Create a Dreamwidth Account
Site and Account
Reload page in style:
2009-09-07 06:14 am (UTC)
My point was more that all of these things get thrown into the same basket, so that the totally understandable and necessary and ethical desire to protect kids from bullying gets equated with transient skirmishes, and even with 'protecting' kids from 'exposure' to deviant people, because the central idea seems to be that anything out of the ordinary could be damaging. The reaction, say, of some parents to sex ed seems to be as fierce, and articulated through pretty much the same language ('my child shouldn't have to experience x') as the response to bullying.
My point is not that there
differences between bullying and, say, keeping kids away from people with disabilities, but that this model treats them as equivalent, meaning that differences are always situated as damaging. Is that clearer? For the record, I'm totally on board with dealing with bullying, and yes, I agree, it's really important, partly because it's an indicator that anti-bias work isn't quite functioning at the correct level in the school, and partly because kids just shouldn't have to go through that. My concern is that when the model of 'protect kids from anything traumatic' gets extrapolated out, as I think it does, so that almost anything different winds up in the same basket...
Thread from start
This account has disabled anonymous posting.
You can comment on this post while signed in with an account from many other sites, once you have confirmed your email address.
Sign in using OpenID
If you don't have an account you can
create one now
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
Check spelling during preview
This account is set to log the IP addresses of everyone who comments.
Links will be displayed as unclickable URLs to help prevent spam.
Most Popular Tags
all about me
Expand Cut Tags
No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 22nd, 2017 04:33 am
Top of page