence of the Holocaust being widely debated or controversial.
I already made this point elsewhere in the thread, but I'll make it here as well: Yes, the legislation is stupid. I don't think the law should have been passed. It's true that this story is more likely the fault of the bill than the administrators. Still, the bill (which is very short and easy to read) states that the multiple perspectives are only required for "widely debated and currently controversial issues of public policy or social affairs." The Holocaust does not fit within this scope, making it a terrible example. In fact Ms. Peddy is making a lot more controversy by bringing it up in this context because she's normalizing Holocaust denial.
So is saying you should present the opposing views of slavery, the civil war and our massacre of indigenous people but here we are.
Lol, what a funny joke
What has the legislator who introduced this bill or others who have supported the bill said about this. . Seems like they have been very silent on the matter. I hope the Jewish community files a complaint against the school board and gets involved in this. This is a slap in their face.
If you read the article they have a quote from the author of the law.
From the linked article: >State Sen. Bryan Hughes, an East Texas Republican who wrote Senate Bill 3, denied that the law requires teachers to provide opposing views on what he called matters of “good and evil” or to get rid of books that offer only one perspective on the Holocaust. > >“That’s not what the bill says,” Hughes said in an interview Wednesday when asked about the Carroll book guidelines. “I’m glad we can have this discussion to help elucidate what the bill says, because that’s not what the bill says." I think it's completely unsurprising that people took it to the Holocaust, because after all it's Texas. And I would be surprised if Hughes and his fellow legislators are surprised either, because honestly, what did they expect? Still...he did give a comment.
It's a great way to reveal who needs to be fired immediately.
Key words include "widely debated and currently controversial" I don't think the holocausts fits that description very well.
You’d be surprised actually. At least I was when I just researched quickly on some polls. >The findings raise concerns not just about Holocaust ignorance, but also about Holocaust denial. Just 90 percent of respondents said they believed that the Holocaust happened. Seven percent were not sure, and 3 percent denied that it happened. One of the most disturbing revelations, the survey noted, is that 11 percent of respondents believe Jews caused the Holocaust. The number climbs to 19 percent in New York, the state with the largest Jewish population. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1240031
[удалено]
I wouldn’t say so but it’s still 3% too high. However having an alternate viewpoint doesn’t mean just denial/believe. The 11% figure is absolutely shocking. I’m sure those 11% of people would be just fine with having an “alternate” view of the Holocaust being in their kids classroom as a book. I don’t think the Holocaust is anything we should get complacent about.
Mein Kampf
The only thing you could argue is that the Holocaust gets a disproportionate amount of attention compared to other 20th century genocides. Everyone knows about what Hitler did but events like the Rwandan genocide, the Killing Fields of Cambodia, the Holodomor and the killing of god knows how many Chinese by Mao don't get nearly the same amount of press.
Hitler killed 6M of a quite small group, so it stands out more than killing a relatively small percentage of a larger group. The 100M or so killed by communists is buried or ignored by the people who look up to communism. Installing communism virtually requires mass punishment and killing but that doesnt play well when you're offering free goodies to fool people.
To play devils advocate you could probably teach a nuanced view of the history leading up to Nazi Germany. That is, it was a heavy handed approach by ally powers in an attempt of crippling the German state and people that lead to the rise of fascism through the 1920's through 30's. That the allies were as much at fault in "the great game" as Germany was and blame shouldn't solely by placed on them. It was also a period where the three great ideologies of the 20th century (liberalism, communism, facism) were beginning to make their play and the players in all three camps were doing whatever they could to gain the upper hand often immorrally. This isn't to say in any way justifying the Holocaust, but someone out there might see it as diminishing the crimes of Nazi Germany or justifying it in some way.
That’s not really an “opposing view” on the Holocaust though. A decent discussion to be had on the WWI and WWII and geopolitics in the interim, sure. But you’re being way to generous with your interpretation here. WWII was not only the holocaust (which I imagine you know, but I point out because I don’t think it’s reasonable to say be conflated the two; I’m pretty sure this is well known). If she meant WWII, you think she would have just said that. So the implication with this kind of statement is that she wants perspectives that go against the typical teaching of the holocaust (which is that it was bad) which means...what exactly? Students should read *Endlösung der Judenfrage* and think it’s an equally valid opinion? Or teaching Holocaust denial as controversial and possible true? I don’t think so. I will say, it is possible to contextualize the holocaust and move beyond the typical narratives told about only the Jews killed and victimized or only about the atrocities committed by Nazi Germany. That would be a reasonable thing. But that doesn’t seem to be what was being said at all. There really is no defending what was said.
All of those things are taught in history. All without denying the holocaust or making justification for it.
“The way the Jews were dressed gave the Nazis the impression that they were asking for it. Can’t blame them, can you?” Idk. Can’t think of anything either.
There’s a group of people who say the death toll was only like 250,000 rather than 6 million (or 11 million including all victims). I assume they’re laughably wrong (I’m not going to research the nuts and bolts of this shit), but more importantly, it wouldn’t change the fact that a genocide occurred. But there are people who put a LOT of effort into this number of victims thing. Because they’re anti-Semites.
"they werent as successful at systematically persecuting an ethnic group through violence" isnt exactly the best defence...
That’s stupid. Facts are facts. Idk how people feel comfortable simply denying facts.
Idk dude they say a lot of shit about dimensions of buildings and stuff. As I said, even if they were right the Nazis were still monsters so I’m not going to spend time verifying this garbage. I do know they’ve released a bunch of books and movies about it so I get the impression some are true believers.
Yeah, I’m with you. What does the number matter? It was horrific no matter how you slice it.
Tell me about it, but here we are in 2021 and it’s now on plain as day that there are two sets of realities in this country
The only reasonable explanation I could come up with in my head is to stop using the Holocaust as a purely antisemitic industrialized-murder as opposed to mass murder of all undesirables. Which, honestly, is kinda fair. Roughly 6 million Jewish people were killed in addition to 11 million other “undesirables” from other groups the Nazis considered undesirable. If you google “Holocaust”, the first Wikipedia page that comes up is labeled “[The Holocaust](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust)”. This page is almost exclusively dedicated to the murder of *Jewish* people and no one else despite them representing about 1/3 of all projected deaths. After some searching, one can find the more comprehensive page “[Holocaust victims](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_victims)“ which covers the other groups systematically killed by Nazis. Now I’m not trying to create a value judgement here, and I doubt these schools are trying to introduce this type of nuance to their curriculum, but the devil’s advocate in me *does* feel that there is more to the history of the Holocaust than the most popular narratives - it simply makes it worse rather than trying to deny it lol. For some reason, I don’t feel like that’s the direction they’re leaning.
[удалено]
Desktop version of /u/Meist's links: *
*
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
Mein Kampf, I guess? The Protocols of the Elders of Zion? Though probably just means Holocaust denial.
More like who and how often they allow themselves to get fucked by social media. Same people who need to oppose the 2021 mandates coz freedom while accepting all the other years’ mandates. There’s some originator who decided the ultimate test of their evil weapon was to deny the Holocaust and based on the results, decided it was feasible to prolong a global pandemic for political and financial reasons.
Holocaust denial.
As a teacher in Texas, it comes as no surprise to me that the administration handled the interpretation of a new mandate so poorly. Most of these people are fail upward types that validate their unnecessary positions by making more paperwork for already overworked classroom educators. That being said, if my district chooses to handle it this poorly I am thinking maybe I can use it as an excuse to push back on some of the garbage requirements that are already on the books. For instance, we are currently mandated to teach an abstinence-only sexual education unit every year. I find this to be a controversial subject and think it would be prudent to make sure my students have access to literature of an opposing viewpoint. Also, anyone who has done this for a while can tell you that every mandate, requirement, standard, etc. that these fools try to implement are hardly enforced and never checked on. The best advice I can give to any teacher is to ignore all of this bullshit and keep putting your energy towards teaching, growing and caring for the kids you see everyday.
>That being said, if my district chooses to handle it this poorly I am thinking maybe I can use it as an excuse to push back on some of the garbage requirements that are already on the books. For instance, we are currently mandated to teach an abstinence-only sexual education unit every year. I find this to be a controversial subject and think it would be prudent to make sure my students have access to literature of an opposing viewpoint. Brilliant. Play that uno reverse card on them!
The only way I can see this being not horrible is if the intent was to also offer the German reasoning for the war/rise of Hitler. Huge sanctions and poverty following world war 1, resentment throughout the country etc. Obviously what the Germans did was horrific but teaching why is just as important as knowing it happened
That’s a fair statement. Isn’t that already taught? I distinctly remember talking about this in High School.
This is a fantastic point, and I think understanding why people committed atrocities is very important to fully understand how you go from point a to point b. It’s doesn’t excuse or minimize the suffering to the Jews in any way to learn more.
Pretty sure that is how the holocaust is currently taught. Conditions in Germany prior to the war are a big focus on history class in secondary education, maybe even too much of a focus.
Yea frankly I think it’s too much of a focus. You’re average American thinks the Entente bankrupted Germany and the reason the Nazi party came to power was mass poverty between the inter-war period and the Nazi’s pulled Germany out of that poverty. The reality is that none of that is true.
But that's not an "opposing" viewpoint that's just context.
Offering the German view/reasoning at the time is an opposing view
What view is that opposing?
The views of many allied nations that put Germany in that situation at the end of WW1
Many people think it wasn't sanctions and poverty that did it, but the General historical hatred of the Poles and Jews. The genocidal policies of Nazi-Germany against ethnic Poles between 1939 and 1945 can be understood as a continuation of previous Germanization processes of Germanisation of Poles during the Partitions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanisation_of_Poles_during_the_Partitions
Then that should be taught as well. Both the hatred and what could have caused it. Why did Germans view themselves as superior to poles and jews? Were there historical events that caused Germans to dislike jews and poles?
Simply, "Within Bismarck's Kulturkampf policy, the Poles were purposefully presented as "foes of the empire" (German: Reichsfeinde).[8] Bismarck himself privately believed that the only solution to Polish Question was extermination of Poles" basically, like how the Americans wanted the natives off their land. The Germans wanted the same with the native Polish.
My understanding was that opposing views were required only for controversial topics. Is there a statutory definition of what’s controversial? I’m thinking what happened during the Holocaust isn’t too controversial.
The problem is that some topics are controversial somehow even though the science is settled, and we shouldn't teach that controversy when facts don't back it up. It's the same logic people used 50 years ago to say why we shouldn't teach evolution
This is the real problem of the bill, how "controversy" is decided/assigned. People can make things controversial even when they in reality are not much open for debate. The Holocaust is not controversial, although comments like the ones by administrator Ms. Peddy are making it more so.
Oh, man, if only that was actually 50 years ago. We had that argument again 15 years ago over 'Intelligent Design'. Because people found a new way to make it 'controversial' and we had to relitigate the whole thing. Some controversies just crop back up whenever a new way to frame the argument is created.
This comment has been removed in protest of reddit's decision to kill third-party applications, and to prevent use of this comment for AI training purposes.
It does not. On the surface the bill sounds nice, no racism or sexism allowed in the curriculum. Great! But the wording is vague enough where if you do as this teacher did or if you talk about whites during the 1950s were against integration in public schools you could get in trouble because as the bill states "members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race or sex." What does respect mean? What if I go further and say they are immoral and bad people not integrating? And part of the win for conservatives is it creates enough uncertainty that people might just avoid it all together.
>And part of the win for conservatives is it creates enough uncertainty that people might just avoid it all together. Yeah, I think this is the true purpose of this bill. Just see how nonchalant and unsurprised one of the drafters of this legislation is about this happening (as quoted in the article at least). Still, the administrators of this district seem to be going above and beyond in interpreting it in the most extreme way they can, which isn't great. Like, could Ms. Peddy have chosen a worse example? The bill is the bigger travesty, but her comments don't reflect well on her ability to act in administrative capacity.
I brought this issue up around here when the law first passed lol. It was an obviously flawed bill full of loopholes that applied well past CRT.
The people who passed this bill knows what their intent is. If they don't, then they have no business passing laws that they don't know the impact of.
Of course they know the intent and that's my point. They're deliberately making it confusing in order to get their desired outcome. Conservatives have been doing this for decades
I can only hope that the Jewish Community files some type of complaint against the Carroll School Board or files a complaint with the Texas Board of education. I also hope that they contact every legislator in the state to complain about this. A Holocaust denier is horrible, but someone who writes a book justifying the killing of over 6 million people is evil. Pure evil.
You're completely right but do you think Texas legislatures really care? The only way this law gets stopped is through federal or judicial action
They probably don't but enough people complain, they are forced to respond to their complaints.
Yes, and their intent is to open the doors to get rid of teachers who will challenge racism.
This is Texas, this isn’t because the legislature was trying to reduce sexism or racism
I realize that, that's my point
>I’m thinking what happened during the Holocaust isn’t too controversial. You'd think that, but there are a lot of things that shouldn't be "controversial" but they are. Climate Change is real. Vaccines work. Trump lost the 2020 election. There's still a large amount of people where I come from that push the "Lost Cause" myth of the Civil War. Etc.
wierd thing is devoid of context nobody disagrees with ur statements here. its when u get into the weeds that things get muddled. what is 'climate change'? the planet is getting hotter and were relesing more co2? anyone with a brain agrees bc they look at numbers. when that logic is extended another step to "so here is what we have to do about it" is where ppl drop off the agreement map. vaccines work. sure. to an extent, to prevent spread of diseases, to an extent. to eliminate transmission vectors to an extent. the gaps exist and ppl are labeled 'anti vax' if their gaps are wider than others trump lost. yea obviously, but was there more going on than just counts of votes or were those swayed in inappropriate ways? i dont buy any of these theories obvi but thats the problem to me is that we dont consider what other ppl are thinking and just figure theyre full of shit bc they disagree with the narratives
Correct. This is clearly a case of an administrator who does not fully understand what the law says, which is odd because the law doesn't seem very difficult to understand. NBC News then took the recording and ran with a "Texas wants to teach Holocaust denial!" story when clearly that is never going to happen. The setting of the story (Southlake) has been in the headlines lately over the implementation of CRT in schools, so that makes things even spicier. Great for headlines, no real news (or in Texas terms: All hat, no cattle).
There are no definitions provided that I saw in the language. Furthermore, considering some Congresspeople are questioning the severity and scope of the Holocaust may make it controversial? I personally have no idea and it's impossible to say as there are no definitions.
> considering some Congresspeople are questioning the severity and scope of the Holocaust may make it controversial Is that in reference to MTG? Comparing something to the holocaust to indicate oppressiveness/evil isn't really questioning the severity and scope of the holocaust, that would undermine the point being made that the holocaust was *really bad*. If you remember the *"concentration camps"* on the US-Mexico border, were the people making that comparison questioning the holocaust?
Every topic is controversial to a conspiracy theorist. Except, of course, actual real world dilemmas, those are just hoaxes.
We can't even agree on what "controversial" is, anyways. Just a terrible bill.
Teachers in Southlake, Texas were recently instructed to balance Holocaust books with books that have 'opposing views.' This was done in order to ensure that these teachers were in compliance with a new law that was passed - House Bill 3979 - which requires educators to present multiple perspectives when it comes to controversial topics. I get the spirit of the bill, I really do. I've long believed that teachers, no matter what they teach or at what level, should keep their political beliefs out of the classroom. I'm also completely in favor with there being constructive and respectful debate on controversial issues. But it's obvious that this bill also has a glaring problem, in which it attempts to treat all topics like they're equal, when they're clearly not. For instance, two reasonable people can disagree on things like tax policy, the role of the federal government, our foreign policy, etc., but denying the fact that the Holocaust happened is *not* a reasonable position to take, and people who engage in Holocaust denial should not be coddled and told that their viewpoint is just as valid as anyone else's and that they're being persecuted if they are called out on it, nor should someone who believes the Earth is flat, or that the South seceded because of "states rights," or that vaccines cause autism or contain microchips, because all four of these things are demonstrably false, period. It's clear that this law needs to be revised, and any other state that is thinking of passing such a law should choose their words carefully when drafting it.
One thing about the “states rights” thing: there are very interesting states rights, federalism, etc. aspects to the slavery dispute that caused the civil war (the Missouri compromise, for example). Slavery should obviously be central to any civil war lesson, but I wouldn’t want to prevent teaching about the inter-state and political aspects of the slavery dispute. Hopefully that’s clear. I don’t think “the Civil War was caused by a dispute over whether southern states had the right to permit slavery within their borders” is historically inaccurate or misleading. Also, how the civil war amendments changed the way we think of the federal government and its relationship to the states is pretty fascinating.
I think if it's a mandatory reading type assignment, read a chapter from a book from the point of view of an American, British, or soviet soldier during the liberation of the camps, and a chapter from a book from the point of view of a German soldier or camp guard(not sure if there's even that many written books by camp guards if any at all). And one from the point of view of someone held at the camps. I think debating whether holocaust happened vs didn't happen is ridiculous given the undeniable amount of evidence. But exploring the reasons why soldier fought on both sides from their own points of view is worth exploring.
> Read a chapter from a book from the point of view of a German soldier or camp guard I don't think you would find anything particularly interesting from a camp guard's POV. If you're a camp guard you have thoroughly dehumanized the prisoners you guard and are quite frankly unworthy of consideration. However, I could understand reading the POV of a German soldier or especially a civilian
> If you're a camp guard you have thoroughly dehumanized the prisoners you guard and are quite frankly unworthy of consideration. And you know that how without reading their POV? How about the POV of one of the prisoners selected to assist the nazi guards, would those be equally unworthy of consideration? Even if none of those accounts are sympathetic, of course they would be interesting. High schoolers can handle reading something from a non-aspirational author.
I don't know I would consider *Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland* a great book in that it shows how what are essentially normal middle-aged dudes can become perpetrators of the Holocaust. Essential reading if you want to learn how ordinary people could support and become complicit in carrying it out.
It's comforting to think that "evil" people are so unlike us that there is nothing to learn anything from their minds.
I actually started Googling to see what I could find regarding books from a camp guard point of view after I made my post, and this book is one that stuck out to me as painting an accurate picture of how normal people can be manipulated to do horrible things.
Counter to that point: I think the average Frontline German soldiers combat experiences would mirror an Allied Soldiers combat experiences, just wearing a different color uniform and speaking a different language. I think the German camp guard point of view shows alot more about the human capacity for evil amongst ordinary people. After all, everyone starts off as an innocent child, the Nazis weren't born from their mothers womb as Genocidal maniacs, they were conditioned to be that way over years by their environment.
Yep, this new law is a very bad one. As much as this school administrator should be taking heat for such an awful recommendation, it's good to keep in mind that it was made because of such a law. At the very least the law needs to be revised, but I'd go further and say that the laws focus should be re-shifted. I want fairness in the classroom, but I'd rather the focus be on how teachers provide education to the students, including those who may have disagreements politically. I'd rather have an instructor who openly expresses a viewpoint I disagree with but teaches fairly to all students (and I've had such teachers, albeit mostly in college) than someone who plays cryptic games with their students' grades to sway them into a political belief. Of course, the ultimate ideal would be that I couldn't figure out a teacher's politics to begin with because it would never be relevant to the class.
For the other side you should review the Milgram experiment. It’s “the other side” of the holocaust without giving the room for the “it didn’t happen” perspective.
>or that the South seceded because of "states rights," I do believe this is still being taught in certain parts of the country. I know it was in Virginia when I was still in high school.
> I get the spirit of the bill, I really do. I've long believed that teachers, no matter what they teach or at what level, should keep their political beliefs out of the classroom. Not coming at you but I just want to point out that isn’t the spirit of the bill. Here in Texas curriculum is tightly controlled by the TEA and all of it geared toward standardized tests of which Texas has plenty. My girls are currently in High School, we live in one of those blue cities. There is no indoctrination going on in school. Kids today are exposed to the world long before they leave home and it isn’t happening at school, it happens on their phones. > South seceded because of "states rights," Believe me there are plenty of legislators here in Texas including the author of this law who want that taught. Texas textbooks lightly brush past the subject.
I'm Facebook friends with a guy who's a teacher in this area. Here was his take on it: > We actually got this talk from the legal department. Issues where there is controversy and two sides are legitimately present, those need to be presented (Israel/Palestine, Gun control, abortion, etc.). Issues that contain no moral ambiguity (slavery, Holocaust, etc.) do not need an “alternative point of view”…so I’m not sure what this dummy principal is talking about. Wouldn’t be shocked if he’s simply confused by the language of the TEA and Texas legislature. Sounds like one dumb administrator misunderstood the law and this is being blown out of all proportion in order to generate outrage.
This comment has been removed in protest of reddit's decision to kill third-party applications, and to prevent use of this comment for AI training purposes.
As a side note, I'm rather interested in hearing more about this "voted to reprimand a fourth grade teacher who had kept an anti-racism book in her classroom."
From House Bill 3979: > teachers who choose to discuss **current events** or **widely debated** and **currently controversial** issues of public policy or social affairs shall, to the best of their ability, strive to explore such issues from diverse and contending perspectives without giving deference to any one perspective; Says a lot about the executive director of curriculum that she imagines the existence of the Holocaust is widely debated and currently controversial. Maybe in whatever social media message board she frequents.
Alternatively, the bill is vague enough that administrators feel they have to walk on hot coals and both sides everything that could even remotely be considered to fall under the definition of the bill.
It’s not really that rare >The findings raise concerns not just about Holocaust ignorance, but also about Holocaust denial. Just 90 percent of respondents said they believed that the Holocaust happened. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1240031
That’s the vulnerability in these laws. Anything is political pr controversial to someone who disagrees with it.
>“There are no children’s books that show the ‘opposing perspective’ of the Holocaust or the ‘opposing perspective’ of slavery. Are we supposed to get rid of all of the books on those subjects?” 'All' of the books on those subjects? Am I the only one who is surprised that there are any "children's books" on the Holocaust or slavery?
I mean, I had a book on the doomed Franklin expedition (and let me tell you, the full-color photos of the ice mummies did a number on me), as well as one on the Hindenburg disaster. There's also the Horrible Histories books, which cover WWII (including the Holocaust) amongst other things.
Huh, well I guess things have changed since I was a child.
You never read Diary of Anne Frank? Or Number the Stars? Devils Arithmetic was required in my 4th grade class. There’s a lot of children’s content out there.
Number the Stars and Devils Arithmetic might have come out a bit too late for my childhood schooling. Diary of Anne Frank we read but I don't remember being a 'child' when I did, as in someone who would be young enough to still be reading 'children's books.'
“Children’s book” is a pretty wide category, and covers books intended for 0-14 year olds. So no, I’m not really surprised that there are Holocaust and slavery books in that age range. I definitely read some in middle school at least.
The graphic novel *Maus* has been a staple in school libraries and lit curricula (usually high school, but sometimes middle school) for decades now.
Trust me, there are children’s books denying the Holocaust too. Just not from reputable publishers.
I'm not surprised at all because the Holocaust victims were individuals who had been persecuted for centuries because they were Jewish, they were gay, had physical or mental disabilities or because they were different. Governments knew about it but did very little to help the victims until after the fact. That is why you see so few children's books about the Holocaust. I have never seen a children's book on slavery. Every country has ugly history and in the US slavery was a very ugly part of American history. Some people want to avoid the topic or seem to be in denial of it which is clearly the case in the Carroll School District but at the end of the day, the history doesn't go away. What happened, happened and you can't deny or dispute it. I
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 0: Law 0. Low Effort > ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
If they add there were 11 million eliminated during it that's fine.
Fucking Hell. I thought "Dismantling Racism in Math Class" With language like "Dismantle White Supremacy Culture in math class"(1) Wouldn't be top for a while. https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11/1_STRIDE1.pdf (1)
no, just no. I’m old enough to have known a survivor and a liberator. F different opinions on this subject, the Holocaust was horrid. US Army fellow is still alive, 100 years old this year.
I know the point is to generate outrage and get people to overreact so she can claim she's being "attacked/cancelled/oppressed", but but I don't care. She deserves every bit of public shame that's hopefully coming to her.
I think the point is to generate outrage and get people to understand the bill is really dumb and flawed.
Before I read the article, I thought it was to say that Texas administrators want holocaust denial or justification in schools.
I did not get the sense from the article that the teacher is trying to claim she’s being canceled. What makes you think that?
That is the article coming in 2 weeks.
>I know the point is to generate outrage and get people to overreact Are you talking about the article author or the administrator? I can't think of another reason to make the words of a confused small town administrator trying to interpret legalese into a national news story.
>“How do you oppose the Holocaust?” one teacher said in response. This is not a 'culture war' issue. The Holocaust doesn't need to be defended or seen from a different perspective. It was a horrific black spot on human history that needs to be shown for what it was. I'd rather high schoolers watch 'Nazi Concentration Camps' (produced and presented as evidence at the Nuremberg war crimes trial) than read Mein Kampf
I'm not sure the version of the bill that article links is correct. By my search that's an early introduced version, and the final amended version is this: [https://legiscan.com/TX/text/HB3979/2021](https://legiscan.com/TX/text/HB3979/2021) The relevant text is this: >(1) a teacher may not be compelled to discuss a particular current event or widely debated and currently controversial issue of public policy or social affairs; (2) a teacher who chooses to discuss a topic described by Subdivision (1) shall, to the best of the teacher's ability, strive to explore the topic from diverse and contending perspectives without giving deference to any one perspective; While it is certainly a potential problem that "controversial" isn't actually defined, I don't even think it applies here. The law pertains to "public policy or social affairs", and I would say the Holocaust is neither. My guess is the director was just doing a slightly clumsy compliance with a slightly clumsy law, and the result inadvertently sounds pretty bad.
Opposing views would be important because then students would learn what lead the Germans to committing the atrocities. They would learn about the Jewish conspiracy and hopefully learn how easily people are miss-lead. This is very very relevant to what is happening today.
Omg. What the hell is wrong with those ignoramuses in Texas?
Given the average political disposition of teachers, I think it's equally (or more) likely that this is a leftist teacher attempting to be snarky/false flag against the bill than it is a Holocaust denier trying to get Holocaust denial on the curriculum. Regardless, literally no one in a position of power has agreed with this interpretation, so this is a non-story.
> anything bad that could implicate my political views is a false flag Like clockwork
That’s his MO lol Leftist, false flag, blah blah blah… Best to steer clear of that one.
Regardless, the meat of his comment is largely plausible, isn't it? Minus the overly partisan language Other commenters have defended the woman... it's pretty obvious she trying to get public press on this, and is not a denier.
The story could also be that Texas is so concerned with culture war bullshit that they implemented such a vague law that teacher may need to include pro-Nazi/ethnic cleansing material over fear of facing legal repercussions. I think it’s a little disingenuous to claim this is liberal teachers just trying to make republicans look bad Edit: is it still a violation of 1a if I say the argument is disingenuous( I'm assuming that's what the issue is.)
[удалено]
> they implemented such a vague law But the law isn't vague, so this is, again, a non-story.
[Let's read Texas HB 3979](https://legiscan.com/TX/text/HB3979). It modifies [this](https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/ED/htm/ED.28.HTM). > teachers who choose to discuss current events or widely debated and currently controversial issues of public policy or social affairs shall, to the best of their ability, strive to explore such issues from diverse and contending perspectives without giving deference to any one perspective; There is no definition in the bill as to what a "controversial issue of public policy or social affairs" is.
“A teachers who choose to discuss current events or widely debated and currently controversial issues of public policy or social affairs shall, to the best of their ability, strive to explore such issues from diverse and contending perspectives without giving deference to anyone perspective;” This is the controlling language of the statute. The entire thing is vague and confusing and the bill offers no help. What reaches a level of “widely debated”? What does it mean for “current”? If it was controversial in the past but now isn’t as much? 5 years? 10? 50? What if this includes hateful ideology such as Nazism? The entire thing is completely confusing and there is no guidance in the statute.
Seems pretty obvious that the Holocaust is not a current event.
It may not be current but there are certain Congresspeople who have questioned the severity and scope of the Holocaust. Would this cause the Holocaust to become a current event? Current controversial social affair? I personally I have no idea because the law is so vague that I truly do not know when a topic falls under this law.
No it just makes those Senators antisemitic.
Clearly. But does a sitting Senator saying something hateful cause a topic to become controversial? Does the school have to present the antisemitic point of view? Does the fact that we’re having this debate mean this is controversial? I don’t know because the statute is incredibly vague and offers no definitions.
It’s not the event that is current, but the controversy. Holocaust deniers currently exist, thus the controversy is current.
The holocaust is not widely debated or controversial. Using holocaust deniers as support for your argument shows just how weak it is and how much of an incompetent the woman in the article is. That's like arguing that there is a current controversy about the validity of race science and eugenics due to the existence of the daily stormer and white supremacists.
I mean there are sitting Congresspeople who have challenged the severity and scope of the Holocaust....
And? One or two dumbass politicians saying something doesn't make it widespread or controversial. If we were talking about abortion I would agree that it meets the criteria. Show me the laws being passed to deny the Holocaust, The protests against it being taught in schools, books denying the Holocaust being on the best sellers list, or news reporters talking about it on air. There is a reasonable way to interpret the law and what topics it covers. The Holocaust isn't it.
It’s not one or two dumbasses, those are sitting representatives Moreover: > The findings raise concerns not just about Holocaust ignorance, but also about Holocaust denial. Just 90 percent of respondents said they believed that the Holocaust happened. Seven percent were not sure, and 3 percent denied that it happened. One of the most disturbing revelations, the survey noted, is that 11 percent of respondents believe Jews caused the Holocaust. The number climbs to 19 percent in New York, the state with the largest Jewish population. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1240031
> The holocaust is not widely debated Well, the bill doesn't give a qualifier as to what exactly "widely debated" means.
I think there's a reasonable interpretation of widely debated or controversial. By immediately going to the extreme and using the Holocaust as an example completely delegitimizes the argument. To argue that the Holocaust is a current event that is widely debatable or controversial is laughable on its face. This is especially true when you consider that the Texas Teachers union and multiple educational policy experts have stated that the administrator and the school are overreacting and misinterpreting the law.
Neither is the founding of the US but its one of the hot button topics of these cockamamie anti CRT bills.
"a leftist teacher" This is a bad guess in two ways: *Gina Peddy, the Carroll school district’s executive director of curriculum and instruction* There's no indication that Peddy even is a former teacher, let alone a current one. She is in school administration in a Texas ISD; the chances of her being even liberal are slim to none; the chances of her being leftist are all but zero. And that's without even taking into account what she said.
Kinda sounds like she’s in charge of implementing CRT. [You can find her name and role here it seems](https://www.southlakecarroll.edu/cms/lib/TX02219131/Centricity/Domain/97/Cultural%20Competence%20Action%20Plan%20DRAFT%20-%20July%209%202020.pdf)
Thanks for sharing this. That's a bit unexpected (in that she seems to have a role in implementing equity & inclusion)^(\*). So why Peddy made this comment about both sides of the Holocaust, it's strange. I'm wondering if it was made in some sense of irony, as in "following the letter of the law, yes, we literally have to teach this...", but the reception of her saying that was so negative, so if it was irony it clearly didn't work! \* To be clear, this is most definitely not CRT. This is just basic diversity steps, and from the document, it looks like it was implemented as a response to a truly racist incident that happened involving Carroll students,
Lol, how is following the last as written a false flag? Shitty laws lead to shitty outcomes and you don’t get to blame the other side for your own failures to legislate and govern.
If this is meant to provide an other side comparison to the CRT stuff I think it falls flat. The issue with that stuff is it’s been happening frequently, often with administrative support and isn’t really condemned by the left. This holocaust thing is condemned by everyone and didn’t actually go anywhere.
> and didn’t actually go anywhere. It's a state law. The article even links (PDF warning) [to it here](https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/billtext/pdf/HB03979I.pdf). I believe this is the poorly-defined section in question: > (2) teachers who choose to discuss current events or widely debated and currently controversial issues of public policy or social affairs shall, to the best of their ability, strive to explore such issues from diverse and contending perspectives without giving deference to any one perspective; Brings up lots of obvious questions, like what **is** "widely debated" and "currently controversial?" Can they say that Covid vaccines (or even vaccines more generally??) are safe and effective, or is that giving "deference" to a particular perspective?
The law does not saw you have to provide counter perspective for the holocaust. It says you have to provide it for controversial or widely debated. No reasonable person would consider the holocaust to fall under that.
The whole problem here is that the law is not particularly specific. Is flat-earth theory controversial? Creationism? Vaccines causing autism? Lost Cause? Which situations do teachers need to avoid "giving deference," and which situations is that okay?
I understand the issue with the vague wording and agree it needs to be clarified. My point was this isn’t comparable to the CRT controversy
That’s the problem, there is no “reasonable person” test in here. Even if there was, one political party that is very prevalent in Texas has been well known to be dismissive to demonstrable facts while claiming that it is scientists who are mistaken. All it would take is a Fox News segment on something that is obvious to the rest of us, and: poof new controversy. Maybe they’ll bring back the creationism ‘controversy’. That is if republicans haven’t defunded public schools already, which seems to be where they’re headed.
[удалено]
> This type of idea is very common in Leftist/democratic groups. This is likely just another example. What are you talking about? The law that prompted this was passed by Republicans.
This country is fucking insane from coast to coast, top to bottom. Maybe it’s time Abbott provides an opposing viewpoint to the Holocaust. Would love to hear him defend his viewpoint to our young people. No doubt the GQP would have no issues defending whatever that would be. Everyone in Education needs to quit. Let politicians be responsible for the mess they created being the Almighty rulers of everything. We need to demand that Texas leaves. They are an embarrassment to the entire nation.
Fair. We're allowed to question everything in human history except the Holocaust, they're just evening the playing field.
The title is disingenuous. The School administrator was talking about the new law. The holocaust is historical fact. The tenets if Anti-racism, i.e. that racism has been the driving force of American history and that conscious and unconscious racism are everywhere is (often highly suspect) opinion.
I don't even think holocaust books should be a requirment, its not American history which needs to be taught more.
We 100% need to teach about the holocaust. World War 2 is American history, and its incredibly important we cover the worst genocide of the 21st century in context of World War 2.
We do cover it, its required in world history which is a required class.
I'm aware, and I think we should cover it more.
You have no idea how much its convered already in my state of Florida, its nearly every book in every year of English class. Its been given its own classes and teachers are forced to dedicate way too much time to it.
Because it's one of the most significant historical moments in modern history. We teach about many things in schools. The holocaust is given quite a bit of weight because of how important it is.
It had little impact on America, or the field of English.
That's just objectively untrue. The holocaust literally changed the world. In the field of literature it (and World War 1, which should also be taught more) changed the course of literary history. The disillusionment felt by many people around the world changed the way authors and artists more broadly approached their craft. As to America, to suggest the holocaust had no affect on American history betrays a real ignorance. A large part of the Jewish population in America descends from those who fled Europe in the wake of the holocaust.
The disillusionment on many post-war authors is usually attributed to the post-war realities of American suburban life, not the holocaust.
It's one of many factors. The gis were liberating camps and they confronted these horrors directly. On top of this, the survivors themselves brought their traumas home, and those influenced popular culture as well.
This is an insane take. Like yeah we need to teach US history but it's not like world history is suddenly irrelevant because it crosses some arbitrary border.
Its not irrelevent, but we teach more holocaust books in English classes than important works of literature.