I’ve been breaking down Indiana’s proposed Senate Bill 167 – the one that’s been in the news lately for all sorts of things, including the insistence of one of its authors that educators needed to stop criticizing Nazis for doing Nazi stuff and be more neutral about “-isms.” He had to dial that one back a bit – turns out even today’s GOP doesn’t like to come right out and admit how comfortable they’ve become with the trappings of fascism.

As of this writing, the Senate version is on hold while the House version tries to move forward with less glass-breaking and swastikas. Nevertheless, it’s worth finishing up on what our GOP very much wants to push through in one form or another.

The highlights of Part One are basically this:

• The GOP wants more voices outside of educators or parents to have more influence over curriculum, lesson plans, activities, and messaging in the classroom.
• The state legislature is certain we all have 20-30 unused hours each day to participate in subcommittees pursuant to subsections related to the implementation and application of provisions to be detailed by other subcommittees.
• The bill wants to require teachers to provide alternatives to every lesson plan, short story, activity, video clip, or discussion, for any child whose parents might object, while still fulfilling state requirements and holding class in person with everyone present at the same time.
• Under the terms of this legislation, videotapes of your autopsy are absolutely protected.

In Part Two, I expressed my concern over the requirement that schools eliminate all materials (stories, books, media, historical documents, academic arguments, etc.) that “include” anything related to sex, race, politics, money, power, science, age, religion, Leonard Cohen, birds, bees, flowers, trees, the moon up above, or a thing called love. Schools are also prohibited from suggesting that boys are in any way different from girls, that Islam is different from Buddhism, or that racism might ever have been a thing whose impact in some tiny way lingers.

No, the bill doesn’t quite put it all that way – but it sure steps right up to the lines and dares you to figure out when you’ve crossed.

Now it’s time to wrap up this trilogy, starting with one of the most naive and bewildering requirements of the whole mess.

What Exactly Is Your Plan For Reinforcing Key Concepts on April 17th, 2027?

Not later than June 30, 2023, and not later than June 30 each year thereafter, each qualified school shall post on the qualified school’s Internet web site, in a manner accessible to parents of students who are attending the school, all electronic curricular materials and a summary of educational activities.

In addition, the Internet web site shall list all nonelectronic curricular materials and provide instruction for a parent to review the nonelectronic curricular materials. Each qualified school shall allow a parent to visit a school during normal business hours in a manner prescribed by the qualified school to inspect nonelectronic curricular materials.

The curricular materials and educational activities must, at a minimum, be disaggregated by grade level, teacher, and subject area.

Now, let’s not pretend this is about anything other than what it’s about. This is NOT about transparency or parent access. Any parent is welcome to ANY of my lessons, materials, activities, etc. I’m happy to have them visit or stay the whole day – announced or unannounced. I’ll meet with them, explain my reasoning to them, listen to their concerns, and in some cases come up with an alternate assignment for their kid if necessary.

You’ll be hard-pressed to find a teacher who wouldn’t.

What this is about is making absurd demands, then acting shocked at anyone who insists they’re not practical. “Why, all we’re asking for is a little transparency! WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO HIDE?!?”

All this from people who capitalize “Internet” and make “web site” two words. (I know both are technically acceptable – if archaic. Comment about something else.)

What Fresh New Hello Is This?

Imagine if I hired you to run the kitchen for a local cooperative of B&Bs. I don’t really trust your cooking, but until I can redirect funding to a few of the more exclusive high-end hotels in town, you’ll have to do.

Before you begin, I need a detailed list of every meal you’re going to prepare for the next calendar year, including ingredients and basic recipes. If you’re ordering out for any of those meals, I need to know where, and what you’re ordering. For each meal, you must provide at least one gluten-free alternative, one low-fat version, and one vegan option – you know, to meet the diverse needs of the guests. This will be posted on the B&B website for critique by the community (even by those who’ve never stayed at the B&B and never plan to eat there) – all before you’ve even met the first guest.

If you argue that your menu could easily change based on what guests seem to enjoy, what ingredients are available, or the strengths of various chefs working under your oversight, I’ll go on Fox News and lament the impact of culinary unions and how they’ve turned you all into incompetent whiners.

It’s an imperfect metaphor, but hopefully the point is clear enough. As I type this, I have a rough idea of what I want to do in class next week. I know where I’m going with the overall approach between now and sometime in early February. But yesterday I didn’t do what I’d planned because of how things went on Wednesday. I recently tossed an entire unit I’d put together based on student success (or lack thereof) with the unit before it, which was supposed to lay its foundation.

I’m constantly adjusting what I’m doing in class, and what I’m using to do it, based on how it’s going – with students, with myself, or with what I see other teachers doing. We’re not scheduling road maintenance here… we’re dealing with real live near-humans whose mindsets and abilities aren’t predictable through next week, let alone next month.

Plus there’s that crazy idea that some of what we discuss should connect with the world around them – current events, unexpected issues, pandemics, politics, scientific breakthroughs, viral videos, etc. If I could lay it all out a year in advance, I’d just make 180 videos over the summer and kids could play one each day until they graduated.

We’re Not Saying You Can’t Teach History… (Just Don’t Pretend It Matters Today)

Let’s skip ahead a bit to where the bill comes back around to “stop pretending our collective history in any way impacts how we see the world or one another today” motif:

It is the duty of the state agency, school corporation, qualified school, or the employee of the state agency…, to remain impartial in teaching curricular materials or conducting educational activities, including curricular material or activities…. and to ensure that students are free to express their own beliefs and viewpoints concerning curricular materials and educational activities… without discrimination…

Nothing in this chapter may be construed so as to exclude the teaching of historical injustices committed against any sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or political affiliation.

This seems like a rather inadequate effort to polish the ugly off the preceding pages. How exactly one teaches historical injustices without any hint they impact who we are today or that anyone should regret them is not at all clear. The only solution I can see is to set a clear cut-off date at which all racism, sexism, or other inequality in American society and politics simply ended, and everything was reset to an entirely level playing field from which we’ve all since moved forward.

All inherited wealth has since been “earned” (because otherwise someone alive currently has benefited from past inequalities). All traditional racial and sexual stereotypes are now entirely the product of corrupt or misguided individuals (because otherwise these tendencies still worm around beneath the surface of cour culture). If your uncle stole someone’s car before the cut-off date and gave it to you, it’s now officially something you’ve earned through your own hard work and merit. If you were abused, molested, or deprived of basic necessities before that cut-off date, any lingering effects are entirely a function of your own unwillingness to suck it up – because we can’t go around blaming the past for everything.

That’s essentially what we’re going for anyway, right? Freedom from the past and its natural consequences? Mandated freedom to celebrate all the parts we like, take credit for all the stuff we’d like to believe about ourselves, and zero responsibility for recognizing or fixing anything that’s still leavening our national loaf today?

Also, NO MORE LION KING!

Complaints Are Encouraged – Support Is Forbidden

I’m going to skip the extensive section on how anyone, anywhere, can come after the school for perceived violations, and how no matter how many times their complaint is found to be unsubstantiated, they can just keep upping the game until the entire district has to be shut down and resources redirected to the 19 levels of gleeful prosecution.

Many schools have discovered in recent decades that students are for some reason unable to concentrate on the Ancient Greeks or Algebra II when their parents are in the middle of an ugly divorce or mom comes home drunk every night with a different guy. Educators have tried different approaches to addressing the emotional, mental, or physical needs of their students, all while avoiding encroachment of parental rights. (I spent an entire semester trying to figure out how to get a kid to a doctor or dentist because mom just couldn’t be bothered – lots of promises, no kept appointments.)

This bill wants to put an immediate end to that.

A qualified school… may not:

(1) provide a student with ongoing or recurring consultation, collaboration, or intervention services for mental, social-emotional, or psychological health issues; or

(2) refer a student to community resources for mental, social-emotional, or psychological health services, without obtaining prior written consent in the manner described in subsection (b) from the student’s parent, or the student, if the student is emancipated.

The assumption here is that educators enjoy rushing kids off for all sorts of liberal brainwashing, satanic tattoos, and abortions, without their parent’s knowledge or consent. I’d try to explain, but honestly…

If you don’t understand why wraparound services are necessary – EVEN IF ALL YOU CARE ABOUT ARE TEST SCORES AND THE ‘THREE Rs’ – then I’m not sure I can explain it to you. It’s not about overturning parent choices; it’s about stepping up when the parents aren’t making the choices or following through on their obligations to parent. It’s about breaking cycles and solving problems so kids can get back to learning math and reading and stuff, and one day get jobs and work for a living instead of being on drugs and welfare or in jail.

Then again, the whole premise of this bill is that nothing in the past impacts the present, so maybe supporters of the legislation genuinely can’t see a connection between being brought up in a broken or dysfunctional home without access to proper mental, physical, or emotional care might affect who you are as a young adult. I guess this is where all that non-racist meritocracy and “hard work” are supposed to fix everything.

Conclusion

It’s worth emphasizing one last time that most of this bill seems designed to counter evils that exist only in the passions of inflamed right-wingers. Schools aren’t teaching CRT or promoting victimhood. We’re not trying to turn kids gay or prevent parental involvement. None of what we do in class is a secret – most of it’s not even malicious.

Perhaps the sponsors of this bill have better intentions than the language they’ve chosen suggests. (I still think there’s a good chance they didn’t actually write it, but that’s a whole other issue.) If so, I respectfully suggest they rework the language to say something less horrifying.

In the meantime, I’m posting my entire analysis here, online, for comment and criticism – especially by anyone with absolutely no involvement in public education, preferably armed with few facts and unchecked paranoia. I look forward to hearing from you.

In Part One, I expressed my chagrin over what seems to be the Indiana GOP’s effort to elevate the voices of those unwilling to participate in public education in any sort of helpful way while making it nigh impossible for educators to comply with the reporting and other bureaucratic requirements of this bill.

Now it’s time to confront some of the more abstract language in Indiana SB 167 – the parts about what school employees can’t say, suggest, imply, or otherwise communicate…

You know – the part where they legislate the “liberal” out of education.

Stop Including Concepts!

{A}n employee of {state agencies or schools} shall not include or promote the following concepts as part of a course of instruction or in a curriculum or instructional program, or allow teachers or other employees…, acting in their official capacity, to use supplemental instructional materials that include or promote the following concepts:

Let’s pause and consider this before we even address the specific concepts. There are two very different things going on here, intentionally or not.

The first part limits what educators can “promote.” By itself, that’s nothing new. I’m not legally allowed to call kids up for prayer, to condemn them for their sexuality, or to mock their tattoos or political beliefs. We can debate what those limits should be, but that’s not actually the part that most concerns me at the moment.

It’s the bit about “includes” that seems ripe for exploitation and abuse. Even if we assume the best possible intentions by the bill’s authors (I don’t know if this is an ALEC template or was actually compiled by the senators claiming credit), this part troubles me greatly. I’ve researched enough court cases (insert shameless plug here) to know that the specific language of a bill sometimes matters very much.

I’m happy to argue about what my lessons do or don’t PROMOTE. I consider that a very different issue than what they do or don’t INCLUDE.

Let’s check out a few of the specifics not to be PROMOTED… or even INCLUDED in “supplemental instructional materials”:

(1) That any sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or political affiliation is inherently superior or inferior to another sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or political affiliation.

I taught history for over twenty years. I’ve used dozens, if not hundreds, of resources that insisted one race was superior to another, or that men were inherently smarter or better suited for leadership than women, or that Americans were chosen by God with a unique mission and calling. I’ve used letters and speeches from one nation condemning another and excerpts from contemporary debates about immigration, affirmative action, and gun control. We’ve discussed pros and cons of integration, equality of the sexes, and “American exceptionalism” – because they all matter, and they all must be confronted and discussed if we’re to have a halfway sensible civilization.

Now that I teach English, I’m having trouble coming up with many novels (or even short stories) that might resonate with my kids but which don’t challenge or explore assumptions about race, poverty, sexuality, abuse, power, etc. I mean, that’s the whole point, right? To analyze the things which make us human – good and bad – and the ways in which we express or understand them?

I can guarantee you a fair effort at balance. I can point to twenty years of my students insisting they have no idea where I land politically on most issues. I can promise you sensitivity to potential triggers or issues that might arise and an effort to maintain age-appropriate good taste. Hopefully it goes without saying that I won’t be “promoting” racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, etc.

But can I avoid all materials that include those ideas? That may promote those ideas in their own time and space and reality?

I know supporters of this bill will insist I’m taking that one word out of context. Perhaps I am. But if that’s not what they mean to say, I suggest finding a better word.

Stop Recognizing Racism!

Then again, maybe exploration of difficult topics is exactly what they hope to eliminate:

(2) That an individual, by virtue of their sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or political affiliation is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.

This is another bit that on the surface sounds harmless enough. “Don’t label all white people racist” is essentially what they’re going for here. Once again, however, I think we have to question some of the terminology. Law is all about the details, yes?

People far smarter than I have addressed the many possible definitions of “racist.” The only thing I’ll note here is that you don’t have to drop the ‘N’-bomb and burn crosses to partake in systemic racism – “consciously or unconsciously.” As to “oppressive,” that’s a question of power dynamics – of exploiting or benefiting from a system you may or may not have encouraged, of which you may or may not even be consciously aware, but from which you nevertheless benefit at the expense of others.

I can promise I’ve never taught that “all white people are racist” or that “all men want to demean and misuse women.” I have, however, asked some pretty smart groups of high school students to consider whether or not it’s possible that some policies or personal choices are driven by assumptions or norms they may not have consciously identified or utilized before. We’ve had some excellent discussions as a result. I always thought it was good for tomorrow’s leaders to experiment with other points of view – to weigh the relative merits of various lenses through which history and society might be understood.

Clearly many of those actually in power disagree.

How strong are ideals that can’t survive a little academic questioning by high schoolers?

(3) That an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of the individual’s sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or political affiliation.

We’ll let that one slide.

(4) That members of any sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or political affiliation should not attempt to treat others without respect to sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or political affiliation.

OK, hang on – the triple negative here can get a bit confusing…

Educators CANNOT suggest that anyone should NOT try to IGNORE differences based on race, gender, religion, etc. In other words, no suggesting people might be different from one another based on the ways in which they’re clearly different from one another.

I’d like to assume what’s meant here is something along the lines of “don’t assume girls aren’t good at math” and “watch those personal biases when it comes to discipline.” But If the goal were to discourage discrimination, that’s already explicitly covered in the previous point.

Instead, this one smacks of “I don’t see color.”

I’d like to think I’m generally fair with all of my students, but I’m certain I approach my hijab-wearing girls with a LITTLE more caution than my Baptist basketball players until I’m sure I won’t unintentionally offend or alienate them by assuming too much familiarity out of the gate. I hold my Black students to the same behavioral standards as my white kids, but I try to run an internal check to make sure I’m not interpreting their tone of voice or facial expressions to mean more than they do – because I know that’s a thing that white folks (like myself) sometimes do.

It’s a tricky balance sometimes. Not all Hispanic kids are the same (obviously). Neither are all the gay kids, all the Slavic immigrants, or all cheerleaders. But if there are absolutely no differences worth recognizing or accommodating, I’ve been to WAY too many hours of training over the years intended to help me better understand kids of different backgrounds. Plus, we’re wasting money on twice as many bathrooms and locker rooms as we need.

Stop Acknowledging Diversity!

(5) That an individual’s moral character is necessarily determined by the individual’s sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or political affiliation.

One thing you can say about today’s GOP – they’re wholly committed to equity towards all sexes, races, religions, and national origins. It’s practically their brand.

(6) That an individual, by virtue of the individual’s sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or political affiliation, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or political affiliation.

“Bears responsibility for”? No, probably not. “Benefits from” or “may still be experiencing fallout from”? Now THAT’S a discussion worth having. But we won’t – not if this bill passes. The distinction is too subtle for angry right-wing mobs not known for their love of nuance – or administrators terrified of lawsuits or headlines.

There’s one more that I just can’t get past…

(7) That any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of the individual’s sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, nationa origin, or political affiliation.

That’s not it. I mean, I don’t love the inherent whining it projects, but that’s nothing compared to what’s next.

Stop Questioning Capitalism!

(8) That meritocracy or traits such as hard work ethic are racist or sexist, or were created by members of a particular sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or political affiliation to oppress members of another sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or political affiliation.

It’s been difficult for me to unpack my reaction to this part. I fear I may not express it well even now.

I think the biggest thing bugging me is the implication that “meritocracy” and “hard work ethic” are indisputable goods – natural values all reasonable people share, like “don’t murder”, “don’t steal”, and “eliminate the capital gains tax.” But they’re not universal, and they’re not too sacred to question. Many successful cultures throughout history would have completely rejected “meritocracy” or “hard work ethic” in the way most American understand the terms.

I mean, it’s called the “Protestant work ethic” for a reason. It’s a mindset and value system that was new and different from most of what had gone before.

The second problem is one defenders of the bill could no doubt counter with the very argument I made earlier – the specific language matters. And yet, I gotta get it off my chest.

I don’t know that meritocracy or hard work ethic are racist or sexist or any of that in terms of their origins or intent. It’s nearly impossible to deny, however, that in practice, systems claiming to be built on meritocracy often are racially and sexually discriminatory. “Hard work” may be a wonderful thing, but it doesn’t pay off equally for everyone regardless of their race or gender. Study after study shows it’s not even close.
So what’s the goal of this particular provision? Much like Oklahoma’s recent “It’s OK to run over protestors IF YOU REALLY FEEL SCARED” bill, this line in particular strikes me as blatantly ideological, not to mention dangerously subjective and malleable.

Seriously, Enough With Recognizing Diversity…

There’s one more before we go, and it’s a biggie:

A teacher, an administrator, a governing body, or any other employee of any state agency, school corporation, or qualified school may not require an employee of a school corporation or qualified school to engage in training, orientation, or therapy that presents any form of racial or sex stereotyping or blame on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or political affiliation.

Remember all those workshops I mentioned above about how to better understand, connect with, and educate children of diverse backgrounds? Yeah, it sounds like those are out altogether. From here forward, all children are just like you think you were at that age, in whatever circumstances you were raised. Any variations or difficulties you may encounter in educating them is now simply a nail, and policy the hammer. Efforts to acknowledge humanity or complexity beyond this is just more liberal excuse-making and the real source of division.

If you want to insist that what this really says is that schools can’t mandate training that promotes stereotypes and division, you’d better be able to back that up with real life examples of pro-racism, pro-social division workshops your local high schools have hosted recently. Something you vaguely remember from Fox & Friends doesn’t count.

We’ll wrap up in Part Three. Your comments are welcome below.