Pretend Discrimination Bill H7150
This week’s bad bill is a thorny issue; but one that highlights yet another danger of the progressive-left’s agenda to control our lives via a government driven by political correctness. In our American society, this means a direct threat to free speech and free thought.
House Bill H7150 is the epitome of how the irrational emotions of the progressive-left are now finding their way into actual legislation … and how they are attempting to legislate morality. In fact any attempt to criminalize anti political correctness or immorality, will inevitably cause more societal harms than it seeks to prevent.
Sponsored by Representatives Grace Diaz and Aaron Regunberg among others, this poorly written discrimination bill, in its entirety, states:
“No pupil attending public or private schools of elementary and high school grades inclusive of kindergarten shall be discriminated against on the basis of race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, socioeconomic status or mental, physical, developmental, or sensory disability, or by association with an individual or group who has, or is perceived to have one, or more of such characteristics.”
Conceptually, of course, who would disagree?
But we judge this discrimination bill to be of the “make believe” variety, first because of it’s purposely misleading title, “Health and Safety of Pupils.” Putting this purely emotional plea into written legislation, ostensibly to protect students, is unnecessary … as all Americans and students are already protected by other existing state and federal civil rights laws. This legislation is nothing more than a meaningless ploy to advance mainstream acceptance progressive-left values.
Also a progressive fantasy … is the belief that discrimination, or any other emotionally driven action … can be legislated away. Should a bill be likewise submitted requiring that all students should always be made to feel happy?
Further, this discrimination bill, because it is so vague and subjective … pretends that there will be no resulting unintended and adverse consequences.
In the bill, there is no definition of what discrimination “is” … or by whom such offense might be committed. It is one thing if a teacher or administrator systematically ostracizes or bullies a student. But are we at the point in our society where we want “2nd-grader on 2nd-grader play” to now be considered as criminal? Would not selecting a student in the first-round of a kick-ball game at recess, when choosing sides, now mean someone should be sent to the principal’s office? If a teacher doesn’t immediately call upon a particular student who raised his or her hand, is that an offense?
Who’s interpretation of what discrimination “is” becomes the standard? Who will be the judge?
Then there’s the “or else what” question? What is the consequence? If someone does commit some person’s version of discrimination, what will happen to them? Will they be suspended from school? Reported to the school board or to their parents? Put in the public stockade?
These unanswered questions that this frivolous legislation would artificially create, are important. If one person’s free and harmless-intended actions can be judged to be discriminatory by someone else, and then backed by the force of law … our free society will be taking a major step backwards.
Bottom line, there is no universally objective way to interpret and enforce this kind of fantasy legislation; no single piece of legislation can possibly attempt to categorize the motivations and intentions of a population as diverse as Rhode Island’s. Yet progressives keep trying, and society will keep losing.
In one vision of a free society, our noncriminal actions should not be judged by some arbitrary special interest agenda. Conversely, in the progressives’ make believe vision of a politically-correct society, and as we did see – and still see – in many communist countries, our own thoughts and actions would be policed by some vague and subjective standard – set by the elitists in power … who will put themselves in a position to be judge, jury, and executioner.
Which vision of society do you prefer?