Conversation 3

Summary

What is the story/event?
The topic I focused on is “The College Board slams Florida for what it calls 'slander' of AP Black history course.”
Recently, College Board acknowledged its error in introducing its new AP African American Studies course, and criticized the reception it received from the Florida Department of Education. College Board expressed its pride in the new course, though it also conceded that the rollout was flawed, and it's mistakes are being exploited. It’s explained how this discourse has essentially changed from a constructive debate to pure misinformation. More importantly, the pre-context explains how Florida’s DOE rejected the course, and how College Board made revisions to the course after. Ultimately, though, Florida’s governor, Ron DeSantis, banned the new course from the state’s high school curriculum, with the state’s education Commissioner referring to the course as “woke indoctrination masquerading as education."

From the Left perspective-
The article from the Left view explained how Florida’s DOE claimed that the AP African American Studies course was indoctrinating students and lacked educational value, and thus College Board denounced these allegations as "slander." It stated how College Board accused Florida of claiming a "political victory" by taking credit for the course revisions that College Board made, though, the Board disputed the notion that it had negotiated with Florida regarding the course's content. The Board called this matter a "false and politically motivated charge," as the Board hadn’t received any feedback or requests from Florida--or any other state, for that matter-- regarding the course's content. It’s also mentioned that Ron DeSantis, Florida’s Republican governor, accused College Board of proposing to add "neo-Marxism" into the course curriculum, and how he said the inclusion of concepts like intersectionality and queer theory practically contradicted Florida's standards. In this perspective, I noticed how they brought up extra information about DeSantis (which other news sources didn’t), such as how he’s signed laws that ban the educational teachings of sexual orientation and gender identity, as well as a law that restricts how race issues are taught. It seems to me that this was possibly added to emphasize how “Republican” the state is, which I believe was done to further add to the annoyance left-wingers have for the situation; this also seems to be an example of anchoring and confirmation bias, as the information was inserted after the explanation of Florida’s standards. In regards to the word choice, I noticed that the left perspective used words such as “slams,” and “hit back,” as well as euphemisms such as “The College Board reserved some of its strongest language for Florida officials themselves.”

From the Center perspective-
In regards to the Center perspective, many of the facts mentioned in the article were the same as those mentioned in the Left perspective, such as Florida’s attempt of a political win by claiming that the DOE influenced the courses revisions, though also clarifying that they had no involvement at all. Mostly, I noticed that the facts mentioned here revolved around College Board’s response, or apology, highlighting the Board’s statement that read “Our failure to raise our voice betrayed Black scholars everywhere and those who have long toiled to build this remarkable field.” In regards to language, I noticed how phrases such as “rejected,” "[the Board] invited sharp criticism,” and “condemned” were used– it seems to me that these words were used as subjective language to defend/in favor of the Board, essentially adding emphasis on how apologetic the Board was for responding late.

From the Right perspective-
Although the right mentioned the same main points as the other two perspectives, I noticed that, instead of asserting that College Board and Florida had absolutely no interactions, it was stated that there was one interaction– specifically, “The College Board said the only interactions the organization had with the state included a rejection letter of the course and phone calls with the state…”. More importantly, some things that were only mentioned in this perspective were that College Board’s aforementioned letter was simply a “PR stunt with ‘inflated rhetoric and posturing’.” In regards to the word choice, I noticed that phrases, or dysphemisms, such as “tense war” and “came under fire” were used.