Mediaboss Marketing

Florida Legislature: How are teachers supposed to teach history with 'anti-woke' laws?

In this excerpt from Florida Pulse, reporters talk about the challenges schools and teachers will face with passage of "anti-woke" legislation.

Rob Landers, Florida Today

Are you woke? Have you been accused of being woke? Are you anti-woke? Just what is wokeness, anyway?

Black Americansand allies fightingto bring attention to racial injustice and police brutality urge others to get and stay woke. Some companies and politicians try to embody the concept, others hope to capitalize on the perception of it. Some conservatives fight against wokeness because they see it as performative and liberal indoctrination.

The Stop the Wrongs to Our Kids and Employees (Stop WOKE) Act proposed by Gov. Ron DeSantis this year empowers citizensto go after woke indoctrination. The bill blunts what he has warned isliberal ideology influencing the teaching of history in schools and coursing through corporate diversity training. Stop WOKEprohibits any teaching that could make students feel they bear personal responsibility for historic wrongs because of their race, color, sex or national origin, and blocks businesses from using diversity practices or training that could make employees feel guilty for similar reasons.

Were going to teach honest history, said Sen. Kelli Stargel, R-Lakeland. But were not going to influence it with personal opinion.

Democratic critics called it a way to whitewash history and diminish the abuse and inequities faced by minorities in the country, as well as away for Republicans to satisfy their voting base.

This is the red meat they want, Sen. Annette Taddeo, D-Miami said. But this is not what our state needs.

Stop WOKE Act: New limits on talk of race in schools and work sent to Florida Gov. DeSantis

More: COVID-19 crusader Gov. DeSantis gets new title: Chief of woke police

Recently, after Bob Chapek, the CEO of Disney World criticized Gov. DeSantis over the "Parental Rights in Education" legislation critics dubbed the "Don't Say Gay" bill, the governor lashed out against the company'swokenesswhileaccusing Disney of interfering with parents' rights and taking money from China.

"In Florida our policy's going to be based on the best interest of Florida citizens, not on the musing of woke corporations," DeSantis said.

Are we all talking about the same thing?

For a long time "woke" just meant "not sleeping."But recognizing its changing common usage, Meriam-Webster added a new meaning in 2017:

U.S. slang meaning "aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)."

They took their time. "Woke" has been around for much, muchlonger than that in Black communities.

"It can be hard to trace slang back to its origins since slangs origins are usually spoken," Merriam-Webster's update says, "and it can be particularly difficult to trace a slang word that has its origins in a dialect."

The earliest recordedusage of wokenessthat can be interpreted to mean stay aware, rather than wake up, is in a collection by Jamaican philosopher and Harlem activist leader Marcus Garvey in 1923 which included the call, "Wake up Ethiopia! Wake up Africa" in a plea for Black people across the world to open their eyes to racial subjugation and get involved in politics.

'Fight for your own liberation': From Jamaica's Marcus Garvey came an African vision of freedom

A few years later, in a recorded spoken afterword to the1938 song "Scottsboro Boys" by blues musician Lead Belly (Huddie Ledbetter) about nine Black teenagers accused of raping two white women, he says,"I advise everybody, be a little careful when they go along through there best stay woke, keep their eyes open."

In Black communities in the early tomid-20th Century as the Ku Klux Klan re-emerged, mob justice and lynchingswere not uncommon, and segregation and Jim Crowlaws were often harshly or fatally enforced, "stay woke" came to mean to stay vigilant in a world stacked against you.

The word eventually spreadoutside the Black community along with other African-American Vernacular English(AAVE) slang. In 1962 Black novelist William Melon Kelley wrote about white beatniks appropriating African American slang in an article for theNew YorkTimes Magazine titled, "If You're Woke You Dig It."

The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. touched on the feelingin 1965 during acommencement address at Oberlin College:There is nothing more tragic than to sleep through a revolution. … The great challenge facing every individual graduating today is to remain awake.

In a 1972 play "Garvey Lives!" playwrightBarry Beckhamwrote: I been sleeping all my life. And now that Mr. Garvey done woke me up, Im gon stay woke.

The word reached a wider audience in 2008 when Grammy-award-winning singer Erykah Badu covered Georgia Anne Muldrow's song "Master Teacher" for her albumNew Amerykah Part One(4th World War), changing the chorus from "I stay awake" to "I'd stay woke." In 2012 Badu used "stay woke" in a tweet supporting the imprisoned Russian feminist rock group Pussy Riot.

Black social media users began using "stay woke" more often to point out racial issues,but it also was stillused to mean "watch out for a cheating partner," to not fall asleepor to jump on a rising hashtag bandwagon to get attention.

Also in 2012, neighborhood watch coordinator George Zimmerman shot and killed an unarmed 17-year-old student, Trayvon Martin. The hashtag #staywoke was used to spread awareness of the shooting, and of the outrage of Zimmerman'sacquittal the next year. With the public outcry, #blacklivesmatter became a hashtag and a movement that only increased as more reports and videos of the shootings of unarmedBlack people spread rapidly across social media. #staywoke once again became an urgentwarning.

Then, a police shooting brought wokenessinto the mainstream.

Less diversity: DeSantis' 'Stop WOKE' Act could force Florida businesses to rethink diversity training

Two years later when police officers shot and killed Michael Brownin Ferguson, Missouri, Black Lives Matter (BLM) activists used #staywoke as a rallying cry to raise awareness about police shootings of Black Americans, along with hashtags for each new incidence of an unarmed Black person killed by law enforcement.

Protests and marches grew nationwide, rising up again with every new name:Eric Garner (who died after being put in an illegal chokehold by police),12-year-old Tamir Rice (shot immediately and killed by police after officers mistook his toy gun for a real weapon), George Floyd(died in custody after a police officer kneeled on his neck for more than eightminutes), Sandra Bland (found dead in a Texas jailhouse after a confrontational jail stop),Daunte Wright (killed during a traffic stop). Breonna Taylor (shot while sleeping during a no-knock raid) and many more.

#SayHerName: Breonna Taylor and hundreds of Black women have died at the hands of police. The movement to say their names is growing.

Adam Toledo, Daunte Wright and George Floyd: Would more de-escalation training stop police from killing people?

"The word woke became entwined with theBlack Lives Mattermovement; instead of just being a word that signaled awareness of injustice or racial tension, it became a word of action," according to Merriam-Webster. "Activists were woke and called on others to stay woke." The 2016 BET documentary on the BLM movement was called "Stay Woke."

60 years of activism: From the Freedom Rides to BLM, generations discuss work, parallels

As BLM protests rose up across America "stay woke" rapidly became extremely popular on Twitter and became an internet meme. In May 2016, MTV News included it in 10 words teenagers should know. In 2017, it was added to Merriam-Webster and the Oxford English Dictionary.Essence magazine named its Woke 100 in 2020 and Hulu premiered the TV series "Woke"with Lamorne Harris as a cartoonist who always avoided heavy issues awakening to racial inequality (and getting talks from inanimate objects) after getting slammedto the ground by aggressive police officers.

'That's not bringing about change': Obama advises 'woke' young people not to be so judgmental

"Woke" continued to evolve.White allies of the BLM movement also used the term to signal their support but manygradually began using it to call attention to other progressive issues as well as race such as the #MeToo and #NoBanNoWall movements, which brought accusations from Black commentators of co-opting the term or using it merely to gain activistcredibility.

Most people who are woke aint calling themselves woke. Most people who are woke are agonizing inside, Muldrow told Okayplayer news and culture editor Elijah Watson. Theyre too busy being depressed to call themselves woke.

Conservative commentators who saw the rising BLM protests as violent or anti-police and opposedthe movements "woke"was being associated with began using it sarcastically, the newest replacement for previous derogatory terms about what they called hypersensitive identity politics like"social justice warriors," "snowflake," "race card," "virtue signaling" or the earlier "political correctness."

Progressive arguments or legislation were dismissed as woke and therefore defined and dismissed by conservatives as either insincere plays for attention or overzealous efforts to undermine American values with liberal indoctrination. Many complained of "woke mobs," "woke culture," the "woke police," the "woke brigade," and referred to people with conservative views as "anti-woke."

Sen. Rick Scott warned Woke Corporate America that a backlash was coming. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said there would be serious consequences if businesses kept acting likea woke parallel government.Former President Donald Trump mocked "woke" military generals for being weak and ineffective.Rep. Matt Gaetz kicked off his re-election campaign promising to fight against woke-ism.

"Woke" also was tied in conservative media to the phrase "cancel culture," as public figures who said insensitive or racial things (not woke, in other words) faced a backlash and occasionally loss of income or influence because of it, something conservative commentators considered a violation of First Amendment rights and an infringement of their personal freedoms.

"So in addition to meaning aware and progressive, many people now interpret woke to be a way to describe people who would rather silence their critics than listen to them," according to Michael Ruiz of Fox News.

'You will be happier elsewhere, as will we': Palm Beach Police investigating letters warning 'woke' New Yorkers to leave Florida

'Your woke sky': Dictionary.com jabs Republican lawmaker's tweet criticizing 'millennial leftists'

Both terms refer to companies that showcase theirpublic support for progressive causes but fail to actually do any genuine reform.

That really depends on who's saying it. By 2021 woke seemed to mostly come from conservative commentators and as part of Republican Party campaign talking points, along with "cancel culture" and "critical race theory."

CNN called "wokeness" the biggest threat to Democrats in the 2022election.

It didn't help that "woke" was quickly pulled into pop culture to be further watered down and sanitized. SaturdayNight Live presented "Levi's Wokes" in 2017. There were How Woke Are You? quizzes on Facebook. The New Yorker asked, "What's in a Woke McRib?" BuzzFeed named Hasan Piker the "woke bae on your Facebook Feed."

Some Black thought leaders consider "woke" to be problematic, weaponized against them, and largely meaningless now.

"As is disturbingly often the case, White people (or any racial group outside the terms origin) will sometimes begin using a term that originated in a community of color often as a term of pride, endearment, or self-empowerment years or decades later," saidDana Brownlee in an article for Forbes, "while either willfully or inadvertently distorting the original meaning of the term."

"It is extremely convenient from a culture-war perspective, to be able to use a word likewoketo signal at approximately seven different things," said Slate's Rachelle Hampton. "When you say that wokeness is a political ideology, youre not talking about anything. Youre talking about people who talk about race. And that just immediately brands them as a member of the wokerati."

Many still use "woke" in its original meaning, though, despite the changes.

Contributor: John Kennedy, Capitol Bureau, USA TODAY - FLORIDA NETWORK

C. A. Bridges is a Digital Producer for the USA TODAY Network, working with multiplenewsrooms across Florida. Local journalists work hard to keep you informed about the things you care about, and you can support them by subscribing to yourlocal news organization.Read more articles by Chris here and follow him on Twitter at @cabridges

Read the original post:
What does it mean to be 'woke,' and why does Florida Governor Ron DeSantis want to stop it? - Palm Beach Post

SEEK AND HIDEThe Tangled History of the Right to PrivacyBy Amy Gajda376 pages. Viking. $30.

In her wry and fascinating new book, Seek and Hide, Amy Gajda traces the history of the right to privacy and its (understandably fraught) relationship in the United States with the First Amendment. English common law includes the concept of truthful libel the notion that anything harmful to a persons reputation, even if factually accurate, could be treated as a punishable offense.

Truthful libel may sound like a contradiction in terms, but it arose out of a recognition that being ridiculed for something real could in some ways feel more ruinous than being mocked for something bogus that, as Gajda puts it, the emotional damage and desire for physical revenge would be even more profound to the outed individual than had falsity been published.

Emotions and feelings come up a lot in Seek and Hide something I wasnt expecting from a book that does serious work as a history of ideas, too. Gajda, who was a journalist before becoming a law professor, is a nimble storyteller; even if some of her conclusions are bound to be contentious, shes an insightful guide to a rich and textured history that gets easily caricatured, especially when a culture war is raging. One might think that the Founders, writing under pseudonyms and spreading gossip in order to lay low their political rivals, didnt give much thought to emotional damage, but Gajda suggests otherwise. Ben Franklin observed that every Person has little Secrets and Privacies that are not proper to be exposd even to the nearest friend.

As it happens, a number of people in Gajdas book can seem like free speech absolutists in one context and zealous advocates for privacy rights in another. Justice Louis Brandeis was known as a staunch defender of the First Amendment, but before joining the Supreme Court he was also the co-author of the landmark article The Right to Privacy (not to mention a vigilant protector of his own personal affairs). Upton Sinclair, whose book about the Chicago meatpacking industry turned stomachs and changed policy, blanched at all the newfound attention from sensationalist papers clamoring to know about his marital difficulties and what he ate for breakfast (a cup of water and six prunes).

Another memorable about-face took place more than a century before, when Alexander Hamilton pseudonymously taunted Thomas Jefferson for having a sexual relationship with an enslaved woman named Sally Hemings. In 1786, Jefferson had declared that the countrys liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost. By 1803 he was musing to the governor of Pennsylvania that a few prosecutions of journalisms most eminent offenders would place the whole band more on their guard.

This tension would persist over the years, a tug of war between the right to know on one side and the right to be let alone on the other. Even though the word privacy itself doesnt appear in the Constitution, the Supreme Court has nevertheless found that protections for it are implied. Gajda shows that the courts emphasis on a free press or on privacy rights has changed over time, reflecting transformations in journalism from 19th-century penny presses to 20th-century muckraking to the emergence of digital platforms in the 21st.

Transformations in cultural attitudes and prejudices have had an effect, too. Whats considered stigmatizing in one era can lose its stigma in another. Gajda gives the example of outing someone who is gay. It used to be that some courts had decided that reporting such information about someone who didnt want it to be revealed was highly offensive, and therefore an affront to peoples right to keep certain things quiet, to define themselves for themselves against the interests of others. But as social norms have grown more inclusive, Gajda writes, more modern courts have decided that to reveal someones sexual orientation is not highly offensive at all and therefore not an invasion of privacy.

At a social level, this sounds like a salutary development more inclusivity, more tolerance but Gajda says that when courts have ruled this way, it hasnt always seemed so progressive to individuals who felt abandoned by the law. In 1984, an appellate court ruled that the disabled U.S. Marine who saved President Gerald Ford from a would-be assassin had no right to privacy when a gossip column outed him as gay; publication of the Marines sexual orientation against his wishes helped dispel the false public opinion that gays were timid, weak and unheroic, the court wrote.

It didnt matter to the court that the Marine was subsequently deserted by his family, and that he gave a broken, anguished speech insisting that he should be the one to decide whether to share details about his private life, Gajda writes, adding mordantly: The right of the people to know that men who are gay can be brave too was more important.

Just because Gajda acknowledges the personal damage wrought by such decisions doesnt mean that she comes down categorically on the side of Team Privacy; the issues are too complicated, the history too circuitous. After all, privacy claims have often been deployed to protect the powerful from public scrutiny. She cites the clubbiness between journalists and politicians in the pre-Watergate era, which afforded politicians a level of privacy that, as public servants, they simply werent entitled to. #MeToo behavior that would now get reported as news was long elided as gossip in a gentlemans agreement, she writes, because it was a gentlemans game.

Gajda says that she used to be uncomfortable with the idea that courts could balance protections for an individuals dignity and liberty with protections for a free press and free speech; as a journalist, she was worried that an overzealous judiciary might curtail the reporting of real news that powerful interests were keen to keep secret. Now she seems to see things differently, placing what seems to me a surprising amount of faith in the judicial branch and even Facebooks Oversight Board, of all things, to generate norms that balance speech with privacy and unite the world as one.

Really? This strikes me as the kind of wistful generalization thats otherwise absent from this smart and empathetic book. Nobody comes out looking pure in Seek and Hide, but everyone comes out looking human.

Read more from the original source:
Seek and Hide Grapples With the Complexity of the Right to Privacy - The New York Times

Companies often communicate with government agencies directly or through trade associations for a variety of reasons. But what happens when an adverse party tries to use comments made to the government or membership in an advocacy group as evidence in litigation?

Manufacturers facing product liability claims may be able to borrow a defense from the world of antitrust litigation to protect their lobbying efforts. Under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, defendants sometimes can avoid liability for exercising their First Amendment right to petition or seek redress from the government. Since the doctrine was developed, courts have expanded its use outside of the antitrust context. We explore how this doctrine may be applied in product liability cases.

The Noerr-Pennington doctrine takes its name from two U.S. Supreme Court decisions involving the Sherman Antitrust Act.[1] In Eastern R.R. Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, railroad companies petitioned Congress and state legislatures to pass legislation making it harder for trucking companies to enter the transportation industry.

The Court admitted that the goal blocking a potential competitor could lead to an improper restraint against trade under the Sherman Antitrust Act. All the same, the Court reasoned that the Sherman Act did not override the right to petition the government.[2] Since the defendants sought a lawful and protected means of influencing government decision making, their advocacy could not give rise to antitrust liability

Likewise, in United Mine Workers v. Pennington, a union and large mining company petitioned the Labor Department to raise the industrys minimum wage. Plaintiffs sued alleging that both organizations sought to price out smaller mining companies. The Court again held that the defendants lobbying sought a goal contrary to the Act, however, the First Amendment protected their advocacy. Specifically, the defendants exercised the freedom of association and the right to petition the government.[3]

The Supreme Court explored what activities are considered petitioning the government in California Motor Transport Company v. Trucking Unlimited. [4] It held that the Noerr-Pennington doctrine applied to appeals made to any government department legislative, executive, judicial, and administrative. Thus, two activities may fall under the protection of the doctrine: legislative lobbying[5] pertaining to a trade association that lobbies the government,[6] and filing litigation.[7]

One carve-out from the Noerr-Pennington doctrine is the sham exception. The Supreme Court has held that the doctrine does not apply to situations when the petitioner does not seek a governmental result, but rather merely uses the petitioning process to obstruct the other partys objectives.[8] If a party, for example, files a series of trivial lawsuits[9] or merely communicates with a government agency without an attempt to influence its decision making,[10] the doctrine might not apply.

Ultimately, the party opposing the application of the Noerr-Pennington doctrine bears the burden to show both objective and subjective reasons that an opposing partys government petition was a sham.[11]

Though the Noerr-Pennington doctrine emerged in the antitrust context, lower federal courts and state courts have applied the same principles to other types of claims, such as business interference[12] and common law tort claims.[13]

In line with this development, courts also have held that the Noerr-Pennington doctrine applies to claims arising in product liability suits. In Hamilton v. AccuTek, for example, the court granted summary judgment in favor of gun manufacturers for product liability and fraud claims in part because the manufacturers attempts to influence federal policies were lawful lobbying attempts.[14] Likewise, in In re Municipal Stormwater Pond, the court dismissed fraudulent misrepresentation or concealment claims against a coal tar sealant manufacturer because the Noerr-Pennington doctrine immunized its lobbying efforts before state and local governments.[15] In other cases, the Noerr-Pennington doctrine has been utilized to prevent admission of evidence of a manufacturers lobbying in products liability claims.[16]

These cases show that manufacturers can continue their advocacy efforts with some reassurance that their statements may not lead to future liability. There may be other applications of the doctrine. For example, manufacturers may wish to consider using Noerr-Pennington to exclude evidence of lobbying in all phases of litigation. In all cases, manufacturers should strategically consider the doctrine to challenge these claims.

[1] Eastern R.R. Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, 365 U.S. 127 (1961); United Mine Workers v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657 (1965).

[2] Noerr, 365 U.S. at 140-41.

[3] Pennington, 381 U.S. at 670.

[4] California Motor Transport Company v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508, 509-10 (1972).

[5] Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. Indian Head, Inc., 486 U.S. 492, 499 (1988).

[6] Diaz v. Southwest Wheel, Inc., 736 S.W.2d 770 (Tex. App. 1987).

[7] Prof'l Real Estate Inv'rs, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Indus., 508 U.S. 49, 60-61 (1993).

[8] City of Columbia v. Omni outdoor Advertising, Inc., 499 U.S. 365, 380 (1991).

[9] Kottle v. Nw. Kidney Ctrs., 146 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir. 1998).

[10] Litton Systems v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 700 F.2d 785 (2d Cir. 1983).

[11] Prof'l Real Estate Inv'rs, Inc., 508 U.S. at 60-61.

[12] Sierra Club v. Butz, 349 F.Supp. 934 (N.D. Cal 1972).

[13] Video Intl Prod., Inc. v. Warner-Amex Cable Comm., Inc., 858 F.2d 1075, 1084 (5th Cir. 1988).

[14] Hamilton v. Accu-Tek, 935 F. Supp. 1307, 1321 (E.D.N.Y. 1996).

[15] In re Mun. Stormwater Pond, No. 18-cv-3495 (JNE/KMM), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 227887, at *12 (D. Minn. Dec. 20, 2019).

[16] Eiser v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 2005 Phila. Ct. Com. Pl. LEXIS 43, *20, 2005 WL 1323030.

Excerpt from:
Practice Pointer: How Manufacturers Can Protect Their Lobbying Efforts With the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine - JD Supra

A book about Motown Productions, the film and television arm of the legendary Motown Records; preservation of the traditional language and lifestyle of Yupik and Cupik Alaskan Native people; and research on how communities and insurance companies in Bermuda understand risk caused by rising sea levels and climate change are among the 245 projects across the country that are receiving new grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities.

The grants, which total $33.17 million, support historic collections, exhibitions and documentaries, humanities infrastructure, scholarly research and curriculum projects.

Among the 13 categories in which the grants were awarded, the most money $11 million went toward 23 infrastructure and capacity building challenge grants, which leverage federal funds to spur nonfederal support for cultural institutions.

Included in those were awards to the Bishop Museum in Honolulu, to make collections documenting Hawaiian and Pacific history and culture more accessible, and to the First Peoples Fund in Rapid City, S.D., to create outdoor classroom spaces for education programs about the Lakota cultural traditions at the Pine Ridge Reservations Oglala Lakota Artspace.

Thirty projects in New York state will receive $4.4 million in total funding, with $3.76 million going to 16 groups and individuals in New York City.

In Brooklyn, UnionDocs will get $644,525 for the production of a film about the First Amendment and the balance between free speech principles and other core values. (The project is titled Speaking Freely: The First Amendment and the Work of Preeminent Attorney Floyd Abrams and will be directed by Yael Melamede.)

In Long Island City, LaGuardia Community College will see $34,991 to create a liberal arts health humanities option with an interdisciplinary curriculum for undergraduates that focuses on the social, cultural and historical contexts of medical ethics, health and medicine.

And in Manhattan, the Lower East Side Tenement Museum will receive $400,000 to support guided tours exploring the lives of African Americans and Irish immigrants in 19th-century New York City. Women Make Movies, also in Manhattan, will receive $500,000 toward the production of a film that explores the life and work of the Caribbean writer Jamaica Kincaid. The movie, Jamaica Kincaid: Liberating the Daffodil, will be directed by Stephanie Black.

This crop of grants is the first round of funding from the agency under Shelly C. Lowe, the first Native American to lead the agency.

N.E.H. is proud to support these exemplary education, media, preservation, research and infrastructure projects, Lowe said in a statement. These 245 projects will expand the horizons of our knowledge of culture and history, lift up humanities organizations working to preserve and tell the stories of local and global communities, and bring high-quality public programs and educational resources directly to the American public.

Here is the original post:
National Endowment for the Humanities Announces $33.17 Million in Grants - The New York Times

Clarksville, TN In December 1965, five Des Moines teenagers were kicked out of school for wearing armbands. The students slipped on black fabric strips that morning to protest the Vietnam War, and once their suspension made headlines, a few legal experts wondered about the teenagers freedom of speech.

A long court battle ensued, with the Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District case eventually reaching the U.S. Supreme Court.In a landmark 1969 decision, the court ruled in favor of the students, with Justice Abe Fortas writing in his majority opinion, It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.More than 50 years later, with the First Amendment once again inspiring contentious political debates, a new book co-edited by Dr. Prentice Chandler, dean of Austin Peay State Universitys Eriksson College of Education, is taking a fresh look at the rights of students and teachers in the 21st century.

At the Schoolhouse Gate: Stakeholder Perceptions of First Amendment Rights and Responsibilities in U.S. Public Schools, is now available from Information Age Publishing as part of its Teaching and Learning Social Studies series.

It is clear that in order to prepare children for participation in a democracy, democratic ideals and practices should be a part of their education, Chandler said. It is not an add-on to democratic education; it is democratic education. And, this education unfolds in the context of political upheaval, racial inequity and economic uncertainty. The mission of our schools is to prepare young people for entry into the world as itisnot the one that we wish existed.

Under Chandlers leadership, the Eriksson College of Education has earned a national reputation for its innovation in teacher preparation and recruitment. In January, Austin Peay State University and the Clarksville-Montgomery County School System began offering the first federally registered apprenticeship program for teaching in the country.

Dr. Nancy C. Patterson, Bowling Green State University (BGSU) professor of education, co-edited the book with Chandler. Patterson, the recipient of BGSUs 2020 Professor of Teaching Excellence Award, is known on her campus as a staunch advocate for social studies education who seeks to constantly improve the middle childhood and young adult education curricula.

Her research focuses on democratic classroom and school pedagogies and structures, along with academic freedom and equity in assessment regimes.

The book is divided into three sections Foundations, Case Studies of Rights in Schools and Choices to Act and it features essays from leading education and legal scholars.

At the Schoolhouse Gate is available through the Information Age Publishing website or at Amazon.com.

Read the original post:
Austin Peay State University dean, Bowling Green professor release new book on First-Amendment rights in schools - Clarksville Online