Censorship of Educators

[Psyko]

Story here: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/02/13 ... ving-hell/

Republicans in the US State of Arizona have put forward a state bill which will censor the conduct of teachers and professors in public schools/universities. Educators would be forced to adhere to regulations adopted by the FCC (Federal Communications Commission). The bill fails to mention such guidelines only apply to public conduct, meaning it could very well cost a teacher their job for their actions in their private lives.

It's essentially a giant book-banning bill, in my opinion, but it also affects the people who teach Arizona's children. 3 strikes and their jobs are dust.

Related discussion topics:
Censoring teachers
Book/Media banning
Government regulation of education

[Jack]

Public schools and universities are government institutes. Government can regulate it however it wants within the confines what it's constitution allows.

Regulating classroom behavior is fine. Regulating behavior on social media of a teacher where a large portion of the students for that school can see, is fine to an extent. Beyond that is too far.

Disallowing certain books to be taught in public school classrooms is not banning books.

[Ashu]

What exactly are they banning? Only book or does this include a wider variety of things?

[jedi~tank]

Public schools and universities are government institutes. Government can regulate it however it wants within the confines what it's constitution allows.

Regulating classroom behavior is fine. Regulating behavior on social media of a teacher where a large portion of the students for that school can see, is fine to an extent. Beyond that is too far.

Disallowing certain books to be taught in public school classrooms is not banning books.

Agreed, teachers should be censored, i want my kids to be taught math, science, language arts etc etc etc not all of this special interest politically correct propoganda **Filtered**.

[Juliette]

Public schools are the government's "Centres of Truth". It is only reasonable that in those 'Centres of Truth' only the Government's propaganda is thrown at you.
Want a good school? Go private.

The system of education is simply another tool to control the masses from birth (literally; see Gov't daycare). And that is not necessarily a bad thing. The majority of people needs to be controlled, or you get the kind of insane rampages as we have seen in Athens over the past few months, or indeed the Arab world.


Public schools by their definition are the propaganda arm Government.
Trust the government? Then your kids will be fine in school.

None of my kids will ever set a foot in Government Schools, except as an excursion to see how the other 99% learns. And then, only as a surprise visit, not attending some sickening Open House day where all the dirt is flushed away for a day.

[Psyko]

What exactly are they banning? Only book or does this include a wider variety of things?

Teachers must abide by the regulations of the FCC in regards to speech and conduct, as well as curriculum. That's all that is stated, and the FCC is far from clear on this subject. Which is the whole problem, in my opinion. It can open a can of worms which will cause educators to be so afraid of losing their jobs (career suicide in this economic crisis) they will be unable to properly educate and care for their students.

The FCC website (http://www.fcc.gov/guides/obscenity-ind ... -profanity) states:
[spoiler]Obscene Broadcasts Are Prohibited at All Times

Obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution and cannot be broadcast at any time. The Supreme Court has established that, to be obscene, material must meet a three-pronged test:

An average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
The material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and
The material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

Indecent Broadcast Restrictions

The FCC has defined broadcast indecency as “language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities.” Indecent programming contains patently offensive sexual or excretory material that does not rise to the level of obscenity.

The courts have held that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be banned entirely. It may, however, be restricted in order to avoid its broadcast during times of the day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience.

Consistent with a federal indecency statute and federal court decisions interpreting the statute, the Commission adopted a rule that broadcasts -- both on television and radio -- that fit within the indecency definition and that are aired between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. are prohibited and subject to indecency enforcement action.

Profane Broadcast Restrictions

The FCC has defined profanity as “including language so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance.”

Like indecency, profane speech is prohibited on broadcast radio and television between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.[/spoiler]
Basically, it's a bunch of political jargon with no substance. Reading material children and college students have been learning for decades could be reclassified as illegal due to obscenity or indecency. Health and medical classes could become legally "indecent" due to the pictures of sexual organs. Whole curriculums would be placed in jeopardy with no clear decision maker named to decide what does and does not violate these new standards.

A teacher's comments or advice toward a student could cost them their job. Their actions in their personal life could cost them their job. In some cases, that is more than fair, of course. However, the rules are so blurry this could include any number of personal, private, things. This bill is not about social networking websites, though I am sure those apply, too. Also, if a student goes to a teacher they trust with a problem regarding sex, pregnancy, drugs, etc. the teacher would either be walking on eggshells or completely brush the kid off out of fear.

I have no problem with a little regulation on what is taught in American classrooms today, but if you are going to legislate something that can/will alter school curriculum, it better be written in a clear and articulate manner. Not this completely FUBAR bill that was presented.

As far as teacher conduct is concerned, I have yet to hear of a district/school that allowed a teacher to continue to teach after questionable public conduct without reprimand. There is no need for further regulation of that, in my opinion. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Public schools and universities are government institutes. Government can regulate it however it wants within the confines what it's constitution allows.

Regulating classroom behavior is fine. Regulating behavior on social media of a teacher where a large portion of the students for that school can see, is fine to an extent. Beyond that is too far.

Disallowing certain books to be taught in public school classrooms is not banning books.

Agreed, teachers should be censored, i want my kids to be taught math, science, language arts etc etc etc not all of this special interest politically correct propoganda **Filtered**.

I really doubt any of this will get rid of the politically correctness. If anything, it would exacerbate the problem of political correctness in our school system. Teachers would be too afraid to say or teach anything which could be classified as offensive.

[Jack]

Social media was just one example, the idea was in any setting where it can be seen that the teacher is representing the school or using their position as a teacher when dealing with students.

Public schools and universities are government institutes. Government can regulate it however it wants within the confines what it's constitution allows.

Regulating classroom behavior is fine. Regulating behavior on social media of a teacher where a large portion of the students for that school can see, is fine to an extent. Beyond that is too far.

Disallowing certain books to be taught in public school classrooms is not banning books.

Agreed, teachers should be censored, i want my kids to be taught math, science, language arts etc etc etc not all of this special interest politically correct propoganda **Filtered**.

I never said it should happen. I said public schools are government institutions so it is the government's to regulate. Besides, Psyko is right. All this will do is increase political correctness in school. Which means that attempting to teach anything positive about Christianity will get the teachers fired.

Like Universe said, if you do not like what is being taught in public school, then either go private or homeschool. This is why I support vouchers and the right to homeschool.

[Legendary Apophis]

Public schools are the government's "Centres of Truth". It is only reasonable that in those 'Centres of Truth' only the Government's propaganda is thrown at you.
Want a good school? Go private.


Public schools by their definition are the propaganda arm Government.
Trust the government? Then your kids will be fine in school.

None of my kids will ever set a foot in Government Schools, except as an excursion to see how the other 99% learns. And then, only as a surprise visit, not attending some sickening Open House day where all the dirt is flushed away for a day.

Well, I would say it depends on countries...
For example, that's not the case in France. Except if we consider timeline 1981-1995 and 1997-2002, then yes, it was gov propaganda (style taught at school fitting with gov party ideology).
Liberal-left wing education led by left winged commies/socialist teachers which obviously entered into big conflict when gov is right wing.

[Juliette]

Well, I would say it depends on countries...

No. Public education is always a government tool.

For example, that's not the case in France. Except if we consider timeline 1981-1995 and 1997-2002, then yes, it was gov propaganda (style taught at school fitting with gov party ideology).
Liberal-left wing education led by left winged commies/socialist teachers which obviously entered into big conflict when gov is right wing.

A non-conflict, there is no difference between right and left. Sure, a few different choices are made in all things, but ultimately, the 'left-right paradigm' is an illusion, created to effect the idea of choice in weakminded masses, ultimately strengthening the government's position.
The education system just moves slower. It is far more insidious, since it poisons children.

[Legendary Apophis]

Well, I would say it depends on countries...

No. Public education is always a government tool.

For example, that's not the case in France. Except if we consider timeline 1981-1995 and 1997-2002, then yes, it was gov propaganda (style taught at school fitting with gov party ideology).
Liberal-left wing education led by left winged commies/socialist teachers which obviously entered into big conflict when gov is right wing.

A non-conflict, there is no difference between right and left. Sure, a few different choices are made in all things, but ultimately, the 'left-right paradigm' is an illusion, created to effect the idea of choice in weakminded masses, ultimately strengthening the government's position.
The education system just moves slower. It is far more insidious, since it poisons children.

Oh thank you for that interesting "categorizing"...I will share that with my university involved-into-politics friends to tell them what we are. After all it's time they learn as well as me that we are among the "weakminded masses" to believe in the left-right paradigm.


There are definitely differences between both, ideologically at least. Practically, it's less easy to see in different gov policies, obviously. And yes, left wing-liberal education "poisons" children. I know that, which means there's something wrong in your argument if I'm able to find out what's wrong in the education system.

[Juliette]

Left-wingers will say right-wingers poison, and vice versa. It is one big mess. The government always wins, eventually.
That is what I meant. I guess a 'woosh' is in order.

[Legendary Apophis]

Left-wingers will say right-wingers poison, and vice versa. It is one big mess. The government always wins, eventually.

The victory is also of the party/ideology who controls education, as you have a politically oriented education, not only state-oriented (such as respect the republic and its institutions, with an apolitical line of teaching). It doesn't create many anti-republic people, yes, I'll concede that point. But it creates people likely to be in favour of one side of the spectrum than the others. While private schools, on the other hand, often (not always) are when they tend towards politics, lead more to the right wing point of view. The state is always winning, not the government, slight difference which isn't so slight in the end!
However, it's not enough brainwashing system (yet..) to make everyone follow without questioning and ignore criticism of teaching system and have a one-party rule the system with no ability to have any form of alternative. Of course -very- pessimistic people would tell "either way we are screwed and that we are all slaves", but there is no situation when it wouldn't be the case, regardless of political system some would be screwed more than others, that's how it is.
I'm aware that the alternatives/differences are within a political system, and not a completely different alternative in a wide level.

Governments come and go, state remains. If there is one winner, it's the state, not the government. Political spectrum matters in governments, but not-so-much in the state continuation.

[Juliette]

You cannot possibly want to argue state vs. government with me.

[Legendary Apophis]

You cannot possibly want to argue state vs. government with me.

Well, each person keeps their own stance on the matter, then. I guess I'm fine with it.

[Juliette]

You cannot possibly want to argue state vs. government with me.

Well, each person keeps their own stance on the matter, then. I guess I'm fine with it.

In England, you have the Queen's Privy Council. In the Netherlands, the State Council (Raad van State), and their equivalents are present across all nations. They are static councils, part of the government that does not change. It is this government that always wins.
The state, my friend, is the nation as a whole, from the King up top all the way down to the serfs on the land. The majority of the state are suckers who lose. All the time.