[G1911]

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

I have read it now and I cannot decide if it is a dog’s breakfast or a monument to sophistry. Having caught up on the thread, I’m already tiring of the topic, but I do owe you an answer. So here it is.


Actually, it says nothing at all about any of those things. And therein lies the issue, as I see it. It makes general mention of things that should be taught, but all of that is obviated by lines 71-73, 297-299, and 307-310. There is no defense against claims of psychological distress. The claim becomes a cudgel to be wielded by any parent or activist with an axe to grind to further dilute the topic. It is the heckler’s veto. You just got to stand up at the school board meeting and claim that Little Johnny was upset by what was he heard in history class and we’ll have a three ring circus on our hands.

It very literally and directly states that the path to slavery, the slavery experience, and the achievement of African-Americans are required to be taught, already cited. Nowhere does it ban or imply could be banned any of the things you claimed before reading the bill. You want a section specifically stating Jackie Robinson (and every other baseball player, again, the bill is "any race" except the section specifically stating black achievement and several other topics promoting a positive narrative) can be taught? This bill would be over a million pages if it had to very specifically state everything it does not affect. This is just fundamentally not how law works. No law does this lol

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

Any law that purports to solve the issue needs to be explicit enough to not allow someone’s ignorance (or political agenda) to take advantage of the lack of specificity. And it is that lack of specificity that is causing local schools to over-react and pull things off the shelves that rational people can agree should be there. Because, those local school teachers and administrators have a whole host of parents that they are on a first name basis with that they know are spoiling for a fight, rationality be damned. And those teachers and administrators know that no one from the state political apparatus will back them up. They are on their own.

We have already covered and I have provided the evidence that the claims of books bans made are fake news, and that these obscure texts were not banned or even on the shelf in the first place. I am still awaiting any evidence of said ban and removal. The county themselves stated the Pen report is not correct: "After requesting more information about the report from the district, a DCPS spokeswoman told News4JAX Tuesday afternoon there are nearly 200 books being reviewed by the district but none of them were challenged by members of the community and the books were never on the library shelves." This whole subject appears to be a lie. Happy to be corrected by evidence.

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

It is completely mute on that point. For giggles, Google “school board meeting CRT” and read a few articles. There are plenty of them. This law does nothing to resolve that. In fact, I would bet it will only make things worse for the reason I state above.

Well of course, that's how law works. If it isn't in the law, it's not impacted by it. Of course it's not going to list a thousand things it doesn't affect. There's nothing in here about empowering parents to go after teachers for saying something they don't like. That was just completely false. Of course it doesn't overturn the first amendment and remove a parents right ("gunny ass", whatever that means, or otherwise) from speaking, or eliminate parents from attending school board meetings. Why would anyone expect it too? Parents attending school board meetings and being permitted to speak has nothing to do with this bill at all.

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

My point is that it isn’t banning specific topics or practices. It is banning general topics and practices and leaving it to others to figure out the specific details. Here, though is something that does bother me. Read lines 332-337. Do you see any definition of “persons” that we are not allowed to reflect unfairly upon? I don’t. So where do we go from there? Was Bull Connor a racist, or was he just a misunderstood public servant trying to keep the peace for all citizens regardless of race (Kumbaya, my Lord, Kumbaya!) It sounds like a ridiculous argument, but are you so sure there isn’t someone out there willing to make that argument at the next school board meeting?

This is again, plainly and unequivocally false. It bans advocacy of certain racist views, which are very specifically stated. It very, very specifically states that the matter may still be discussed, it just must be addressed objectively (79-83). There are plenty of reasonable arguments against this bill, but they are weakened when it's opponents just make things up that are directly contradicted by the actual text instead.

Here's your chosen section:
(d) Require, when appropriate to the comprehension of
330 students, that materials for social science, history, or civics
331 classes contain the Declaration of Independence and the
332 Constitution of the United States. A reviewer may not recommend
333 any instructional materials that contain any matter reflecting
334 unfairly upon persons because of their race, color, creed,
335 national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, disability,
336 socioeconomic status, or occupation or otherwise contradict the
337 principles enumerated under s. 1003.42(3).

First, what definition do you need for "person"? It's incredibly obvious what a person means, no? That's an objection?

Where does it say anyone cannot observe that Bull Connor was a racist, or teach that? It says they cannot recommend instructional material that reflect unfairly on any person specifically because of their race. "Bull Connor was a racist and did X, Y, Z" is just fine. "Bull Connor was a terrible person and a racist because he was white" would be banned. This section does not say what you are claiming it does, not even close.

I get some people are really upset by this law, but dealing with what it actually says makes for a much better argument than making blatantly false claims about the text.

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

My prediction is that this law isn't going to solve the problem is purports to solve. We are going to spend the next two years hearing about School Boards Gone Wild over what is being taught in schools. Each and every one of those stories will be a nice in-kind donation to Ron DeSantis' nascent Presidential campaign.

Yes, it's rage bait for both sides. The left media gets to completely lie about the text to feed it's rage machine and stir up their base, and DeSantis gets to use it and the predictable reaction that doesn't deal with anything it actually says to stir up the rage for his. Everybody get's their dose of anger and publicity and little is actually accomplished.

The left would be much better served by not playing into Desantis' hand and making wildly false claims about a bill that pushes an anti-racism angle and bans open advocacy of racism in the classroom to try and kill it. The whole point on their side is that this bill is a very liberal approach - just without a clause exempting teaching racism towards whites while still banning it against every other race. This is why I am having a hard time seeing anything wrong in the actual bill (not leftist op-ed's), it's a liberal take of a liberal value to not allow teaching racism and prejudice (again, it very, very directly bans advocacy, and advocacy only) to children.