Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911
Okay, so we aren't objecting to the the position in the bill itself. The objection is to the category of bill, that it determines what can and cannot be taught in schools.
Do you feel this way about every law and regulation determining what is and is not taught in schools? There are tons of them, and I have never seen outrage over their existence or the idea that the state determines what is taught (which I am not comfortable with personally, but that has been an idea very very few have ever shared).
This is my problem with the narratives against it - almost nobody can object to the actual content in the bill, because it's very explicit in every clause about not allowing discrimination between the races and sexes. It is difficult to see what, exactly, the left is so angry about with the bill and why they will not tackle the bill itself but only their media and political narratives. This is a very liberal law banning schools from teaching racism - it just protects all races the same.
|
The bill itself, or portions thereof, are vague enough IMO to be problematic. And don't forget that where statutes are not crystal clear on their face, legislative history is relevant to interpretation. I would bet much that if you study all the debates in the legislature, statements by the sponsors, etc., it will be clear what the intent was. I agree though that the intent was not to ban books about Jackie Robinson. But somehow I think my classmate Kim Crenshaw would not be welcome as a guest lecturer.
__________________
My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at
https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/
He is available to do custom drawings in graphite, charcoal and other media. He also sells some of his works as note cards/greeting cards on Etsy under JamesSpaethArt.