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.