"With HB303, Rep. Jeff Stenquist, R-Draper, wants to ban teachers from 'endorsing, promoting or disparaging' certain beliefs or viewpoints, including religious or political beliefs and sexual orientation or gender identity. Stenquist started working on the bill about a year ago, after some parents expressed concerns about a teacher talking about pronouns and gender identity with young students.

HB303 would restrict teachers from having those discussions unless they’re germane to the curriculum, and would require teachers to tread carefully as to not sway a student to change their beliefs. It would also effectively restrict the display of Pride flags or other symbols that could be interpreted as a 'political' or 'social' belief unless they’re relevant to the curriculum.

Stenquist said he’s trying to address a 'perception problem' with teachers and 'get political and ideological fights … out of the classroom.' He said his goal is to 'reassure parents that students are not being exposed to some political or ideological ideal that they may not agree with,' regardless of political or social leanings.' "

https://news.yahoo.com/utah-bill-require-teachers-politically-133000769.html?

So, one teacher has an issue (almost certainly in response to a student's question,) and now we need legislation? Back in the old days, a parent or parents would make a complaint to the principal, and the principal would address it. Most teachers learn pretty quickly to keep it neutral and professional. OTOH, it could certainly be argued that displaying a Pride flag is in support of their LBGTQ students.

Notice that Mormon beliefs are addressed as well.

The constant attacks are a part of the reason why we currently have a nationwide teacher shortage. Who needs this?

Good grief! Do they think teachers are stupid? Teachers know how to be neutral so kids feel comfortable already.

Meanwhile in Idaho, they passed a law for armed teachers.
So, they trust teachers to handle guns, but not classroom diplomacy and curriculum. Go figure!

Gawd, make it stop!

So no need to try and sneak a gun into a school. Cold-cock a teacher and steal their gun. Easy-peasy.

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do they think teachers are stupid?
> Teachers know how to be neutral so kids feel
> comfortable already.

I can't say I noticed it when I was growing up. Many of my teachers were open about their political inclinations and some even promoted them in the classroom. They didn't all have the same ones by any means. My mathematics and English teacher had strongly opposing viewpoints.

Children asked them who they voted for and they would often tell them.

I never knew how any of my teachers voted. People were less politically spastic in those days.

It's still that way. We do keep it neutral. When students go into contentious territory, I tell them to ask their parents about that, which is a fairly typical teacher response. Trust me, this is much ado about nothing.

It goes back to the ridiculous idea that teachers are "indoctrinating" students. Teachers always joke that if we could indoctrinate students to do anything, it would be to do their homework, or maybe read a book.

And if you want to go back to the root cause, I think it's misogyny. We are still a female dominated profession, and certain people feel free to pick on us for that. They want teachers to be good little girls who will work 60+ hours per week for low wages, and go away after five years so they don't have to worry about bothersome things like raises and pensions. They want us to ignore the fact that we work with diverse students. They want us to support putting up the 10 Commandments and having (Christian) prayer in the public schools.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/2024 08:16PM by summer.

I think the root cause is misogyny too, not only because of what you described, but because certain types don't want women educated at all.
Look at the places where they forbid girls from going to school.

We've just had reproductive rights removed. We can't take more steps down that road.

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It goes back to the ridiculous idea that teachers
> are "indoctrinating" students. Teachers always
> joke that if we could indoctrinate students to do
> anything, it would be to do their homework, or
> maybe read a book.

It is an idea repeated throughout history. The Jesuits famously said that if they got a child at six they could have them for life. In many cases it worked.

I was taught by Jesuits, Ivy League, and VMI graduates — and I'm not religious.

It looks like they are looking for new issues and bogeymen distractions again.

They've been riding this horse for years now.

To which I say "Peep!"

School districts in Utah arrange to sell a little land to the church next to nearly every high school and junior high so that the church can build a seminary building. School schedules must accommodate the church's seminary programs so that kids can walk next door and be indoctrinated in the middle of the school day. And the big worry is that that public school teachers aren't politically or religiously neutral?

They mean to be neutral about OTHER beliefs, not theirs!

Exactly. How about neutrality towards the Mormon church?

Try and enforce that!

All of the above + to some naive ppl who don't know, who aren't cognizant of the MoCulture & religious influence-overhang (e.g. non-Mo newbies to Utah) it might could present as a desireable neutral measure even if a bit superfluous

Trust teachers, don't micromanage them.

Put Everything into context!

The Bill cuts both ways if you read it correctly "endorsing, promoting or disparaging", i.e. meaning that they can neither promote nor demote a political viewpoint. If you read it carefully it also means that teachers wouldn't be able to wear MAGA hats in private, hoist a Confederate flag or engage either way in abortion debates.

Since it bans the promotion of religious viewpoints then that would also stand against the promotion of Mormonism in the classroom. (Which is against the constitution anyway.)

Notloggedintoday-

The 'separation of church & state' isn't exactly a bright line or on the Constitution as some -many believe/understand...
If I recall correctly, that phrase is from a court decision which is subject to change/revision/reinterpretation.

Also, I doubt this law applies to private or charter school (does Utah have charter schools?)

Public school students have a great deal of freedom when it comes to religious expression at school. For instance, they can pray, form prayer groups, and proselytize within reason as long as it's not disruptive to instruction. The schools on the other hand may teach about religion (if it's a part of the curriculum, i.e. teaching about Buddhism and Shinto in a unit about Japan,) but may not promote any particular religion.

I think the Utah schools walk a fine line by allowing release time for Mormon seminary instruction. My best guess is that they include it under release time given for a number of activities, i.e. employment, internships, etc. But the restrictions of the bill are ironic in a state where the Mormon faith has been, IMO, overly accommodated already.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/separation_of_church_and_state#:~:text=The%20phrase%20dates%20back%20to,often%20employed%20in%20court%20cases.

https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

The phrase was first used in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist Church in Danbury (CT?). It has been used in many court decisions.

GNPE- To answer your question, yes, Utah has many charter schools. There are some that essentially operate as private religious schools at tax payer expense. A somewhat recent episode of Mormon Stories discussed a charter school in the Salt Lake area that is run by the Allred polygamous group.

DO THEY NEED TO BE POLITICALLY NEUTRAL ABOUT NAZI GERMANY??????


Thank you.

It's a question that teachers are asking. If a student has Nazi symbols or regalia, can that student be sent to the office? There is a general expectation that whatever student do or wear, it cannot be disruptive to the educational process.

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's a question that teachers are asking. If a
> student has Nazi symbols or regalia, can that
> student be sent to the office? There is a general
> expectation that whatever student do or wear, it
> cannot be disruptive to the educational process.

A school should have a smart uniform and appropriate guidelines. It is one thing when it appears in a history textbook, and another when someone is trying to spread an extremist ideology of some kind. For some of us, WW2 and the Cold War are not ancient history, but warnings to all of us. Extremism started WW2 in Europe when the Germans and the Soviet dictatorships decided to invade Poland.

> A school should have a smart uniform and
> appropriate guidelines.

. . . and government-dictated books, not things that misguided parents and elected school boards choose.


---------------
> It is one thing when it
> appears in a history textbook, and another when
> someone is trying to spread an extremist ideology
> of some kind.

Yes, get those kids in smart uniforms, issue those appropriate guidelines, and once everyone is marching in lockstep according to your preferences, oppose extremism!

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > A school should have a smart uniform and
> > appropriate guidelines.
>
> . . . and government-dictated books, not things
> that misguided parents and elected school boards
> choose.
>
>
> ---------------
> > It is one thing when it
> > appears in a history textbook, and another when
> > someone is trying to spread an extremist
> ideology
> > of some kind.
>
> Yes, get those kids in smart uniforms, issue those
> appropriate guidelines, and once everyone is
> marching in lockstep according to your
> preferences, oppose extremism!

Government dictated materials already appear in schools, or haven't you noticed? No, I don't support lockstep as you put it. I support uniforms for reasons too long to go into – one of them is that they can de-emphasize economic inequalities between pupils' damilies. (I don't oppose support for poorer families to get such clothing either.) Such schools tend to produce better grades as well.

> No, I don't
> support lockstep as you put it.

Every time you address a social problem, you call for the state to solve it. School uniforms, governmentally-selected books, the West invading and punishing Chinese state terrorists.

When it's a problem you care about, you ALWAYS call for the state to solve it--even if, as in the China case, it requires such a high degree of international coordination as to comprise a world government.

People like you are a dime a dozen. They oppose the state until they achieve governmental power and then it's full speed ahead against women's rights, gay people's rights, freedom of expression, and books.

Jawohl, hypocrite.

I don't understand why Utah doesn't just pass a law mandating proper Utah-based morality!

Also, what were (Utah) schools teaching or Avoiding about the Viet Nam (undeclared) 'war'?

What about the false 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' claims that (mis) guided U.S. lawmakers & the POTUS?

neutrality: a Safe Haven for scoundrels.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2024 02:03PM by GNPE.

  
    Did my alteration of the
    Subject line improve the
    meaning?

"Stenquist said he’s trying to address a 'perception problem' with teachers and 'get political and ideological fights … out of the classroom.' He said his goal is to 'reassure parents that students are not being exposed to some political or ideological ideal that they may not agree with,' regardless of political or social leanings.' "

COMMENT: This seems to reflect a legitimate, bipartisan, concern. No parent wants their child to be taught in such a manner inconsistent with their own beliefs and values. Thus, there is no reason on its face to attack the instigators of this proposed law, or to question their motivations.
____________________________________________________

"So, one teacher has an issue (almost certainly in response to a student's question,) and now we need legislation?"

COMMENT: Yes, students have questions, and they look to their teachers for answers. The content and scope of such answers, in relation to the teacher's own values, are, again, of legitimate concern to both parents and teachers. Moreover, it is not inherently unreasonable to establish legal guidelines in such matters, particularly in the context of polarized social values.
_____________________________________________________

"Back in the old days, a parent or parents would make a complaint to the principal, and the principal would address it. Most teachers learn pretty quickly to keep it neutral and professional. OTOH, it could certainly be argued that displaying a Pride flag is in support of their LBGTQ students."

COMMENT: These are not the "old days."
______________________________________________________

Notice that Mormon beliefs are addressed as well.

COMMENT: Yes, which further suggests a legitimate bipartisan attempt to address a complicated issue, and not a misogynist or Mormon 'conspiracy.'
______________________________________________________

The constant attacks are a part of the reason why we currently have a nationwide teacher shortage. Who needs this?

COMMENT: Well, perhaps a further reason is inadequate guidelines in the face of polarizing social positions, along with inadequate pay.
_______________________________________________________

FURTHER COMMENT:

As I see it, ALL of the conflicting values of parents and teachers -- religious, social, etc. -- that might surface from time to time, should be addressed by the teacher within a context of the democratic principles and values inherent in the Constitution. In my judgment, no parent has the right to expect that their child will be taught, or not taught, principles consistent with that basic underlying Constitutional ideology. What that means is that teachers should have broad discretion to present such underlying values as the backdrop of any controversy. It's not perfect, but it is a start.

One can think of any number of examples where the cultural values (political and social) inherent in the American Constitution (and American society generally) inform responses to social issues, even if not generally determinative. These would include such underlying values as democracy, free speech, equal protection, adherence to the rule of law, etc. Surely a grammar schoolteacher should be free to teach the importance of conformity to such values! After all, if students are led in a daily ritual of the 'Pledge of Allegiance,' it would seem appropriate to teach just what that allegiance is all about, and why such democratic values are 'objective' constraints within American society.

The problem is that once this cat is left in the bag, it is difficult to avoid applying such values to discussions that are related to current events. This suggests the importance of the teacher's judgment as to how to present such matters. Nonetheless, it seems to me that the teacher should be given broad discretion to apply wisdom, rather than personal ideology, to such discussions. This would include applying such democratic values and principles to subjects like White Supremacy and ideological terrorism. A teacher, when confronted with these topics, and others, should be free to teach that such actions are wrong, being inconsistent with our democratic principles and values.

Personally, in the current cultural environment, I am not willing to defer the teaching of such principles and values to parents, who increasingly demonstrate that they have lost their compass as to what America is all about, however imperfect it might be.

"Inadequate guidelines"? Henry, you make it obvious that you rarely (if ever) darken the door of a public school. Teachers learn how to be politically and religiously neutral because we serve the public. For the rare (or very new) teacher that has an issue, it's quickly resolved by a chat with the school's principal.

As I said before, much ado about nothing. And the legislature is making a lot of noise for a legislative body that has a long history of favoring the Mormon church.

I agree Summer, it's political nonsense. More importantly, to your original post, teachers are leaving in droves. No one is addressing that issue.

I honestly think a law like this will come back to bite those who think it's necessary in order to protect their children against liberal views.

In many areas of Utah, teachers tend to be just as religious and conservative as the parents and legislators who want this. I raised my children in Utah County and I've always been surprised at what was ok in public schools here. For example, at one of my children's graduation, the school choir sang hymns. Another child had a teacher who always talked about the prophet and after General Conference would go around the room and have the kids tell what their favorite talk was. Conversely, I never had a report from one of my kids that a teacher brought up LGBT issues or anything else that would be considered liberal.

I work in several different public schools and nearly every teacher has a Christmas tree in their room during the holiday season. A law like this could change that and I doubt those who are pushing this bill want that as a consequence. They really need to think this through. Careful what you wish for.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2024 04:04PM by want2bx.

Yes, exactly. The Mormons might not like how this is applied.

the 'Freedom of Speech' issue somewhat hangs on the Question of whether or not the venue is a PUBLIC FORUM. I'm not aware of whether there's a court opinion as to whether a public school is a public forum.

This doctrine shows that not all public property is a public forum; most private property is NOT.

GNPE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the 'Freedom of Speech' issue somewhat hangs on
> the Question of whether or not the venue is a
> PUBLIC FORUM. I'm not aware of whether there's a
> court opinion as to whether a public school is a
> public forum.
>
> This doctrine shows that not all public property
> is a public forum; most private property is NOT.

It is both simultaneously. Such schools are funded by money taken from the public, and run by bodies which claim to represent the public. The teachers are supposed to be "in loco parentis", and not to abuse their position.

But at the same time, there are restrictions. Random adults are not allowed in a school the same way as a library or a park, or the public highway, for obvious reasons. Likewise a public funded school should not be used to radicalize children.

It is good for children to know about politics but not good for them to be conditioned into anti-democratic belief systems.

> It is good for children to know about politics but
> not good for them to be conditioned into
> anti-democratic belief systems.

And who better to devise the appropriate curriculum than you, right?