This is your idea of what I was saying? The curriculum speaks for itself. The social justice oriented content is there. Not hidden. But there's a lot more content that isn't. GDS had the right mix of both for us. Not many schools did. It wasn't a hard choice, to be honest. And my kid loves it there.

But it's alarmist hyperbole to suggest that the academic curriculum is non-stop social justice 24/7, which is what the argument was originally about if you paid any attention.

Anonymous wrote:Social justice is central to GDS's approach to education. The school's website says as much:

As an inclusive community, we uphold that everyone will engage in the work of social justice within all aspects of school life. We work to ensure that our mission is a living guide that we consistently and honestly act upon and assess. As such, to ensure that we actively live our mission grounded in social justice, equity and inclusion, we, the GDS community, make the following commitments:
We commit to being a school where students, faculty, staff, families, and alumni feel respected and valued for being their full authentic selves.
We commit to taking responsible action to build a foundation of cultural competency, aimed at lifting the strengths, needs, and experiences of all in our community and beyond.
We commit to proactively design and deliver an inclusive and equitable, student-centered curriculum which honors the diverse identities of all students in our community.
We commit to implementing this curriculum in ways that promote understanding others and ourselves in the world around us.
We commit to learning and growing in the work of diversity, equity, and inclusion and sharing our work forward beyond our school’s walls.
We commit to learning intentionally from our mistakes and working to make positive changes in our community and in our world.
We commit to asking for support when engaged in the difficult and complex conversations and challenges before us. We will seek differing perspectives, remaining open-minded to others’ views, and listening and withholding judgment when possible.
We commit to intentionally following up on these conversations using compassion, a willingness to work together for positive change, understanding, connection, and growth.
Furthermore, we commit to fostering collegial relationships through interactions that are meaningful, honest, direct and joyful.

For my family, and many others, the school's focus on social justice is one of its greatest strengths and is entirely compatible with a rigorous academic education.

The desire for social justice--progress toward equality of rights and opportunities--reflects a deep desire to honor and elevate the humanity in each of us. It's time to reclaim the term from the distortions and pollution of the right.

It’s time to reclaim it from the extremists on either side. I sincerely hope the school - and teachers- doesn’t fall down the wrong rabbit hole on this. Even 1619 walked back and toned down half its website last Spring.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If we're going to play the "post stuff from the GDS website" game, here is their curriculum and course guide.

https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1607626109/gdsorg/jck8xlmivtjpjv3w2zlo/GDS_Course_of_Study.pdf

There's some social justice-oriented content, but most of the curriculum is similar what you'd find at other public and private schools.

This is your idea of defending the school? There's some social justice oriented content, but don't worry, you'll hardly notice it? Why did you choose GDS when there are so many excellent options in the area?

Location

Anonymous wrote:If we're going to play the "post stuff from the GDS website" game, here is their curriculum and course guide.

https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1607626109/gdsorg/jck8xlmivtjpjv3w2zlo/GDS_Course_of_Study.pdf

There's some social justice-oriented content, but most of the curriculum is similar what you'd find at other public and private schools.

I like their Facebook too, though it’s been tamer than usual.

Anonymous wrote:If we're going to play the "post stuff from the GDS website" game, here is their curriculum and course guide.

https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1607626109/gdsorg/jck8xlmivtjpjv3w2zlo/GDS_Course_of_Study.pdf

There's some social justice-oriented content, but most of the curriculum is similar what you'd find at other public and private schools.

This is your idea of defending the school? There's some social justice oriented content, but don't worry, you'll hardly notice it? Why did you choose GDS when there are so many excellent options in the area?

Anonymous wrote:Why does anyone use an indisputably pejorative term, except to gaslight and incite?

The issue is whether certain schools have social justice, racial justice, gender justice and similar woven into the curriculum, and more to the point, *how* those things are woven in—How both as a matter of pedagogy and as a matter of viewpoint. The fact that some poster upthread called this sjw and not simply social justice is regrettable. But it is hardly the main point, and your continued focus on terminology is not advancing discussion. It’s preventing it.

Why does anyone use an indisputably pejorative term, except to gaslight and incite?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mere use of the term "SJW" is gaslighting.

Seriously? I am an ivory tower liberal, and this comment makes me shudder.

Seriously? Do you not know that both the historical origin of the term SJW and its dictionary definition are explicitly derogatory and pejorative?

I’m aware, as I made clear in my post, which anticipates this response.

That doesn’t deal with the fundamental issue, and in any event, saying the term is typically considered pejorative—and it is—doesn’t mean that it’s usage is gaslighting. Its use is inflammatory and, again, pejorative. But it’s not gaslighting, properly understood. And veering into territory of accusing others of gaslighting when they are disagreeing (however imperfectly and however pejoratively) is just illustrating my point about the complete loss of discourse, discussion, and debate.

(The loss is on all “sides,” to be clear)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mere use of the term "SJW" is gaslighting.

Seriously? I am an ivory tower liberal, and this comment makes me shudder.

Seriously? Do you not know that both the historical origin of the term SJW and its dictionary definition are explicitly derogatory and pejorative?

I’m aware, as I made clear in my post, which anticipates this response.

That doesn’t deal with the fundamental issue, and in any event, saying the term is typically considered pejorative—and it is—doesn’t mean that it’s usage is gaslighting. Its use is inflammatory and, again, pejorative. But it’s not gaslighting, properly understood. And veering into territory of accusing others of gaslighting when they are disagreeing (however imperfectly and however pejoratively) is just illustrating my point about the complete loss of discourse, discussion, and debate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mere use of the term "SJW" is gaslighting.

Seriously? I am an ivory tower liberal, and this comment makes me shudder.

Seriously? Do you not know that both the historical origin of the term SJW and its dictionary definition are explicitly derogatory and pejorative?

Anonymous wrote:If we're going to play the "post stuff from the GDS website" game, here is their curriculum and course guide.

https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1607626109/gdsorg/jck8xlmivtjpjv3w2zlo/GDS_Course_of_Study.pdf

There's some social justice-oriented content, but most of the curriculum is similar what you'd find at other public and private schools.

I don't want to hijack the thread but ... why grasshoppers? ... they couldn't have picked grizzy, greyhounds, or goldendoodles? If the Redskins can change their name...

Anonymous wrote:Mere use of the term "SJW" is gaslighting.

Seriously? I am an ivory tower liberal, and this comment makes me shudder. It also confirms some of my worst fears about the future of education. The notion that everyone who has a different deontological view of what justice is and what it requires is gaslighting you is exactly why the country is rejecting progressive ideas (many of which I support) AND why students I see every day in my classroom often cannot support their positions with even the barest of arguments. By dismissing the views of everyone with different takes on things, or even different degrees of fervor on certain issues, as morally indefensible or just “wrong,” therefore making the mere mention of them nothing more than gaslighting (or worse), you alienate even those who identify as allies, and you destroy liberal education (little l) in the process. Perhaps you realize this and are ok with it; I’m hopeful you don’t.

You can go ahead and hit me with the perfunctory response—something along the lines of, “if protecting children from cages and defending lgbtq rights against bigots and standing up for reproductive freedom is wrong, I don’t want to be right.” Or go granular. Tell me you were objecting to the fact that the term sjw might, to some, have a negative connotation. Strawman away. Misdirect right along. Those responses, as well as similar rejoinders, simply illustrate the unfortunate ways in which all of this tends to play out.

So just how does this all play out? I see it every day. Students who almost literally cannot engage in robust, much less civil, discourse. Students who believe the ends justify the means, so long as everyone agrees (and God help us if not everyone agrees) that the speaker knows what the right ends are. Students who cannot defend the views they so fervently hold, and in their frustration, retreat to (debatable) moral high ground and accusations that all dissenters are abusive, triggering, gaslighting, narcissistic, blinded by privilege, victimizing, all of the above…or worse. On that last point, sometimes one or more of those things is true, but that is orthogonal to whether or not any given individual can actually provide a substantive defense of a particular policy view or a particular conception of what justice requires. Of course, they don’t believe they need to, because these things are a given. Challenge of the given is gaslighting. And round and round it goes.

To be clear, I don’t have a view about gds. So far as I know, it’s a top-notch school. What I’m responding to is a point about education

If we're going to play the "post stuff from the GDS website" game, here is their curriculum and course guide.

https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1607626109/gdsorg/jck8xlmivtjpjv3w2zlo/GDS_Course_of_Study.pdf

There's some social justice-oriented content, but most of the curriculum is similar what you'd find at other public and private schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mere use of the term "SJW" is gaslighting.

That and CRT are what many on the far right are stuffing their boogeyman with.

Deflecting from the topic at hand again?

Social justice is central to GDS's approach to education. The school's website says as much:

As an inclusive community, we uphold that everyone will engage in the work of social justice within all aspects of school life. We work to ensure that our mission is a living guide that we consistently and honestly act upon and assess. As such, to ensure that we actively live our mission grounded in social justice, equity and inclusion, we, the GDS community, make the following commitments:
We commit to being a school where students, faculty, staff, families, and alumni feel respected and valued for being their full authentic selves.
We commit to taking responsible action to build a foundation of cultural competency, aimed at lifting the strengths, needs, and experiences of all in our community and beyond.
We commit to proactively design and deliver an inclusive and equitable, student-centered curriculum which honors the diverse identities of all students in our community.
We commit to implementing this curriculum in ways that promote understanding others and ourselves in the world around us.
We commit to learning and growing in the work of diversity, equity, and inclusion and sharing our work forward beyond our school’s walls.
We commit to learning intentionally from our mistakes and working to make positive changes in our community and in our world.
We commit to asking for support when engaged in the difficult and complex conversations and challenges before us. We will seek differing perspectives, remaining open-minded to others’ views, and listening and withholding judgment when possible.
We commit to intentionally following up on these conversations using compassion, a willingness to work together for positive change, understanding, connection, and growth.
Furthermore, we commit to fostering collegial relationships through interactions that are meaningful, honest, direct and joyful.

For my family, and many others, the school's focus on social justice is one of its greatest strengths and is entirely compatible with a rigorous academic education.

The desire for social justice--progress toward equality of rights and opportunities--reflects a deep desire to honor and elevate the humanity in each of us. It's time to reclaim the term from the distortions and pollution of the right.