Roberto Clemente Banned in Florida

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I've read it. It bans it in so many words and that is obviously how it is understood including by the court that struck it down as unconstitutional as applied to universities.

I would love to see what line(s) in the bill, which explicitly requires teaching African American history and achievement, ban Jackie Robinson books.

Whether it is a good bill or not, I am not so sure. But the claims made appear to be contradictory to the text and to the evidence of what has actually happened.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

The updated Pen letter includes a disclaimer that says they are looking into the precise details of why, when, and for how long the books were removed. I don’t see any challenges to them being removed for a period of time.

How is it possible to remove a book that wasn’t in the library in the first place?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

I would love to see what line(s) in the bill, which explicitly requires teaching African American history and achievement, ban Jackie Robinson books.

Whether it is a good bill or not, I am not so sure. But the claims made appear to be contradictory to the text and to the evidence of what has actually happened.

You just moved the goalposts of the discussion I was talking about critical race theory.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You just moved the goalposts of the discussion I was talking about critical race theory.

Hm. The books the thread is about seems to be the topic, but alright. We'll pretend it's not. 'Critical Race Theory' is not in the bill, and is a rather vague term used on the right. I'm not exactly a supporter of the bill, I've simply read it and can see that the media accounts are in complete opposition to the actual text.

Here's 51-83 with what it actually doesn't allow instruction of. What part do you think is a problem and want to debate instead of the books that it obviously doesn't ban?


51. 1. Members of one race, color, sex, or national origin are
52 morally superior to members of another race, color, sex, or
53 national origin.
54 2. 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.
57 3. An individual’s moral character or status as either
58 privileged or oppressed is necessarily determined by his or her
59 race, color, sex, or national origin.
60 4. Members of one race, color, sex, or national origin
61 cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to
62 race, color, sex, or national origin.
63 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.
68 6. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex,
69 or national origin, should be discriminated against or receive
70 adverse treatment to achieve diversity, equity, or inclusion.
71 7. An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or
72 any other form of psychological distress on account of his or
73 her race, color, sex, or national origin.
74 8. Such virtues as merit, excellence, hard work, fairness,
75 neutrality, objectivity, and racial colorblindness are racist or
76 sexist, or were created by members of a particular race, color,
77 sex, or national origin to oppress members of another race,
78 color, sex, or national origin.
79 (b) Paragraph (a) may not be construed to prohibit
80 discussion of the concepts listed therein as part of a course of
81 training or instruction, provided such training or instruction
82 is given in an objective manner without endorsement of the
83 concepts.

[Peter_Spaeth]

By signing this legislation, which is the first in the nation to end corporate wokeness and Critical Race Theory in our schools, we are prioritizing education not indoctrination,” said Lieutenant Governor Jeanette Nuñez. “We will always fight to protect our children and parents from this Marxist-inspired curriculum.”

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Belfast1933

Am I the only one who really hates when politics enters Net54 chats? This is hobby is one of my favorite escape from some of the world's ugly realities...

But then I tune into threads like this one and get to see the same vile talk and opinions here and honestly, it impacts my willingness to interact with some member/posters.

It's too bad - like others, I tune into "new posts" to see what great new hobby talks may have started. And every now and then, threads take a turn like this one.

It's too bad. I suppose i will just ignore "water cooler talk" moving forward... but my daughter is a new elementary school librarian, so the topic got my attention.

No you're not, and I apologize to you for starting this thread if you thought it was in any way intended to be political, it was not. My intention had nothing to do with politics, it was merely that I saw the story and then immediately thought to myself, I have never heard of a single person who ever had anything bad to say about Roberto Clemente, especially Roberto Clemente the human being. So to me, the idea that somehow a book about Robeto Clemente could in any way be inappropriate for school children to read and learn from is absolutely ludicrous and laughable. And the only reason I thought it appropriate for a Net54 thread was because it was a story about Roberto Clemente, so an obvious hobby connection.

The actual story itself isn't about politics, it is actually about humanity, racism, and discrimination, which should be an apolitical topic and something that all decent humans should be concerned about. The sad truth though is that politicians then take and weaponize such topics for their own means and gain. It is a disgusting and totally dehumanizing tactic they use to cause rifts in populations and helps to distract many from focusing on ALL the politicians' own greed and lack of often doing any actual good for anyone, other than themselves and those they conspire with.

Net54 has various people that buy into this rhetoric, and have no problem aiming and spewing it at others on here. Let me make a suggestion to you. Rather than stopping to read anything in the Water Cooler section at all, why not figure out and take advantage of the forum's IGNORE function? Trust me, the removal of seeing the crap such people spew more than offsets the pretty much little they ever really seem to actually contribute to the forum and others in regards to the hobby itself. Now if there was only some way we could get the forum to extend that IGNORE function so that it also hides what they say when someone quotes them when responding. LOL, that would be really nice.

And congrats on your daughter being a librarian, that is great. Maybe you can ask her to check out this Roberto Clemente book and see what exactly it is that is apparently so bad they specifically had to pull it for further review and keep it away from school kids.

[Peter_Spaeth]

While acknowledging Friday that critical race theory is not taught in Florida schools, DeSantis claimed its "principles" are entering into class instruction, especially in how history and social science is taught. He got the Florida Board of Education last year to specifically ban its use in schools.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

By signing this legislation, which is the first in the nation to end corporate wokeness and Critical Race Theory in our schools, we are prioritizing education not indoctrination,” said Lieutenant Governor Jeanette Nuñez. “We will always fight to protect our children and parents from this Marxist-inspired curriculum.”

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?

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

By signing this legislation, which is the first in the nation to end corporate wokeness and Critical Race Theory in our schools, we are prioritizing education not indoctrination,” said Lieutenant Governor Jeanette Nuñez. “We will always fight to protect our children and parents from this Marxist-inspired curriculum.”

"Prioritizing education" = preventing kids from learning things. Yale and Harvard -educated RDS is on roll...gearing up for 2024.

[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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

LOL Kim is getting a lot of grief these days.

https://time.com/6225926/banned-book...l-race-theory/

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

By signing this legislation, which is the first in the nation to end corporate wokeness and Critical Race Theory in our schools, we are prioritizing education not indoctrination,” said Lieutenant Governor Jeanette Nuñez. “We will always fight to protect our children and parents from this Marxist-inspired curriculum.”

So public schools including colleges dont have any issues in preaching one side of the political aisle they are all in the middle.....no reason for any governor to try to combat it guess is what you are saying.....there is no political issues in public schools on young minds i guess is what we are hearing , if there are issues toward political indoctrination, what are the boards suggestions..

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

Oh I've heard plenty of opinions and concerns about the bill (almost none of which relate to the actual text). I have already said I have strong constitutional doubts about this bill (as I do essentially every education law that effectively mandates certain speech instead of other speech, even if it is speech I find vile), you don't need to convince me of that because I already think it. What is your objection, or anyone else's here, specifically? If you don't object to all bills regulating what is and is not taught, as I lean towards doing, and you don't disagree with its specific stipulations, it's just that lines 51-83 are too vague? If this law is so problematic, it should be very, very easy to specifically show what clauses one finds bad. If one's objection is to political narrative swirling about a law and not anything in the actual law itself, one might want to step back and not fall for the rage bait.

The Governor does not dictate what a bill does, the text does. When my Governor says something that is not in the bill is, it doesn't become law because he says it to his base. DeSantis sells it to his base as a much bigger conservative win than the law actually is, as every politician does. Just as the media articles in this thread twist and distort and flat out lie about it. They don't determine reality. We all know the text of the law is paramount, and while legislative intent can be looked at in edge cases and under specific circumstances, we are a nation of actual, documented laws and these laws determine what is and is not illegal, not the whim of any governor, as much as DeSantis and Newsom and 48 others might wish otherwise.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Oh I've heard plenty of opinions and concerns about the bill (almost none of which relate to the actual text). I have already said I have strong constitutional doubts about this bill (as I do essentially every education law that effectively mandates certain speech instead of other speech, even if it is speech I find vile), you don't need to convince me of that because I already think it. What is your objection, or anyone else's here, specifically? If you don't object to all bills regulating what is and is not taught, as I lean towards doing, and you don't disagree with its specific stipulations, it's just that lines 51-83 are too vague? If this law is so problematic, it should be very, very easy to specifically show what clauses one finds bad. If one's objection is to political narrative swirling about a law and not anything in the actual law itself, one might want to step back and not fall for the rage bait.

The Governor does not dictate what a bill does, the text does. When my Governor says something that is not in the bill is, it doesn't become law because he says it to his base. DeSantis sells it to his base as a much bigger conservative win than the law actually is, as every politician does. Just as the media articles in this thread twist and distort and flat out lie about it. They don't determine reality. We all know the text of the law is paramount, and while legislative intent can be looked at in edge cases and under specific circumstances, we are a nation of actual, documented laws and these laws determine what is and is not illegal, not the whim of any governor, as much as DeSantis and Newsom and 48 others might wish otherwise.

You would be surprised how many laws are not crystal clear on their face, and how often legislative history comes in as a guide to interpretation.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by G1911

Oh I've heard plenty of opinions and concerns about the bill (almost none of which relate to the actual text). I have already said I have strong constitutional doubts about this bill (as I do essentially every education law that effectively mandates certain speech instead of other speech, even if it is speech I find vile), you don't need to convince me of that because I already think it. What is your objection, or anyone else's here, specifically? If you don't object to all bills regulating what is and is not taught, as I lean towards doing, and you don't disagree with its specific stipulations, it's just that lines 51-83 are too vague? If this law is so problematic, it should be very, very easy to specifically show what clauses one finds bad. If one's objection is to political narrative swirling about a law and not anything in the actual law itself, one might want to step back and not fall for the rage bait.

The Governor does not dictate what a bill does, the text does. When my Governor says something that is not in the bill is, it doesn't become law because he says it to his base. DeSantis sells it to his base as a much bigger conservative win than the law actually is, as every politician does. Just as the media articles in this thread twist and distort and flat out lie about it. They don't determine reality. We all know the text of the law is paramount, and while legislative intent can be looked at in edge cases and under specific circumstances, we are a nation of actual, documented laws and these laws determine what is and is not illegal, not the whim of any governor, as much as DeSantis and Newsom and 48 others might wish otherwise.

right and the bill names shows the spin or if its not the bill name its how the media portrays it like 'inflation reduction act' (where the nickname for that one) or dont say gay bill (i didnt know that was the bill name) etc

[Peter_Spaeth]

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/21/u...n-studies.html

[G1911]

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

i don't understand critical race theory in that way. I understand it, at a very simplified level, to be that racism is not just an individual phenomenon but an institutionalized (legal and social) phenomenon. I am not agreeing with it in any way. But I would not ban it as a matter of law, any more than I would rename a school because the person owned slaves.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

i don't understand critical race theory in that way. I understand it, at a very simplified level, to be that racism is not just an individual phenomenon but an institutionalized (legal and social) phenomenon. I am not agreeing with it in any way. But I would not ban it as a matter of law, any more than I would rename a school because the person owned slaves.

So your objection is to political narratives, and nothing actually in the law at all?

That was my original point. It’s rage bait for both sides, the actual law is pretty hard to object too because you have to endorse teaching open racism to do so.

Governors lie. The media lies. Go to the source and don’t play the rage bait game. Somebody saying something doesn’t make it true.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

So your objection is to political narratives, and nothing actually in the law at all?

That was my original point. It’s rage bait for both sides, the actual law is pretty hard to object too because you have to endorse teaching open racism to do so.

Governors lie. The media lies. Go to the source and don’t play the rage bait game. Somebody saying something doesn’t make it true.

We should both read the opinion and amicus briefs to understand better the specific objections to the language. I do think parts of it are vague and arguably could be construed to support certain actions, but at the same time I agree with you that there isn't anything blatant on its face, at least as I read it.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

We should both read the opinion and amicus briefs to understand better the specific objections to the language. I do think parts of it are vague and arguably could be construed to support certain actions, but at the same time I agree with you that there isn't anything blatant on its face, at least as I read it.

Do you recall the name of the case? I’ll track down the text.

[Peter_Spaeth]

https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/...rnors-pi-order

[Peter_Spaeth]

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...?order_by=desc

[G1911]

139 pages, give me a minute

[Peter_Spaeth]

Look at discussion starting at 60.

[G1911]

After reading it, my main problem with this ruling is that it dodges around the logical problems instead of addressing them.

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). That a teacher feels a need to self-censor their racism (38) I have a difficult time finding much empathy with. Just as if a teacher was preaching white supremacy to their class, I would expect them to face repercussion and be fired (as they 100% would be), I find it difficult to understand why it's exact reverse is somehow good. The court certainly doesn't want to ever touch on allowing this kind of speech in universities from whites with the wrong view.

The primary argument against this in the text is the first amendment concerns, which is also my problem with the law. However, the big problem is that this law isn't special. If it is in violation of the first amendment by regulating what can and cannot be taught in the classroom (and I think a good argument is made here and via common sense that it is), pretty much every education law in the nation needs to be thrown out too for violation of the same. This is a niche position of an element of the libertarian right, and so of course it cannot be endorsed, only applied to this specific law, and no others that regulate classroom instruction, materials, and subject. That's my big problem here. The outrage over this is not "the state should not censor at all, a teacher should be able to say anything they want no matter how reprehensible as the 1st allows", it's outrage that they can't teach racism in general, to any race. If the bill banned teaching only white supremacy, it would be unanimous. It's only because it bans teaching racism against ANY race that there is a public outcry and anger. None of this addressed, it goes out of it's way to try and not explain how this law and this law alone is a violation of the first; it only argues that this law violates the first, which it very well may.

It does acknowledge that public education is "committed to the control of state and local authorities", which it then seeks to undermine as much as possible because while that outcome is generally desired, it is bad in this one instance. It's use of Bishop is pretty weak, and I don't see that case having much bearing here. On the other side, I found the state's argument of Title IX is also very weak and uncompelling.

Page 102 states there is not a savings clause in the IFA bill, unlike the anti-semitism statute. This is plainly false, and other parts of this court ruling (including just 9 pages later) acknowledge the savings clause. Unless I'm misreading it, this is patently absurd. 79-83 are this clause, very, very explicitly. There are a number of points where this ruling seems to not be responding to the law at all, but political opinion. The ruling tries not to endorse the right of a teacher to say whatever they want, by effectively requiring the university itself to agree with it (and thus, protecting far left ideology that universities tend to lean too without having to protect other viewpoints) (105). The ruling attacks the vagueness with some sarcasm, though it seems to have difficulty stipulating which words are problematic, as terms like critical race theory are not present and the language is quite direct. It ends up focusing on the savings clause, that just a few pages ago it insisted didn't exist, that permits "discussion" if "given in an objective matter without endorsement". Fact vs. advocacy I have a hard time seeing a problem separating. Again, if this is the standard, we need to throw out the vast majority of US law as well. The ones I have to deal with are certainly much more vague than this. The conclusion is pure political theater, complete with an Orwellian reference to wrap it up (without ever explaining, of course, how not openly teaching racism in the classroom is a great curb of free speech but other education laws are not).


I did skim read the questions of standing, which aren't really applicable to the subject.

I am still no closer to being able to find what specifically is objectionable in this bill, unless we argue that all education bills are objectionable because what is taught should not be dictated to the teacher and should not be chosen by the state. Which is a pretty far right decision. If we are fine with all other (or most) such bills though - how is this one different and objectionable? Nobody can ever answer this question without using political statements and op-eds filled with falsehoods that have nothing to do with the actual law.

[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.

[G1911]

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

People at the school and community level can make a judgment not to teach critical race theory in K-12 without needing a law explicitly banning it. And I am all in favor of allowing a professor to teach it in college, such is academic freedom. I don't like the theory, but then again I did not grow up and experience the world as a black person so I try to withhold judgment a bit.

[Peter_Spaeth]

What would you think of a law that banned schools from teaching books that use the N word?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

People at the school and community level can make a judgment not to teach critical race theory in K-12 without needing a law explicitly banning it.

So it should be a school board meeting or a county law, and that's the objection?

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

And I am all in favor of allowing a professor to teach it in college, such is academic freedom. I don't like the theory, but then again I did not grow up and experience the world as a black person so I try to withhold judgment a bit.

I think I'm more convinced the law is a good idea, as no real argument against the law as it is actually written is ever put forth. I can't get you to make any actual statement of what the objection is, or to address the actual law, or to address how it is logically consistent to hold this in violation of the first but not every other such law, or answer really any question lol. No one wants to explain how it's okay to teach white people are bad for X but to teach back people are bad for Y should still be banned. I have 1st amendment concerns on pretty much every education bill, but I fail to see why we would want to teach racism against any race in school, or which of the 8 very direct and specific points is bad policy, nor can anyone state an argument against any of them, apparently.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

So it should be a school board meeting or a county law, and that's the objection?



I think I'm more convinced the law is a good idea, as no real argument against the law as it is actually written is ever put forth. I can't get you to make any actual statement of what the objection is, or to address the actual law, or to address how it is logically consistent to hold this in violation of the first but not every other such law, or answer really any question lol. No one wants to explain how it's okay to teach white people are bad for X but to teach back people are bad for Y should still be banned. I have 1st amendment concerns on pretty much every education bill, but I fail to see why we would want to teach racism against any race in school, or which of the 8 very direct and specific points is bad policy, nor can anyone state an argument against any of them, apparently.

So you disagree with the court's analysis of how the text of the law could be construed to prevent various teaching activities described by the plaintiffs? Or are you saying none of those are worthwhile so it's a good thing to ban them?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So you disagree with the court's analysis of how the text of the law could be construed to prevent various teaching activities described by the plaintiffs? Or are you saying none of those are worthwhile so it's a good thing to ban them?

I used specific examples in post 84; some of what the professors allege they are scared to teach for fear of repercussion is true, and I cited a specific example, and some is clearly not banned, which I also cited a specific example of. I am not sure how this very specific statement with examples could be construed as saying it wouldn't ban any of the material cited.

I am more than open to an argument that one of the 8 specific things it bans advocacy of (not discussion, 79-83, but advocacy) - but nobody can explain which or how they do make bad policy. Which one do you think is bad policy? If some of them are, it should be very easy and we don't have to keep dodging every question.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

I used specific examples in post 84; some of what the professors allege they are scared to teach for fear of repercussion is true, and I cited a specific example, and some is clearly not banned, which I also cited a specific example of. I am not sure how this very specific statement with examples could be construed as saying it wouldn't ban any of the material cited.

I am more than open to an argument that one of the 8 specific things it bans advocacy of (not discussion, 79-83, but advocacy) - but nobody can explain which or how they do make bad policy. Which one do you think is bad policy? If some of them are, it should be very easy and we don't have to keep dodging every question.

This Court finds that by endorsing Critical Race Theory and assigning articles
supporting various forms of race consciousness (or the perils of ignoring race),
Professor Austin arguably promotes or compels belief in concepts three, four, six,
and eight. See §§ 1000.05(4)(a)3., 4., 6., and 8., Fla. Stat. (2022); Regulation
10.005(1)(a)3., 4., 6., and 8. Professor Austin’s declarations establish that (1) she
would teach several classes where Critical Race Theory and various forms of race
consciousness are arguably promoted but for the IFA; (2) this proposed speech is
arguably proscribed as promotion of or compulsion to believe in the third, fourth,
sixth, and eighth concepts under the IFA and Regulation 10.005; and (3) Regulation
10.005’s framework creates a credible threat of enforcement from UF and the
members of the Board of Governors. Accordingly, Professor Austin has
demonstrated that it would be reasonable for her to self-censor, conferring an injury
for purposes of standing as to the third, fourth, sixth, and eighth concepts.

If this analysis of the text is right, then I think it's bad policy. If even one concept bans what this Professor is doing, it's bad policy. This is the clearest one that jumped out at me. I'll study it again in more detail later and add to this.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

This Court finds that by endorsing Critical Race Theory and assigning articles
supporting various forms of race consciousness (or the perils of ignoring race),
Professor Austin arguably promotes or compels belief in concepts three, four, six,
and eight. See §§ 1000.05(4)(a)3., 4., 6., and 8., Fla. Stat. (2022); Regulation
10.005(1)(a)3., 4., 6., and 8. Professor Austin’s declarations establish that (1) she
would teach several classes where Critical Race Theory and various forms of race
consciousness are arguably promoted but for the IFA; (2) this proposed speech is
arguably proscribed as promotion of or compulsion to believe in the third, fourth,
sixth, and eighth concepts under the IFA and Regulation 10.005; and (3) Regulation
10.005’s framework creates a credible threat of enforcement from UF and the
members of the Board of Governors. Accordingly, Professor Austin has
demonstrated that it would be reasonable for her to self-censor, conferring an injury
for purposes of standing as to the third, fourth, sixth, and eighth concepts.

If this analysis of the text is right, then I think it's bad policy. If even one concept bans what this Professor is doing, it's bad policy. This is the clearest one that jumped out at me.

So you object to 3, 4, 6 and 8 now, and children should be taught the reverses?

I fail to see how they ban most of what it is claimed Austin is teaching, except for the white privilege that may fall under 3. It is difficult to ascertain because no specifics are given of what they are actually teaching specifically. If the Professor is teaching that a persons moral character or status as privileged or oppresses is determined solely by their skin color, then it falls afoul of 3. What is the argument for teaching children that they should be classified by skin color and that their character and status is entirely dependent on their race? Would you similarly defend a teacher doing the reverse, criticizing 'black privilege' and using it to classify and group black students in a negative way based entirely and solely on their race?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

So you object to 3, 4, 6 and 8 now, and children should be taught the reverses?

I fail to see how they ban most of what it is claimed Austin is teaching, except for the white privilege that may fall under 3. It is difficult to ascertain because no specifics are given of what they are actually teaching specifically. If the Professor is teaching that a persons moral character or status as privileged or oppresses is determined solely by their skin color, then it falls afoul of 3. What is the argument for teaching children that they should be classified by skin color and that their character and status is entirely dependent on their race? Would you similarly defend a teacher doing the reverse, criticizing 'black privilege' and using it to classify and group black students in a negative way based entirely and solely on their race?

My main objection, to be sure, is codifying what can and cannot be taught. As you pose the hypothetical, I would not argue these are good things to teach. but I would defend the right to do so. And again, to the extent concept 3 could be construed to ban teaching of critical race theory at least in part, I think it's bad policy even apart from First Amendment issues.

What say you to my N word hypothetical?

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

What would you think of a law that banned schools from teaching books that use the N word?

Like Hucklberry Finn?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

Like Hucklberry Finn?

And most of Faulkner. This is my concern, that cancel culture will eventually get there. All it would take was a benign sounding law, that forbids the teaching of any material that depicts members of one race as inferior, or in a demeaning way.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

My main objection, to be sure, is codifying what can and cannot be taught. As you pose the hypothetical, I would not argue these are good things to teach. but I would defend the right to do so. And again, to the extent concept 3 could be construed to ban teaching of critical race theory at least in part, I think it's bad policy even apart from First Amendment issues.

What say you to my N word hypothetical?

So you don't object to anything in this bill specifically, you object to any education bill stipulating what is and is not taught, in general? And you object to every other law of this type, of which there are thousands across the US, just as much as this one? Or do you object to 3? You're being very good at not really having a specific position lol.

I don't think your hypothetical is analogous. Banning a word formerly in common usage and often without negative intent in its day bans many abolitionist texts and historical documents. It's not banning an extremist prejudice from being advocated, it's banning anything with a formerly common word no matter its view or advocacy. It's wildly different. I don't see the sense in it.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

So you don't object to anything in this bill specifically, you object to any education bill stipulating what is and is not taught, in general? And you object to every other law of this type, of which there are thousands across the US, just as much as this one? Or do you object to 3? You're being very good at not really having a specific position lol.

I don't think your hypothetical is analogous. Banning a word formerly in common usage and often without negative intent in its day bans many abolitionist texts and historical documents. It's not banning an extremist prejudice from being advocated, it's banning anything with a formerly common word no matter its view or advocacy. It's wildly different. I don't see the sense in it.

As I said, I object to concept 3, if it is interpreted as it just was by a federal judge to ban critical race theory. The opinion also demonstrates the danger of a statute like this, because even if you and I think the judge goes too far in his textual analysis, the very fact that a federal judge did so shows the likelihood other people are going to misapply it. Then at best you have all sorts of shit the courts eventually will have to sort out. I am not all that familiar with other education laws honestly but glad to consider any you want to discuss.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

As I said, I object to concept 3, if it is interpreted as it just was by a federal judge to ban critical race theory.

" 57 3. An individual’s moral character or status as either
58 privileged or oppressed is necessarily determined by his or her
59 race, color, sex, or national origin."

Alright, so back to a couple posts ago on 3:

"What is the argument for teaching children that they should be classified by skin color and that their character and status is entirely dependent on their race? Would you similarly defend a teacher doing the reverse, criticizing 'black privilege' and using it to classify and group black students in a negative way based entirely and solely on their race?"

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

" 57 3. An individual’s moral character or status as either
58 privileged or oppressed is necessarily determined by his or her
59 race, color, sex, or national origin."

Alright, so back to a couple posts ago on 3:

"What is the argument for teaching children that they should be classified by skin color and that their character and status is entirely dependent on their race? Would you similarly defend a teacher doing the reverse, criticizing 'black privilege' and using it to classify and group black students in a negative way based entirely and solely on their race?"

You're doing the slippery slope argument or a variant. Just because I am opposed to one potential pernicious application of concept 3 and therefore think it's a bad idea does not mean I think every possible application of concept 3 is bad inherently or maybe stated better that everything that concept 3 would ban is a good idea.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Every thread needs a card (and it's a 1 of 10!):

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You're doing the slippery slope argument or a variant. Just because I am opposed to one potential pernicious application of concept 3 and therefore think it's a bad idea does not mean I think every possible application of concept 3 is bad inherently (leaving aside First Amendment).

It's not a slippery slope, the law is very explicit with the "any race" standard. It is not a slope, this is the entire point of the legislation, that the races are to be treated the same.

So it is bad, if a teacher teaches this about blacks, and acceptable but maybe not good if they teach it about whites? It is only the one context where it is bad? That's obviously the actual outrage objection to the law and always has been, that there isn't a carve out where it is okay to criticize the race that we want to attack in schools, but to protect the others from the same. I have a difficult time finding it okay to teach racism against a particular race, but that's my hot take.