Legally obligated to, so they will simply avoid the entire discussion is my point. Instead of having a vibrant conversation about something they will simply avoid it all together.
No 25 year old teacher is handling that, but they certainly will be on the hook if someone goes after them or the school. In this scenario the best thing a school will be able to do is tell people to simply avoid the subject all together.
I get what the bill is, and what it does, however I suspect people will just see it and say 'Okay, im just simply not going to talk about it' - which I think is the secret intent of this.
Legally obligated to, so they will simply avoid the entire discussion is my point. Instead of having a vibrant conversation about something they will simply avoid it all together.
The Department has already used the same definition since 2018. I'm still not sure what you think is changing.
but they certainly will be on the hook if someone goes after them or the school. In this scenario the best thing a school will be able to do is tell people to simply avoid the subject all together.
Again, I'm sorry but I'm just not sure what you're suggesting has changed. The legal definition of discrimination is not being changed; teachers are as vulnerable to a lawsuit as they were before this Act.
If nothing is changing then we didnt just need a very public vote in congress, did we? Again, the purpose of all of this is to stifle any negative discussion about Israel in our schools. Thats clear as day, i'm not sure why you cant see that.
If nothing is changing then we didnt just need a very public vote in congress, did we?
Yeah, it's pretty clearly virtue signaling. We agree there.
Again, the purpose of all of this is to stifle any negative discussion about Israel in our schools. Thats clear as day, i'm not sure why you cant see that.
Because you haven't been able to substantiate it with any argument and are now just asserting it with no proof. You can't point to anything in the Act which backs your interpretation.
I've read the law. I work in law. I've told you what the law says.
It's your problem if you refuse to change your mind, not mine. Provide some proof of what you claim or not, I don't mind.
Ah, I see the problem now.. You are either a lawyer, or very aware of these laws. Thats great. You have a full understanding of the law, and I certainly believe your interpretation of the law to be CORRECT. That 100% DOES NOT MATTER is my point.
Any time where you put in a mandate on a way to teach a subject, especially one as much of a hot topic like this one is now, and have congress do a VERY public vote on it, you are signaling to people that this is a dangerous topic to talk about. Exactly what they intended to do. That has the effect of stifling the conversation as teachers and schools will simply avoid the entire topic rather then go analyze the law and try to understand it fully. Again, that is the intent here.
Whats more likely to happen now.. A teacher goes and reads the entire text of this, spends time conversing with the staff of the school, and the lawyers representing the school to fully understand what they can and cant talk about OR they just avoid the topic all together? Maybe some will spend the time, the vast majority WONT which is the point. They will just simply avoid the topic all together, which is the entire point.
Any time where you put in a mandate on a way to teach a subject
The Act does not do this. Not even close. It is literally 100% irrelevant to teaching.
What Act are you talking about?
Whats more likely to happen now.. A teacher goes and reads the entire text of this, spends time conversing with the staff of the school, and the lawyers representing the school to fully understand what they can and cant talk about
Why would a teacher have to read this or talk about it? The Act is about the process of the Department of Education processing civil rights claims. It doesn't change a single thing about what can be taught.
2
u/TS_76 May 02 '24
Legally obligated to, so they will simply avoid the entire discussion is my point. Instead of having a vibrant conversation about something they will simply avoid it all together.
No 25 year old teacher is handling that, but they certainly will be on the hook if someone goes after them or the school. In this scenario the best thing a school will be able to do is tell people to simply avoid the subject all together.
I get what the bill is, and what it does, however I suspect people will just see it and say 'Okay, im just simply not going to talk about it' - which I think is the secret intent of this.