Roberto Clemente Banned in Florida

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Again, the narratives of left and right are not actual reality. Proponents of a bill typically describe it about as accurately as the media does, for political purposes to their base. I do not care about this rhetoric, when we have the actual text in front of us. Which clause are you objecting to, or constitutes the very vague 'critical race theory'? As far as I can tell this is a catch-call term multiple groups are using to denote things they don't like. What part of the actual law do you want to discuss?

54-56 and 63-67, for example, are vague enough that they could be applied to it. Did you read the order striking down the law as applied to universities? Unlike the statute, it's damn long lol. IMO this statute was drafted very cynically using vague language to give the appearance of neutrality but everyone from the Governor on down knows the purpose.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

54-56 and 63-67, for example, are vague enough that they could be applied to it. Did you read the order striking down the law as applied to universities? Unlike the statute, it's damn long lol. IMO this statute was drafted very cynically using vague language to give the appearance of neutrality but everyone from the Governor on down knows the purpose.

I have not read the court order (it won't be the last on the matter), I do see the first amendment grounds here and that is what makes me uncertain about this bill (though that same standard would need to be applied to all laws dictating what the schools teach, which it is not). A lot of things that I think are correct or good are not constitutional, and thus should not be law. I disagree with most any restriction on speech, no matter how vile, though I would support this strict standard on everything equally, which the opponents to this bill generally do not think.

" An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex,
55 or national origin, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive,
56 whether consciously or unconsciously."

If we are saying we want to teach children the opposite here and this ban is morally bad, I have to disagree. I do not think it is good to teach that a person is inherently bad because of their race, color or sex, and that this is clearly racist or sexist to do so. If critical race theory means teaching children that they are inherently bad things because of their skin color or sex, then I am strongly against it. Why would we want to teach this?

" 5. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex,
64 or national origin, bears responsibility for, or should be
65 discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of,
66 actions committed in the past by other members of the same race,
67 color, sex, or national origin."

Again, are we saying this is a bad idea? Should we teach that people of a skin color should be discriminated against? I don't see anything to object too. Isn't this the opposite of racism? If critical race theory means teaching that a person is responsible for evils committed by other people they have nothing to do with on the basis of their race, color or sex I think that is is silly and by definition obviously racist. I can find no reasonable objection to the idea here. Why would we want to teach this?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

I have not read the court order (it won't be the last on the matter), I do see the first amendment grounds here and that is what makes me uncertain about this bill (though that same standard would need to be applied to all laws dictating what the schools teach, which it is not). A lot of things that I think are correct or good are not constitutional, and thus should not be law. I disagree with most any restriction on speech, no matter how vile, though I would support this strict standard on everything equally, which the opponents to this bill generally do not think.

" An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex,
55 or national origin, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive,
56 whether consciously or unconsciously."

If we are saying we want to teach children the opposite here and this ban is morally bad, I have to disagree. I do not think it is good to teach that a person is inherently bad because of their race, color or sex, and that this is clearly racist or sexist to do so. If critical race theory means teaching children that they are inherently bad things because of their skin color or sex, then I am strongly against it. Why would we want to teach this?

" 5. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex,
64 or national origin, bears responsibility for, or should be
65 discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of,
66 actions committed in the past by other members of the same race,
67 color, sex, or national origin."

Again, are we saying this is a bad idea? Should we teach that people of a skin color should be discriminated against? I don't see anything to object too. Isn't this the opposite of racism? If critical race theory means teaching that a person is responsible for evils committed by other people they have nothing to do with on the basis of their race, color or sex I think that is is silly and by definition obviously racist. I can find no reasonable objection to the idea here. Why would we want to teach this?

Certainly it is a criticism of critical race theory that it itself is racist. That debate is another question, or whether we SHOULD teach it is also another question. But BANNING something from being taught is to me problematic. And mostly politically motivated posturing, since it wasn't even being taught.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Certainly it is a criticism of critical race theory that it itself is racist. That debate is another question, or whether we SHOULD teach it is also another question. But BANNING something from being taught is to me problematic.

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.

EDIT: It doesn't even ban these things from being taught - it just requires that they be taught in an objective manner and not endorsed or advocated as right by the teacher. Lines 79-83.

[Peter_Spaeth]

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.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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'm trying to understand what is problematic. My liberal self is unable to see it reading the bill. Not allowing teachers or material to openly endorse racism, which is the TL;DR of what it does and I have posted both the full text and the portion containing what is banned, seems good to me.

We've gone from objecting to fictional book bans to to 'okay, it doesn't, but it's bad because it regulates speech', but we don't want to toss out every other law regulating what is taught in schools, so now 'it's just vague' is the argument?

It was not long ago that the left would have loved this bill, because it treats the races and sexes the same and bans discrimination, while specifically stipulating that African American achievement be taught. But now, because it bans advocating racism in the classroom towards any race without a carve out for a particular race, it is wrong and terrible.

I have first amendment concerns on every education bill, but if there is no actual argument against this bill specifically, I cannot see how it should be treated any different than the thousands of others on the books regulating teaching.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

I'm trying to understand what is problematic. My liberal self is unable to see it reading the bill. Not allowing teachers or material to openly endorse racism, which is the TL;DR of what it does and I have posted both the full text and the portion containing what is banned, seems good to me.

We've gone from objecting to fictional book bans to to 'okay, it doesn't, but it's bad because it regulates speech', but we don't want to toss out every other law regulating what is taught in schools, so now 'it's just vague' is the argument?

It was not long ago that the left would have loved this bill, because it treats the races and sexes the same and bans discrimination, while specifically stipulating that African American achievement be taught. But now, because it bans advocating racism in the classroom towards any race without a carve out for a particular race, it is wrong and terrible.

I have first amendment concerns on every education bill, but if there is no actual argument against this bill specifically, I cannot see how it should be treated any different than the thousands of others on the books regulating teaching.

Take a glance through the opinion striking it down as applied to universities. I haven't read them but I imagine there are amicus briefs explaining people's concerns as well. And again, look what people from the Governor on down are saying the intent is.