ACHS - conservative leaning students - afraid to speak up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And this is why I am sending my kids to Catholic school.

Because a couple of snowflake conservatives fear backlash if they express reprehensible viewpoints and demand the right to do so without feedback?

Naw. I think it’s something else.

"Reprehensible viewpoints" goes both ways. This is nothing but an arrogant, self-righteous, judgmental comment. And the people who hold those "reprehensible viewpoints" clearly think the very same of yours. So let's by all means stay entrenched and keep trying to out-scream and drown-out the other instead of talking, learning, finding common ground, and allowing our children to learn and thoughtfully develop their understanding and viewpoints -- which, btw, can change with maturity and experience that ONLY comes with knowing, hearing, listening, considering other viewpoints and the why behind those viewpoints....all the things being squelched in the classroom BY BOTH SIDES (Youngkin, liberal-only APS schools).

“Trans kids are messed up and wrong and it’s immoral” is an indefensible and reprehensible viewpoint.

“Be inclusive and supportive of anyone who wants to live their lives as they want” is not.

The end.

these aren't the statements moderate or conservative leaning students are suppressing in the classroom. It doesn't take anything near that for someone to be lambasted for being a bigot or a racist - and that's why these students don't express their thoughts or pose their questions in the classroom.

And I wouldn't support someone living their life wrecklessly or in a manner that endangers others. I wouldn't support allowing mentally unstable, depressed, loners or other violent individuals living their lives of violence the way they want and shooting up innocent kids and other adults. That's reprehensible.

You are double speaking. You’re saying they are expressing less extreme viewpoints and then saying they don’t talk.

Choose one.

Either way, the premise isn’t supported. And conservative speech is not suppressed. On the contrary, it’s amplified everywhere.

No, I stated that those aren't the viewpoints they are suppressing
And you still can't figure out the difference between "suppression" and not feeling comfortable sharing a differing opinion or perspective in a room full of peers all sharing the same opposing view.
This thread is not about conservative voices "everywhere." It's about conservative teenager voices in Alexandria and Arlington high school classrooms.
You seem to just enjoy being obtuse and standing your ground (because, as you say, you're right - always). So obviously you're not participating in this exchange in good faith. When you're willing or able to grasp the heart of the actual issue at hand, come back and try again.

Teenagers reluctant to share their opinions isn’t a partisan phenomenon. If your conservative snowflakes are experiencing discomfort because they know they hold fringe views that are radically different than the norm, that doesn’t make the norm the problem. It makes your kids and their views the problem. Again we are back to the straw man premise here. They are afraid to articulate their views. You say those views are not the sort of heinous comments that would rightly invite ostracism. Yet they haven’t actually experienced ostracism— they are just afraid it will happen if they say something.

I mean, were you ever a teenager? Being reluctant to speak up in class about anything is practically a default. But they aren’t *victims.*

Good for them for reading the room. But they are not actually victims of anything. If anything, the discomfort they feel is healthy because it means they might experience the sort of cognitive dissonance necessary to do the work of more enlightened thinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"
Are you kidding me? If you are allowed to speak then they need to be allowed to speak. That's the way it works in a democracy with a constitution like ours that protects freedom of speech."

Sigh. You don't understand freedom of speech.

+1

Everyone can speak. And everyone can face the consequences of their words.

And the consequences for perceived thought crimes are for students (and teachers?) to alienate and ostracize a fellow student? In the context of broader society, I imagine businesses will soon put up signs that they only serve democrats (or republicans).

This fear of alienation and ostracism is largely imaginary. In cases where it might happen, the speech must have been so heinous (expression of racism or bigotry) so as to invite that reaction. No one is alienated by someone advocating for lower taxes or a stronger military. It might be pointed out the two concepts are mutually exclusive goals, but this notion that you can’t articulate those type of traditionally conservative perspectives without being ostracized is ridiculous. No, it’s the weird resentment about feeling like you can’t push back on policies that are inclusive for transgender students or racist policing.

I disagree. From reading this thread, warning someone that “free speech doesn’t mean free of consequences” is a palpable threat to “watch what you say or you’ll be ostracized?” A student articulating even sympathy toward a pro-life position can be expected to be labeled (sorry-publicly “called out”) as an anti-woman bigot (even if they are a woman).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And this is why I am sending my kids to Catholic school.

Because a couple of snowflake conservatives fear backlash if they express reprehensible viewpoints and demand the right to do so without feedback?

Naw. I think it’s something else.

"Reprehensible viewpoints" goes both ways. This is nothing but an arrogant, self-righteous, judgmental comment. And the people who hold those "reprehensible viewpoints" clearly think the very same of yours. So let's by all means stay entrenched and keep trying to out-scream and drown-out the other instead of talking, learning, finding common ground, and allowing our children to learn and thoughtfully develop their understanding and viewpoints -- which, btw, can change with maturity and experience that ONLY comes with knowing, hearing, listening, considering other viewpoints and the why behind those viewpoints....all the things being squelched in the classroom BY BOTH SIDES (Youngkin, liberal-only APS schools).

“Trans kids are messed up and wrong and it’s immoral” is an indefensible and reprehensible viewpoint.

“Be inclusive and supportive of anyone who wants to live their lives as they want” is not.

The end.

DP weighing in.

I strongly disagree with the first sentence about trans kids that you have made up; however, I am mature enough to recognize that it is not indefensible and it is not reprehensible to some members of our population. Your (and my) belief systems don't trump theirs.

Just as I recognize that your totality "be inclusive" statement is completely wrong, and absolutely indefensible and reprehensible. It is saying that people should be inclusive of and supportive of people like Hitler or bin Laden.

You need to learn to respect the viewpoints of others. You also need to learn critical thinking skills. You need to stay in school, study hard and pay attention to what is going on around you. You never know, you actually might learn something.

+1
I'm liberal; but my biggest beef with extreme liberals is their profession of inclusivity and acceptance of all - because they are completely intolerant of anyone who does not absolutely agree with them on every issue. It's just as hypocritical as they accuse their counterparts as being. They have no tolerance of anyone that isn't on the same point of the liberal spectrum - such as a liberal Democrat who disagrees that women should have the right to have an abortion at any point during their pregnancy for any reason. If you support only abortions in the cases of rape and incest and/or before the detection of a heartbeat - you are not welcome, you are wrong, you are not accepted in the Party. You can be as liberal as liberal can get on every other issue; but a discrepancy like that means you're a whacko Republican.

Really? You are trotting out the “why won’t you tolerate my intolerance?” trope? That’s lame and unoriginal.

Point proven.

Really, it was not. Stop being such a lazy thinker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
https://www.acpsk12.org/theogony/2021-2022/2022/05/28/students-shy-away-from-discussions-why-thats-a-problem-and-what-we-could-do-to-fix-it/

Someone asked if this was an issue in APS and there were several comments that of course it wasn't.

This is an article written in the student newspaper regarding the issue for ACHS. Given that Alexandria and Arlington are very much the same in terms of political ideology, I have no doubt the same article could be written at any of the APS high schools.

Let me sum the article up:

1) The writer erects a straw man that conservative students feel silenced or reluctant to speak up.
2) A Pew survey of classes at the school finds that the students overwhelmingly identify as liberal. Which is shocking because who knew that teenagers by and large are liberal? But it also undercuts the straw man premise in (1).
3) Some teachers are quoted saying some students are generally reluctant to talk in class. Because, you know, they are teenagers. Another shocking result!
4) No actual examples of any conservative student being silenced by anyone. Just this vague assertion that some conservative students somewhere are hiding their true feelings because of backlash.

In other words, it’s a lot of baseless whining and a trope.

Please keep in mind that this article was written by a high school student for a high school publication. By it's nature, it is not going to be an exemplary form of journalism that is researched to the nth degree. Student publications given students that change to practice journalism and highlight issues relevant to their high school experience.

Yes, I am well aware of this. I worked in journalism 30 years and was also a school newspaper adviser.

But some are holding this article up as evidence of something. It’s not. It doesn’t change the fact that the writer erected a straw man (which is a cardinal sin in journalism, although a common trope for conservative “thought leaders” and right-wing media that might be the writer’s model).

And it doesn't change the fact that you are viewing this through your 30 years of journalism and critiquing that way so missing the forest for the trees. Accept that this happens and is true. Maybe it's not the majority of students who experience this but yes, it is a small group of students who do. Is it fair then to say that the story doesn't have merit because it only effects a small group?

No, I don’t accept it. That’s the whole point of rejecting a premise.

Are there kids who feel like they can’t speak up? Sure, of course. Lots of teens lack the courage or articulation to speak up about their views. Is that because of some sort of liberal indoctrination? No, that’s not supported by any evidence. Rather, it is just a persecution fantasy of conservatives that plays out in myriad ways and is always the same complaint.

No one is suppressing conservative speech. Rejecting the ideas, maybe. Sure. That’s normal and to be expected. But the core of the complaint seems to be “I have these opinions no one else shares — why can’t I express them without having them validated?”

And it never seems to occur to them that maybe the ideas simply aren’t valid. No matter how strongly they have them.

And it never seems to occur to you that maybe your ideas are simply not valid. No matter how strongly you have them.

Because they are not just valid, they are 100% correct. Objectively. It isn’t even up for discussion.

I will have a good faith conversation all day with you about taxes and regulation and the size of the military. We can even agree to disagree on some things and I will respect your views there. But the minute you go into alternate realities about Trump won the election, nonsense about CRT being in schools (or even that it being in schools would be a bad thing), the evils of immigrants or banning books in schools or whatever else Fox News has brainwashed you with, you are dismissed. We aren’t even on the same playing field.

That’s the problem with conservatives these days — they are so very angry, believe in fantasies and myths and imaginary problems, and scream and yell loudly about things that really don’t matter or are grossly exaggerated “problems.” But mostly conservatives operate in that echo chamber and can’t think critically about their own extreme beliefs and have a tendency to act in bad faith when interacting with liberals. (See the emphasis on “owning a lib” for an obvious example.)

But none of this exists in schools. If a small minority of students identify as conservative but are too timid to discuss their views because of “the environment” then that’s really just their problem. No one has any obligation to make a safe space for them to articulate viewpoints that will offend others. Just because they were raised by hateful parents and have backwards views on cultural issues does not mean they get to feel comfortable about having them.

Are you kidding me? If you are allowed to speak then they need to be allowed to speak. That's the way it works in a democracy with a constitution like ours that protects freedom of speech.

You don't get to quell others' speech just because you don't like it. Sheesh, no wonder the dems are going from he11 to a handbasket with people like you running around and spouting your nonsense.

And, sweetie, I can absolutely -guarantee- you would recognize my name if I told it here. So get back into your Civics class and start paying attention because you are seriously WRONG.

- A bona fide white progressive liberal

Let's review here. THEY ARE ALLOWED TO SPEAK. They choose not to because they believe, perhaps rightly, that they will be shunned for expressing certain viewpoints. But no one, ever, has said they are not "allowed" to speak. They choose not to, either because they cannot defend their positions or perceive, perhaps rightly, that normal people will find their opinions objectionable. But holding an unpopular opinion and choosing not to reveal it is not the same thing as being not being allowed to speak.

And, sweetie, I couldn't give a flying phuck who you are. You will not presume to tell me to do anything. Take a seat.

Wow! You finally got it! Congratulations. Now, I presume you'll return to your usual programming....

I always got it, dufus. My point is they aren’t victims of anything. I mean I realize a sense of victimization and a persecution complex is core to conservative thought, but we can just reject that notion right away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+1

Shut down bad faith alternate facts.

Ugh. I was +1ing 14:42.

Not the idiotic “progressive” who doesn’t understand free speech.

Sweetie, I understand free speech. You seem to be the one struggling with the concept. Freedom of speech does not mean your speech is insulated from consequences or that others must listen to you. It isn’t even the issue here — some cowardly kids who choose not to share their views they know are at odds with the vast majority isn’t a “free speech” issue. But no one will actually punish them if they did manage to articulate and defend their viewpoints. This is all completely imaginary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"
Are you kidding me? If you are allowed to speak then they need to be allowed to speak. That's the way it works in a democracy with a constitution like ours that protects freedom of speech."

Sigh. You don't understand freedom of speech.

+1

Everyone can speak. And everyone can face the consequences of their words.

And the consequences for perceived thought crimes are for students (and teachers?) to alienate and ostracize a fellow student? In the context of broader society, I imagine businesses will soon put up signs that they only serve democrats (or republicans).

This fear of alienation and ostracism is largely imaginary. In cases where it might happen, the speech must have been so heinous (expression of racism or bigotry) so as to invite that reaction. No one is alienated by someone advocating for lower taxes or a stronger military. It might be pointed out the two concepts are mutually exclusive goals, but this notion that you can’t articulate those type of traditionally conservative perspectives without being ostracized is ridiculous. No, it’s the weird resentment about feeling like you can’t push back on policies that are inclusive for transgender students or racist policing.

I disagree. From reading this thread, warning someone that “free speech doesn’t mean free of consequences” is a palpable threat to “watch what you say or you’ll be ostracized?” A student articulating even sympathy toward a pro-life position can be expected to be labeled (sorry-publicly “called out”) as an anti-woman bigot (even if they are a woman).

It’s not a threat. It’s a logical consequence.

And, yes, anyone who is anti-choice is anti-woman. There are plenty of women who are judging other women and trying to push their religious beliefs on everyone else.

[Anonymous]

If a young person is scared to speak up, that's more a failure of parenting and the culture in which they are being raised problem than a school problem. Raise your kid to go along and fear authority and you get kids who won't speak up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+1

Shut down bad faith alternate facts.

Ugh. I was +1ing 14:42.

Not the idiotic “progressive” who doesn’t understand free speech.

Sweetie, I understand free speech. You seem to be the one struggling with the concept. Freedom of speech does not mean your speech is insulated from consequences or that others must listen to you. It isn’t even the issue here — some cowardly kids who choose not to share their views they know are at odds with the vast majority isn’t a “free speech” issue. But no one will actually punish them if they did manage to articulate and defend their viewpoints. This is all completely imaginary.

Right. I was agreeing with 14:42. Not the bona fide idiot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"
Are you kidding me? If you are allowed to speak then they need to be allowed to speak. That's the way it works in a democracy with a constitution like ours that protects freedom of speech."

Sigh. You don't understand freedom of speech.

+1

Everyone can speak. And everyone can face the consequences of their words.

And the consequences for perceived thought crimes are for students (and teachers?) to alienate and ostracize a fellow student? In the context of broader society, I imagine businesses will soon put up signs that they only serve democrats (or republicans).

This fear of alienation and ostracism is largely imaginary. In cases where it might happen, the speech must have been so heinous (expression of racism or bigotry) so as to invite that reaction. No one is alienated by someone advocating for lower taxes or a stronger military. It might be pointed out the two concepts are mutually exclusive goals, but this notion that you can’t articulate those type of traditionally conservative perspectives without being ostracized is ridiculous. No, it’s the weird resentment about feeling like you can’t push back on policies that are inclusive for transgender students or racist policing.

I disagree. From reading this thread, warning someone that “free speech doesn’t mean free of consequences” is a palpable threat to “watch what you say or you’ll be ostracized?” A student articulating even sympathy toward a pro-life position can be expected to be labeled (sorry-publicly “called out”) as an anti-woman bigot (even if they are a woman).

It’s not a threat. It’s a logical consequence.

And, yes, anyone who is anti-choice is anti-woman. There are plenty of women who are judging other women and trying to push their religious beliefs on everyone else.

Ok. That clarifies things. I get it. Schools function as churches for Democrats. Conservatives can attend, but they should be silent as to their beliefs, just like a pro-choice individual can attend a traditional church provided they keep that opinion to themselves. Vocally contravening the norm “logically” results in alienation — the heretic simply doesn’t fit in. The threat of being ostracized is a tool of indoctrination. I suspect the indoctrination does more harm than good in both venues and need to go process my own thoughts on this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"
Are you kidding me? If you are allowed to speak then they need to be allowed to speak. That's the way it works in a democracy with a constitution like ours that protects freedom of speech."

Sigh. You don't understand freedom of speech.

+1

Everyone can speak. And everyone can face the consequences of their words.

And the consequences for perceived thought crimes are for students (and teachers?) to alienate and ostracize a fellow student? In the context of broader society, I imagine businesses will soon put up signs that they only serve democrats (or republicans).

This fear of alienation and ostracism is largely imaginary. In cases where it might happen, the speech must have been so heinous (expression of racism or bigotry) so as to invite that reaction. No one is alienated by someone advocating for lower taxes or a stronger military. It might be pointed out the two concepts are mutually exclusive goals, but this notion that you can’t articulate those type of traditionally conservative perspectives without being ostracized is ridiculous. No, it’s the weird resentment about feeling like you can’t push back on policies that are inclusive for transgender students or racist policing.

I disagree. From reading this thread, warning someone that “free speech doesn’t mean free of consequences” is a palpable threat to “watch what you say or you’ll be ostracized?” A student articulating even sympathy toward a pro-life position can be expected to be labeled (sorry-publicly “called out”) as an anti-woman bigot (even if they are a woman).

It’s not a threat. It’s a logical consequence.

And, yes, anyone who is anti-choice is anti-woman. There are plenty of women who are judging other women and trying to push their religious beliefs on everyone else.

Ok. That clarifies things. I get it. Schools function as churches for Democrats. Conservatives can attend, but they should be silent as to their beliefs, just like a pro-choice individual can attend a traditional church provided they keep that opinion to themselves. Vocally contravening the norm “logically” results in alienation — the heretic simply doesn’t fit in. The threat of being ostracized is a tool of indoctrination. I suspect the indoctrination does more harm than good in both venues and need to go process my own thoughts on this.

No, schools are where kids go to learn facts and how to be a good citizen.

Not to learn outdated myths.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+1

Shut down bad faith alternate facts.

Ugh. I was +1ing 14:42.

Not the idiotic “progressive” who doesn’t understand free speech.

Sweetie, I understand free speech. You seem to be the one struggling with the concept. Freedom of speech does not mean your speech is insulated from consequences or that others must listen to you. It isn’t even the issue here — some cowardly kids who choose not to share their views they know are at odds with the vast majority isn’t a “free speech” issue. But no one will actually punish them if they did manage to articulate and defend their viewpoints. This is all completely imaginary.

Right. I was agreeing with 14:42. Not the bona fide idiot.

I don’t know who you mean by “bona fide idiot” but I am both 14:42 and the person you just responded to here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+1

Shut down bad faith alternate facts.

Ugh. I was +1ing 14:42.

Not the idiotic “progressive” who doesn’t understand free speech.

Sweetie, I understand free speech. You seem to be the one struggling with the concept. Freedom of speech does not mean your speech is insulated from consequences or that others must listen to you. It isn’t even the issue here — some cowardly kids who choose not to share their views they know are at odds with the vast majority isn’t a “free speech” issue. But no one will actually punish them if they did manage to articulate and defend their viewpoints. This is all completely imaginary.

Right. I was agreeing with 14:42. Not the bona fide idiot.

I don’t know who you mean by “bona fide idiot” but I am both 14:42 and the person you just responded to here.

“ - A bona fide white progressive liberal”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"
Are you kidding me? If you are allowed to speak then they need to be allowed to speak. That's the way it works in a democracy with a constitution like ours that protects freedom of speech."

Sigh. You don't understand freedom of speech.

+1

Everyone can speak. And everyone can face the consequences of their words.

And the consequences for perceived thought crimes are for students (and teachers?) to alienate and ostracize a fellow student? In the context of broader society, I imagine businesses will soon put up signs that they only serve democrats (or republicans).

This fear of alienation and ostracism is largely imaginary. In cases where it might happen, the speech must have been so heinous (expression of racism or bigotry) so as to invite that reaction. No one is alienated by someone advocating for lower taxes or a stronger military. It might be pointed out the two concepts are mutually exclusive goals, but this notion that you can’t articulate those type of traditionally conservative perspectives without being ostracized is ridiculous. No, it’s the weird resentment about feeling like you can’t push back on policies that are inclusive for transgender students or racist policing.

I disagree. From reading this thread, warning someone that “free speech doesn’t mean free of consequences” is a palpable threat to “watch what you say or you’ll be ostracized?” A student articulating even sympathy toward a pro-life position can be expected to be labeled (sorry-publicly “called out”) as an anti-woman bigot (even if they are a woman).

It’s not a threat. It’s a logical consequence.

And, yes, anyone who is anti-choice is anti-woman. There are plenty of women who are judging other women and trying to push their religious beliefs on everyone else.

Ok. That clarifies things. I get it. Schools function as churches for Democrats. Conservatives can attend, but they should be silent as to their beliefs, just like a pro-choice individual can attend a traditional church provided they keep that opinion to themselves. Vocally contravening the norm “logically” results in alienation — the heretic simply doesn’t fit in. The threat of being ostracized is a tool of indoctrination. I suspect the indoctrination does more harm than good in both venues and need to go process my own thoughts on this.

What specific belief is a conservative student trying to share that they’re concerned about facing backlash? Maybe if you get more specific rather than these vague platitudes, we could understand the situation better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"
Are you kidding me? If you are allowed to speak then they need to be allowed to speak. That's the way it works in a democracy with a constitution like ours that protects freedom of speech."

Sigh. You don't understand freedom of speech.

+1

Everyone can speak. And everyone can face the consequences of their words.

And the consequences for perceived thought crimes are for students (and teachers?) to alienate and ostracize a fellow student? In the context of broader society, I imagine businesses will soon put up signs that they only serve democrats (or republicans).

This fear of alienation and ostracism is largely imaginary. In cases where it might happen, the speech must have been so heinous (expression of racism or bigotry) so as to invite that reaction. No one is alienated by someone advocating for lower taxes or a stronger military. It might be pointed out the two concepts are mutually exclusive goals, but this notion that you can’t articulate those type of traditionally conservative perspectives without being ostracized is ridiculous. No, it’s the weird resentment about feeling like you can’t push back on policies that are inclusive for transgender students or racist policing.

I disagree. From reading this thread, warning someone that “free speech doesn’t mean free of consequences” is a palpable threat to “watch what you say or you’ll be ostracized?” A student articulating even sympathy toward a pro-life position can be expected to be labeled (sorry-publicly “called out”) as an anti-woman bigot (even if they are a woman).

It’s not a threat. It’s a logical consequence.

And, yes, anyone who is anti-choice is anti-woman. There are plenty of women who are judging other women and trying to push their religious beliefs on everyone else.

Ok. That clarifies things. I get it. Schools function as churches for Democrats. Conservatives can attend, but they should be silent as to their beliefs, just like a pro-choice individual can attend a traditional church provided they keep that opinion to themselves. Vocally contravening the norm “logically” results in alienation — the heretic simply doesn’t fit in. The threat of being ostracized is a tool of indoctrination. I suspect the indoctrination does more harm than good in both venues and need to go process my own thoughts on this.

What specific belief is a conservative student trying to share that they’re concerned about facing backlash? Maybe if you get more specific rather than these vague platitudes, we could understand the situation better.

I hypothesized pro-life (or anti-choice as framed by the poster to which I’m reacting).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"
Are you kidding me? If you are allowed to speak then they need to be allowed to speak. That's the way it works in a democracy with a constitution like ours that protects freedom of speech."

Sigh. You don't understand freedom of speech.

+1

Everyone can speak. And everyone can face the consequences of their words.

And the consequences for perceived thought crimes are for students (and teachers?) to alienate and ostracize a fellow student? In the context of broader society, I imagine businesses will soon put up signs that they only serve democrats (or republicans).

This fear of alienation and ostracism is largely imaginary. In cases where it might happen, the speech must have been so heinous (expression of racism or bigotry) so as to invite that reaction. No one is alienated by someone advocating for lower taxes or a stronger military. It might be pointed out the two concepts are mutually exclusive goals, but this notion that you can’t articulate those type of traditionally conservative perspectives without being ostracized is ridiculous. No, it’s the weird resentment about feeling like you can’t push back on policies that are inclusive for transgender students or racist policing.

I disagree. From reading this thread, warning someone that “free speech doesn’t mean free of consequences” is a palpable threat to “watch what you say or you’ll be ostracized?” A student articulating even sympathy toward a pro-life position can be expected to be labeled (sorry-publicly “called out”) as an anti-woman bigot (even if they are a woman).

It’s not a threat. It’s a logical consequence.

And, yes, anyone who is anti-choice is anti-woman. There are plenty of women who are judging other women and trying to push their religious beliefs on everyone else.

Ok. That clarifies things. I get it. Schools function as churches for Democrats. Conservatives can attend, but they should be silent as to their beliefs, just like a pro-choice individual can attend a traditional church provided they keep that opinion to themselves. Vocally contravening the norm “logically” results in alienation — the heretic simply doesn’t fit in. The threat of being ostracized is a tool of indoctrination. I suspect the indoctrination does more harm than good in both venues and need to go process my own thoughts on this.

No. Honey, enough with the persecution complex. No one is saying conservatives “should” remain silent in schools. Again, these are choices teens are making for themselves. They absolutely can speak and are likely encouraged to by their teachers.

And this bizarre lens you see school through is just not supported by the facts. There is no “indoctrination” here unless you find messages of tolerance to be offensive (And don’t start on the whole “why won’t you tolerate my intolerance” bs). You seem to have this fantasy that school days are filled with sermons praising Joe Biden and demonizing Trump or something. That isn’t what happens. Once again, conservatives are so fearful of things they imagine are happening. My guess is this is a side effect of the tribal mindset so many of you retreat into, which also feeds that persecution complex because you sense, rightly, that you are wildly out of step with mainstream values and thinking.

The reality is discussions of any current events are rare. Students spend their days learning math, doing labs in science, reading and writing. It’s like you think there are endless assemblies designed to impart liberal ideologies and talking points into them. This isn’t actually a thing.