I Love You but You Didn’t Do the Reading

You may still be on summer break, but here at ILYBYGTH International we are back to school. And that means back to reading headlines and crying in our coffee. Here are some of the stories that upset us this week:

“The Lynching Industry:” W.E.B. DuBois’s 1916 account of a lynching, at Slate.

lynching crowd

The ugly historic truth…

The Maryland mess: Big-time-sporting unto death, at IHE.

Free college tuition? Or 2020 election scam? At Chalkbeat.

Americans aren’t the only ones who don’t know their history. Almost half of Russians are not aware of the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia, at the Guardian.

“This will go down in your permanent record:” Florida’s new hyper-surveillance of students, at Curmudgucation.

Suddenly, the same-sex rules matter at an Indiana Catholic school, at FA.

Colorado’s no-gay-wedding baker back in the courts, at RNS.

Banning Alex Jones: Steve Coll at the New Yorker.

It’s not that white evangelicals are supporting Trump in spite of their religion. Some Trumpists are making Trump their religion, says Alex Wager at the Atlantic.

Trumpism proposes a system of worship formed in direct opposition to bourgeois moral logic, with values that are anti-intellectual and anti–politically correct. If mainline Protestantism is a bastion of the educated, upper-middle class, the Church of Trump is a gathering place for its castoffs.

Higher education on the ropes this week:

Conservative Master’s University is in danger of losing its accreditation, at The Signal.

Evangelical journalists blast evangelical university’s censorship, at World Magazine.

Test score fever: Larry Cuban tells a 1970s tale of test nuttiness.

Wowzers: Teaching a flat earth, at FA.

Canadian evangelical university scraps its mandatory student rules, at CT.

Advertisements

I Love You but You Didn’t Do the Reading

What a week–everything from spy toilets to “coming out” to your parents that you love Trump. Here are a few stories that caught our ILYBYGTH eye this week:

Conservative women “come out” as Trumpists, at NYT.

Trump women NYT

Young, female, and Trumpist.

Cakeshops and civil rights. CT talks to African American evangelicals about same-sex marriage and refusing service.

What killed Alexander the Great? At AO.

The death of college: At The Atlantic, Adam Harris reviews the bleak future of American higher ed.

Dora the Cop: Adjusting Miranda warnings for kids in Baltimore, at BSun.

Why does Kim Jong Un travel with a personal toilet? At LiveScience.

AD Sessions weighs in on microaggressions. HT: MM.

Teachers get mad about the new, shorter AP World History curriculum. At Politico.

NKOREA-POLITICS-KIM

Spy-proof port-a-john in the background…

Conservatives loving Hollywood: A gushy review of First Reformed at American Conservative.

Remember Dorothy Sayers? A new look at her legacy at CT.

Australian students dress in Klan robes and blackface for “politically incorrect”-themed party. At The Guardian.

The case against Harvard: Students accuse it of racist admissions policies, at BBC.

I Love You but You Didn’t Do the Reading

I’ve been up to my eyeballs lately in Joseph Lancaster’s archival papers. Every once in a while I’ve had to come up for twenty-first century air. When I did, these were a few of the stories that caught my eye this week:

Jim Loewen at HNN: Dinesh D’Souza lied about my work.

Can Christian bakers refuse same-sex weddings? The SCOTUS decision at RNS.

no gays allowed TNWill Queen Betsy drive progressive reformers away from charter schools? Peter Greene hopes so.

What’s next for teacher strikes? At T74.

How Chicago schools failed to protect students from abuse, at CT.

Ouch: Tennessee hardware store puts up a “no gays allowed” sign. At USAT.

Christian Cakes and Creationism

You’ve probably seen it by now: SCOTUS issued a weirdly narrow ruling in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. In short, conservative religious people can’t be forced to cooperate with same-sex weddings, IF people are mean to them. It might seem strained, but it is a similar sort of argument to the one I’m making in my new book about creationism. And we don’t have to agree with Phillips (I don’t) to agree with this SCOTUS decision.

masterpiece cakeshop protest

…but it IS about an important principle that can apply all over the culture-war landscape.

Here’s what we know: Colorado Christian baker Jack Phillips refused to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. The couple sued and won. Phillips appealed. Yesterday, SCOTUS sided with Phillips, but only because Phillips had been treated with hostility by the lower court. As Amy Howe explained on the SCOTUS blog,

[Justice Anthony] Kennedy observed, the “neutral and respectful consideration to which Phillips was entitled was compromised” by comments by members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. At one hearing, Kennedy stressed, commissioners repeatedly “endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, implying that religious beliefs and persons are less than fully welcome in Colorado’s business community.” And at a later meeting, Kennedy pointed out, one commissioner “even went so far as to compare Phillips’ invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust.” “This sentiment,” Kennedy admonished, “is inappropriate for a Commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s anti-discrimination law—a law that protects discrimination on the basis of religion as well as sexual orientation.”

In other words, Phillips won because his sincerely held beliefs were not respected, not because Phillips has a right to refuse service to people.

It’s a ruling that has already led both sides to claim victory. It will also surely bring on more contempt and ridicule like this. But IMHO, this decision sets the right tone—a rare one these days.

I don’t say that because I agree with Phillips. I don’t. I don’t even agree that he has a right to refuse service to people based on their sexual orientation. He doesn’t. But he DOES have the right to have his beliefs respected, understood, and considered deeply.

What does it have to do with creationism? For generations now, we’ve heard complaints from creationist parents and activists that their views are not respected or included in public-school science classes. [Check out Teaching Evolution in a Creation Nation for my full treatment of these complaints.]

As I’m arguing in my new book about creationism, creationists DO have a legitimate reason to complain. They have every right to be respected and included in public schools. They DON’T have a right to teach religiously inspired science in secular public schools, though. And they DON’T have any right to opt out of learning basic building blocks of knowledge.

It might seem as if there’s no way to square this circle. As Justice Kennedy ruled yesterday, however, it is possible to insist on respect without simultaneously endorsing an exclusionary practice.