Roberto Clemente Banned in Florida

[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?

[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.