Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth
You would be surprised how few laws are crystal clear on their face, and how often legislative history comes in as a guide to interpretation.
|
Even if the text of the law was not how the law actually worked and the Governor could use a law after the fact to ban whatever he doesn't like or thinks it should have banned instead of what it actually does, if 54-57 and 63-67 are 'critical race theory', how does this even come into play? If these parts you chose as getting into critical race theory are the problem, what's the issue with them? If Critical Race Theory means teaching that one race is superior to others or that members of other races should be discriminated against for things in the past they were not alive for, why would this be a thing we want to teach and advocate anyways? If your objection is solely on grounds of speech, do you feel this should be legal to teach with any race being the one labelled the race that should not receive adverse treatment, and any race being the one instructed to receive adverse treatment?
That you can't really find anything in the law to object too should be telling that maybe one should set aside the partisan narratives.