Exactly. I think we’re losing the argument at the outset by allowing our opponents to frame the debate using the word “banning” (which is a concept most people don’t like). When a book is BANNED, it cannot be acquired in the marketplace (except maybe by illegal means). What is going on here is exactly the way you presented the argument: WHICH books go on WHICH shelves? And WHO decides?
Another aspect of the issue that is woefully overlooked is how pervasive “woke book banning” is. “Progressive” companies dominate the publishing industry as well as the book sellers and public libraries. The TRUE banning is happening behind closed doors, with publishers refusing not only conservative authors/subjects, but also choosing to publish only those with the “politically correct” demographics. And every book is now subject to a “sensitivity reader” who has the job of finding every possible source of potential offensive to every possible minority...sensitivity readers are said to be “voluntary” for the authors, but if they choose not to use one, their book is far less likely to make it to publication.
By using these “back door methods”, the “progressive” establishment is effectively instituting an actual BAN, since only books they approve make it into the marketplace, and all others are simply unavailable.
The left frequently take the liberty with the word ban and its interpretation to raise the temperature in a debate and to spread fear.
Take abortion, for example. If someone proposes to make it legal during the first 16 weeks of pregnancy, it is not a ban. Laws in many European countries make abortion illegal after 11 weeks, with the exception of certain circumstances, such as when pregnancy is a result of sexual assault or the woman is underage. Common sense, right? But left scream “16 weeks abortion ban”.
The head librarian picks what books to purchase. It does not mean a ban on everything else that has been published. It had always been the head librarian’s job. And they answer to the school, municipality or whoever finances and oversees them.
Yes, and curation is unavoidable. There are appoximately 150 million books with ISBN numbers, and hence in principle available. The average school library has a few thousand. So, 99.99% of available books are not to be found in a particular school's library. Have those 99.99% of books been "banned"? Obviously not.
I would add that even if a K-12 library could hold every word ever written and every illustration ever made, we still need to fill it only with age-appropriate material.
The problem i have debating these issues with liberals is that they seem to view things like CRT and Queer Theory for kids as simple standard pedagogy, as natural as oxygen (because everyone they know believes all the same things!), that only a bigot would quibble with; and conversely, that anyone not in lockstep agreement has some sort of evil agenda, jacked up by narrative hysteria to the point where not giving a child sex hormones becomes the equivalent in their minds of putting them on a train to Buchenwald.
Liberals have sealed themselves inside these overlapping and reinforcing social, geographic, epistemic, moral and political bubbles that seem to have given them a type of aphasia. Not only can they not debate or defend their positions, they can't even understand how someone could disagree.
The tell is how the Regime Media describe anti-CRT and anti-genderist efforts as "opposition to teaching about racism and LGBT people" -- as though the subject matter is simple and uncontroversial, and the only debate is "to censor or not to censor."
The schools have been practicing a covert form of “conversion therapy” for decades. It is a multipronged strategy that includes the books included in the school’s libraries. I thought that side of the debate wanted conversion therapy banned.
😊 thank you ! What a strong message not only in content but in the ability to parse words down to the essence of the point - that speaking and writing skill is the most powerful tool - no, the ONLY one to clarify positions. Our strength is the power of logical righteousness ( good sense) and it shines like the sun when words are written or spoken from nothing but the hope Diamond of essence laid bare in its particular shine .
The above comment is made based on your opening debate statement. As for the actual debate : you stay on topic, think on your feet clearly, emphasize the important conservative principles, and react to innuendo without a tad of emotion ! What a good, thorough debater and the ending ! Superb ! I believe the conservative position in this NPR debate was by far the stronger more solidly valid position because you did your homework and either have trained yourself or innately have a capacity to speak for true freedom and against imposters. Either way … you are teaching, leading, and creating the way forward. Thank you!
Actually Chris argued the liberal position. Mounk was lost, he used fear and insinuation in a failed attempt to tarnish the reality-based analysis Chris presented.
I agree ! I’m not good at much except metaphor so it’s difficult for me to explain exactly how Rufo won this, but it’s so obvious that his position WAS the higher ground! Thanks for samples and especially their sources in argument/persuasive language 🤓🤓🤓
Outside of Heather MacDonald, few match Chris' skill and clarity of thought. My husband, student data analyst for Oakland Unified, was cheering every statement as Chris destroyed Mounk, Weiss and the librarian.
Yay ! May we remove these mountains of trash and clear the air so that the elevated Western Tradition shines in its well earned place: the Apex of human achievement, the possibility of accomplishment open to all humans, the pursuit of continuity’s reward: validity and honor ! 🦋🦋🦋🦋🦋🎓🎓🎓🎓🎓🎓🎓🎓While one might redesign a steering wheel, only a fool would fable the falsehood that humans redesign the truth, the beautiful, and the honorable. Those deadly hijinks caverns - dangerous, deceptive, and popular - plan to replace humanity’s upward call of dignity even though our human Standard is recognizable and unchangeable, noble and distinguishable, represented through the finest attributes individuality ie Western culture.
Chris Rufo shines the light of our democracy’s potent and original intent on the shameful, degrading, untenable, wayward dissolution of these our goals. Our forefathers, themselves enlightened by European and Ancient Greek and Roman traditions, would be horrified by such degrading of freedom and of government. “What have you created for us, Franklin?” Asked a colonist. “A Republic, if you can keep it,” slyly, insightfully the founding father replied.
If we have not kept it - ( and, for example, the haggle that “colonist” means malevolent devil is vicious on the atomic level as is insisting pronouns are replaceable - such like incidents split apart our commons further and further into non-communal norms and shall become thousands of obtuse chain reactions, until there’s nothing recognizable and the obliteration of the most glorious perfection of culture known among humans is accomplished. ie our tradition of respect for a dream worded by Jefferson is made unrecognizable. Western Culture will be ended!)
if we do not keep it ... if vanity and the chasing of the wind hollow out the Spirit of Dignity we were handed, if consciousness devolves into an endless chain reaction of unstoppable, timeless separations - and that’s where we are headed - we are but ruins.
The stakes are that high. So much so that Rufo needs millions of listeners !
Mounk has always struck me as intelligent, but this debate made loose respect for him. You, for the most part, came at him with facts, and he responded mostly with personal attacks, irrelevant assertions and distraction. Mounk was evasive and, I think, unprepared. I expected more from him, especially in the way of honesty.
You did an excellent job, but it wasn’t a good debate, Mounk blew it.
I actually think we should reframe the discussion. THEY want to talk about book bans. But the opposite of ban is to “allow”. We want to talk about how leaders of schools are allowing certain content that would make your grandma blush … Not good character development for our kids. #Takebacktheconversation
Yes and being WINSOME in our communication. If we could just get more citizens to speak up with a smile on their face, deliver our points in such a succinct and eloquent way that takes oppositions' arguments and puts them off the table, continue to show up even when they get defeated, extend friendship when the opposition is least expecting it, serve even when they are not known, and volunteer to be part of the solutions vs just complaining -- not only can we win but we will be attractive and people will want to be part of what we are doing.
As a lifelong educator (special ed, high school, college), I agree with your position completely. The educational system is a narrow arena and, by definition, only some materials can (or should) be included. Hence, some has to be excluded. Your reasoning about how to make that decision makes sense to me. However, irrespective of what's taught, education should be centered on critically evaluating all (reasonable and age-appropriate) sides of every issue, rather than promoting one particular agenda... for instance, this egregious example: "Women Don’t Produce Eggs" https://everythingisbiology.substack.com/p/women-dont-produce-eggs
My sense is that the propagandistic approach to teaching is at least as important — if not more important — than what's being taught.
Thank you for your thoughtful contribution to this debate. Sincerely, Frederick
Not sure I know either. Chris said that the state government determines what textbooks are used. I thought that was a more local decision made by local school boards. How does it actually work? Perhaps it depends on the state?
In my high school debate days, we had a term called “squirrel” for when a debater couldn’t defend her actual position and so would keep trying to change the subject - as in, “look, squirrel!”
All of that to say that mounk was squirreling his way through that entire debate! Clearly a sign he was losing on the actual subject. Great work Mr Rufo!
I'm so glad you wrote this. My father used to call that kind of shifting and jumping around, refusing stay focussed on a point "squirrelly". Listening to the debate, I thought of my father and knew he would have called Mounk "squirrelly".
I read a book that is called “The Seduction of the Innocent” by Fredric Wertham. It may discuss a dated medium (comic books), I think much of what it says is timeless and worth a read. Page 49 has a relevant element to our discussion:
“The trouble with these arguments (never seen a child influenced by comic books) was that these people had never studied the continents of comic books, had failed for years to take notice of their very existence as a potentially harmful factor, and had never examined children for their influence.“
I think Chris needs to do an article on the governance of public schools for those who don’t know or have forgotten the roles and responsibilities of Federal, State and Local government as it relates to public education. Never having been part of the part of public education, I can say I am ignorant about this topic but not of 34 years in private academia.
Yes, quite strange that the debate veered into basic factual errors and assumptions. I was disappointed that my opponent, a professor of political science (!), seemed unaware of the basic structures of governance.
Really enjoyed this debate. Chris was articulate and respectful throughout. Mounk seemed to start out with a strong focus but lost himself in hyperbole. At times I felt an edge of pettiness coming out, and I so wanted to hear a strong counterpoint. Rufo for the win.
I don’t even understand this concept. Libraries can’t carry every book. They obviously have to be able to refuse to carry some. One great filter is gay porn 🙄
May 28, 2023·edited May 28, 2023Liked by Christopher F. Rufo
I am in Berkeley, and in the early 2000, CRT ideas invaded the curriculum, particularly in the mandatory course Ethnic Studies. I approached the reasonable board members about the shift to indoctrination. They managed to get the district to adopt the state recommended Controversial Issues policy. However the district never enforces the policy even with a sustained official complaint.
Yep. I have been anti-woke since '99 when the CRT activists goals were revealed during my years "fighting the good fight" for safe schools and neighborhoods.
Great debate. But there is one point missing here. The fact is that our curriculums and our textbooks were already politicized by largely left wing activists .Check out the book The Language Police by a liberal educator years ago describing the “bias and sensitivity panels” in the textbook industry , dictating how. American history is taught. Read that book!
May 29, 2023·edited May 29, 2023Liked by Christopher F. Rufo
Seriously?! The guy never read "Gender Queer" ?!?! How does a debater come to a debate so completely uninformed about what he is supposed to be discussing? Is he really not aware of the specific materials that parents are objecting to? Or why so many parents now believe that the public schools - once the envy of the world - are now harmful to children?
That is the only way Yascha could lump Harry Potter with "This Book is Gay." Unbelievable!
At the same time, he fully admitted that pornagraphy "is obviously" innapropriate! So is Yascha in favor of banning books and censorship?!
May 29, 2023·edited May 29, 2023Liked by Christopher F. Rufo
Chris, first of all thank-you for your passion, reason and leadership. Like many I am so grateful for you - you are a gem in the rubble of life!
Hindsight is 20/20, but I think you missed an opportunity with Yascha, when he confessed his own stance that certain items should be banned at the outset. What struck me is that Yascha's view is more in line with yours than with the ALA!
Does that make him a censor?! Yascha's admission that limits are indeed appropriate in K-12 libraries – to be distinguished from college libraries – was a big deal. It would be interesting to learn the extent of Yascha view, along with and others like him, to know what they believe should be banned and why. Perhaps there is some common ground?
No library can hold every book ever written. Somebody decides what goes on the shelves and what does not. That's curating, not banning.
Exactly. I think we’re losing the argument at the outset by allowing our opponents to frame the debate using the word “banning” (which is a concept most people don’t like). When a book is BANNED, it cannot be acquired in the marketplace (except maybe by illegal means). What is going on here is exactly the way you presented the argument: WHICH books go on WHICH shelves? And WHO decides?
Another aspect of the issue that is woefully overlooked is how pervasive “woke book banning” is. “Progressive” companies dominate the publishing industry as well as the book sellers and public libraries. The TRUE banning is happening behind closed doors, with publishers refusing not only conservative authors/subjects, but also choosing to publish only those with the “politically correct” demographics. And every book is now subject to a “sensitivity reader” who has the job of finding every possible source of potential offensive to every possible minority...sensitivity readers are said to be “voluntary” for the authors, but if they choose not to use one, their book is far less likely to make it to publication.
By using these “back door methods”, the “progressive” establishment is effectively instituting an actual BAN, since only books they approve make it into the marketplace, and all others are simply unavailable.
The left frequently take the liberty with the word ban and its interpretation to raise the temperature in a debate and to spread fear.
Take abortion, for example. If someone proposes to make it legal during the first 16 weeks of pregnancy, it is not a ban. Laws in many European countries make abortion illegal after 11 weeks, with the exception of certain circumstances, such as when pregnancy is a result of sexual assault or the woman is underage. Common sense, right? But left scream “16 weeks abortion ban”.
The head librarian picks what books to purchase. It does not mean a ban on everything else that has been published. It had always been the head librarian’s job. And they answer to the school, municipality or whoever finances and oversees them.
Yes, and curation is unavoidable. There are appoximately 150 million books with ISBN numbers, and hence in principle available. The average school library has a few thousand. So, 99.99% of available books are not to be found in a particular school's library. Have those 99.99% of books been "banned"? Obviously not.
Great point!
I would add that even if a K-12 library could hold every word ever written and every illustration ever made, we still need to fill it only with age-appropriate material.
Good point. Chris Bray's recent Substack does an excellent job of addressing this. https://open.substack.com/pub/chrisbray/p/burn-all-the-dictionaries?r=10ai8&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Excellent description of Public School: government-run monopoly with compulsory power over children.
Yes, people forget that this is the reality of the situation!
Always appreciate your bravery and sanity!
The problem i have debating these issues with liberals is that they seem to view things like CRT and Queer Theory for kids as simple standard pedagogy, as natural as oxygen (because everyone they know believes all the same things!), that only a bigot would quibble with; and conversely, that anyone not in lockstep agreement has some sort of evil agenda, jacked up by narrative hysteria to the point where not giving a child sex hormones becomes the equivalent in their minds of putting them on a train to Buchenwald.
Liberals have sealed themselves inside these overlapping and reinforcing social, geographic, epistemic, moral and political bubbles that seem to have given them a type of aphasia. Not only can they not debate or defend their positions, they can't even understand how someone could disagree.
Thanks again, Chris!
The tell is how the Regime Media describe anti-CRT and anti-genderist efforts as "opposition to teaching about racism and LGBT people" -- as though the subject matter is simple and uncontroversial, and the only debate is "to censor or not to censor."
The schools have been practicing a covert form of “conversion therapy” for decades. It is a multipronged strategy that includes the books included in the school’s libraries. I thought that side of the debate wanted conversion therapy banned.
😊 thank you ! What a strong message not only in content but in the ability to parse words down to the essence of the point - that speaking and writing skill is the most powerful tool - no, the ONLY one to clarify positions. Our strength is the power of logical righteousness ( good sense) and it shines like the sun when words are written or spoken from nothing but the hope Diamond of essence laid bare in its particular shine .
What a gift ! Keep it coming! Thank you !
The above comment is made based on your opening debate statement. As for the actual debate : you stay on topic, think on your feet clearly, emphasize the important conservative principles, and react to innuendo without a tad of emotion ! What a good, thorough debater and the ending ! Superb ! I believe the conservative position in this NPR debate was by far the stronger more solidly valid position because you did your homework and either have trained yourself or innately have a capacity to speak for true freedom and against imposters. Either way … you are teaching, leading, and creating the way forward. Thank you!
Actually Chris argued the liberal position. Mounk was lost, he used fear and insinuation in a failed attempt to tarnish the reality-based analysis Chris presented.
I agree ! I’m not good at much except metaphor so it’s difficult for me to explain exactly how Rufo won this, but it’s so obvious that his position WAS the higher ground! Thanks for samples and especially their sources in argument/persuasive language 🤓🤓🤓
Outside of Heather MacDonald, few match Chris' skill and clarity of thought. My husband, student data analyst for Oakland Unified, was cheering every statement as Chris destroyed Mounk, Weiss and the librarian.
Heather Mac Donald is one of my intellectual heroes. She is so good at making arguments and advancing lines of reasoning.
Yep. And she has the guts to address civil disorder/crime while the vast majority dance around the issues.
Yay ! May we remove these mountains of trash and clear the air so that the elevated Western Tradition shines in its well earned place: the Apex of human achievement, the possibility of accomplishment open to all humans, the pursuit of continuity’s reward: validity and honor ! 🦋🦋🦋🦋🦋🎓🎓🎓🎓🎓🎓🎓🎓While one might redesign a steering wheel, only a fool would fable the falsehood that humans redesign the truth, the beautiful, and the honorable. Those deadly hijinks caverns - dangerous, deceptive, and popular - plan to replace humanity’s upward call of dignity even though our human Standard is recognizable and unchangeable, noble and distinguishable, represented through the finest attributes individuality ie Western culture.
Chris Rufo shines the light of our democracy’s potent and original intent on the shameful, degrading, untenable, wayward dissolution of these our goals. Our forefathers, themselves enlightened by European and Ancient Greek and Roman traditions, would be horrified by such degrading of freedom and of government. “What have you created for us, Franklin?” Asked a colonist. “A Republic, if you can keep it,” slyly, insightfully the founding father replied.
If we have not kept it - ( and, for example, the haggle that “colonist” means malevolent devil is vicious on the atomic level as is insisting pronouns are replaceable - such like incidents split apart our commons further and further into non-communal norms and shall become thousands of obtuse chain reactions, until there’s nothing recognizable and the obliteration of the most glorious perfection of culture known among humans is accomplished. ie our tradition of respect for a dream worded by Jefferson is made unrecognizable. Western Culture will be ended!)
if we do not keep it ... if vanity and the chasing of the wind hollow out the Spirit of Dignity we were handed, if consciousness devolves into an endless chain reaction of unstoppable, timeless separations - and that’s where we are headed - we are but ruins.
The stakes are that high. So much so that Rufo needs millions of listeners !
Mounk has always struck me as intelligent, but this debate made loose respect for him. You, for the most part, came at him with facts, and he responded mostly with personal attacks, irrelevant assertions and distraction. Mounk was evasive and, I think, unprepared. I expected more from him, especially in the way of honesty.
You did an excellent job, but it wasn’t a good debate, Mounk blew it.
Yeah! His obsession with Ron D was seem a bit of tactic to avoid actually responding to the question.
I actually think we should reframe the discussion. THEY want to talk about book bans. But the opposite of ban is to “allow”. We want to talk about how leaders of schools are allowing certain content that would make your grandma blush … Not good character development for our kids. #Takebacktheconversation
Yes, it's about selection, prudence, and advancing the right values. We can make the positive case.
Yes and being WINSOME in our communication. If we could just get more citizens to speak up with a smile on their face, deliver our points in such a succinct and eloquent way that takes oppositions' arguments and puts them off the table, continue to show up even when they get defeated, extend friendship when the opposition is least expecting it, serve even when they are not known, and volunteer to be part of the solutions vs just complaining -- not only can we win but we will be attractive and people will want to be part of what we are doing.
As a lifelong educator (special ed, high school, college), I agree with your position completely. The educational system is a narrow arena and, by definition, only some materials can (or should) be included. Hence, some has to be excluded. Your reasoning about how to make that decision makes sense to me. However, irrespective of what's taught, education should be centered on critically evaluating all (reasonable and age-appropriate) sides of every issue, rather than promoting one particular agenda... for instance, this egregious example: "Women Don’t Produce Eggs" https://everythingisbiology.substack.com/p/women-dont-produce-eggs
My sense is that the propagandistic approach to teaching is at least as important — if not more important — than what's being taught.
Thank you for your thoughtful contribution to this debate. Sincerely, Frederick
Appreciate it, Frederick.
Mounk has no idea how public education is structured or administrated. He is bluffing his way through. Lousy prep.
I was shocked by this, he didn't know the basics of how government works.
Likewise, why the hell is he teaching political science then.
ESG🤣
Not sure I know either. Chris said that the state government determines what textbooks are used. I thought that was a more local decision made by local school boards. How does it actually work? Perhaps it depends on the state?
In my high school debate days, we had a term called “squirrel” for when a debater couldn’t defend her actual position and so would keep trying to change the subject - as in, “look, squirrel!”
All of that to say that mounk was squirreling his way through that entire debate! Clearly a sign he was losing on the actual subject. Great work Mr Rufo!
I'm so glad you wrote this. My father used to call that kind of shifting and jumping around, refusing stay focussed on a point "squirrelly". Listening to the debate, I thought of my father and knew he would have called Mounk "squirrelly".
I read a book that is called “The Seduction of the Innocent” by Fredric Wertham. It may discuss a dated medium (comic books), I think much of what it says is timeless and worth a read. Page 49 has a relevant element to our discussion:
“The trouble with these arguments (never seen a child influenced by comic books) was that these people had never studied the continents of comic books, had failed for years to take notice of their very existence as a potentially harmful factor, and had never examined children for their influence.“
I think Chris needs to do an article on the governance of public schools for those who don’t know or have forgotten the roles and responsibilities of Federal, State and Local government as it relates to public education. Never having been part of the part of public education, I can say I am ignorant about this topic but not of 34 years in private academia.
Yes, quite strange that the debate veered into basic factual errors and assumptions. I was disappointed that my opponent, a professor of political science (!), seemed unaware of the basic structures of governance.
Really enjoyed this debate. Chris was articulate and respectful throughout. Mounk seemed to start out with a strong focus but lost himself in hyperbole. At times I felt an edge of pettiness coming out, and I so wanted to hear a strong counterpoint. Rufo for the win.
Thanks, David.
I don’t even understand this concept. Libraries can’t carry every book. They obviously have to be able to refuse to carry some. One great filter is gay porn 🙄
Should be pretty obvious that porn shouldn't be in schools.
I am in Berkeley, and in the early 2000, CRT ideas invaded the curriculum, particularly in the mandatory course Ethnic Studies. I approached the reasonable board members about the shift to indoctrination. They managed to get the district to adopt the state recommended Controversial Issues policy. However the district never enforces the policy even with a sustained official complaint.
Berkeley is an incubator of much madness.
Yep. I have been anti-woke since '99 when the CRT activists goals were revealed during my years "fighting the good fight" for safe schools and neighborhoods.
Great debate. But there is one point missing here. The fact is that our curriculums and our textbooks were already politicized by largely left wing activists .Check out the book The Language Police by a liberal educator years ago describing the “bias and sensitivity panels” in the textbook industry , dictating how. American history is taught. Read that book!
Agreed, good point.
Seriously?! The guy never read "Gender Queer" ?!?! How does a debater come to a debate so completely uninformed about what he is supposed to be discussing? Is he really not aware of the specific materials that parents are objecting to? Or why so many parents now believe that the public schools - once the envy of the world - are now harmful to children?
That is the only way Yascha could lump Harry Potter with "This Book is Gay." Unbelievable!
At the same time, he fully admitted that pornagraphy "is obviously" innapropriate! So is Yascha in favor of banning books and censorship?!
Thanks again, Chris!
Exactly, he ended up arguing my point for me.
Something else that strikes me as fundamental to this discussion is the question, who's children are they?
Chris, first of all thank-you for your passion, reason and leadership. Like many I am so grateful for you - you are a gem in the rubble of life!
Hindsight is 20/20, but I think you missed an opportunity with Yascha, when he confessed his own stance that certain items should be banned at the outset. What struck me is that Yascha's view is more in line with yours than with the ALA!
Does that make him a censor?! Yascha's admission that limits are indeed appropriate in K-12 libraries – to be distinguished from college libraries – was a big deal. It would be interesting to learn the extent of Yascha view, along with and others like him, to know what they believe should be banned and why. Perhaps there is some common ground?
Once again, thank-you, Chris
Thank you!