Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
A climate change denier will head of the EPA.
A vaccine denier will be our Health Secretary.
An oil exec will head the Department of Energy.
Trump has been vocally pro-book bans in the past, and the modern GOP has never been against it, and has even been doing it at an increasing rate over the past few years.
These are people that are happy to remove other people that disagree with them. You really don't think they're going to remove books and papers? lol
Let's not forget, the entire people who voted in the GOP, never mind Trump himself, are people who would be incredibly offended if you were smarter than them. It isn't about disagreeing, it's more like, knowing more than what the next person knows. And knowing there's probably 71 million morons who don't like people being smarter than them, they're going to be loud about it.
The only thing is that there's not really a vehicle for the fed to implement those bans. For all the weaknesses in the US constitution, freedom of speech is a historically tough nut for the government to crack. Not that they haven't tried, but they have almost no control over what media is and is not allowed to be published publicly.
What is working is when states get to decide what material to provide in schools. That includes required curriculum and what books they will buy and offer in classrooms and libraries. So the state can teach (or not teach) whatever they want within the confines of their own schools, but there's nothing they could do if, say, someone was to set up shop on the sidewalk across the street and hand out free copies of Gender Queer to any students who walk by. Nor could the fed, as it stands.
So we've led our horses to water, but how do we make them drink? How do you convince the students to want to pick up that book and read it for fun, and how can you help them understand what it all means when the critical reading skills for queer literature are not being taught?
"We've led the horse to water" is just "it's not literally illegal to own?" OK.
I mean what I said. You can preserve content and make it as accessible as you want, and I don't think there will be much resistance from the government in doing so. But that doesn't solve the bigger issue of states having the authority to say "We don't want to teach this content in our school systems." How do you address that?
Even if the content is free and accessible outside of the classroom, what makes a student want to pick up a book on their own? Fewer US students today read for fun than they used to. And if their classes do not provide the critical reading skills to sufficiently understand the content of a given text, how much can they appreciate it?
One could suggest establishing a national curriculum that could realign these renegade states. But in the current political climate, that would be more likely used to make the problem worse, leading to bans on a national scale.
Private schools are not beholden to government entities when it comes to content they do/do not include in their curriculum. But I can promise the solution is not to privatize school systems en masse, which would be disastrous for a number of reasons.
So instead of focusing on preserving the content that is being taken out of classrooms, which isn't otherwise going anywhere, why not focus more on meeting students where they are? Ensure that LGBT+ representation continues to exist in other forms of media that they consume. Normalize being queer in all spaces, not just the classroom. Provide support and social services for queer youth. Eventually people will come to realize that these identity politics are a waste of time and leading to worse outcomes in conservative states. Reformed curricula will follow.
Remove books and papers from where? The government in the US has influence on this, for sure, but there is no mechanism for the government to interfere with the private ownership of literature
Of course the federal government has a great deal of influence over current and future research, but that isn't the topic. OP's asking about existing literature.
Which journals does the federal government own?
You seem really angry for someone who never even tried to answer OP's question. What specifically should they be archiving, oh wise one?