"There are only two opinions on this sign: Everyone is welcome here, or not everyone is welcome here,” argues Sarah Inama, a sixth-grade history teacher.
Hm, I get the sentiment, and while I think that can be a dynamic to consider, I know authoritarian systems often have this dynamic, where the upper class believes themselves to be worthy of “forbidden” knowledge. Take Kim Jong-un having been sent to school in Switzerland, the Nazi top brass collecting and enjoying otherwise censored/forbidden media, many early modern philosophers staying alive by tutoring the children of aristocrats and later industrialists, with knowledge that wouldn’t be allowed for the “common rabble”.
Now, they indeed are in the conflict of wanting their children to be obedient extensions of themselves and at the same time wanting them to be competent enough to carry on and be useful to their own legacy. That has been a pretty inherent conflict to patriarchical systems, including those in contemporary capitalism, basically ever since class society has been a thing. But overall, they do want at least the children they expect to take their place one day, to be competent enough to withstand the “dog-eat-dog”-world they favour, which often includes education on “alternative thinking”.
You are right, though, of course, that all those things will still be viewed through their ideological lens. Historical developments like class conflict has to be taught from their perspective, for example, and with the moral stance of the ruling class on it. Knowledge will often only be superficially understood, so they can feel superior in “knowing” it, without risking proper engagement. But those dynamics are also very old and widespread even today. I remain with my position of thinking, that they do want an “elite” education for themselves, including things otherwise deemed inappropriate or even forbidden. Hypocrisy is an integral part of authoritarian systems.
Hm, I get the sentiment, and while I think that can be a dynamic to consider, I know authoritarian systems often have this dynamic, where the upper class believes themselves to be worthy of “forbidden” knowledge. Take Kim Jong-un having been sent to school in Switzerland, the Nazi top brass collecting and enjoying otherwise censored/forbidden media, many early modern philosophers staying alive by tutoring the children of aristocrats and later industrialists, with knowledge that wouldn’t be allowed for the “common rabble”.
Now, they indeed are in the conflict of wanting their children to be obedient extensions of themselves and at the same time wanting them to be competent enough to carry on and be useful to their own legacy. That has been a pretty inherent conflict to patriarchical systems, including those in contemporary capitalism, basically ever since class society has been a thing. But overall, they do want at least the children they expect to take their place one day, to be competent enough to withstand the “dog-eat-dog”-world they favour, which often includes education on “alternative thinking”.
You are right, though, of course, that all those things will still be viewed through their ideological lens. Historical developments like class conflict has to be taught from their perspective, for example, and with the moral stance of the ruling class on it. Knowledge will often only be superficially understood, so they can feel superior in “knowing” it, without risking proper engagement. But those dynamics are also very old and widespread even today. I remain with my position of thinking, that they do want an “elite” education for themselves, including things otherwise deemed inappropriate or even forbidden. Hypocrisy is an integral part of authoritarian systems.