#DisruptTexts

Torin

Active member
Hi, I recently read this WSJ opinion article:


Since WSJ requires a subscription, many of you likely cannot read that specific article, but the facts are available in many places online. Briefly, it's a sympathetic article about a young adult author, Jessica Cluess, who was cancelled as "racist" for challenging the (woke) #DisruptTexts movement in a series of Tweets. The article also discusses #DisruptTexts more broadly, in a hostile fashion.

#DisruptTexts argues that classic authors like Shakespeare should either not be taught at all or, if they are taught, should be taught in a "disrupted" fashion. I'm not sure what the latter option means exactly, but it is fair to assume that it involves spending significant time highlighting the racist and sexist biases of the texts. You can see an explanation of their approach in their blog post on Shakespeare, from their website:


The WSJ article, as I said, is more sympathetic to Cluess than to #DisruptTexts. The New York Post leans the other way:


And the Daily Mail apparently managed to capture all of the relevant Tweets before they were deleted:


Thoughts?
 

Mr Laurier

Well-known member
We should not abolish the canon. We should expand it.
Add such works as Journey to the west, and other non-european works, to the existing canon of classical literature.
As to the claim that ancient writers were "racist", this is nonsense.The very concept of race is recent. It did not exist when Homer composed the Iliad or the Odyssey. Nor when Shakespeare was alive.
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
I caught wind of this story over at TheologyWeb several weeks ago.

The idea of not teaching the classics is idiotic. Even if some of them contain or are built upon ideas that would be controversial today, textual criticism is an important skill. I might even say that given the US's problems with fake news and misinformation, textual criticism is clearly undertaught and undervalued.

As for how such books should be taught, anyone who's taken an English lit class in high-school knows that all classic literature is discussed in a modern context. The nature of the author, the mores of the time he/she lived in, the history on and around that time, etc. Everything's on the table, and it should be.

Sanitizing literature serves only to hobble the mind of the reader, and especially so because few high-school kids ever read the classics and are influenced by them. No one who comes away from Huckleberry Finn is going to be more racist than they already were. Thus, hiding ideas that were common hundreds (or thousands) of years ago prevents kids from recognizing and discussing the kinds of change human society undergoes with time.
 
Last edited:

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Hi, I recently read this WSJ opinion article:
I have been quoted on the front page of WSJ in 2 articles. Not the "opinion" section.

Above the fold. If you were considered credible by them, they would call you, no?

I am the only trained quant to post on CARM.
 

Diogenes

Active member
1. Calling the author racist is as substantiated as calling legitimate criticism of Israel or Praeger anti-Semitic. It's just a way to dismiss her.

2. Replacing classic literature on the grounds modern political correctness doesn't help from an educational standpoint. If anything, having a ideological litmus test for reading material is more dangerous than the books attempting to be replaced. The decent thing about the classics is that they're not weighed down with modern ideological baggage for group discussion.
 

Ignatius

Member
Hi, I recently read this WSJ opinion article:


Since WSJ requires a subscription, many of you likely cannot read that specific article, but the facts are available in many places online. Briefly, it's a sympathetic article about a young adult author, Jessica Cluess, who was cancelled as "racist" for challenging the (woke) #DisruptTexts movement in a series of Tweets. The article also discusses #DisruptTexts more broadly, in a hostile fashion.

#DisruptTexts argues that classic authors like Shakespeare should either not be taught at all or, if they are taught, should be taught in a "disrupted" fashion. I'm not sure what the latter option means exactly, but it is fair to assume that it involves spending significant time highlighting the racist and sexist biases of the texts. You can see an explanation of their approach in their blog post on Shakespeare, from their website:


The WSJ article, as I said, is more sympathetic to Cluess than to #DisruptTexts. The New York Post leans the other way:


And the Daily Mail apparently managed to capture all of the relevant Tweets before they were deleted:


Thoughts?
They are all america having nazis.
 

Howie

Active member
1. Calling the author racist is as substantiated as calling legitimate criticism of Israel or Praeger anti-Semitic. It's just a way to dismiss her.

2. Replacing classic literature on the grounds modern political correctness doesn't help from an educational standpoint. If anything, having a ideological litmus test for reading material is more dangerous than the books attempting to be replaced. The decent thing about the classics is that they're not weighed down with modern ideological baggage for group discussion.
Hood post.
 

Howie

Active member
1. Calling the author racist is as substantiated as calling legitimate criticism of Israel or Praeger anti-Semitic. It's just a way to dismiss her.

2. Replacing classic literature on the grounds modern political correctness doesn't help from an educational standpoint. If anything, having a ideological litmus test for reading material is more dangerous than the books attempting to be replaced. The decent thing about the classics is that they're not weighed down with modern ideological baggage for group discussion.
Not as good as Diogenes post, IMO; however, I'll give you a thumbs up on it.
 

Furion

Active member
Hi, I recently read this WSJ opinion article:


Since WSJ requires a subscription, many of you likely cannot read that specific article, but the facts are available in many places online. Briefly, it's a sympathetic article about a young adult author, Jessica Cluess, who was cancelled as "racist" for challenging the (woke) #DisruptTexts movement in a series of Tweets. The article also discusses #DisruptTexts more broadly, in a hostile fashion.

#DisruptTexts argues that classic authors like Shakespeare should either not be taught at all or, if they are taught, should be taught in a "disrupted" fashion. I'm not sure what the latter option means exactly, but it is fair to assume that it involves spending significant time highlighting the racist and sexist biases of the texts. You can see an explanation of their approach in their blog post on Shakespeare, from their website:


The WSJ article, as I said, is more sympathetic to Cluess than to #DisruptTexts. The New York Post leans the other way:


And the Daily Mail apparently managed to capture all of the relevant Tweets before they were deleted:


Thoughts?
My thoughts are a few limp wristed liberals are sad, but their handlers don't care, on with the purge, they are burning the books from their disapproval list, liberals are embracing nazism, whether the want to or not.
 
Top