Comment by burkaman | Hacker News Reader

Comment by burkaman | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> as neutral as possible on political or culture war issues

I don't think it's really possible to be neutral about culture war issues, sort of by definition, especially when many of the wars are about schools themselves. A school is part of American culture, it can't somehow choose not to participate. To use a historical example, there was a culture war over teaching evolution in schools. A teacher at the time could describe the history and facts of the controversy without stating their opinion on it, but when the students leave that classroom, they are still in a school that either teaches evolution or doesn't. By existing and having a curriculum, the school takes a position in the culture war.

Imagine if your country held a referendum on a certain issue, and said "if more than 50% of citizens vote yes, the law passes, otherwise it fails". You could have a genuinely neutral opinion on the issue ("I don't care which side wins"), but you cannot take a neutral action, because not voting makes the law less likely to pass. This is unfair, and you can be mad about it, but the only way to be "neutral" would be to leave the country and renounce your citizenship so that you are no longer part of the equation. Similarly, in a culture war, the only way to be neutral would be to not participate in the culture in question, which is even more difficult than leaving a country.

Let me give one more example: whether or not to tip your server in a restaurant. Tipping 10% instead of 20% is not neutral. Tipping 50% of the time you go to a restaurant is not neutral. You could say "I don't wish to take a position, so I will no longer go to restaurants", but I'm confident the anti-tipping side would claim you as one of their own. Again it feels unfair, but it's just how culture works.

Lack of perfection doesn't mean you shouldn't try to be more neutral. Trying by itself (even if failing) earns the trust of voters.

And if you live in an area where evolution is a controversial topic, then you should leave it up to the parents. You don't have a right to use their money to teach something that a lot of people don't want to be taught. Of course, there's some line where something is fringe enough and you don't have to accommodate every last person. Again, try to be neutral, don't aim for perfection.

And you know what? Evolution is a nuanced topic. The actual claims that can be backed up by first principals using the scientific method are fairly narrow. Much of the reasoning is very prone to confirmation bias and all kinds of after-the-fact fitting rather than forward-looking predictions. To stick to the science on the topic of evolution you have to be pretty careful and most teachers are not. Not saying it shouldn't be taught... I think it has a lot of explanatory power outside of pure science and represents a large body of important observations. But I don't think it's a good example of science-vs-idiots.

Okay, but there are claims like: "Dinosaurs existed over 100 million years ago, before humans existed" which are controversial enough that it's part of the "culture war". And teaching it (and carbon dating) counts as taking a side.

We aren't talking about fine points of evolution, we are talking about the earth being older than mankind at all.

As someone who was taught all of the silly, unscientific religious “theories” like Creationism as a child, and then had to unlearn it as an adult, my position is that it is absolutely never the governments place to tell a parent what they are allowed to teach their child. It is not the responsibility of the state, in any way, shape, or form, to dictate information to a child that the parents take issue with, even if that topic is something with no scientific basis akin to creationism.

Parents should always have the final say in what their children are being taught, even if it’s patently unscientific. Anything else feels like an incredibly slippery slope of, “Daddy Government knows what’s best for your kids better than you do, so we’re chipping away at your parental rights until we can save your child from your non-governmentally approved ideas!”

I mostly agree. The fallacy of the government knows best approach is the “who watches the watchers?” problem.

What happens when the government decides to teach nonsense?

There is nothing magical about the state that makes it a better arbiter of truth than other institutions. Historically states have a pretty poor record. They tend to push ideas that benefit the people who control them, whether that’s a nobility or a majority faction in the electorate (or both).

> it is absolutely never the governments place to tell a parent what they are allowed to teach their child

Essentially everyone in America agrees with you. This is written into our Constitution.

> It is not the responsibility of the state, in any way, shape, or form, to dictate information to a child that the parents take issue with

This is an impossible standard. We have to make public schooling available, and we can't provide individual tutors for every student, so they must be taught in groups. This guarantees that some students will be taught things that their parents take issue with. To compensate for this we make some escape hatches available like homeschooling, private schooling, or moving to a different school district, but these are all difficult or impossible for most parents. Some schools have offered to let parents take their kids out of class when certain topics are taught, but this approach can't scale to all subjects and topics. It also can't address parents upset about what their child is NOT being taught.

I'm not aware of any educational model that gives all parents complete control over their children's education.

Oh yes, I didn’t mean that there would be nothing parents take issue with at all. Rather, if a parent is upset enough at the idea of their child learning about evolution rather than creationism, I believe it’s within that parent’s rights to put their child in a school that more closely aligns with their beliefs.

No school curriculum will ever be 100% satisfactory to 100% of people, but I believe that the state has no obligation to enforce a certain educational model simply because it is “correct”. That probably sounds a bit silly, but I just believe that people have the right to believe and teach ideas that run counter to the state-approved message, even if the state is empirically correct.

Ok, I don't think that's particularly controversial. Most of the controversy arises from parents (or influential people without kids) trying to influence the shared public school system to match their particular standard, rather than having their kids taught elsewhere as you recommend.

So if the shared public school system is teaching something wacky (creationism or whatever), how should that be changed? If not parents or influential people, who would cause the change to happen?

Teaching something wacky in homeschooling is far more damaging to the student than teaching something wacky in a public school.

School does not occupy all the time of a child. If a school teaches something parents disagree with, parents can debunk that when the kids are home. They can bring arguments and kids will eventually make up their own minds.

Homeschooling presents a single view, that of the parents. There is no debate.

Being neutral could also mean striving to make decisions based on independent standards, as opposed to a bias toward one side. For example, a judge who bases decisions on evidence and the law is typically considered neutral -- even when they rule guilty.

That's true, but another property of culture wars is that there generally is no authority or standard that all sides consider independent. Only in the most clearcut cases can you get away with saying "it's not up to me, I'm just following the law." Often there is no law or it's vaguely written, and it really is up to you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com