BREAKING: Over the last three weeks, 71 educational gag orders (aka "anti-CRT bills") have been introduced or prefiled. That's more than half of 122 proposed since January 2021. And they're getting worse.
In this report, I focus on bills from a single state -- Indiana -- to show just how bad this new crop of bills truly is. The legislation I profile would regulate speech in public AND private K-12, colleges and universities, public libraries, and state agencies.
These are bills with extraordinarily draconian punishments, including private rights of action, professional discipline, monetary fines, and loss of state financial support and accreditation. Simply put, they are built to terrify.
Perhaps worst of all, the way these bills are put together, they are literally *impossible* to satisfy. Imagine you're a new hire in some public school outside Indianapolis. It's the first day of term and you're excited to meet your class. Then you're told the following:
But perhaps most alarming of all is how these bills would handle "school transparency". Maybe you've heard about this term already. It's the hot new thing in rightwing moral panic and cons are pretty jazzed about it. After all, who could possible object to transparency?
Don't be fooled. Many of these bills are very, very extreme. Once you take a look under the hood, you'll find some very dark things lurking about.
That's all in the Round Up. The real prize, however, is the Educational Gag Order Index. It's an up-to-date list of every law and bill out there right now. In it, you'll see what the bills regulate, how they do it, and the penalties for violators.
In terms of comprehensiveness and detail, there's nothing out there I know of that's equivalent.
For more on the report and these bills, be sure to check out this article by @ThePlumLineGS. He gives a great overview of what's at stake and why you should care.
Just for clarification purposes, here in broad strokes are the different elements of those "school transparency" bills out there right now. I'll organize them according to my own sense of how extreme they are, with some accompanying examples.
1. Purely symbolic.
An enumeration of existing parental rights. Minimal impact.
An enumeration of existing parental rights, but with more elaborate language and the potential for greater administrative burdens on schools. Minimal impact.
So I'm listening to @sullydish's interview with Rufo and I have a question. In defense of his anti-CRT bills, Rufo claims that California *requires* teaching about systemic racism (as fact, presumably). What he's referring to? The Ethnic Studies mandate?
@sullydish His argument is that Red states are simply banning what Blue states are mandating. Setting aside for a moment that justification from reciprocity, I just want to establish the facts. Because the Ethnic Studies law says zero about systemic racism.
@sullydish The Model Curriculum might (I've read it, but it's been a while), but that curriculum is purely voluntary. Schools are not required to adopt it in whole or in part.
So that's my question. What is Rufo referring to? And if it is to the ES law, does @sullydish know he was lied to?
This thread from Rufo is further evidence for the theory that anti-CRT advocates know how insane this legislative session is going to be. They can see what's coming and want to ever so slightly disassociate themselves from it. I doubt it will work.
Rufo thinks he can deflate the argument further by shifting to curriculum transparency (which, to be clear, has been a part of these bills since the beginning; Rufo isn't breaking new ground here). What he fails to consider is that curriculum transparency bills can be crazy too.
Apparently I was peripherally involved in a twitter spat earlier today. Anti-CRT laws: Who's the blame? Is the Harper's Letter crowd responsible? Etc. etc. Scintillating stuff! This is the sort of high stakes cultural frisson I miss for shabbat.
But without tooting my own horn *too* much, I actually do think I have a better read on this than most. I've kind of been on all sides of the debate, and having spent the last year reading every one of these bills, I think I have a good sense of where they're coming from.
But it's such an impossible discussion to have without coming across totally obnoxious. Is it even worth writing about?
Hey free speech folks, I have a question. I know I've read articles that frame the Chicago Statement as a form of pre-commitment. That admins should adopt it so that when they're under pressure, they can point to the policy and say "My hands are tied!" Where is that case made?
@glukianoff@JoeatFIRE@adamsteinbaugh@sarahemclaugh For some. But it could also be an expression of values. The point of the original argument is that even weak admins who have only a lukewarm commitment to free speech might choose to adopt the policy as a kind of alibi for when the shit hits the fan.
Nobody on this website hates college educated blue check libs more than college educated blue check libs five inches to their Right.
The working class is lucky to have those college educated blue check libs five inches to the Right of the other college educated blue check libs on their side and ready to speak on their behalf. They really have their best interests at heart.
Someone needs to write an @olivertraldi-style tear down of these folks and their desperate status jockeying.