4 ms·

Florida bill to ban making white people feel 'discomfort' about racist history

18 points by colinprince 5y ago

lp0_on_fire 5y ago
Link to the bill itself: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/148/BillText/Filed/HTML https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/148/BillText/File... It explicitly allows educators to discuss the topics this CBC article says it doesn't. There's literally nothing in here saying that Florida is going to specifically ban making "white people feel discomfort". Perhaps the CBC thinks that people who are not white don't qualify as individuals? 279 (3) The Legislature acknowledges the fundamental truth that 280 all individuals are equal before the law and have inalienable 281 rights. Accordingly, instruction on the topics enumerated in 282 this section and supporting materials must be consistent with 283 the following principles of individual freedom: 284 (a) No individual is inherently racist, sexist, or 285 oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously, solely by 286 virtue of his or her race or sex. 287 (b) No race is inherently superior to another race. 288 (c) No individual should be discriminated against or 289 receive adverse treatment solely or partly on the basis of race, 290 color, national origin, religion, disability, or sex. 291 (d) Meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are not 292 racist but fundamental to the right to pursue happiness and be 293 rewarded for industry. 294 (e) An individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, 295 does not bear responsibility for actions committed in the past 296 by other members of the same race or sex. 297 (f) An individual should not be made to feel discomfort, 298 guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on 299 account of his or her race. 300 301 Instructional personnel may facilitate discussions and use 302 curricula to address, in an age-appropriate manner, the topics 303 of sexism, slavery, racial oppression, racial segregation, and 304 racial discrimination, including topics relating to the 305 enactment and enforcement of laws resulting in sexism, racial 306 oppression, racial segregation, and racial discrimination. 307 However, classroom instruction and curriculum may not be used to 308 indoctrinate or persuade students to a particular point of view 309 inconsistent with the principles of this subsection or state 310 academic standards.
- mrtranscendence 5y ago
  Oh come on. You can't read 3(e) followed by 3(f) and read between the lines?
  - xedrac 5y ago
    What are you implying? Here's how I interpreted 3e and 3f: - An individual is not responsible for someone else's mistakes - An individual should not be shamed on account of their race Those are perfectly logical ideals.
    - vanusa 5y ago
      What they're implying is that we should connect the dots. It's pretty obvious which demographic the bill is aimed at, despite its race-neutral language. The beauty of this legislation is that its net effect will be to stoke the "woke mob" even further by confirming their fantasies about white fragility. Thus further promoting divisiveness and distrust. Which is of course what they sides ultimately want.
      - andriesm 5y ago
        Reading between the lines to read race into a law where race is absent seems to me to be racism. The whole point of laws is, they should make sense when you reverse race or leave out race completely. And this is why critical race theory is cancer... its always one sided, victims are always darker and perpetrators are always lighter shades.
- scollet 5y ago
  > Perhaps the CBC thinks that people who are not white don't qualify as individuals? This is unnecessary. The article is poorly compiled, however. This bill primarily serves to ride conservative viewpoints into education so I'm sure the initial premise is to stir the voters.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

18 points by colinprince 5y ago

Link to the bill itself: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/148/BillText/Filed/HTML https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/148/BillText/File... It explicitly allows educators to discuss the topics this CBC article says it doesn't. There's literally nothing in here saying that Florida is going to specifically ban making "white people feel discomfort". Perhaps the CBC thinks that people who are not white don't qualify as individuals? 279 (3) The Legislature acknowledges the fundamental truth that 280 all individuals are equal before the law and have inalienable 281 rights. Accordingly, instruction on the topics enumerated in 282 this section and supporting materials must be consistent with 283 the following principles of individual freedom: 284 (a) No individual is inherently racist, sexist, or 285 oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously, solely by 286 virtue of his or her race or sex. 287 (b) No race is inherently superior to another race. 288 (c) No individual should be discriminated against or 289 receive adverse treatment solely or partly on the basis of race, 290 color, national origin, religion, disability, or sex. 291 (d) Meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are not 292 racist but fundamental to the right to pursue happiness and be 293 rewarded for industry. 294 (e) An individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, 295 does not bear responsibility for actions committed in the past 296 by other members of the same race or sex. 297 (f) An individual should not be made to feel discomfort, 298 guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on 299 account of his or her race. 300 301 Instructional personnel may facilitate discussions and use 302 curricula to address, in an age-appropriate manner, the topics 303 of sexism, slavery, racial oppression, racial segregation, and 304 racial discrimination, including topics relating to the 305 enactment and enforcement of laws resulting in sexism, racial 306 oppression, racial segregation, and racial discrimination. 307 However, classroom instruction and curriculum may not be used to 308 indoctrinate or persuade students to a particular point of view 309 inconsistent with the principles of this subsection or state 310 academic standards.

mrtranscendence 5y ago
Oh come on. You can't read 3(e) followed by 3(f) and read between the lines?
- xedrac 5y ago
  What are you implying? Here's how I interpreted 3e and 3f: - An individual is not responsible for someone else's mistakes - An individual should not be shamed on account of their race Those are perfectly logical ideals.
  - vanusa 5y ago
    What they're implying is that we should connect the dots. It's pretty obvious which demographic the bill is aimed at, despite its race-neutral language. The beauty of this legislation is that its net effect will be to stoke the "woke mob" even further by confirming their fantasies about white fragility. Thus further promoting divisiveness and distrust. Which is of course what they sides ultimately want.
    - andriesm 5y ago
      Reading between the lines to read race into a law where race is absent seems to me to be racism. The whole point of laws is, they should make sense when you reverse race or leave out race completely. And this is why critical race theory is cancer... its always one sided, victims are always darker and perpetrators are always lighter shades.
scollet 5y ago
> Perhaps the CBC thinks that people who are not white don't qualify as individuals? This is unnecessary. The article is poorly compiled, however. This bill primarily serves to ride conservative viewpoints into education so I'm sure the initial premise is to stir the voters.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]