Tennessee teacher/baseball coach fired for teaching about anti-racism and white privilege

[Pancho 44487]

 Well according to the super, he was fired because he didn’t offer to discuss “both sides.”  Then the super states he has no problem with teaching about white privilege as that is appropriate discussion for high school students, but the poem assignment he did was too fucking much and got him fired. 

The law the super is citing is so fucking vague.  This is what these radical Republicans want, and they are infiltrating school boards across the country. 

 

[jimmyjazz 45560]

This kind of thing may be more common now than in the past, but it's not new.  My mom taught English classes ranging from 8th grade thru lower level college.  Imagine her surprise when she got dragged in front of the school board for teaching middle school students . . . Chaucer.  Yep.  Apparently a John BIrch-y snowflake got all flustered because of a point in "The Miller's Tale" where a dude farts out his window on another dude.  

Mom won her case, but it signaled her as to the start of some serious right-wing pushback on content that never diminished.

[bad_teammate 13132]

That poem has the word "fuck" twice.

They fired a high school teacher with that as a justification.

[jimmyjazz 45560]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

That poem has the word "fuck" twice.

They fired a high school teacher with that as a justification.

They should swing by the locker room.  Or the cafeteria.

[washparkhorn 9935]

What is this bullshit? From the link above.

"These charges of dismissal about Mr. Hawn refusing to provide his students with access to varying points of view, which is required under Tennessee law." (A quote from the Superintendent calling for the firing; pardon his grammar). 

Teacher, You gotta let lil' johnny reb emote.   

Fucking snowflakes. 

Edited July 10, 2021 by washparkhorn

[hpslugga 4044]

lol "varying points of view"

[tantric superman 4667]

And at the window out she putte hir hole,

And Absolon, him fil no bet ne wers,

But with his mouth he kiste hir naked ers

Ful savourly, er he was war of this.

[GRHorn 105]

This is a great thread. We need to keep a running tab on all the right wingers taking over public education. It’s a plague that must be stopped. 

[aggie08 21434]

40 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

This is a great thread. We need to keep a running tab on all the right wingers taking over public education. It’s a plague that must be stopped. 

I realize that you're being facetious, but even you have to admit: they've been having a fucking go at it lately.

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 hour ago, GRHorn said:

This is a great thread. We need to keep a running tab on all the right wingers taking over public education. It’s a plague that must be stopped. 

So is that teacher a victim of “cancel culture” or not?

[JimmyJames 12271]

It would be hilarious how big the hypocrisy of these right wing assholes was if they weren’t so dangerous. Fascism does not tolerate dissent from the orthodoxy. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

Waiting for the “stop the steal” curriculum to be introduced into rural elementary schools.

[bad_teammate 13132]

1 hour ago, GRHorn said:

This is a great thread. We need to keep a running tab on all the right wingers taking over public education. It’s a plague that must be stopped. 

Unironically yes.

[OneOfTheOutOfFocusGuys 2059]

1 hour ago, GRHorn said:

This is a great thread. We need to keep a running tab on all the right wingers taking over public education. It’s a plague that must be stopped. 

You laugh, but I very much remember coming home from elementary school and saying to my older brother “it was about states rights!”

[JimmyJames 12271]

2 minutes ago, OneOfTheOutOfFocusGuys said:

You laugh, but I very much remember coming home from elementary school and saying to my older brother “it was about states rights!”

The civil war had nothing to do with slavery as it was all about states rights. Didn’t you know that? It was simply the war of northern aggression and Robert E Lee was a military genius while Grant was an idiot who only won due to superior numbers or something. Shall I go on?

[Bookman 4611]

6 hours ago, OneOfTheOutOfFocusGuys said:

You laugh, but I very much remember coming home from elementary school and saying to my older brother “it was about states rights!”

In seventh grade in Uvalde, Texas, I was specifically taught that the Civil War was not about slavery. This was 1989.

[gmr548 16517]

In seventh grade in Uvalde, Texas, I was specifically taught that the Civil War was not about slavery. This was 1989.

I was taught it was about state’s rights in the 2000’s in suburban DFW. I’m sure that’s still the talking point.

[hpslugga 4044]

4 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

I was taught it was about state’s rights in the 2000’s in suburban DFW. I’m sure that’s still the talking point.

I was taught that it was a mixed bag of states’ rights and slavery at HP in the same period. The stuff about Lee and Grant someone else mentioned previously sounded about the same as what I heard.

[hookem2010 2600]

Same here. 5th grade in Spring, TX circa 1999 I was enlightened that slavery had very little to do with the Civil War. Shout out to Mrs. Underwood, apparently you were just a racist old hag!

[aggie08 21434]

7 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

The civil war had nothing to do with slavery as it was all about states rights. Didn’t you know that? It was simply the war of northern aggression and Robert E Lee was a military genius while Grant was an idiot who only won due to superior numbers or something. Shall I go on?

Dude, did we have the same teacher? Robert E Lee was a brilliant man who would have fought for the Union, but he just couldn't abandon his beloved Virginia.

 

[David Dennison 18661]

 

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 hour ago, aggie08 said:

Dude, did we have the same teacher? Robert E Lee was a brilliant man who would have fought for the Union, but he just couldn't abandon his beloved Virginia.

 

Also don’t forget after the war was over a whole bunch of really dumb northern black dudes and some northern white traitors strolled into town and being the bunglers they were proceeded to attempt to ruin the south with their incompetence. After a few years of this bungling however southern patriots took back over and set things right and all those northerners headed back to where they belonged. 

[Guest Lobo]

Aloha, Mr. Hawn.  

[Chooky 13302]

canzel cultcher

[Pato del Muerto 52342]

11 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

That poem has the word "fuck" twice.

They fired a high school teacher with that as a justification.

And so it was that later
As the miller told his tale
That her face, at first just ghostly
Turned a whiter shade of pale

[Sawbonz 27436]

2 hours ago, hpslugga said:

I was taught that it was a mixed bag of states’ rights and slavery at HP in the same period. The stuff about Lee and Grant someone else mentioned previously sounded about the same as what I heard.

George Forgie taught me at UT in 92 that it took a perfect storm of factors for the civil war to happen, but the sine qua non was slavery. All the other differences would have been resolved peacefully but for slavery, and a peaceful solution to slavery would have been possible without the other divisions 

 

Also Lee was unquestionably a military genius, and absolutely believed Virginia had the legal right to secede. Had he stayed w the Union the rebellion would have been put down quickly and decisively, or not even attempted. He was declining rapidly though which is why he chose to proceed with attacking after he failed to get the high ground at Gettysburg. 
 

After the defeat at Gettysburg Union victory was inevitable. You had an industrialized nation vs farmers. 
 

Grant was also unquestionably a great general. But he actually prosecuted the war, which for whatever reason his predecessors refused to do. Put him in at the start and Lee never gets to go on the offensive, and the war ends quickly. 
 

 

 

 

 

[Beantown Express 2.0 6555]

Just curious but all those people that argue it was about states rights, what exactly is the states right in question other than having slaves?  Did the South go to war because they wanted to grow cotton but the North wouldn’t let them?  Was the North putting a ban on biscuits and gravy and making them eat scrapple for breakfast?  It’s such a bullshit argument but our population is just so stupid they believe it.

[Sawbonz 27436]

26 minutes ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

Just curious but all those people that argue it was about states rights, what exactly is the states right in question other than having slaves?  Did the South go to war because they wanted to grow cotton but the North wouldn’t let them?  Was the North putting a ban on biscuits and gravy and making them eat scrapple for breakfast?  It’s such a bullshit argument but our population is just so stupid they believe it.

Forgie taught an upper division history course titled “events leading up to the Civil War.” I think if it was only slavery, that course would’ve taken five minutes rather than an entire semester. Maybe the biggest factor other than slavery was trade policy between the United States and other countries. Policy beneficial to thr industrialized north could be incredibly harmful to the agrarian south and vice versa. These were huge issues but not likely not sufficient to go to war over absent the issue of slavery. 

[HornOnTheBayou 8881]

Yep, tariffs were a big issue in the first half of the 19th century (see Nullification Crisis). But seriously, the main cause is easy. It was slavery.

[berlinerbaer 670]

4 hours ago, Bookman said:

In seventh grade in Uvalde, Texas, I was specifically taught that the Civil War was not about slavery. This was 1989.

 

3 hours ago, gmr548 said:

I was taught it was about state’s rights in the 2000’s in suburban DFW. I’m sure that’s still the talking point.

 

3 hours ago, hookem2010 said:

Same here. 5th grade in Spring, TX circa 1999 I was enlightened that slavery had very little to do with the Civil War. Shout out to Mrs. Underwood, apparently you were just a racist old hag!

I had a rather opinionated teacher of AP US history in 11th grade argue strongly it was about the States' right to secede. This was in San Diego, California in the mid 90's. 

[hobbes2702 12846]

12 hours ago, GRHorn said:

This is a great thread. We need to keep a running tab on all the right wingers taking over public education. It’s a plague that must be stopped. 

Well they write the schoolbooks in Texas so...

Edited July 10, 2021 by hobbes2702

[Sawbonz 27436]

My daughter’s 1st 9 weeks assignment  for junior English last fall was an analysis of Kendrick Lamar’s to pimp a butterfly album. Those Tennessee admins would have stroked out

[cactusflinthead 27594]

Scopes trial doesn't fall far from the Tennessee

[bad_teammate 13132]

The US public school system is deeply right-wing.

I know the counter to that will be that a lot of teachers are, personally, Democrats, but that's a stupid response.

1 - Many Democrats are very right-wing.
2 - Teachers don't actually decide what happens or even is taught in schools.
3 - Teachers, like all other workers, do what they're told.

Our kids pledge allegiance to the flag every single morning in public schools. They likely do so before sporting events as well. They probably sing the National Anthem at assemblies. Their history curriculums are designed to glorify the history of the nation. We call them "founding fathers" and treat them with reverence in schools. We constantly promote the message that schooling is about workforce/job training. Our high schools have specific people hired to do career counseling. Our high schools invite recruiters for the armed forces. Our high schools have Junior ROTC programs.

You can argue it's GOOD that our schools are right-wing, but that is what they are, like it or not.

[Underdog 28457]

And here I thought all along that the Civil War was fought over the Blue/Gray Bowl game.

[Willfully Horn 7916]

19 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

This kind of thing may be more common now than in the past, but it's not new.  My mom taught English classes ranging from 8th grade thru lower level college.  Imagine her surprise when she got dragged in front of the school board for teaching middle school students . . . Chaucer.  Yep.  Apparently a John BIrch-y snowflake got all flustered because of a point in "The Miller's Tale" where a dude farts out his window on another dude.  

Mom won her case, but it signaled her as to the start of some serious right-wing pushback on content that never diminished.

I was struck by the wife of Bath’s “lap dogs three.”

[Paul Wesley 3277]

7 hours ago, hobbes2702 said:

Well they write the schoolbooks in Texas so...

And for decades, I’m pretty sure that what the conservatives cement into textbooks in this state— that spills widely into other states, because Texas is a 500-pound gorilla when it comes to ordering textbooks.  

[staboner 4959]

1 hour ago, Underdog said:

And here I thought all along that the Civil War was fought over the Blue/Gray Bowl game.

i thought it was about some breakaway beavers

[Nolacycling 893]

Csb/ Best course I took at UT was Canterbury Tales. It was taught by an ex-Jesuit priest. That dude was sharp. 

His view was The Miller's Wife butt kiss was oral sex. All those pockmarked, gross characters had venereal diseases.

[hpslugga 4044]

10 minutes ago, Paul Wesley said:

And for decades, I’m pretty sure that what the conservatives cement into textbooks in this state— that spills widely into other states, because Texas is a 500-pound gorilla when it comes to ordering textbooks.  

You’d be correct to assume that. It does spill and what spills is absolutely toxic 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

21 hours ago, David Dennison said:

 

The Exact same parallel could be made about the British empire,and its fight with the fledgling nation wannabe, except they didn't pull their other hand from behind their back.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

23 hours ago, aggie08 said:

Dude, did we have the same teacher? Robert E Lee was a brilliant man who would have fought for the Union, but he just couldn't abandon his beloved Virginia.

 

He was a brilliant strategist.  Grant was the superior overall commander and maybe the best we ever produced.  He learned army org from the ground floor up thru the quartermaster corps.

Lees  ultimate decision was based on not abandoning his state right or wrong.  At that time states we're still seen as your  homeland even more than the concept of America by a sizeable portion of the country.

Had Lee accepted command of all union forces at the outset of hostilities the case could be made he'd have marched on, and taken richmond very early on, which would have crushed southern moral, and resistance in a pretty decisive manner.

Slavery would more than likely have been left intact for probaly a decade more as there would have been no emancipation proclamation, as the initial thrust of the war was simply preservation of the Union.  The seeds would still been left for further civil war  down the road.

Edited July 11, 2021 by Onboard 2.0

[aggie08 21434]

51 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

He was a brilliant strategist.  Grant was the superior overall commander and maybe the best we ever produced.  He learned army org from the ground floor up thru the quartermaster corps.

Lees  ultimate decision was based on not abandoning his state right or wrong.  At that time states we're still seen as your  homeland even more than the concept of America by a sizeable portion of the country.

Had Lee accepted command of all union forces at the outset of hostilities the case could be made he'd have marched on, and taken richmond very early on, which would have crushed southern moral, and resistance in a pretty decisive manner.

Slavery would more than likely have been left intact for probaly a decade more as there would have been no emancipation proclamation, as the initial thrust of the war was simply preservation of the Union.  The seeds would still been left for further civil war  down the road.

My post wasn't to question Lee's military expertise. I understand that our country has a soft spot for proven generals (see: Rommel). My point was that schools have whitewashed and even glorified his history for 150 years. "Brilliant tactician" shouldn't be the first thing that people think of when they hear his name. That's better than he deserves. He doesn't get to hide behind "not wanting to abandon his state" any more than SS soldiers get to hide behind "serving the motherland." This isn't hindsight; the rest of the civilized world had come to accept the evils of slavery by the early 1800's. Shit, the British colonies had been slave free for over two decades when the Civil War broke out. The Confederate states weren't a product of their time; they were a bunch of racist shit heels trying desperately to hold onto a backwards ass, morally repugnant way of life. Lee had a choice, and he chose to be grouped with them. That's his legacy.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13547]

The South using the power of the federal government to force Northern states to recognize, within their borders, laws of Southern states via the Fugative Slave Act is all the evidence you need that The South gave fuck all about state's rights. 

[Sawbonz 27436]

1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

The Exact same parallel could be made about the British empire,and its fight with the fledgling nation wannabe, except they didn't pull their other hand from behind their back.

Difference is Cornwallis and Symonds surrendered. That means they and their officers swore not to fight any more, and all their soldiers and sailors were prisoners of war, not to mention they forfeited all their equipment and supplies. It was a crippling defeat, especially since both Spain and France were helping the Yanks directly  in North America and the Caribbean and indirectly with their navies in Europe. England could not resupply their forces here and wage war in Europe at the same time

 

The south had no real outside help. They really only had 2 chances to win: a successful offensive all the way to DC or make the electorate in the north so war weary that Lincoln would lose i 64 and ask for peace from the new administration 

 

If Lee had pushed through and gotten the high ground at Gettysburg they likely would have defeated the Army of the Potomac and could have made a dash for Washington. But Lee didn’t know where Meade was; Stuart was freelancing instead of scouting ahead, and Lee chose to halt short of the battlefield. 
 

He then chose to fight, and the decisive Union victory not only ended Lee’s chance to continue on the offensive but stemmed at least some of the public’s opposition to the war. Meade should have pursued the defeated army and captured Lee. He could have ended the war then. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

6 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Difference is Cornwallis and Symonds surrendered. That means they and their officers swore not to fight any more, and all their soldiers and sailors were prisoners of war, not to mention they forfeited all their equipment and supplies. It was a crippling defeat, especially since both Spain and France were helping the Yanks directly  in North America and the Caribbean and indirectly with their navies in Europe. England could not resupply their forces here and wage war in Europe at the same time

 

The south had no real outside help. They really only had 2 chances to win: a successful offensive all the way to DC or make the electorate in the north so war weary that Lincoln would lose i 64 and ask for peace from the new administration 

 

If Lee had pushed through and gotten the high ground at Gettysburg they likely would have defeated the Army of the Potomac and could have made a dash for Washington. But Lee didn’t know where Meade was; Stuart was freelancing instead of scouting ahead, and Lee chose to halt short of the battlefield. 
 

He then chose to fight, and the decisive Union victory not only ended Lee’s chance to continue on the offensive but stemmed at least some of the public’s opposition to the war. Meade should have pursued the defeated army and captured Lee. He could have ended the war then. 

Thanks, didn't know some of that rev war stuff.  A big part of the defeat of the British was the strategy of engaging the brits around the world by France. Having to put out lots of little fires in their colonies everywhere diminished their ability to focus on North America.  The death by a thousand cuts theory.

Lee would have been much more aggressive than the ineffectual McClellan, and prosecuted the war against Richmond immediately.  I don't think we'd have even seen the war extend beyond 1862.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

34 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

My post wasn't to question Lee's military expertise. I understand that our country has a soft spot for proven generals (see: Rommel). My point was that schools have whitewashed and even glorified his history for 150 years. "Brilliant tactician" shouldn't be the first thing that people think of when they hear his name. That's better than he deserves. He doesn't get to hide behind "not wanting to abandon his state" any more than SS soldiers get to hide behind "serving the motherland." This isn't hindsight; the rest of the civilized world had come to accept the evils of slavery by the early 1800's. Shit, the British colonies had been slave free for over two decades when the Civil War broke out. The Confederate states weren't a product of their time; they were a bunch of racist shit heels trying desperately to hold onto a backwards ass, morally repugnant way of life. Lee had a choice, and he chose to be grouped with them. That's his legacy.

Yes he did, and he chose like many did based on things that today are forgotten touchstones (Beyond the issue of slavery).

I grew up in Va. and was never taught anything other than slavery was the cause of the war.  States rights, tariffs, and Slave expansion into the territories were all secondary to the main issue of slavery.

The lost cause as a Romantic notion of the war was never taught in any school I attended, and when it was discussed was taught as the whitewashing of the real cause.

I can't believe anything else would ever be taught to anyone, but recognize that reality existed/may still exist.

[Sawbonz 27436]

24 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

This isn't hindsight

It is hindsight. There were slave states that remained in the Union, and they did so not expecting to end up freeing the enslaved people. The emancipation proclamation did not apply to people in these states, and would not have applied to any state that wanted to rejoin the union prior to its implementation. While abolitionists no doubt put Lincoln over the top for the Republican nomination in 1860 they were a minority in the party, and still considered fringe by the larger electorate. A significant portion of the populace in the north was against abolition due to the inevitable increased supply of labor suppressing wages.

And there absolutely was legitimate legal debate about the right of an individual state or group of states to leave the Union.  The civil war occurred less than 100 years after the ratification of the constitution, which was a touch and go process in its own right.  

 

 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

3 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

It is hindsight. There were slave states that remained in the Union, and they did so not expecting to end up freeing the enslaved people. The emancipation proclamation did not apply to people in these states, and would not have applied to any state that wanted to rejoin the union prior to its implementation. While abolitionists no doubt put Lincoln over the top for the Republican nomination in 1860 they were a minority in the party, and still considered fringe by the larger electorate. A significant portion of the populace in the north was against abolition due to the inevitable increased supply of labor suppressing wages.

And there absolutely was legitimate legal debate about the right of an individual state or group of states to leave the Union.  The civil war occurred less than 100 years after the ratification of the constitution, which was a touch and go process in its own right.  

 

 

The right to secede was most definitely an unsettled issue.  The individual states created The United States of America, and joined of their own free will, why wouldn't they believe they could leave that union of their own free will ?

The concept of the United States as the all powerful, central allegiance of its citizens was not a widespread concept, especially in the more rural parts of the nation (which was the vast majority of the country).

[hpslugga 4044]

34 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

The South using the power of the federal government to force Northern states to recognize, within their borders, laws of Southern states via the Fugative Slave Act is all the evidence you need that The South gave fuck all about state's rights. 

Not only that, but like Ken Burns keeps reminding us whenever he's asked about it, just read the fucking articles of secession in every single state in that horrid band of reptiles. When you do it, count how many times you see "slavery" or "negroes" or anything related to that, then compare it to how many times you see "states' rights." The latter barely comes up, and in some cases, not at all.