Calling “Bullshit, Bullshit” Part II: It Is Hysterical, But Not Funny
by Gayle Martin
I was Facetiming with my daughter the other day. She was born and raised here in Rochester but has lived in Brooklyn for the past six years, and she’s a good daughter. She usually calls her mama on the weekend. We chatted about books for a little while. She’s finally reading Lonesome Dove, I’m reading The Resisters. We updated each other on our cats’ neuroses. Hers is still OCD and twitchy, mine is still eating his emotions and a chonk.
Then we turned to chatting about what else is going on in our lives. She has a ton of weddings to go to this year. I was explaining what we’re up to with Free to Read and the reaction it’s getting…and she started laughing. Then I started laughing. Because, when you actually summarize the basics out loud, it really does sound funny–in a totally bonkers kind of way.
Except that when you’re actually living it, it is not funny because it is so toxic. When you’re actually living it, it doesn’t feel like a farcical comedy, but a horror movie. Like Rochester has become Hawkins and some Mindflayer is using the hive mind to try to suck you into the Upside Down. Where we will all become poor Barb.
In Part I of this series, I introduced the uninitiated reader to RCS school board candidate Andrew Weaver’s Facebook page, which has increasingly become populated with screenshots from our private Free to Read group about which Mr. Weaver has opinions–and addressed the specific issue of what it really means to promote diverse books. I explained that, following Mallory McMorrow’s lead, there comes a time when you have to “call bullshit, bullshit.” (To see a handy definition of what I mean by “bullshit,” see my first post.) In this post, I will address Mr. Weaver’s rhetoric in a sample post from his Facebook page. I apologize in advance for the wonky English teacher content that follows. I, too, would rather refute logical arguments and evidence with my own logical arguments and evidence, but since Mr. Weaver uses neither logic nor provides any evidence for his opinions and accusations, I can’t do that. So, here we are.
What is Mr. Weaver So Outraged About?
Before I get into the rhetoric of the post, however, I want to state very clearly what exactly all the outrage in it is about. This is the part that made my daughter laugh, but try to take it seriously. In the post, Mr. Weaver is appalled that Free to Read in general, and that I specifically, would dare to have a used book drive to collect books to donate to new teachers in RCS this year so that they can have a classroom library to help encourage their students to read. In addition, he is appalled that a private citizen would dare to curate the kinds of books she would like in her own Little Free Library that is located on her own private property. And the worst thing of all, apparently, is that the current RCS administration and school board has done nothing–nothing!--to stop either of these things. Here is the post with my annotations:
Beating a Few Strawmen with Several Non Sequitur Sticks
Part of rhetorical analysis that English teachers in Rochester Schools teach their students is identifying logical fallacies, or errors in logic, that undermine an argument. In just the first two paragraphs of Mr. Weaver’s post, he commits at least three logical fallacies–although, in fairness, there is so little attempt at any kind of logic at all in what Mr. Weaver has written that they can’t really be called “errors in logic.” Nonetheless, here are the paragraphs:
“Retired Rochester Community Schools’ teacher turned Political Activists Gayle A. Martin is still driving the idea that teachers are free to have any book they want in their classroom library.
Who can blame her for continuing to work on this project? The current leadership at RCS & the BOE have said nothing about it even after it was brought to their attention.”
A strawman fallacy is when “you [misrepresent] someone's argument to make it easier to attack. By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.”
By that definition, the first paragraph contains three separate “strawman” claims:
By calling me a “Political Activists” the claim is that donating books to teachers is somehow “political,” implying that the books being donated will, therefore, adhere to one specific political ideology, i.e. be used for “indoctrination.” But that is a fabrication.
By saying that I am “still driving the idea” the claim is that donating books to teachers is my idea alone and a new and radical idea at that, rather than something that has always been done by many, many people. That is a misrepresentation.
By saying that I am advocating for teachers being “free to have any book they want in their classroom library” the claim is that the books will not be vetted at all for things like literary quality or reading level. That is an exaggeration. (And, as explained in my previous post, not at all what we mean by “diverse” books.)
Having constructed several strawman claims in the first paragraph, Mr. Weaver follows that up with one of several non sequitur fallacies in the second paragraph. A “non sequitur” really isn’t a fallacy at all. “Non sequitur” literally translates to “does not follow,” so it is what Romans said instead of, “Dude, that makes no sense.” And although he gets points for using a rhetorical question to start it, the rest of what he says in the second paragraph, indeed, makes no sense. What, exactly, does Mr. Weaver expect the RCS administration or Board of Education to say or do about me and Free to Read donating books to new teachers? Forbid us from doing a community book drive or from donating community books to Rochester Community School teachers? School boards and school administrators have absolutely no power to do that. They don’t even really have the power to tell teachers they can’t accept book donations or that they can’t have classroom libraries. Teachers may work for the district, but they don’t forfeit all of their First Amendment rights by doing so, and the role of a school board is not to micromanage all classroom materials, especially those that are supplementary to–not required by–the curriculum.
He continues with the non sequiturs and strawman claims in paragraphs three and four, beginning each paragraph with “It is worth noting…” and then following it up by two things that are definitely not worth noting because they have nothing to do with Free to Read’s book drive for new teachers. In the third paragraph, he attacks (and names) a private citizen for having a Little Free Library on her own property that is devoted to providing diverse books–for free–to anyone in the community who wants them, while completely misrepresenting what her “requirements” for diversity are. In paragraph four, he says it is “worth noting” that Free to Read is “working on getting Jessica Gupta” elected to the school board and “would be happy to support Joe Pittel…and Kevin Beers if they decided to run.” Again, I can’t find any logical reason this would be “worth noting” in relation to anything that he has said previously in the post. Moreover, it is just one of several interesting inaccurate statements he makes in this paragraph. Free to Read, as a group, has not officially endorsed any particular candidate for school board yet. Nor has any school board candidate officially supported our group.
A Close Reading of That Fourth Paragraph
Another part of rhetorical analysis that English teachers in Rochester Schools teach their students is close reading of a text, meaning noticing the particular word choices an author makes and analyzing how those choices impact the argument. Paragraph four is full of…interesting…word choices.
To begin, Mr. Weaver inserts a relative clause in his first sentence to inform his reader that Free to Read “is backed by the Michigan Education Association & Michigan Democratic Party.” First, no we’re not. We have received no monetary, organizational, or operational support in any way from either. But second, why did Mr. Weaver feel the need to include this completely fabricated tidbit here (as he has included it in other posts about us)? I believe the mention of each organization functions as a dog whistle for his intended audience. Anti-public school politicians have long demonized the teacher unions in this country and have said they are damaging educational institutions. Mr. Weaver clearly has a similarly negative view of the Rochester Education Association. He has criticized it for causing unspecified damage in other posts. So, falsely claiming Free to Read is “backed” by the MEA makes it much easier for him and his audience to also criticize whatever we do, too. Claiming that we have the support of the Michigan Democratic Party is even more of a stretch. Maybe Mr. Weaver thinks only Democrats are against banning books? (He would be wrong.) I can only assume linking us to the Michigan Democratic Party is meant to appeal to the conspiracy-minded contingent of his audience who hear “Democrat” and think satanic pedofile ring a la Pizzagate, or deep state a la QAnon.
Mr. Weaver ends paragraph four by saying, “This would allow Martin & other Entitled Parents & Political Activists to continue to do as they please.” I’ve already addressed the label of political activist, but here Mr. Weaver also claims I am part of some kind of “Entitled Parents” group. The word “entitled” evokes an image of elitism, which tracks with his favorite hashtag #NoLuxuryBeliefs. But it also begs the question, entitled to what exactly? To “do as we please”? Isn’t that the right of every adult in a free country? More to the point, isn’t that exactly the same entitlement the parents who would like to remove books (or masks or SEL or DEI) from our schools are demanding? The right to “do as [they] please” in regard to their children’s education…and also impose what they want for their own children on everyone else’s children?
It Really Is All Hysterical
I mean that in the true sense of the word, hysterical: “deriving from or affected by uncontrolled extreme emotion.” Mr. Weaver’s entire modus operandi is to stir up the emotions of fear, distrust, and antagonism in order to attack our public schools and preclude any actual reasonable discussion of real issues. His entire post above is just an ad hominem attack on Free to Read and me personally. Instead of using logical arguments with factual support, he attacks who we are–or who he thinks we are–personally.
The fact is that Free to Read is doing nothing whatsoever that should even be any of Mr. Weaver’s business, much less anything directly against him. Yet, he is doing everything he can to make us his enemy, including stalking social media we’ve made private and retaliating against us by trying to personally defame me and others publicly.
It seems that Mr. Weaver needs to make us a villain to fight against, or at least needs to make us appear to be minions of the arch-villains for him–the RCS administration and school board. In fact, being against RCS is his entire reason and platform for running for school board himself, as far as I can tell.
Do I exaggerate? If you’re up for it, wander on over to his Facebook page and scroll through his posts. Is there one thing–anything– wholly positive about Rochester Schools? Anything celebrating any student successes–winning sports seasons? Scholastic Art and Writing awards? National Merit Scholars? a great fall play or spring musical? a marching band halftime show that rocked? a robotics team win? a Model UN win? a BPA win? Anything recognizing long-standing RCS programs–Authors in April? Battle of the Books? The Reflections Contest? MLK Celebration? Anything even offering general encouragement– “Welcome back, students”? “Congratulations to our graduating seniors”? “Thank you to our retirees”?
Seriously, I’m asking because I have actually never scrolled through Mr. Weaver’s Facebook page. I have only ever looked at posts about me or Free to Read that people have sent me and listened to him at school board meetings. But, based on that, I feel confident placing a bet that you wouldn’t find much positivity of any kind on his page.
In my last post in this series, I will detail how Mr. Weaver’s toxic rhetoric, as easily debunked as it is, does real harm to the entire Rochester Community, whether he intends it to do harm or not.
But I warn you. It won’t be funny.
(All opinions expressed in blog posts are of the author and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Free to Read Rochester)
