"There are only two opinions on this sign: Everyone is welcome here, or not everyone is welcome here,” argues Sarah Inama, a sixth-grade history teacher.
This policy is designed to maintain consistency across all classrooms while ensuring that no one group is targeted or offended by the display of certain items.
Logically that means whoever would be offended by that sign is offended because part of everyone is people who are not like them, i.e. they are admitting their preconceived bias. Those people are who most need this sign, so that they can learn that not everyone is like them. Those people need to go back to 6th grade.
On the surface, the policy sounds completely reasonable. That kind of thing is probably standard in most schools the world over.
What’s insane is that we’re at a point where “welcoming people” is offensive to somebody.
Or maybe more realistically, it’s easy to feign offence at a bland statement like that and be a bigot without being forced to say the quiet part out loud.
I understand uniformity and all, but there’s also a lot of over-sheltering going on. Part of being ready for the world is knowing things out there are rarely fair and most of us get offended at one point or another. You learn to brush it off and grow thicker skin, making you a stronger individual.
I agree, we shouldn’t be coddling folk triggered by messages like “Everyone is Welcome”. They need to toughen up and learn to accept messages of inclusivity.
They SHOULD feel uncomfortable if they don’t like this sign. It’ll put hair on their chest.
Aside from the fact that teaching children to be inclusive and accepting is the path to these things being normal in the future, “well you have to learn to be offended” is the shield of the bully. It’s what people who want to be assholes say to protect their assholery.
But you know what, if someone needs to learn to be offended then maybe it’s the bigots and bullies that need to learn that inclusive language is here to stay and to just deal with it.
I don’t see how people are so opposed to the idea that “we should help our children become strong and robust so that they’re not offended by everything”.
Life is a lot easier when you can handle people saying and doing things you don’t like without it breaking you. I’m not saying injustice should be tolerated: Quite the opposite. I’m saying that fighting injustice is easier if you are robust enough withstand it when it’s directed at you.
My impression is that that’s what you mean, in which case I wholly agree.
The problem is that It’s a cop out, a ruse, a diversion, a disingenuous misrepresentation of what’s happening here. It’s a flat out straw man.
Casting taking down signs that say “everyone is welcome here” as strengthening our children is simply not an assertion based in reality. Yes, we need to be real with our children so they can be prepared for the real world but this scenario is not applicable to that argument.
I would argue that taking down these signs weakens our children by sending a message that being different is bad—the exact message racists and bigots have been pushing forever. It robs them of a little bit of their humanity and we should not be tolerant of this.
It’s funny how we interpreted OP’s comment completely oppositely. I interpreted it as
Classrooms should, as a starter, be uniform. However, we need to expose kids to all kinds of things and not overly shelter them from different opinions, therefore these signs should remain.
If I understand correctly, you interpret OP as arguing that the signs should be removed?
I’m saying that taking down the signs is being “overly sheltering” in the sense that it’s showing kids that you can just make anything you don’t like go away. This is an argument to keep the signs in order to help the kids learn to deal with exposure to the world, regardless of whether they like what they see. I honestly have a hard time seeing how OP’s comment can be interpreted differently?
Mmmm.
Removing this display does literally the exact opposite of that.
The key in that phrase is “offended”. You see, right-wing parents get offended when brown people are welcomed.
Yeah, but it triggers future homophobic, white incels!
What about the straight white cis men?? When will someone think of them???
Logically that means whoever would be offended by that sign is offended because part of everyone is people who are not like them, i.e. they are admitting their preconceived bias. Those people are who most need this sign, so that they can learn that not everyone is like them. Those people need to go back to 6th grade.
On the surface, the policy sounds completely reasonable. That kind of thing is probably standard in most schools the world over.
What’s insane is that we’re at a point where “welcoming people” is offensive to somebody.
Or maybe more realistically, it’s easy to feign offence at a bland statement like that and be a bigot without being forced to say the quiet part out loud.
I understand uniformity and all, but there’s also a lot of over-sheltering going on. Part of being ready for the world is knowing things out there are rarely fair and most of us get offended at one point or another. You learn to brush it off and grow thicker skin, making you a stronger individual.
I agree, we shouldn’t be coddling folk triggered by messages like “Everyone is Welcome”. They need to toughen up and learn to accept messages of inclusivity.
They SHOULD feel uncomfortable if they don’t like this sign. It’ll put hair on their chest.
Maybe they should grow thick enough skin to not get offended at this sign.
Okay then.
I strongly disagree with you.
Aside from the fact that teaching children to be inclusive and accepting is the path to these things being normal in the future, “well you have to learn to be offended” is the shield of the bully. It’s what people who want to be assholes say to protect their assholery.
But you know what, if someone needs to learn to be offended then maybe it’s the bigots and bullies that need to learn that inclusive language is here to stay and to just deal with it.
I don’t see how people are so opposed to the idea that “we should help our children become strong and robust so that they’re not offended by everything”.
Life is a lot easier when you can handle people saying and doing things you don’t like without it breaking you. I’m not saying injustice should be tolerated: Quite the opposite. I’m saying that fighting injustice is easier if you are robust enough withstand it when it’s directed at you.
My impression is that that’s what you mean, in which case I wholly agree.
The problem is that It’s a cop out, a ruse, a diversion, a disingenuous misrepresentation of what’s happening here. It’s a flat out straw man.
Casting taking down signs that say “everyone is welcome here” as strengthening our children is simply not an assertion based in reality. Yes, we need to be real with our children so they can be prepared for the real world but this scenario is not applicable to that argument.
I would argue that taking down these signs weakens our children by sending a message that being different is bad—the exact message racists and bigots have been pushing forever. It robs them of a little bit of their humanity and we should not be tolerant of this.
It’s funny how we interpreted OP’s comment completely oppositely. I interpreted it as
If I understand correctly, you interpret OP as arguing that the signs should be removed?
I’m saying that taking down the signs is being “overly sheltering” in the sense that it’s showing kids that you can just make anything you don’t like go away. This is an argument to keep the signs in order to help the kids learn to deal with exposure to the world, regardless of whether they like what they see. I honestly have a hard time seeing how OP’s comment can be interpreted differently?