I have acquired a copy of Social Justice Begins With Me: A Resource Guide. It is a guide for Ontario’s public school teachers published by their union (ETFO). The book is a guide for teachers: It guides them in promoting the SJW-progressive perspective within classrooms.
Personally, I’m not a fan of public schools or teacher unions educating children for values that extend beyond classical liberalism, but social justice is a hard thing to get very upset about. I mean, who doesn’t like justice, right? Justice is good. But whose justice? What is included as just or unjust? These are questions with contentious and varying answers. Hence, I skimmed through the book’s pages, trying to determine the perspective and its ideas, getting a sense of what the union wants to teach our children. I then stumbled upon a page about “heteronormality”. The term “heteronormality” is therein defined as this:
Heteronormality – a term describing the marginalization or cultural bias against homosexuality (same-sex relationships), promoting the view that heterosexuality (opposite-sex relationships) is the normal sexual orientation. (p. 172).
Within the book, the heteronormative view is treated as an injustice, as though it were something to remedy and that it is something that teachers should educate children to oppose. Thus, for these teachers and the union, 1 is true:
1. Heteronormative beliefs are bad.
But heteronormality is a basic teaching in Roman Catholicism, orthodox Islam and orthodox Protestantism. That is a well known truth about these perspectives. Hence, proposition 2 is true:
2. Some Roman Catholic, orthodox Islamic and orthodox Protestant beliefs are heteronormative beliefs.
But if both 1 and 2 are true, then so is 3:
3. Some Roman Catholic, orthodox Islamic and orthodox Protestant beliefs are bad.
If the teachers and the union do not want to be committed to 3, then they need to reject 1 or 2. But they can’t reasonably reject 2, for 2 is a well known truth. Hence, if they are to be reasonable, then they need to choose between their affirmation of 1 or a denial of 3. They can’t do both. If they affirm 1, then they’re committed to 3. But a commitment to 3 would be disastrous for liberal public policy, because it would stigmatize the beliefs of those religious communities, alienating their perspectives within the broader public sphere. If they choose to reject 3, then they are committed to the non-affirmation of 1. Hence, they’d be committed to revising their current practice and the book, which would thus constitute a retraction and retreat of the progressive agenda.
The teacher’s union and progressives have a choice: They can either be forthright about 3 and their commitment to it, or retract their position. There are no other viable options. Either way, progressives need to stop acting as if we can celebrate our differences, because we can’t. We can co-exist, tolerating each other while grinding our teeth, but we can do no more. Any further demand risks illiberalism, which is where modern progressivism is headed. Conservatives and liberals need to be aware of that.
Conservatives and liberals also need to be aware that the brainwashing of our children into lefty-progressivist positions is already happening (see here). Some schools go as far as to post pictures that state “love has no gender”. Whatever your position on those issues, I think that it’s clear that public schools have no business making contentious metaphysical statements about the nature of love and using its educational authority to spread their message to people’s children. We don’t need public schools making our children less Catholic, Islamic, Jewish, Protestant, or conservative. That is not why we pay taxes. We also don’t pay taxes to have teachers educate children into lefty-progressive causes, but that’s exactly what we are getting.
We need to pay more attention to education. The wolves are in the den.
- Part 3: Responding to Transgender Philosophers: Robin Dembroff’s Pronoun Argument - January 17, 2018
- Part 2: Responding to Transgender Philosophers: “Talia Mae Bettcher” - January 15, 2018
- Part 1: Responding to Transgender Philosophers – “Talia Mae Bettcher” - January 14, 2018
- On Half Men: A Rant Againt Feminism and the Neglect of Virility - January 8, 2018
- “Philosopher” Robin Dembroff Writes About Roy Moore - January 5, 2018
- Don Lemon and Ryan Anderson Debate Homo “Marriage” Stuff - January 4, 2018
- What We Can Learn from the Nativity Story - December 25, 2017
- What is natural law? - December 23, 2017
- In Defence of Philosopher Tully Borland - December 7, 2017
- On the Black Family, Absentee Parents and Progressivism - November 24, 2017