The Associated Press Misrepresents Florida’s Anti-CRT Bill
At the Associated Press, Brendan Farrington leads with the claim that Senate Bill 148 in the Florida legislature “would prohibit public schools and private businesses from making white people feel ‘discomfort’ when they teach students or train employees about discrimination in the nation’s past.”
Even more damning is the headline: “Florida could shield whites from ‘discomfort’ of racist past.”
At last, in paragraph eight, Farrington references the text of the legislation in question, writing “the bill reads in part, ‘an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, does not bear responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex. An individual should not be made to feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race (emphasis added).'”
The law is intended to address one of the core tenets of critical race theory: that white children should feel guilt by virtue of their race. While there will almost certainly be legal wrangling over interpretation, lessons which happen to cause racial discomfort would not run afoul of the law, while lessons designed to produce that effect would.
No link to the bill, which passed the Senate Education Committee on Tuesday, is included.
In fact, the bill is aimed more broadly, as Farrington admits in paragraph eight, at preventing the teaching of collective guilt or distress on the part of any race. It also mandates that instruction remain consistent with the principles that “no race is inherently superior to another race,” and “no individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, disability, or sex.”
Moreover, it explicitly requires the teaching of “the history of African Americans, including the history of African peoples before the political conflicts that led to the development of slavery, the passage to America, the enslavement experience, abolition, and the contributions of African Americans to society.”
Hypothetically, the legislation would not only protect students of all races from critical race theory, but also the kind of racially charged teaching strategies that pop up in the news from time to time.
Similarly, the bill bars businesses from “subjecting any individual, as a condition of employment, membership, certification, licensing, credentialing, or passing an examination, to training, instruction, or another required activity that espouses, promotes, advances, inculcates, or compels such individual to believe any of the following concepts constitutes discrimination based on race, color, sex, or national origin under this section.”
There are plenty of legitimate — and constitutional — questions to be asked about the merits of this bill, in particular of the section on private businesses. But it’s neither narrowly tailored to “shield” white people’s feelings, nor aimed at preventing students from feeling the slightest pang of discomfort when learning about difficult historical subject matter.
