Journalists Robert Samuels and Toluse Olorunnipa, authors of the Pulitzer Prize-winning book “His Name Is George Floyd,” are still unclear why they were told they couldn’t read from their book or talk about systemic racism to a room full of high school students in Memphis.

Two days before an event at Whitehaven High School, they said they were “blindsided” by the last-minute restrictions, which they believed event organizers issued in accordance with Tennessee laws restricting certain books in schools. They said they’d also been told the week before the appearance that their book wouldn’t be distributed at the event.

One thing is for certain, the authors said: The students paid the price ultimately.

  • Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s fine and dandy. But this is an article about politicking and you’re making a point as if the science invalidates the fact that the politicking is the major motivation.

    Whether you like it or not, social science bleeds into politics and vice versa. It’s not really something you can take one without the other.

    I guess we’re done here?

    • trackcharlie@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Asking that the experiments are replicated in order to verify their reliability is not a political stance.

      Insuring veracity shouldn’t be on a left or right spectrum, everyone should be aspiring to be as correct as possible, regardless of the politicking.

      • Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Again, invoking science on a post about politics.

        Social science in particular relies on many wide concepts and general statements. Sometimes, being as correct as possible is beside the point.

        In this case, we don’t have to cite a research paper to understand that conservatives are stifling dissenters to their own world view.

        Citing “as correct as possible” on a post about politics is questionable at best. Insisting on reconducting the research before denouncing a clearly political action is basically missing the forest for the trees.

        Have a good one, mate