laughing dog said:
The standard of "uncomfortable" strongly suggests irrationality is expected to play an important role in the determination of the violation of law. Hence, one wonders why you are even bringing up the standard of rationality.
First, that is not the standard for things that are banned. Take a look:
https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/00148/
Second, the principle upon which instruction must be consistent, and which involves discomfort (quoting the relevant parts), is:
SB148 said:
(3) The Legislature acknowledges the fundamental truth that all individuals are equal before the law and have inalienable rights. Accordingly, instruction on the topics enumerated in this section and supporting materials must be consistent with the following principles of individual freedom:
....
(f) An individual should not be made to feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race.
So, the teaching must be consistent with the principle that an individual should not be made to feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race.
Words have meaning. Teaching of historical events is consistent with the principle that an individual should not be made to feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race.
As a matter of fact, the law still says that things like the history of the Holocaust or slavery etc, are to be taught.
laughing dog said:
The law opens the door to actions whenever a student says they were made uncomfortable about their race due to teaching of the content.
No, it does not. People can sue for no good reason if they so choose, but that's not what the law says.
Whether their feeling of uncomfortableness or guilt is rational is irrelevant. Whether a reasonable person would have such feeling is irrelevant to the real possibility that an action against the teacher or school takes place. Whether such action legally succeeds is irrelevant to it being undertaken. What the law actually says is not relevant to the possibilities of how it will be interpreted.
[/quote]
No, the law actually says that the history of slavery, etc., are to be taught. If someone says he feels discomfort, that's not at all to say that the teaching of the history of slavery is not consistent with the principle that an individual should not be made to feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race. Indeed, if the person feels guilty or whatever just because they are taught history, that's not because they were made to feel that way on account of their race. Rather, it's because they are confused, and the teachers should if anything explain to them that the behavior of other people of the same race is obviously not their fault. Moral guilt is individual.
laughing dog said:
The fact that there is no evidence to support the rationale for this law is truly suggestive that its intent is not to remedy actual wrongs or to prevent further wrongs.
I don't agree that there is no evidence (it's too easy to find), but granting there isn't for the sake of the argument, the law and what the law writers intend are quite different things.
laughing dog said:
People who live in the USA and who are familiar with how local school districts operate have pointed out that teachers, principals, and the elected representatives who oversee the district can easily be bullied or manipulated into kowtowing to special interests.
Well, yes, the Woke mostly dominate, and their dominance will likely only increase. But it's hard to tell what is forced and what is sincere Woke fervor on the part of the teachers. But that they'll go the other way because of a bill that says nothing of the sort seems pretty unlikely.