Posted on 10/16/2007 2:00:49 PM PDT by calcowgirl
There’s a great commotion among family and religious groups over the governor’s signing of SB 777 by Senator Sheila Kuehl. It is titled the “California Student Civil Rights Act” and purports to guard children from instruction or activities that “promote a discriminatory bias” on the basis of a long list of criteria including religion, gender, sexual orientation, nationality or ethnicity.
The left is praising it as a major breakthrough for civil rights and the right is condemning it as actively promoting homosexuality. But putting aside arguments over “gay rights” or “the gay agenda,” the law itself introduces a problematic doctrine into the administration of California’s public and private schools.
It is already illegal for the schools to do anything that “reflects adversely” on people based on this long and growing list of criteria. That’s tenuous enough in a free society. Under the current law, a history teacher, for example, is already on very thin ice if he says, “Europeans brought new diseases to North America” or “some American Indian tribes practiced cannibalism” or “many Germans knew about the Holocaust and raised no protest.” These are factual statements, but I’d be very careful about making them when it’s a crime to say anything that might reflect adversely on any group’s nationality or ethnicity.
But this bill goes even farther. Instead of doing things that “adversely reflect” on certain groups, SB 777 makes it illegal for schools to “promote a discriminatory bias” toward those groups. That’s a big difference.
If a high school elects a prom king and queen, this obviously doesn’t “reflect adversely” on homosexual students. But does it “promote a discriminatory bias” to celebrate a heterosexual stereotype at a school dance without also celebrating a gay couple, a lesbian couple and a transgender couple as well? It’s entirely conceivable that a court will say that exclusion is certainly discriminatory.
If a transgender boy feels uncomfortable in the boys’ locker room, this doesn’t “reflect adversely” on his sexual orientation or identity. But does it constitute a discriminatory bias to say that he can’t use the girl’s locker room? It’s certainly possible that a court will say it does.
Celebrating Cinco de Mayo or St. Patrick’s Day doesn’t “reflect adversely” on those who are not of Mexican or Irish descent. But is it discriminatory bias to celebrate these days, but not also St. Andrews Day, Bastille Day and Swedish National Day?
These decisions once were made through common sense and community consensus. Now they will be made through minute regulation and endless litigation. As imperfect as the old system may have been, I suspect that we’re going to find it was vastly superior to this brave new world of perfect harmony enforced by the power of the state.
Here’s a suggestion for the groups that opposed this new law: use it. After all, if courts begin ruling that exclusion is indeed a form of discriminatory bias – which is clearly the intent of this bill – there are no groups more excluded or less tolerated in the public schools today than evangelical Christians, orthodox Jews and traditional Catholics.
Thanks!
>>There’s a great commotion among family and religious groups over the governor’s signing of SB 777 by Senator Sheila Kuehl. It is titled the “California Student Civil Rights Act” and purports to guard children from instruction or activities that “promote a discriminatory bias” on the basis of a long list of criteria including religion, gender, sexual orientation, nationality or ethnicity.<<
If we are gonna keep discussing this bill we have got to get better sources.
Like the article that said it banned the words mom and dad - but that isn’;t in the bill..
Now, I did a search and the word bias isn’t in the bill either.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0751-0800/sb_777_bill_20070223_introduced.pdf
Too many lawyers - not enough work. ;)
You’ve got that right.
Look again, in the chaptered bill, not the introduced one. Here's just one instance:
"SEC. 29. Section 51500 of the Education Code is amended to read: 51500. No teacher shall give instruction nor shall a school district sponsor any activity that promotes a discriminatory bias because of a characteristic listed in Section 220."
The word “bias” is used four times in the new law, as chaptered.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0751-0800/sb_777_bill_20071012_chaptered.html
You beat me to it! LOL.
Thank you both. I’m reading the new version.
Heh... yeah.
If a high school elects a prom king and queen, this obviously doesn’t "reflect adversely" on homosexual students. But does it "promote a discriminatory bias" to celebrate a heterosexual stereotype at a school dance without also celebrating a gay couple, a lesbian couple and a transgender couple as well? It's entirely conceivable that a court will say that exclusion is certainly discriminatory.Particularly in CaliPornia. Thanks SB.
Just include “political ideology” as a “protected” category, and then have fun. Nobody is more discriminated against in public schools (at all levels) than conservatives. Give the schools a real dose of this, I think Tom McClintock is spot on. It’s their own medicine. See how they like it.
And gun owners.
All that needs to be done is amend the law to include ALL SCHOOLS public and private, or make it a Felony for all Public Servants to enroll their children in anything but the Public Schools, After all They Support our schools dont they?? Maybe we should pass a referendum mandating that ALL PUBLIC EMPLOYEES USE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION to and From work, and free up all that parking space for Private Citizens who need to be there.
I'm waiting for this to happen. They hate homeschoolers.
Don’t forget the buck-toothed couples, and incestuous couples, and pimply couples and little people and hairy people and the zombies.
And of course, couples where one of them is a farm animal. See, now, I wouldn’t care to have a long-term intimate relationship with a farm animal, because I think they’d be pretty messy around the house.
McClintock on California's SB 777.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
I can be pretty messy, too, but you wouldn’t let that stop you, would you?
I’d cut ya some slack. Uh-oh, I’m bewitched by that Celtic vibe.
There’s that slippery slope again — ain’t it fun?!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.