4 ms·

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/2

by 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.
  - mlyle 5y ago
    > The district has 30 days to address their concerns. Of which the parents are the sole judge of whether their concerns were adequately addressed before pursuing litigation. > 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. Or, alternatively, giving nuisance litigators a way to make money if they find a plaintiff, which is what laws that provide injunctive-relief-plus-legal-costs tend to do. > 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. The teacher will absolutely face litigation and censure, which are the words I used. They won't have any monetary liability. > Second, the teacher is not the sole judge of what's appropriate in the classroom. Parents have to have a voice. You're free to argue that with your local school district's elected body, etc, instead of putting in place legislation which will cow all of these districts into preventing any such discussion. It's funny how people love to move things to more local levels of government, until those bodies are not doing what they like. Then, it's time for legislative bodies to set standards for the whole state, country, etc. > 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. Sorry-- disagree. Students should be allowed to confide in educators and expect that those confidences will not be betrayed, unless there is an actual acute danger to the students in question. If a student wants to talk to me about not wanting to pursue the career path their parents have in mind, I'm allowed to talk to them, provide information on this, and I'm not expected to "snitch". But if the student asks me to call them "they/them", suddenly things should be super different? Spare me the pearl clutching. Look, social mores about gender are fundamentally changing, and this is something that is going to happen. You just get to choose how much it sucks for kids in the process.
no_wizard 5y ago
I just want to point out this line: >or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards This could easily, under the US legislative framework, be interpreted as extending beyond the 3rd grade. The law does not, actually, strictly, limit this to 3rd grade or lower. This line, as I understand it, makes it so the law can be applied to other grade levels as well, because they can simply say its not "age appropriate" or "developmentally appropriate" at any level. I don't think its an accident this line is worded in a way that would allow this.
- mlyle 5y ago
  > This could easily, under the US legislative framework, be interpreted as extending beyond the 3rd grade. The or makes it quite clear this is the intent: > Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 So, no instruction in K-3 is permitted. > or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards. And in 4-12, it may only be age appropriate / developmentally appropriate as determined by state standards. (E.g. it's not an independent finding of fact by the court as to whether what you said to a bunch of 11th graders was age appropriate.)
  - no_wizard 5y ago
    Right, which is, from all suggested evidence so far, is intended to allow the state to suppress educators from talking about sexual orientation, gender identity et. al. Hence, the layman’s one liner of “Don’t Say Gay” Why on earth the Republican Party and it’s voter base is so concerned with non heteronormative information making it’s way into classrooms, where what is suppose to be the fundamental place where our youth are suppose to learn about the world and what things are, has always baffled me. It’s a disservice to children and adults frankly. It’s not like these things just disappear because people disagree with them.
    - kemayo 5y ago
      Personally, I'm amused by the interpretation that the best way to comply with this law is to avoid all mention of gender and sexuality in classrooms. All children shall be "they"; books mentioning heterosexual romance will be forbidden from reading. It's the only way to avoid conveying some sort of instruction about the concept of gender identity...
kemayo 5y ago
For what it's worth, I think that the critical position on this bill is basically extreme skepticism about what the parties initiating legal proceedings are going to consider "instruction ... on sexual orientation and gender identity". Because that's a very vague passage, and I'm not confident that bigots won't cause a large chilling effect on schools by suing over teachers mentioning that gay/trans people exist, even if these lawsuits are eventually lost by said bigots. > Of course not. ... The teacher is just stating a fact. A lot of "classroom instruction" is stating facts. You're instructing the children about what these facts are. The law seems very vague on where this line is going to fall. (The other issue is the extreme lack of consideration of the possibility that parental-abuse is the problem you're now required to inform the parents their child has complained about in the other sections of the bill...)

by pdonis 5y ago

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.
- mlyle 5y ago
  > The district has 30 days to address their concerns. Of which the parents are the sole judge of whether their concerns were adequately addressed before pursuing litigation. > 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. Or, alternatively, giving nuisance litigators a way to make money if they find a plaintiff, which is what laws that provide injunctive-relief-plus-legal-costs tend to do. > 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. The teacher will absolutely face litigation and censure, which are the words I used. They won't have any monetary liability. > Second, the teacher is not the sole judge of what's appropriate in the classroom. Parents have to have a voice. You're free to argue that with your local school district's elected body, etc, instead of putting in place legislation which will cow all of these districts into preventing any such discussion. It's funny how people love to move things to more local levels of government, until those bodies are not doing what they like. Then, it's time for legislative bodies to set standards for the whole state, country, etc. > 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. Sorry-- disagree. Students should be allowed to confide in educators and expect that those confidences will not be betrayed, unless there is an actual acute danger to the students in question. If a student wants to talk to me about not wanting to pursue the career path their parents have in mind, I'm allowed to talk to them, provide information on this, and I'm not expected to "snitch". But if the student asks me to call them "they/them", suddenly things should be super different? Spare me the pearl clutching. Look, social mores about gender are fundamentally changing, and this is something that is going to happen. You just get to choose how much it sucks for kids in the process.

no_wizard 5y ago

I just want to point out this line: >or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards This could easily, under the US legislative framework, be interpreted as extending beyond the 3rd grade. The law does not, actually, strictly, limit this to 3rd grade or lower. This line, as I understand it, makes it so the law can be applied to other grade levels as well, because they can simply say its not "age appropriate" or "developmentally appropriate" at any level. I don't think its an accident this line is worded in a way that would allow this.

mlyle 5y ago
> This could easily, under the US legislative framework, be interpreted as extending beyond the 3rd grade. The or makes it quite clear this is the intent: > Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 So, no instruction in K-3 is permitted. > or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards. And in 4-12, it may only be age appropriate / developmentally appropriate as determined by state standards. (E.g. it's not an independent finding of fact by the court as to whether what you said to a bunch of 11th graders was age appropriate.)
- no_wizard 5y ago
  Right, which is, from all suggested evidence so far, is intended to allow the state to suppress educators from talking about sexual orientation, gender identity et. al. Hence, the layman’s one liner of “Don’t Say Gay” Why on earth the Republican Party and it’s voter base is so concerned with non heteronormative information making it’s way into classrooms, where what is suppose to be the fundamental place where our youth are suppose to learn about the world and what things are, has always baffled me. It’s a disservice to children and adults frankly. It’s not like these things just disappear because people disagree with them.
  - kemayo 5y ago
    Personally, I'm amused by the interpretation that the best way to comply with this law is to avoid all mention of gender and sexuality in classrooms. All children shall be "they"; books mentioning heterosexual romance will be forbidden from reading. It's the only way to avoid conveying some sort of instruction about the concept of gender identity...

kemayo 5y ago

For what it's worth, I think that the critical position on this bill is basically extreme skepticism about what the parties initiating legal proceedings are going to consider "instruction ... on sexual orientation and gender identity". Because that's a very vague passage, and I'm not confident that bigots won't cause a large chilling effect on schools by suing over teachers mentioning that gay/trans people exist, even if these lawsuits are eventually lost by said bigots. > Of course not. ... The teacher is just stating a fact. A lot of "classroom instruction" is stating facts. You're instructing the children about what these facts are. The law seems very vague on where this line is going to fall. (The other issue is the extreme lack of consideration of the possibility that parental-abuse is the problem you're now required to inform the parents their child has complained about in the other sections of the bill...)