I know Texas is backwards and regressive, but this headline is kinda clickbait.
A Texas middle school teacher has been fired after assigning an unapproved illustrated version of Anne Frank’s Diary to her eighth grade reading class.
…While district officials claim the adaptation of Anne Frank’s Diary was not approved, it was included on a reading list sent to parents at the start of the school year, KFDM reports. The investigation will determine if the teacher pivoted from the original approved curriculum or if administrators were aware of the book being part of the class.
She wasn’t fired for reading Anne Frank, but for using a graphic novelization of it.
I really wish we could give teachers some semblance of independence back in their classrooms. Firing her just for using an unapproved version of an approved novel is ridiculous.
It’s okay, he wasn’t fired for “being black”, he was fired because his short, thick curly hair and broader nose don’t fit into our dress code! So it’s totally okay!
Is that something to get fired over though? There’s still context missing here - assigning a non-approved book alone seems like something you reprimand someone over, not fire them. Was there something particularly egregious about that particular version of the book?
I’m not sure if you’ve ever read her diary, or the ORIGINAL diary, but the original non-edited version, she goes into detail about her sexuality and specifically about another girl. Her father basically ripped out/omitted pages out of shame.
Since the version the school approved was the same version just graphic novellized, you can bet a Texas school did NOT approve the original version.
The people responding to you are missing the point you’re trying to make, which is that the title of the article is clickbait.
Texas teacher fired for reading Diary of Anne Frank to class.
This headline is false, if not in the exact words then certainly by the implication. Anyone reading this headline would believe that the teacher was fired for reading The Diary of Anne Frank.
Texas teacher fired for reading Anne Frank’s Diary: The Graphic Adaptation to class.
This headline is true. Notice how it is different.
Are either of these headlines good? Obviously not. Is it better to be fired for one than the other? Obviously not, and that is beside the point. Misinformation is a cancer and there doesn’t need to be an agenda behind identifying and calling it out.
edit: and if you (reader) look at the second headline and think to yourself “why are you trying to downplay Texas’ actions by making it sound less bad?” You need to point that question inwards - why do you think the second headline sounds better? And if a more factually correct headline changes your emotional reaction to the story, don’t you think that’s an important reason to advocate for accuracy?
I know Texas is backwards and regressive, but this headline is kinda clickbait.
She wasn’t fired for reading Anne Frank, but for using a graphic novelization of it.
I really wish we could give teachers some semblance of independence back in their classrooms. Firing her just for using an unapproved version of an approved novel is ridiculous.
It’s okay, he wasn’t fired for “being black”, he was fired because his short, thick curly hair and broader nose don’t fit into our dress code! So it’s totally okay!
Is that something to get fired over though? There’s still context missing here - assigning a non-approved book alone seems like something you reprimand someone over, not fire them. Was there something particularly egregious about that particular version of the book?
I’m not sure if you’ve ever read her diary, or the ORIGINAL diary, but the original non-edited version, she goes into detail about her sexuality and specifically about another girl. Her father basically ripped out/omitted pages out of shame.
Since the version the school approved was the same version just graphic novellized, you can bet a Texas school did NOT approve the original version.
deleted by creator
If I’m understanding it correctly, this book was on the suggested reading list they sent parents. So it was unapproved but also suggested…?
I don’t get the problem. All you’re saying is that the bullshit reason for firing this teacher was actually because it was a horseshit reason.
The people responding to you are missing the point you’re trying to make, which is that the title of the article is clickbait.
This headline is false, if not in the exact words then certainly by the implication. Anyone reading this headline would believe that the teacher was fired for reading The Diary of Anne Frank.
This headline is true. Notice how it is different.
Are either of these headlines good? Obviously not. Is it better to be fired for one than the other? Obviously not, and that is beside the point. Misinformation is a cancer and there doesn’t need to be an agenda behind identifying and calling it out.
edit: and if you (reader) look at the second headline and think to yourself “why are you trying to downplay Texas’ actions by making it sound less bad?” You need to point that question inwards - why do you think the second headline sounds better? And if a more factually correct headline changes your emotional reaction to the story, don’t you think that’s an important reason to advocate for accuracy?
Hang on what? So it was unapproved, but simultaneously suggested reading?