But this reductive defense exploits the measure’s unusual structure to obscure its inevitable impact. 1557’s proponents are correct that the bill does not use the word gay. Many reasonable educators would rather stay quiet than risk a months- or yearslong probe into their classroom speech, one that may well end in their dismissal or, at a minimum, a permanently stained reputation. A parent can ruin teachers’ lives by filing a complaint or a lawsuit even if a teacher is ultimately exonerated, they will have suffered through an intrusive investigation and faced accusation of misconduct-or “grooming”-that will never fade away completely. That’s the point: The law has a chilling effect on speech, frightening educators into silence. 8, teachers will stop mentioning LGBTQ issues once this bill takes effect. Just as doctors stopped performing abortions when Texas passed S.B. 1557, the threat of enforcement will hang over school districts. ![]() What Happened to That DeSantis–Newsom Debate?Įven if no parent ever sues under H.B. With this vigilante scheme, Florida has copied from Texas’ playbook, empowering private citizens to enforce oppressive laws through direct legal action.īrett Kavanaugh’s Whoopsie Forces Groundhog Day at the Supreme Courtīiden Is Taking a Step Toward Legalizing PotĪ Terrible Plan to Neutralize Trump Has Entranced the Legal World ![]() This award could run well into the tens of thousands of dollars and almost surely result in the termination of the offending teacher. If a court agrees that an instructor violated the law, it may issue an injunction, damages, and attorneys’ fees to the parents. Any instruction that touches on slavery would be suspect, best avoided to forestall career-ending consequences.Īggrieved parents have a more direct option: They can sue the school district. A discussion of the abolition movement would have to exclude any reference to its actual goals. They would probably assume, too, that identifying someone as an enslaved person, or noting that someone owned slaves, would be forbidden. A reasonable teacher would know that any overt mention of slavery is out. Imagine a bill that bans classroom instruction “on” slavery. So what speech, exactly, does the law censor? The answer hinges on the preposition on. Rather, the bill bans “classroom instruction … on sexual orientation or gender identity” while saying nothing about instruction about the act of sex itself. ![]() ![]() They framed it as a limitation on sex education, but, ironically, it does not target explicit sexual materials. Republicans slipped this measure into a broader package ostensibly aimed at expanding parents’ control over their children’s education in public schools. For the first group (grades K–3), it imposes an absolute ban on “classroom instruction … on sexual orientation or gender identity.” For the second group (grades 4–12), it imposes a partial ban, outlawing instruction that is “not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate … in accordance with state standards.” (It is unclear which “standards” the bill refers to-more on that soon.) The bill applies two different rules for these two different groups. The first group is students “in kindergarten through grade 3.” The second group is the remainder of “students” with no grade limitation-so grades 4–12. Here, it separates two groups of students to whom the law applies. Note the word I’ve emphasized: “or.” This word is disjunctive, meaning it separates different things. Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |