Comment by lp0_on_fire | Hacker News Reader

Comment by lp0_on_fire | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Link to the bill itself:

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/148/BillText/File...

It explicitly allows educators to discuss the topics this CBC article says it doesn't. There's literally nothing in here saying that Florida is going to specifically ban making "white people feel discomfort". Perhaps the CBC thinks that people who are not white don't qualify as individuals?

  279         (3) The Legislature acknowledges the fundamental truth that
  280  all individuals are equal before the law and have inalienable
  281  rights. Accordingly, instruction on the topics enumerated in
  282  this section and supporting materials must be consistent with
  283  the following principles of individual freedom:
  284         (a) No individual is inherently racist, sexist, or
  285  oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously, solely by
  286  virtue of his or her race or sex.
  287         (b) No race is inherently superior to another race.
  288         (c) No individual should be discriminated against or
  289  receive adverse treatment solely or partly on the basis of race,
  290  color, national origin, religion, disability, or sex.
  291         (d) Meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are not
  292  racist but fundamental to the right to pursue happiness and be
  293  rewarded for industry.
  294         (e) An individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex,
  295  does not bear responsibility for actions committed in the past
  296  by other members of the same race or sex.
  297         (f) An individual should not be made to feel discomfort,
  298  guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on
  299  account of his or her race.
  300  
  301  Instructional personnel may facilitate discussions and use
  302  curricula to address, in an age-appropriate manner, the topics
  303  of sexism, slavery, racial oppression, racial segregation, and
  304  racial discrimination, including topics relating to the
  305  enactment and enforcement of laws resulting in sexism, racial
  306  oppression, racial segregation, and racial discrimination.
  307  However, classroom instruction and curriculum may not be used to
  308  indoctrinate or persuade students to a particular point of view
  309  inconsistent with the principles of this subsection or state
  310  academic standards.

Oh come on. You can't read 3(e) followed by 3(f) and read between the lines?

What are you implying? Here's how I interpreted 3e and 3f:

- An individual is not responsible for someone else's mistakes

- An individual should not be shamed on account of their race

Those are perfectly logical ideals.

What they're implying is that we should connect the dots.

It's pretty obvious which demographic the bill is aimed at, despite its race-neutral language.

The beauty of this legislation is that its net effect will be to stoke the "woke mob" even further by confirming their fantasies about white fragility. Thus further promoting divisiveness and distrust. Which is of course what they sides ultimately want.

Reading between the lines to read race into a law where race is absent seems to me to be racism.

The whole point of laws is, they should make sense when you reverse race or leave out race completely.

And this is why critical race theory is cancer... its always one sided, victims are always darker and perpetrators are always lighter shades.

The text of this law seems really strange.

For example, someone makes an audio recording that would be illegal for a teacher to play to her classroom, but that same recording would be perfectly legal to play to the entire school as part of the morning announcements.

Or a discussion that would be illegal for a teacher to lead to his class but perfectly fine if it was the football coach and his team.

Should certain favored religions be taught in a preferntial light at state funded schools? If not, why should certain preferred political ideologies be taught at state funded schools. Critical race theory is always one sided, its always about teaching white people not to be racist towards black people, it's never the reverse. Clearly one sided, racist, and deeply politically one-sided too. Don't need schools to take sides on politics or religion.

> Perhaps the CBC thinks that people who are not white don't qualify as individuals?

This is unnecessary. The article is poorly compiled, however.

This bill primarily serves to ride conservative viewpoints into education so I'm sure the initial premise is to stir the voters.

How do you teach anything about the civil rights movement without covering how white people fought it?

How do you cover segregation without talking about how white people enforced it?

Or how the GI bill functionally only applies to white veterans (because of segregation)

How redlining and sunset towns prevented African Americans from living in “white areas”

Similar for slavery in the US, or the related pre-police groups existing to enforce slavery.

And the civil war: conservatives (now the gop) are hellbent on labeling not a war about “states rights”, when it was clearly and explicitly stated to be about slavery.

We can also look at the trail of tears, and other attempts to systematically exterminate native Americans, or acquisition of Native American land

You cannot teach about any of these subjects without calling attention to the behaviour of white Americans. Therefore making it trivial for any white person to sue for violation of this law.

Everything you've said here is racist hate speech. I'm sure you wouldn't make statements like this about any other group.

It's a good thing that we as a society don't treat all Muslims or Arabs as being responsible for the actions of jihadist terrorists. It's good that we as a society don't treat all <insert any label> as responsible for <bad thing some members of that group did>.

In every single item you listed, there were white people both doing good and bad. Some white Southerners fought to support slavery and white Northerners fought to end it. Some white people in Alabama wanted segregation but they were stopped by a white president and white national guardsmen who represented the majority of white American opinion that wanted to outlaw and stop segregation.

Stop treating hundreds of millions of people as one monolith. Stop the "us vs them" mentality. Please, stop spreading hate.

You can teach all of those things without pushing collective guilt by association simply because a student shares the same skin pigment with someone who has been dead for decades or centuries. Johnny Fifth Grader did not enslave anyone. Johnny Fifth Grader did not "systematically exterminate" anyone.

You neglect to mention the millions of white Americans that _supported_ the civil rights movement. Or the 500k or so of them that died in order to end the civil war and slavery. This is the kind of attitude that this bill is trying to combat. Despite what some may think, American history is far more nuanced than "white people bad".

No. You cannot teach those things, without providing grounds for someone to sue you.

You cannot teach the above topics, without talking about the races of the oppressor, and the oppressed, and if you talk about white people being the oppressors then little Johnny fifth grader's parents can sue, saying that they feel discomfort at the idea of little Johnny being taught that white people were the ones owning black people.

That is the intent of the law, and pretending that it isn't is a clear indication of argument in bad faith.

This law does not prevent teaching that _individual_ white people or that _groups_ of white people were oppressors. It's aimed at those who are interested in painting the narrative that _all_ white people are/were oppressors.

You are deliberately misreading it to push your politics-du-jour.

No one is pushing that perspective.

America was founded with white people saying that black people were not human. The economy was built on slavery. White people wanting to own black people is why the American civil war happened. White people were the driving force behind Jim Crow laws, segregation, etc, etc

You cannot teach any of that without being sued.

No one has said “everyone” had slaves. No one has said “everyone supported him crow laws”.

Here’s the biggest tell: the people making the most noise about CRT are the ones who like the confederate flag and statues of people who by definition committed treason, for the express purpose of owning black people.

The same people who make it harder for black people and minorities to vote.

There is one single thread that is consistent through all of this, and that is racists not wanting to be called out on being racist.

Sue, and from interpretations of other sub-sections, outright bar educational material on these grounds.

``` 103 (2) Members of the instructional staff of the public 104 schools, subject to the rules of the State Board of Education 105 and the district school board, shall teach efficiently and 106 faithfully, using the books and materials required that meet the 107 highest standards for professionalism and historical accuracy, 108 following the prescribed courses of study, and employing 109 approved methods of instruction```

...

``` 485 (4) Each district school board is responsible for the 486 content of all materials used in a classroom or otherwise made 487 available to students. Each district school board shall adopt 488 rules, and each district school superintendent shall implement 489 procedures, that: 490 (b) Provide a process for public review of, public comment 491 on, and the adoption of instructional materials ```

Reply on news.ycombinator.com