The bill is shit, but the gloss is is being bandied about almost as if it the text of the bill rather than an interpretation of its intent. (Not a bad interpretation, but the way it is being presented is ripe for blowback.)
Maybe we can reuse the "Fuck Your Feelings" t-shirts they clearly have forfeited the right to wear.
The old rule: We did nothing wrong, if we did we've stopped, if we haven't stopped will do worse if you mention it.
Have sat through too many awareness pieces of training that unlawful harassment
= "act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands"
and now they are applying their trainings.
The law is facially race-neutral. I see a lot of potential for lawsuits from all sides.
That's how it's supposed to work. Fear of lawsuits makes people avoid the topic.
7: Yes, but are they really not going to teach the Civil War at all? Or can they come up with a way to teach it without making anyone feel bad?
I don't think they'll worry about making the other side feel bad.
9: No, but they will sue. I suppose it will be hard to find a sympathetic judge.
The bill is shit, but the gloss is is being bandied about almost as if it the text of the bill rather than an interpretation of its intent.
Which part of the gloss do you mean? It uses the word discomfort; not the word white, I guess, but it's pretty efficiently targeted to groups where their history includes committing lots of oppressive acts. The text is here and includes:
760.10 Unlawful employment practices.--
(8)(a) Subjecting any individual, as a condition of employment, membership, certification, licensing, credentialing, or passing an examination, to training, instruction, or any other required activity that espouses, promotes, advances, inculcates, or compels such individual to believe any of the following concepts constitutes discrimination based on race, color, sex, or national origin under this section:
.... 7. An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin.
I'm not sure what kind of circumstances would let an advocacy lawyer good-trollishly sue on behalf of someone who received anguish on account of being Black. If this were a law for schools, maybe if the kids were shown Roots or something, but it's about employment content, like trainings.
6: You know what else is facially race-neutral? "Separate but equal."
I haven't looked at the Florida law, but this type of race-neutral language is very ordinary, and very few people will be fooled.
You can see how the Tennessee law on critical race theory is very carefully race-neutral. No matter what race you are, it bans teaching that one race is superior to another; that an individual, by virtue of race or sex, is inherently privileged; that an individual should be discriminated against based on race or sex; that an individual's moral character is based on race or sex; that an individual is responsible for past actions of members of their race or sex; that an individual should feel discomfort because of their race or sex; that a meritocracy is inherently racist or sexist; that Tennessee or the US is fundamentally racist or sexist; that the US government should be overthrown; that race resentment is appropriate; that certain traits or values should be attributed to a particular race, etc.
Surely this protects people of all races equally, and there will be many minorities and women suing under this statute.
11: OK. I had not seen the part where it specifically mentioned "discomfort."
No matter what race you are, it bans teaching that one race is superior to another; that an individual, by virtue of race or sex, is inherently privileged
But not, say, that certain people were elevated by or happy under certain labor practices...
is inherently privileged
It doesn't seem to me that this rules out discussing current, systematic privilege. Am I misinterpreting, or is that just going to wash out in enforcement (see, systematic privilege)?