7 ms·

So - again - it's okay to ban people from talking about certain things, in certain circumstances, especially if you believe those things might cause harm, yes?

So - again - it's okay to ban people from talking about certain things, in certain circumstances, especially if you believe those things might cause harm, yes? The debate is not over the thing Graham is talking about, but over whether it's worse to tell young cishet children that queer people exist, or to not tell young queer children that other queer people exist. You don't seem to agree with the essay you're defending.

pdonis 5y ago
Here is the actual text of the Florida law in question: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/PDF https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/... It says nothing whatever about "banning people from talking about certain things". It says (pp. 4-5): "3. 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." In other words, it's the government making clear what the standards for "classroom instruction" are in schools run by the government. Exactly the same as the government has always done for schools run by the government. Teachers in public schools are always required to conduct their classroom instruction in accordance with the rules that the government sets down. Now, let's consider a couple of examples. Suppose a teacher of a 3rd grade class happens to mention the fact that one of the students has a gay couple as parents. Is that violating the law? Of course not. The teacher is not conducting "classroom instruction" about sexual orientation or gender identity. The teacher is just stating a fact. But suppose the teacher says: "There should be more couples like the parents of student A." Is that violating the law? It might be. If the teacher was very careful to explicitly state that this statement was just the teacher's opinion and was not part of classroom instruction, and if no student's grade on anything depended on whether or not they agreed with the teacher, then it would not be violating the law. But if the teacher made such a statement part of classroom instruction, and gave students assignments based on it, and graded them based on whether they agreed with it, then that would be violating the law. Note that this is no different from any other area of instruction.
- mlyle 5y ago
  > Note that this is no different from any other area of instruction. Allowing parents to sue for DJ, or request a special magistrate be appointed, with reimbursement of attorneys' fees, is pretty different. > If the teacher was very careful to explicitly state that this statement was just the teacher's opinion and was not part of classroom instruction, and if no student's grade on anything depended on whether or not they agreed with the teacher, then it would not be violating the law. I think this is a very curious and unlikely distinction. A 1st grade teacher who wants to read "Heather Has Two Mommies" to the class because there's been questions about April's two moms shouldn't face litigation and censure. Look, there's a lot of benefits to students to mention that not all families look the same and to seek to use inclusive language. The kids who have an absent dad or a parent that has died benefit as much as anyone from kids understanding that families may look different ways and it's OK. Another key point is that the law affects other situations. Some high school students are experimenting with other pronouns at school, and feel they would be unsafe at home if this was reported to their parents. This law outlaws this practice of teachers respecting students' preference of what they're called and not telling Dad, unless we meet a relatively high bar of being able to prove that it is likely dangerous. > In other words, it's the government making clear what the standards for "classroom instruction" are in schools run by the government. Yes, and this is clearly a state power that needs to be used responsibly. The moment we start prohibiting the discussion of certain political and social views, or e.g. evolution, we've lost.
  - pdonis 5y ago
    > Allowing parents to sue for DJ, or request a special magistrate be appointed, with reimbursement of attorneys' fees, is pretty different. First, the parents have to work through the school district first. The district has 30 days to address their concerns. Second, giving ordinary people an actual legal channel to pursue a remedy, without bankrupting them with legal costs, is the sort of thing there should be more of. One of the biggest problems with our legal system in general is that it is unaffordable unless you're a corporation or a wealthy individual. > A 1st grade teacher who wants to read "Heather Has Two Mommies" to the class because there's been questions about April's two moms shouldn't face litigation and censure. First, the teacher won't; the school district will. Nothing in the law makes teachers legally liable. All the liability is on the school district. Second, the teacher is not the sole judge of what's appropriate in the classroom. Parents have to have a voice. > This law outlaws this practice of teachers respecting students' preference of what they're called and not telling Dad, unless we meet a relatively high bar of being able to prove that it is likely dangerous. Where does the law say that? More generally, whether the student likes it or not, their parents are their parents and are responsible for raising them. The right thing for the teacher to do in this kind of situation would be to bring the parent into the discussion themselves, so the teacher can support the student directly in that discussion, not to help the student to go behind the parent's back.

pdonis 5y ago

Here is the actual text of the Florida law in question: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/PDF https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/... It says nothing whatever about "banning people from talking about certain things". It says (pp. 4-5): "3. 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." In other words, it's the government making clear what the standards for "classroom instruction" are in schools run by the government. Exactly the same as the government has always done for schools run by the government. Teachers in public schools are always required to conduct their classroom instruction in accordance with the rules that the government sets down. Now, let's consider a couple of examples. Suppose a teacher of a 3rd grade class happens to mention the fact that one of the students has a gay couple as parents. Is that violating the law? Of course not. The teacher is not conducting "classroom instruction" about sexual orientation or gender identity. The teacher is just stating a fact. But suppose the teacher says: "There should be more couples like the parents of student A." Is that violating the law? It might be. If the teacher was very careful to explicitly state that this statement was just the teacher's opinion and was not part of classroom instruction, and if no student's grade on anything depended on whether or not they agreed with the teacher, then it would not be violating the law. But if the teacher made such a statement part of classroom instruction, and gave students assignments based on it, and graded them based on whether they agreed with it, then that would be violating the law. Note that this is no different from any other area of instruction.

mlyle 5y ago
> Note that this is no different from any other area of instruction. Allowing parents to sue for DJ, or request a special magistrate be appointed, with reimbursement of attorneys' fees, is pretty different. > If the teacher was very careful to explicitly state that this statement was just the teacher's opinion and was not part of classroom instruction, and if no student's grade on anything depended on whether or not they agreed with the teacher, then it would not be violating the law. I think this is a very curious and unlikely distinction. A 1st grade teacher who wants to read "Heather Has Two Mommies" to the class because there's been questions about April's two moms shouldn't face litigation and censure. Look, there's a lot of benefits to students to mention that not all families look the same and to seek to use inclusive language. The kids who have an absent dad or a parent that has died benefit as much as anyone from kids understanding that families may look different ways and it's OK. Another key point is that the law affects other situations. Some high school students are experimenting with other pronouns at school, and feel they would be unsafe at home if this was reported to their parents. This law outlaws this practice of teachers respecting students' preference of what they're called and not telling Dad, unless we meet a relatively high bar of being able to prove that it is likely dangerous. > In other words, it's the government making clear what the standards for "classroom instruction" are in schools run by the government. Yes, and this is clearly a state power that needs to be used responsibly. The moment we start prohibiting the discussion of certain political and social views, or e.g. evolution, we've lost.
- pdonis 5y ago
  > Allowing parents to sue for DJ, or request a special magistrate be appointed, with reimbursement of attorneys' fees, is pretty different. First, the parents have to work through the school district first. The district has 30 days to address their concerns. Second, giving ordinary people an actual legal channel to pursue a remedy, without bankrupting them with legal costs, is the sort of thing there should be more of. One of the biggest problems with our legal system in general is that it is unaffordable unless you're a corporation or a wealthy individual. > A 1st grade teacher who wants to read "Heather Has Two Mommies" to the class because there's been questions about April's two moms shouldn't face litigation and censure. First, the teacher won't; the school district will. Nothing in the law makes teachers legally liable. All the liability is on the school district. Second, the teacher is not the sole judge of what's appropriate in the classroom. Parents have to have a voice. > This law outlaws this practice of teachers respecting students' preference of what they're called and not telling Dad, unless we meet a relatively high bar of being able to prove that it is likely dangerous. Where does the law say that? More generally, whether the student likes it or not, their parents are their parents and are responsible for raising them. The right thing for the teacher to do in this kind of situation would be to bring the parent into the discussion themselves, so the teacher can support the student directly in that discussion, not to help the student to go behind the parent's back.