Roberto Clemente Banned in Florida

[Peter_Spaeth]

People at the school and community level can make a judgment not to teach critical race theory in K-12 without needing a law explicitly banning it. And I am all in favor of allowing a professor to teach it in college, such is academic freedom. I don't like the theory, but then again I did not grow up and experience the world as a black person so I try to withhold judgment a bit.

[Peter_Spaeth]

What would you think of a law that banned schools from teaching books that use the N word?

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

What would you think of a law that banned schools from teaching books that use the N word?

Like Hucklberry Finn?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

Like Hucklberry Finn?

And most of Faulkner. This is my concern, that cancel culture will eventually get there. All it would take was a benign sounding law, that forbids the teaching of any material that depicts members of one race as inferior, or in a demeaning way.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

People at the school and community level can make a judgment not to teach critical race theory in K-12 without needing a law explicitly banning it.

So it should be a school board meeting or a county law, and that's the objection?

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

And I am all in favor of allowing a professor to teach it in college, such is academic freedom. I don't like the theory, but then again I did not grow up and experience the world as a black person so I try to withhold judgment a bit.

I think I'm more convinced the law is a good idea, as no real argument against the law as it is actually written is ever put forth. I can't get you to make any actual statement of what the objection is, or to address the actual law, or to address how it is logically consistent to hold this in violation of the first but not every other such law, or answer really any question lol. No one wants to explain how it's okay to teach white people are bad for X but to teach back people are bad for Y should still be banned. I have 1st amendment concerns on pretty much every education bill, but I fail to see why we would want to teach racism against any race in school, or which of the 8 very direct and specific points is bad policy, nor can anyone state an argument against any of them, apparently.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

So it should be a school board meeting or a county law, and that's the objection?



I think I'm more convinced the law is a good idea, as no real argument against the law as it is actually written is ever put forth. I can't get you to make any actual statement of what the objection is, or to address the actual law, or to address how it is logically consistent to hold this in violation of the first but not every other such law, or answer really any question lol. No one wants to explain how it's okay to teach white people are bad for X but to teach back people are bad for Y should still be banned. I have 1st amendment concerns on pretty much every education bill, but I fail to see why we would want to teach racism against any race in school, or which of the 8 very direct and specific points is bad policy, nor can anyone state an argument against any of them, apparently.

So you disagree with the court's analysis of how the text of the law could be construed to prevent various teaching activities described by the plaintiffs? Or are you saying none of those are worthwhile so it's a good thing to ban them?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So you disagree with the court's analysis of how the text of the law could be construed to prevent various teaching activities described by the plaintiffs? Or are you saying none of those are worthwhile so it's a good thing to ban them?

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.

[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?