Epistemic Injustice? Banning ‘critical race theory’, ‘divisive topics’, and ‘embedded racism’ in the classroom

IF 0.8 4区 教育学 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Henry Lara-Steidel, Winston C Thompson
{"title":"Epistemic Injustice? Banning ‘critical race theory’, ‘divisive topics’, and ‘embedded racism’ in the classroom","authors":"Henry Lara-Steidel, Winston C Thompson","doi":"10.1093/jopedu/qhad069","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In more than half of its states, the USA has recently passed or proposed legislation to limit or ban public educational curricular reference to race, gender, sexuality, or other identity topics. The stated justifications for these legislative moves are myriad, but they share a foundational claim; namely, these topics are asserted to be politically and socially divisive such that they ought not to be included within state-controlled schools. In this paper, we consider the claims of divisiveness regarding these topics and explore whether, even if taken in good faith, the popular versions of these arguments and actions are epistemically defensible. We conclude that these bans are an epistemic injustice and therefore argue for their end. The article proceeds to consider the foundational claims of epistemic injustice, followed by the invocation of epistemic standards by which the arguments for these bans can be evaluated. The article then transitions to a close application of these standards, weighing the possible epistemic gains and losses. Before concluding, we consider objections and explore the social and epistemic significance of these issues.","PeriodicalId":47223,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jopedu/qhad069","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract In more than half of its states, the USA has recently passed or proposed legislation to limit or ban public educational curricular reference to race, gender, sexuality, or other identity topics. The stated justifications for these legislative moves are myriad, but they share a foundational claim; namely, these topics are asserted to be politically and socially divisive such that they ought not to be included within state-controlled schools. In this paper, we consider the claims of divisiveness regarding these topics and explore whether, even if taken in good faith, the popular versions of these arguments and actions are epistemically defensible. We conclude that these bans are an epistemic injustice and therefore argue for their end. The article proceeds to consider the foundational claims of epistemic injustice, followed by the invocation of epistemic standards by which the arguments for these bans can be evaluated. The article then transitions to a close application of these standards, weighing the possible epistemic gains and losses. Before concluding, we consider objections and explore the social and epistemic significance of these issues.
认知不公正吗?在课堂上禁止“批判种族理论”、“分裂话题”和“根深蒂固的种族主义”
在美国超过一半的州,最近已经通过或提议立法限制或禁止公共教育课程中涉及种族、性别、性取向或其他身份主题。这些立法举措的理由五花八门,但它们都有一个基本主张;也就是说,这些话题被认为在政治上和社会上是分裂的,因此它们不应该被包括在国家控制的学校里。在本文中,我们考虑了关于这些主题的分歧主张,并探讨了这些论点和行动的流行版本是否在认识论上是可辩护的,即使是善意的。我们的结论是,这些禁令是一种认识上的不公正,因此主张结束它们。文章继续考虑认识不公正的基本主张,随后调用认识标准,这些禁令的论点可以被评估。然后,文章过渡到这些标准的密切应用,权衡可能的认知收益和损失。在结束之前,我们考虑反对意见,并探讨这些问题的社会和认识论意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
10.00%
发文量
77
期刊介绍: Journal of Philosophy of Education publishes articles representing a wide variety of philosophical traditions. They vary from examination of fundamental philosophical issues in their connection with education, to detailed critical engagement with current educational practice or policy from a philosophical point of view. The journal aims to promote rigorous thinking on educational matters and to identify and criticise the ideological forces shaping education. Ethical, political, aesthetic and epistemological dimensions of educational theory are amongst those covered.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信