The Stakes are High in Reform of Higher Education
Share this article
ADVERTISEMENT
(comments below)
Comments
Comments
35 responses to “The Stakes are High in Reform of Higher Education”
-
The absence of a certain class in Section C really gives the game away.
-
What would that be, Rosie?
-
I see nothing protecting gay people, unless you think the writers agree with Bostock v Clayton in that covers gay (and transgender people) under sex discrimination. I am not that confident in such an interpretation of this absence.
-
I see nothing protecting gay people, unless you think the writers agree with Bostock v Clayton in that covers gay (and transgender people) under sex discrimination. I am not that confident in such an interpretation of this absence.
-
In the American system of justice, protecting gay and transgender people is a feature of any law or regulation that does not specifically exclude them.
And any law or regulation that excludes them from equal protection under the law would be unconstitutional.
One of the greatest features of the American constitution is not only equal protection, but also that actions that are not proscribed are allowed.
By contrast, in authoritarian regimes, actions that are not prescribed are forbidden.
The creation of specially protected classes has demonstrably blurred the scope of the constitutional guarantees for all persons. We should not be looking to expand the number of such classes. Only lawyers benefit.
Some now understandably think that, if people are not included in an enumerated protected class, they are somehow singled out for fewer rights and less protection of those rights than members of protected classes.
Florida HB7 specifically states that “all persons are equal before the law and have inalienable rights”.
The authors of this bill use the term “sex” instead of gender. That causes you concern regardless of the “all persons” clause.
The bill does not by any interpretation:
– proscribe any activity by gay or transgender people,
– target them as a class for discrimination; or
– proscribe discussion of actual discrimination against them in the classroom.It just does not create a protected class for gay and transgender people, possibly because
– it is impossible to write a law that can keep up with the meteoric growth of the categories of gender-associated identities; and
– in the context of the principles enumerated in this bill, one’s sexual preferences and identities are not relevant.-
so the Constitution protected gays and transsexuals’ from actual discrimination in laws?
How about women and blacks?
How about the disabled and access to public facilities?
The Constitution protected them from discrimination?
methinks you are avoiding the issue.
-
Protected classes exist, and excluding a class of people is going to raise eyebrows. As you said, everything that isn’t proscribed is permissible, so we need to forbid discrimination against protected classes with a history of prosecution.
Would you be okay if religion wasn’t mentioned? That wouldn’t be conspicuous omission? There’s a clause on white guilt for Pete’s sake.
“Gender Identity” is the standard phrase for a protected. It covers all possibilities, much like how “religion” covers every single religious belief, include the absent of one.
The bill going over how all peoples are equal and specifically mentions which peoples this includes is not relevant to LGBT people?
-
How about saving millions of words nationwide, and change all of the laws and regulations to make everyone who is not a able-bodied straight white male a member of a protected class? They are excluded. Does that “raise eyebrows”? That is a serious question. Then we would only have to argue about who is white, who is male, and what able bodied and straight mean.
Black people deserved special protections before and after the Civil War and still do today. The disabled deserve special protection.
Women deserved the franchise and protections from exploitation and have them.
All the other classes claiming a need for special protections have jumped in front of that parade and waved batons. It is shameful.
And when I say special protections, I mean those not granted to every citizen.
-
Capt the disabled do deserve some protections. Otherwise, the ones now who work would be tossed out. Even more on the dole and less to give to those here illegally.
-
That is what I just wrote above Vic.
-
That is what I just wrote above Vic.
-
-
Thank you for being so upfront about this. My suspicions were absolutely confirmed here. Not that I had much doubt.
In many places it was illegal to be gay, to the point of literal anti-sodomy laws that took a SCOTUS decision to nullify. Hate-crimes against LGBT people have been documented for decades. No job protection until 2020. Acting like they jumped the line for no reason really tips your hand as to how you feel about this class of people, and all the more reason why their absence here is suspect.
-
But SCOTUS did in fact nullify them. So no new protected class was needed.
“Hate” crimes are a defined mortal sin of the left. A crime is a crime.
Tell me why a “hate” crime of murder is worse than murder. The victim is dead in both cases.
-
Brown v Board of Education nullified segregation so race is no longer a protected class? Loving v Virginia? You are twisting yourself in knots here trying to act like LGBT discrimination isn’t a thing.
And take it up with Gorsuch if you have a problem with it. In Bostock he explains how LGBT discrimination is inherently tied to sex, so if your gender identity doesn’t match that of your birth, then you are transgender.
The omission from the law just shows the writers’ intent, that LGBT people aren’t seen as protected in their eyes, and your flailing to justify that LGBT people don’t merit mention as a protected class continues to be telling.
-
-
But SCOTUS did in fact nullify them. So no new protected class was needed.
“Hate” crimes are a defined mortal sin of the left. A crime is a crime.
Tell me why a “hate” crime of murder is worse than murder. The victim is dead in both cases.
-
We fundamentally disagree about the ever-increasing designation of protected classes in American law in general and about “hate crimes” laws in particular.
You never answered the point I made about gender identity being by definition a state of mind undetectable and changeable and the question about how a law can protect that.
On the other hand, you appear to have a point about gay people and the law. I concede it.
In the case of the two Florida laws, one proscribes the teaching of sex and gender identity to K-3 children and the other permits instruction about anything in state universities as long as students are allowed and indeed encouraged to refute it.
Hard to see the need for enumeration of protected classes in those two laws, but you may find some need others have not identified.
Excellent debate.
-
-
-
Religious speech and practice are protected in the constitution.
-
Think about it, Rosie. The bill uses the term “sex”, with which one is born. If it used the term “gender identity”, one could jump in and out of a protected class as easily as changing one’s mind. How would such a law be faithfully applied?
People with various gender identities are protected as “persons”, just like straight, white, able-bodied males.
The entire point of the “don’t say gay” bill is to intimidate teachers into avoiding a large number of topics. Since the law allows for parents suing teachers directly, not only do the teachers now have to purchase more liability insurance but the schools have to develop policies to try to avoid lawsuits such as tell homosexual teachers to remove any family pictures.
-
You define “the entire point” and then deplore it. Well done.
-
How else would one define the point of the law. As Ben Shapiro stated: The point was to make teachers frightened so that those teachers will do what DeSantis and his supporter tell them to do. Of course, a side issue that social conservatives will avoid is that many teachers will probably start looking for another career since who wants to work in a low paid field with a high risk of legal liability.
-
The point of the law is to not teach gender identity lessons before the 4th grade. Is that too hard to understand or comply with.
Is it really your position that teachers will quit because they cannot discuss gender identity with 6-year olds?
If so, I pity you.
-
the threat of lawsuits is there for all 12 grades. the easiest way to avoid a lawsuit is to avoid the topic overall rather than trying to comply with non-existent guidelines. The legal threat is the point of the law.
-
-
-
-
I never saw the word ‘gay’ in the bill nor the law.
-
Because it was not there.
-
But the intent is clear as day. Avoid lawsuits by avoiding topics.
-
-
But the point of the law is to make the threat of lawsuit certain while not giving teachers anyway to avoid the threat of lawsuits except by avoiding topics all together. When teachers in same sex marriages are being told to remove personal pictures but teachers in hetero marriages are not, the message is very clear. I never understand people who think they are being clever by intentional misreading or misunderstanding something
-
-
I never saw the word ‘gay’ in the bill nor the law.
re: ” Instructional personnel may facilitate discussions and use curricula to address … how the freedoms of persons have been infringed by sexism, slavery, racial oppression, racial segregation, and racial discrimination…
…but may not indoctrinate or persuade students to a particular point of view inconsistent with the [individual freedom] principles of this subsection.”
so how is it determined that someone “indoctrinated” or “persuaded”.
Who decides if such nefarious conduct has occurred and what sanctions will be imposed for violation of the edicts against indoctrination and persuasion?
so… students who feel like the professor “persuaded” them on an issue to feel guilty about race or inequality will result in said professor being hauled in front of some tribunal to receive just punishment?
Yep, this walks and talks like conservatism at it’s best.
😉
VA does not need a similar law but a far more aggressive one to eliminate the Maoist’s, Marxists, and radical progressive agenda. Such a statute is certain to attract top faculty and students in the ivory towers of academic freedom. It has been made clear, “exposed in detail” of “ironclad control” by DEI radicals at UVA. Though the sky has fallen, it may not be too late to purge the ranks for a conservative utopia. C’mon VA, you can be a leader.
-
Whoa, slow down there! They’re still pretending it’s about “intellectual diversity”. Gotta keep the actual agenda close to the chest, eh?
-
You both refuse to address the facts that I exposed in the article about the DEI tentacles reaching deep into every department at UVa.
My “actual agenda” is to pull them out root and branch and return the University to rational, balanced debate unsupervised by apparatchiks – and to hire faculty that do not need to survive a woke inquisition to get hired.
You know, academic freedom stuff. That used to be called a liberal education. If that now be conservatism, count me in.
Sorry you appear unable to address that.
-
You both refuse to address the facts that I exposed in the article about the DEI tentacles reaching deep into every department at UVa.
My “actual agenda” is to pull them out root and branch and return the University to rational, balanced debate unsupervised by apparatchiks – and to hire faculty that do not need to survive a woke inquisition to get hired.
You know, academic freedom stuff. That used to be called a liberal education. If that now be conservatism, count me in.
Sorry you appear unable to address that.
-
Many institutions of higher learning have frozen out conservatives by not employing them no matter how qualified. If a dean is a leftist and all the instructors he hires are leftists, there is no intellectual diversity possible.
-
I was looking at the Youngkin appointments to Va Colleges in the RTD this morning…
and it looks like most of them are the usual suspects from business and industry – not that different than before, as opposed to conservative activists out to “reform” high ed.
Perhaps they have been interviewed to make sure they are anti-woke?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.