[carlsonjok]

Originally Posted by G1911

I would encourage you to read the law, as your examples are directly contradictory to the text.

I have read it now and I cannot decide if it is a dog’s breakfast or a monument to sophistry. Having caught up on the thread, I’m already tiring of the topic, but I do owe you an answer. So here it is.

It very, very explicitly requires schools to teach African American achievement and the racism experiences. It specifically requires them to teach slavery (167-173). It does not ban teaching about discriminatory poll taxes, Jim Crow laws, the ownership of slaves (which it very literally directly requires to be taught), or the racism faced by Jackie Robinson. At all. It does not ban books about Clemente and Jackie Robinson.

Actually, it says nothing at all about any of those things. And therein lies the issue, as I see it. It makes general mention of things that should be taught, but all of that is obviated by lines 71-73, 297-299, and 307-310. There is no defense against claims of psychological distress. The claim becomes a cudgel to be wielded by any parent or activist with an axe to grind to further dilute the topic. It is the heckler’s veto. You just got to stand up at the school board meeting and claim that Little Johnny was upset by what was he heard in history class and we’ll have a three ring circus on our hands.

Any law that purports to solve the issue needs to be explicit enough to not allow someone’s ignorance (or political agenda) to take advantage of the lack of specificity. And it is that lack of specificity that is causing local schools to over-react and pull things off the shelves that rational people can agree should be there. Because, those local school teachers and administrators have a whole host of parents that they are on a first name basis with that they know are spoiling for a fight, rationality be damned. And those teachers and administrators know that no one from the state political apparatus will back them up. They are on their own.

It does not allow a "gunny-ass parent", whatever that means, to bring a case against a "librul indoctrinator" because they don't like something.

It is completely mute on that point. For giggles, Google “school board meeting CRT” and read a few articles. There are plenty of them. This law does nothing to resolve that. In fact, I would bet it will only make things worse for the reason I state above.

Again, 51-83 are a good TL;DR if 496 is too many.Which section of the law banning specific practices is too vague? Which part do you disagree with and argue against?

My point is that it isn’t banning specific topics or practices. It is banning general topics and practices and leaving it to others to figure out the specific details. Here, though is something that does bother me. Read lines 332-337. Do you see any definition of “persons” that we are not allowed to reflect unfairly upon? I don’t. So where do we go from there? Was Bull Connor a racist, or was he just a misunderstood public servant trying to keep the peace for all citizens regardless of race (Kumbaya, my Lord, Kumbaya!) It sounds like a ridiculous argument, but are you so sure there isn’t someone out there willing to make that argument at the next school board meeting?

My prediction is that this law isn't going to solve the problem is purports to solve. We are going to spend the next two years hearing about School Boards Gone Wild over what is being taught in schools. Each and every one of those stories will be a nice in-kind donation to Ron DeSantis' nascent Presidential campaign.