"Regardless, teaching one side of a current controversy as fact in mandatory school is manipulation."
If there were a real controversy, sure, but the sides here are "everyone is a human worthy of rights, protections, and opportunity," versus "some people deserve more and opportunity than others". One is tolerant, one is not. I am under no compulsion to be tolerant of intolerance. It is proper, ethical, and moral to fight for the rights of all humans, and it is improper, unethical, and immoral to fight against them.
The issue here is 'being intolerant of intolerance' requires you to decide what is and isn't intolerant.
Let's take affirmative action for example. Giving people whose grandparents were negatively impacted by unjust laws more opportunities than other people.
Opposing this is not 'intolerance', it's an opinion in a debate about whether that is actually fair. It's an active debate and one side is trying to shut down opposition to their political goals and force their kids to say they're right
Trying to close all debate and push a narrative isn't democratic, it's authoritarian and one of the most common tools to oppress and control
If there were a real controversy, sure, but the sides here are "everyone is a human worthy of rights, protections, and opportunity," versus "some people deserve more and opportunity than others". One is tolerant, one is not. I am under no compulsion to be tolerant of intolerance. It is proper, ethical, and moral to fight for the rights of all humans, and it is improper, unethical, and immoral to fight against them.
Not all arguments have two worthwhile sides.