Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth
Page 60 and the next several pages specifically explain what the court thinks arguably could violate the language of the statute. It is just one man's read of course, albeit a federal judge. But to me it underscores that some of the language is vague and could be applied in an undesirable way.
|
That's the section I referred to with "Some of what the professors are teaching and specifically listed is clearly not banned by this law at all, and some of it is (the parts that openly racist, just racism directed against the correct race). "
Some of this is plainly not banned by the law. For example, Novoa's 3 bulletpoints for the history of sport plainly do not violate the third provision. It is not banned to say people experienced racism (in fact, it is required to do so by the law, in a part nobody wants to talk about).
Others are banned by this law. I have a hard time seeing the objection though, again, unless we want to throw out all education law. For example, Novoa's others course that it is said teaches collective cross-generation responsibility for wrongs against certain groups (and only certain groups, only people of certain races are, of course, to be held responsible for the actions of others). Why would this be a good thing to teach children? Why would we want to teach racism? Again, if we don't object to anything here specifically but only general 1st grounds, why are we not objecting to almost every education law in the United States that determines what is and is not taught in schools?
It makes no sense whatsoever to hold this law to a different standard from every other law of its type, because people who want to preach their racist dislike of a single race to children are upset.