Board of education replaces course at 12 public universities with own US history curriculum, in latest ‘anti-woke’ attack

Educators are warning that college enrollment in Florida will plummet after the state removed sociology as a core class from campuses in the latest round of Ron DeSantis’s war on “woke ideology”.

The Republican governor’s hand-picked board of education voted on Wednesday to replace the established course on the principles of sociology at its 12 public universities with its own US history curriculum, incorporating an “historically accurate account of America’s founding [and] the horrors of slavery”.

The board faced a backlash last summer for requiring public schools to teach that forced labor was beneficial to enslaved Black people because it taught them useful skills.

The removal as a required core course of sociology classes, which Florida education commissioner and staunch DeSantis acolyte Manny Díaz insisted without evidence had “been hijacked by leftwing activists”, follows several other recent “anti-woke” moves in education in Florida.

  • spacesatan@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Sociology sure, I don’t know about the intro to psychology experience of ‘hey check out all these famous theories, paradigms, and experiments. At least half of which are largely disproven or under serious doubt but we wont say which.’

    • Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      9 months ago

      Depends on the school and professor I guess. My intro to psych class made it clear how much older paradigms are, basically, just flights of fancy, however there is a foundation of moving towards a system of discovery and diagnoses that was important, instead of literally super natural explanations. With new stuff they went over how difficult it is to create solid proofs and the reasons why. They also would do what they could to make sure we understood why they came to the conclusions they did and the short comings of those reasons and practices.

      • braxy29@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        9 months ago

        i would add to this that early conceptualizations of psychology have had massive cultural impacts. if you enjoy art, film, literature from the last century and change, it’s worth knowing about Freud and Jung.

        their ideas represent an evolution of thinking about people, their minds, their relationships to others and to their environment or to god, but they also underpin so much we take for granted at present in popular culture and day-to-day conversation (at least in “the west”).

        • Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          Yes, didn’t want a wall of text explaining all the context the course provided about the different times and now. The roots of it are clearly what we would now consider quackery. However the simple foundational idea that there is something identifiable, explainable, and maybe curable was revolutionary. This was in a time when explanations ran from miasma to demonic possession. So it is worth knowing about for the historical perspective, I totally agree. I was just more sorta shocked there are professors still telling people that our scientific body is the ultimate facts on the matter.

      • spacesatan@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Yeah much better, ‘hey check out a half century of our field producing mostly bullshit, this is a good use of your time.’

        My point being if you can’t put together a full 1 term curriculum of “here are the fundamentals of our field that we are sure or 99% sure about” then maybe its not a productive use of time to require every single college student spend a class on it.

        If you want a history of pseudoscience class then have a history of pseudoscience class.

        • Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          Well I am sorry that you see no value in understanding how the thing you are studying came to be. However, the majority of people do. Literally every subject I learned did this.

          • spacesatan@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            I don’t remember chemistry 101 being 70% about alchemy and phlogiston. This is almost exclusively a phenomenon with intro psychology classes.

            If you want to study it fine whatever but there’s no reason it should be a standard GE requirement instead of something like philosophy of science, international relations, genocide studies, etc.

            • Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              You went to a very different school than I did. We absolutely learned about the development of chemistry in introductory courses. Same with mathematics, physics, etc. This even included getting into how they co-developed. There was a deeper dive into in the liberal arts because it’s it is more important, as they are less mechanical, but STEM definitely got into the basic history of the subject.