California LGBT Education Legislation Misses the Mark
SB 48 is California legislation currently under consideration.
SB 48, gives approval for LGBT inclusion into school social studies lesson plans. The bill also states that California instructional material must not reflect adversely on religion or race.
At first glance this seems similar to many civil union/domestic partnership/et al laws which state no church will be compelled to perform such ceremonies.
But I must ask, regarding the instructional material, why are only religion and race provided extra protection?
This brings to mind a couple questions;
are the American Indians considered a religion or race?
no more teaching how the pilgrims tried to force christianity on the American Indians?
no more teaching about the crusades?
These 'special rights' SB 48 provides to religion and race seem unfairly limited.
It seems to me, limiting the added protections to religion and race leaves a whole lot of other groups out of the mix.
Interesting enough this proposed legislation that supports LGBT inclusion, does not provide the same protections for LGBTs that it provides to religion and race.
Techinically, according to this proposed law the LGBT class instruction can adversly affect LGBTs but religion and race are protected.
In other words, the proposed legislation is flawed before it ever gets out of the gate.
To remove censorship in the classroom is wonderful, but to add more censorship with the same stroke of a pen is just wrong.
One must wonder if the legislators, the vast majority of which are lawyers, do this stuff of purpose knowing it's going to create future lawsuits.
www.QueerPublicRadio.com a 24/7 LGBTQIA Licensed Independent Internet Radio Station. Visit, Listen, Support and become involved.
SB 48, gives approval for LGBT inclusion into school social studies lesson plans. The bill also states that California instructional material must not reflect adversely on religion or race.
At first glance this seems similar to many civil union/domestic partnership/et al laws which state no church will be compelled to perform such ceremonies.
But I must ask, regarding the instructional material, why are only religion and race provided extra protection?
This brings to mind a couple questions;
are the American Indians considered a religion or race?
no more teaching how the pilgrims tried to force christianity on the American Indians?
no more teaching about the crusades?
These 'special rights' SB 48 provides to religion and race seem unfairly limited.
It seems to me, limiting the added protections to religion and race leaves a whole lot of other groups out of the mix.
Interesting enough this proposed legislation that supports LGBT inclusion, does not provide the same protections for LGBTs that it provides to religion and race.
Techinically, according to this proposed law the LGBT class instruction can adversly affect LGBTs but religion and race are protected.
In other words, the proposed legislation is flawed before it ever gets out of the gate.
To remove censorship in the classroom is wonderful, but to add more censorship with the same stroke of a pen is just wrong.
One must wonder if the legislators, the vast majority of which are lawyers, do this stuff of purpose knowing it's going to create future lawsuits.
www.QueerPublicRadio.com a 24/7 LGBTQIA Licensed Independent Internet Radio Station. Visit, Listen, Support and become involved.
Comments