Okay.
SB 777, as introduced, Kuehl. Discrimination.
Existing law states that it is the policy of the state to
afford
equal rights and opportunities to all persons in the public
or
private elementary and secondary schools and postsecondary
educational institutions of the state regardless of their sex,
ethnic
group identification, race, national origin, religion, or mental
or
physical disability and prohibits a person from being subjected
to
discrimination on those bases.
Existing law prohibits a teacher from giving instruction, and
a
school district from sponsoring any activity, that reflects
adversely
upon persons because of their race, sex, color, creed,
handicap,
national origin, or ancestry.
Existing law prohibits the State Board of Education and the
governing board of a school district from adopting for use in
the
public schools any instructional materials that reflect
adversely
upon persons because of their race, sex, color, creed,
handicap,
national origin, or ancestry.
This bill would revise the list of prohibited bases of
discrimination and the kinds of prohibited instruction,
activities,
and instructional materials and instead, would refer to
disability,
gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual
orientation,
or any other characteristic contained in the definition of
hate
crimes that is contained in the Penal Code. The bill would
define
disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion,
and
sexual orientation for this purpose.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no.
State-mandated local program: no.
As far as I can tell, it prohibits instructional discrimination.
It's just one more item in a long list of items that instructional
materials are supposed to comply with.
California is a pretty liberal state and sometimes I do think they
go a bit too far. But I don't find this anti-discrimination law any
more strange than the other laws they pass.
I think a lot of the criticisms are straw man attacks. Sure, there
are many ways of interpreting a law, but I don't think referencing
mothers and fathers is discriminatory against homosexuals and I
doubt anyone is really advocating that "Mum and Dad" are be
replaced with Parents. If you take that logic, no textbook can
reference an able bodied person because it would be discriminatory
against the disabled. I think it's more likely that this is just an
absurd example conjured up to attack the law.
The bathroom this is definitely fake. Boys will still go to the
boys room, girls will go to the girls room regardless of sexual
orientation.
