When I read this piece on book bans by Aaron Blake in the Washington Post back in November, 2021, I chanced upon  this page from the Holocaust archive that should give us pause as today's book banning agenda is not unlike Nazism as you can read about here:

"Beginning on May 10, 1933, Nazi-dominated student groups carried out public burnings of books they claimed were “un-German.” The book burnings took place in 34 university towns and cities. Works of prominent Jewish, liberal, and leftist writers ended up in the bonfires. The book burnings stood as a powerful symbol of Nazi intolerance and censorship. 

The Nazi university student association created blacklists of works by literary and political figures such as Bertolt Brecht, Erich Maria Remarque, and Ernest Hemingway that were to be thrown into the flames.

In the aftermath of the book burnings, the Nazi regime raided book stores, libraries, and publishers’ warehouses to confiscate materials it deemed dangerous or “un-German.”  The Nazi book burnings provoked international criticism from intellectuals and the press. They saw it as a barbaric act that was out of keeping with a modern, civilized society. "

So for Nazis, Bertolt Brecht and Ernest Hemingway were their "pornography" that got thrown into the fire. What is happening in Texas is little different. In fact, the comparison is stunning and the implications, chilling.

Ok students, here is an assignment. Read Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 that depicts an American society where books have been outlawed with "firemen" burning any and all they find. You can listen to it on audiobooks, too. This book is considered one of Ray Bradbury's greatest novels. 

Read it before it appears on the chopping block, too. You can also see the film by the same name on HBO Max.

Makes me want to hug all my books, especially those that have challenged me the most.

-Angela Valenzuela

‘I think we should throw those books in a fire’: Movement builds on right to target books

By Aaron Blake | November 10, 2021 | Washington Post

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) in June. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

Perhaps the most infamous quote of the 2021 Virginia governor’s race — and indeed of any 2021 race — belongs to Democrat Terry McAuliffe: “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.”

What many people might not have fully processed is that the quote stemmed from a debate about books in schools. Gov.-elect Glenn Youngkin (R) had attacked McAuliffe for, as governor, vetoing a bill to allow parents to opt their children out of reading assignments they deem to be explicit. The impetus was a famous book from Nobel laureate Toni Morrison, “Beloved,” about an enslaved Black woman who kills her 2-year-old daughter to prevent her from being enslaved herself.

While that effort took place years ago, it was rekindled as a political issue at a telling time. Not only are conservatives increasingly targeting school curriculums surrounding race, but there’s also a building and often-related effort to rid school libraries of certain books.

Commentary on the 88th (2023) Session of the Texas State Legislature by Black Legislative Caucus Chair Rep. Ron Reynolds on the Texas Standard/NPR

Friends,

Happy Super Bowl weekend!

Treat yourself to this conversation on the Texas Standard at NPR.org with the Chair of the Texas Black Legislative Caucus (BLC) Rep. Ron Reynolds. Among the items the BLC is taking up this legislative session are the following:

Criminal justice reform in the wake of the murder of Tyre Nichols in Memphis, including ending qualified immunity for police officers; commonsense gun reform legislation; economic development, including funding historically Black Colleges and Universities; environmental justice, health care, citing a systemic lack of access to healthcare for Black women and men; voting rights; opposing vouchers; and supporting property tax relief.

Another big item is fighting anti-DEI bills (mentioned in my previous post), noting that Texas is a "majority-minority" and just how off base those bills are. Rep. Reynolds says that the BLC will hold a Tuesday morning Press Conference together with Gary Bledsoe and the NAACP at the Texas State Capitol. Details forthcoming.

He urges constituents to register their views with legislators who represent them, on the one hand, and for legislators to work for their constituents. He also suggested calling the governor and Lt. Governor to register your concerns as voters and constituents. 

Here is Governor Abbott's phone no.: 512-463-2000

Here is Lt. Governor Dan Patrick's nos.:

• The Texas Lieutenant Governor Message Line: (512) 463-5342
• The Texas Lieutenant Governor Office Line: (512) 463-0001

We still are a democracy and we all still have a voice, so let's use them.

A final comment is that, as is customary, the Black and Mexican American  Legislative Caucuses in the House are working closely together on these items such that we should all be and feel encouraged.

-Angela Valenzuela

The linguistic genius of babies by Patricia Kuhl [Ted Talk]

Check out this Ted Talk by Patricia Kuhl on brain-based research on babies'

language learning. Babies are indeed linguistic geniuses who make sense of their world from day one and with such incredible sophistication.

I like a point that she shares about babies' profound openness to learning, something that we, as adults can learn from. 

Fascinating!

-Angela Valenzuela

http://www.ted.com At TEDxRainier, Patricia Kuhl shares astonishing findings about how babies learn one language over another -- by listening to the humans around them and "taking statistics" on the sounds they need to know. Clever lab experiments (and brain scans) show how 6-month-old babies use sophisticated reasoning to understand their world.

Texas Tech reverses DEI statement requirement after biology dept. featured in WSJ piece

Texas Tech is retracting its diversity statements and hiring practices after a publication addressing this appeared in the Wall St. Journal on February 6, 2023. See WSJ: How ‘Diversity’ Policing Fails Science: An open-records request reveals that Texas Tech faculty penalize candidates for heterodox opinions. 

Contrary to the view that standards of intellectual excellence are getting undermined by diversity and inclusion statements and processes, understanding and embracing difference in a highly-diverse world is fully about competence that touches every aspect of life, work, and career. 

The issue here rather is dressed up as an issue of compromising "merit" when it's actually about not wanting to empower our minoritized communities. It further reflects a discomfort among those in power with a de-centering of whiteness and white supremacy that finds expression in anti-DEI  policies and practice that have served us well.

Moreover, they're particularly important in historically white, Eurocentric institutions like Texas Tech, as well as my own institution at the University of Texas at Austin and most others throughout our state and nation. This is a national problem and concern.

Individual merit should also arguably be about negotiating and understanding difference in an enterprise that is fully about educating the next generation that happens to be not only highly diverse, but the most diverse in the history of our country (Fry & Parker, 2018). Particularly in the context of these demographic shifts, why shouldn't diversity be a value or goal? After all,  these are the very students that we need to recruit into higher education institutions.

I hope our colleges and universities stay strong and do not cave in to this ultra-conservative agenda that threatens to take us back to the Jim Crow or— for Mexicans in Texas and the Southwest—the Juan Crow" era that endured through the 1950s in our state.

Not a good optic, my college and university friends and colleagues. Not at all a good optic. And potentially, very harmful.

-Angela Valenzuela

Reference

Fry, R. & Parker, K. (NOVEMBER 15, 2018). Early Benchmarks Show ‘Post-Millennials’ on Track to Be Most Diverse, Best-Educated Generation Yet:A demographic portrait of today’s 6- to 21-year-olds, Pew Research Center. 

Texas Tech reverses DEI statement requirement after biology dept. featured in WSJ piece

LUBBOCK, Texas (KCBD) - Texas Tech has announced a review of its hiring policies after diversity and inclusion statements required by the department of biology were featured in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece.

Wall Street Journal opinion story, written by John D. Sailer, said one candidate was flagged for not knowing the difference between “equity” and “equality,” another was flagged for referring to professors with the “he” pronoun. Another was praised for making a “land acknowledgement” during the hiring process, “noting that Native Americans once lived in what is now the United States.”

PDF: Redacted DEI statements from Texas Tech Department of Biology

The TTU biology department had adopted its own diversity, equity and inclusion policy for the hiring process, asking that search committees “require and strongly weight a diversity statement from all candidates.”

The university quickly reversed that policy on Tuesday after the piece ran on Monday, announcing in a written statement:

“Texas Tech University’s faculty hiring practices will always emphasize disciplinary excellence and the ability of candidates to support our priorities in student success, impactful scholarship, and community engagement. Recently, we learned of a department that required a diversity, equity, and inclusion statement in addition to the usual applicant materials as pan of a faculty search. We immediately withdrew this practice and initiated a review of hiring procedures across all colleges and departments. We will withdraw the use of these statements and evaluation rubrics if identified.”

The Wall Street Journal shared these documents, originally published in redacted form after an open records request by the conservative-leaning National Association of Scholars, saying “They confirm what critics of DEI statements have long argued: That they inevitably act as ideological litmus tests.”

The WSJ piece cites an example of one candidate who “mentioned that DEI is not an issue because he respects his students and treats them equally.” The evaluation notes said “This indicates a lack of understanding of equity and inclusion issues.”

We’ll update this story to include any further statements by the Wall Street Journal, National Association of Scholars or Texas Tech.

Copyright 2023 KCBD. All rights reserved.

The Plan to Dismantle DEI in Texas and Beyond

Friends, 

Do keep your eyes on Texas now that both Gov. Abbott and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick have jumped into the fray.

• Gov. Greg Abbott tells state agencies to stop considering diversity in hiring
• Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick says Texas GOP will 'wipe out' college diversity hiring programs

For the rest of us who bear the brunt of decades of a culture of racism and exclusion in our state, this is terrible news. But then, of course, that's the point. To continue limiting our access, as under-represented, minoritized people to the good life, including access to higher education. 

After all, Black and Brown folks might get so empowered as to threaten the incumbencies of those who currently hold power.

This is flat-out discrimination and has serious implications for academic freedom. We must vigorously challenge this.

Nothing good will come of this spiteful agenda should their bills (HB 1006, HB 1607, and HB 1046) become law.

-Angela Valenzuela

The Plan to Dismantle DEI: Conservatives Take On Colleges' 'Illiberal Bureaucracy'

By  Eric Kelderman | Chronicle of Higher Education | Feb. Issue

Two influential conservative think tanks described in detail on Wednesday how legislatures could dismantle the administrative structures that support diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts at public colleges.

Model state legislation, written by scholars at the Manhattan and Goldwater Institutes, if passed, would prohibit colleges from hiring diversity, equity, and inclusion officers; bar trainings that instruct staff to identify and fight against systemic racism; eliminate requirements for employees to commit to diversity statements; and could disallow even institutional commitments to social justice and recommendations that students be addressed by their preferred pronouns.

“This package is meant to reverse illiberal tendencies that have swept across higher education in the past decade,” said Ilya Shapiro, one of the authors of the model bill and a senior fellow and director of constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute.

RECOMMENDED ARTICLES

• ABOLITIONIST DEMOTED

  A Dean Says He Was Ousted for His Opposition to Police and Prisons
• STUDENT MENTAL HEALTH

  Colleges Should Spend Covid-Relief Funds on Mental-Health Support, Education Department Says
• Q&A

  ‘It Does Get Tiresome’: What an ACLU Lawyer Thinks About the Endless Free-Speech Debate

"Vouchers Are Not About School Choice. Here's How We Know," by Peter Greene

I like how Peter Greene lays his argument against vouchers bare: 

"It's about not having to pay taxes to educate Those People's Children" (while using those people's tax dollars to cover their children's private school education). 

Thanks to Diane Ravitch for sharing.

 -Angela Valenzuela

"Vouchers Are Not About School Choice. Here's How We Know," by Peter Greene

Wednesday, January 25, 2023 | Curmudgucation

The new wave of voucher bills being rammed through red state legislatures all demonstrate a truth about school voucher policies-- vouchers are not about choice. They're about peeling people away from the public school system in order to defund and dismantle that system.

What makes me think so? Here it is. Sometimes it's not about what people say, but about what they don't say. If the concern were really and truly choice for every student, then voucher fans would be addressing some of the real obstacles to school choice. 

This door doesn't lead where they told you it would. 

 For one, they would be addressing discriminatory and exclusionary policies. Yet when have we ever heard a voucher supporter say, "These discriminatory policies have to stop. LGBTQ+ students deserve just as much school choice as any other students." The closest thing we ever get is "Well, then they can start an LGBTQ-friendly school of their own." Yet when that happens, pro-voucher politicians target that school with terms like "perversion." And of course in some states, such a school can never happen because talking about LGBTQ students or Black history has been outlawed. And voucher laws are written to hold the private school right to discriminate as it wishes inviolable. 

If someone were serious about voucher based choice, they would also address cost. Vouchers are typically far too small to pay for tuition to top schools in the state. If voucher supporters were really interested in making sure that, as Jeb Bush says, "each and every...student can access the education of their choice," there would be a robust discussion about how to bridge the gap between meager vouchers and expensive schools. 

 Yet we never hear voucher advocates saying, "We need to find the way to fully fund vouchers so that they provide a real choice to students." 

Choice advocates like to point at the inequity of the public system--parent choice is limited by their ability to buy an expensive house in a wealthy neighborhood. But the current crop of voucher programs doesn't change that a bit--a voucher offers little to change the fact that how much "freedom" you get depends on how wealthy you are. It has been done. 

But when Croydon, NH set up a school choice program, a voucher-like system that bore the full cost of sending a student to the school of their choice, local libertarians tried to shut it down because they wanted lower taxes. 

 Voucher fans love the idea of school choice; they just don't want to actually pay for it. If these folks were serious about school choice via vouchers, we would have calls for oversight and accountability. It would make a choice system that much more attractive for parents to know that all the available options have been vetted and screened and will be held to some standards, just like shopping in a grocery store where you can rest easy in near-certainty that whatever you pick, it's not going to actually poison your family. And yet not only do voucher fans not call for oversight and accountability, but they actively block it with language that hammers home that nobody can tell vendors what to do or how to do it.

Voucherphiles like to call their system child-centered, but in fact it is vendor-centered, with "protections" for the service providers written into the law, and protections for the students non-existent. Parents are left to navigate an unregulated system of asymmetrical information that favors the businesses-- not the families. 

 If we were really talking about school choice, we would be talking about these ideas. Choice advocates would be demanding we talk about them. But we're not. 

 Vouchers are not about choice. They're about saying, "I'll give you a couple grand to sign away your rights to a free and appropriate public education." 

They're about using that deal to get one step closer to Milton Friedman's dream of education being a cost shouldered by parents, not society. In other words, not just privatizing the delivery of education, but also privatizing the responsibility for it. 

 It's about not having to pay taxes to educate Those People's Children. If at the same time we can use some taxpayer dollars (collected from Other People) to also further some "Kingdon Gains" and fund some private religious schools (just the Right Ones), that's a win-win. 

 I'll end with my usual caveat--there are undoubtedly some folks out there who sincerely believe that vouchers are a good way to a pursue real school choice. Believe it or not, I myself can imagine what a true functional and beneficial school choice system would look like. And it wouldn't look anything like what has been ramming its way through state legislatures in the past few years. 

 Posted by Peter Greene at Wednesday, January 25, 2023 Email This BlogThis! Share to Twitter Share to Facebook Share to Pinterest

The University of Texas System Rules and Regulations of the Board of Regents Rule: 31004 on Academic Freedom

UT System Friends and Colleagues:

Time to dust off the UT System's Academic Freedom policy as per the University of Texas System of Rules and Regulations (Rule 31004). 

Academic freedom is the kind of policy area that we all take for granted until we realized that there are some in power that want to take it down. The legislature is in session right now and here are the bills that have bearing on the matter as follows:

HB 1607 and 1006, Here is a cool link furnished by mycapitol.com to every bill that's been filed to date in the House and Senate in context of the current 88th (2023) Texas Legislative Session. HB 1033 and HB 1046 have negative implications for all higher education Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion positions, together with DEI training.

It's a very good thing for us faculty to know our rights, as well as what is at risk across the various bill proposals. Plus, forewarned is forearmed.

-Angela Valenzuela

The University of Texas System Rules and Regulations of the Board of Regents Rule: 31004 

 1. Title 

Rights and Responsibilities of Faculty Members 

2. Rule and Regulation 

Sec. 1 Freedom in Research. Faculty members are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results. 

Sec. 2 Freedom in the Classroom. Faculty members are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing his or her subject, but are expected not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter that has no relation to his or her subject. 

Sec. 3 Clarification of Role. Faculty members are citizens, members of learned professions, and officers of an educational institution supported by the State of Texas. When the faculty member speaks or writes as a citizen, he or she should be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but should make it plain that the faculty member is not an institutional spokesperson. 

Sec. 4 Primary Duties. The primary duties of a member of the faculty are to: 

4.1 Teaching. Teach in the classroom, laboratory, seminar, or clinical setting. 

4.2 Research. Study, investigate, discover, create, and develop professionally. 

4.3 Administration. Perform curricular tasks auxiliary to teaching and research, e.g., serving on faculty committees, attending to administrative and disciplinary tasks, fostering intellectual curiosity and integrity in the student body. 

4.4 Contribution to Society. Use their professional expertise to benefit society. 

Sec. 5 Compensation Restriction. Full-time faculty or staff of the rank of instructor or above on 12-month appointments may receive additional compensation for correspondence course and/or extension center teaching, but may not receive additional compensation for summer school teaching. Full-time faculty on nine-month appointments may receive additional compensation The University of Texas System Rules and Regulations of the Board of Regents Rule: 31004  for correspondence course and/or extension center teaching during the nine-month period and also may be paid for summer school teaching. 

Sec. 6 Textbook and Course Materials. The policy of the Board of Regents concerning textbooks and other materials prescribed for the use of students is as follows: 

6.1 Choice of Materials. Individual faculty members or the department should have discretion in the choice of materials to be used in the courses offered by the department. 

Sec. 7 Materials Authored by Faculty. Although the authorship of books, outlines, manuals, and similar materials by members of the faculty and staff should be encouraged, the prescribed use of these for students is a responsibility that goes beyond that of the individual author. Whenever an approved fee includes a charge for such materials distributed through the classroom, the prices should be as low as possible, consistent with the payment of any required royalty to the author or authors. 

7.1 Required Approval. Textbooks, notebooks, manuals, or other materials for the use of students of an institution, written or prepared by a member of the faculty of that institution, shall not be prescribed for the use of students in that institution or sold to such students until approved by the dean, chief academic officer, and president of an institution, pursuant to policies included in the institutional Handbook of Operating Procedures. At a minimum, these policies should provide for consultation with departmental faculty. 

Sec. 8 Nonsectarian. In accordance with Texas Education Code Section 65.38, no course of instruction of a sectarian character shall be taught in the System. 

Sec. 9 Fees. Faculty members without previous and special approval of the Board of Regents, shall not collect from students any fees or charges to be expended for institutional purposes, and shall not sell to students books, notes, or similar student supplies. 

9.1 Prohibited Fees. A member of the faculty may not accept pay for extra instruction or teaching of students registered in the institution where he or she is employed.The University of Texas System Rules and Regulations of the Board of Regents Rule: 31004

9.2 Allowed Fees. With written approval, teaching assistants and other like instructional employees below the rank of an instructor may accept pay from students for extra-class instruction or coaching but only in courses or sections of courses with which they have no instructional connection. The Handbook of Operating Procedures of the institution shall specify the procedure for approval at the institutional level. 

3. Definitions 

None 

4. Relevant Federal and State Statutes 

Texas Education Code Section 65.38– Nonsectarian Courses 

5. Relevant System Policies, Procedures, and Forms 

None 

6. Who Should Know 

Faculty 

7. System Administration Office(s) Responsible for Rule 

Office of Academic Affairs 

Office of Health Affairs

 

8. Dates Approved or Amended 

December 10, 2004 

9. Contact Information 

Questions or comments regarding this Rule should be directed to: 

• _bor@utsystem.edu

This is harmful policy. There is no permanent, independent funding stream for vouchers. It all comes out of the same taxes that fund public schools. Yes, our taxes. The public's dollars.

Under the guise of "freedom" and "choice," this means that my hard-earned tax dollars get diverted away from funding my neighborhood public school and directly into the pockets of wealthy families who were already sending their kids to private schools.

Members of the Texas legislature should not allow themselves to get arm-twisted into supporting this privatization agenda and focus instead on increasing funding for public schools instead.

-Angela Valenzuela

#TxLege #TxEd

@TexasAFT

At parental rights event, Gov. Greg Abbott sheds light on how he’d implement “school choice” policy

For the first time, Abbott makes it clear which policy he supports. Bills that would allow parents to get state money to send their kids to schools outside of the state’s public education system have been floated previously, but top lawmakers believe the policies will pass this session.

BY BRIAN LOPEZ JAN. 31, 20238 PM CENTRAL

Gov. Greg Abbott speaks at a “Parent Empowerment Night” hosted by the Parent Empowerment Coalition at Annapolis Christian Academy in Corpus Christi on Jan. 31. Blaine YoungCre Blaine Young for The Texas Tribune

For the first time since making parental rights a priority early last year, Gov. Greg Abbott on Tuesday voiced his most explicit support yet for a “school choice” policy, saying that Texas needs to create an education savings account program.

“That will give all parents the ability to choose the best education option for their child,” Abbott said during a Parent Empowerment Night event in Corpus Christi. “The bottom line is this: This is really about freedom.”

Abbott’s comment comes as the Texas Legislature prepares to take on public education issues; the top lawmakers have signaled that enacting a “school choice” program is at the top of the list. Abbott has voiced his support for expanding such a policy but never has been this clear on what sort of program he would support.

“School choice” is a term used to describe programs that give parents state money to send their kids to schools outside of the state’s public education system. The most common model is school vouchers, which are state-sponsored scholarships for private schools. This term has also become shorthand for opponents when talking about measures that would take taxpayer money from public schools.

Texas already practices school choice, as parents can choose to send their children to free charter schools or transfer schools within or outside of their district.

Texas has tried to pass school choice legislation in the past but has failed as rural lawmakers have stood in the way. In rural communities, both school officials and lawmakers fear that something like an education savings account would take money away from their schools as Texas funds schools based on attendance.

“No one knows what is better for a child’s education than their parents,” Abbott said. “Parents deserve the freedom to choose the education that is best for their child.”

Sen. Mayes Middleton, R-Galveston, filed Senate Bill 176, which could become the most expansive piece of school choice legislation in the state if it were to pass. It would create an education savings account program that would allow parents to use state funds to pay for their children’s private school, online schooling or private tutors.

Under Middleton’s legislation, families that opt out of the state’s public education system would receive the average amount of money it costs Texas public schools to educate a child, which is currently about $10,000 a year. The money would roll over on a year-to-year basis and could be used to help families pay for higher education, according to the bill. The funds for the program could come from both taxpayer money and donations.

Education savings accounts were pitched to lawmakers back in 2017, but the proposal didn’t get much traction.

For some Republicans, this session is seen as an opportunity to get school choice legislation across the finish line as they believe they will have enough backing from parents displeased with public schools over pandemic response mandates and about how race and history are taught in the classroom.

Abbott says parental rights are a priority this session, but state law already ensures that parents have rights. The “Parental Rights and Responsibilities” section of the state education code gives parents a wide range of access and veto powers when it comes to their children. They can remove their child temporarily from a class or activity that conflicts with their religious beliefs. They have the right to review all instructional materials, and the law guarantees them access to their student’s records and to a school principal or administrator. Also, school boards must establish a way to consider complaints from parents.

During the event, Abbott leaned on parental frustration as the reason that education savings accounts are needed. He said some parents were angry over masks being required, some over their kids having to learn virtually and some were upset over the kind of “sex content” being taught in schools.

“We must reform curriculum, get kids back to the basics of learning and we must empower parents to be more involved in the education of their children,” Abbott said.