This thread has diverged in so many ways. And if you look at the Instagram account and the issues on how this thread was started, it was about white privilege... The problem with this whole issue is that many of the opinions are based in political views. And why we really cannot discuss it without getting censored.
Agreed 100%, wren. It's challenging. But I think we're doing well as a group.
I have my own political opinions - as we all do - and have tried to stick to pieces like consumer choice theory and educational outcomes to peel back some of the confounding variables. But you're right - we have to be oblique in how we discuss this.
The challenge with anti-racism activities and resistance to them in school settings - any politically charged topic, really - is they can pull in unhelpful polarizing mischaracterizations that aren't truly reflective of the positions of the other side. I encountered this in a faith-based school previously for DS, where orthodoxy did not map 1-1 to the views I was teaching at home.
My limited, unfiltered sense of HW's approach, from the information I can access, is that it is leading to an inappropriate degree of political commentary in class. Irrespective of my political views, my sense is that the absolute value on the amount of political discussion is out of line there. As with all things, dose size is critical. But that is one outsider's conjecture, only.
Is the EDI work being used to support critical thinking students and social awareness? Perhaps. Is it encroaching on core studies? Perhaps. Teachers and administrators should not have a political axe to grind in class; that is not the appropriate forum for political activism. However, I do not envy educators the very legitimate challenge of presenting civic and historical education in a way that is both academically rigorous and culturally sensitive. Unfortunately, we live in a time where critical thinking is in short supply, and teachers are finding themselves wading through a minefield of extreme (and often only loosely substantiated) views. It must also be quite confusing for many youths to grow up in an environment where the very essence of truth is called into question on a daily basis.
I'm reminded of an experience I had in 10th grade civics class with a wonderful teacher, with whom I had some political disagreement. He presented the political spectrum in Canada, and mapped a range of policies to the parties, with (what I felt was) some degree of bias. After class, I expressed concern to him privately that he had sidelined one political party, and that perhaps it should be given more discussion time.
The next class, he re-introduced the topic and re-opened the discussion by saying that someone had expressed concern that his lesson wasn't objective enough and that, after reflection, he agreed. So he took the time to invite discussion and provide (what I thought) was a thorough and fair treatment of the other party. He wasn't kowtowing to rich parents or responding to an irate parent ambush. This was an insignificant, rational conversation between a student and teacher that led to greater mutual understanding and a terrific lesson for the whole class.
That, to me, is how all these issues should be handled. It is not the teacher's place - nor the parent's - to dictate classroom political lessons. Truth is the ultimate arbiter of any discussion. I had tremendous respect for that teacher afterwards, and he taught us all a valuable lesson that day about graciously hearing the well-substantiated views of others, even when we disagree, because we might find some truth therein.
May other students be so fortunate as to have a teacher like him. He was an inspiration and a major reason I entered the fields I did.
