politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I feel like the two-week notification topic is vague enough that it can end up screwing with a bunch of normal curriculua, though.
The article goes a bit further on that topic:
It was already policy to give two weeks notice before teaching programs about sexuality, but this new verbiage seems like it expands that application beyond specifically sex-ed curricula.
For example, if I'm an English teacher and I want to bring in a work of queer lit into the classroom, or even just a classic text that happens to feature a gay character or queer themes like The Color Purple, what does this mean for me? Do I now have to give that two-week notice every time we start one such text, and then have to pivot my entire unit plan if even one ultra-religious parent does not consent?
If I am a science teacher and one student asks a question about whether or not homosexuality is natural, and I point out that there are a number of other animal species that practice homosexual behavior, am I now penalized because I acknowledged the topic in the classroom without giving advance notice?
Or since it even covers "gender" as a topic, does this affect my ability to discuss the different social roles of men and women in the 20th century and the issue of women's suffrage?
That's the only one that's functionally a no-op: Add the disclaimer that sexual orientation, gender/identity/expression, etc will be taught during the year to the normal school forms for the district.
I agree with you. The intervention of the state government is a blunt instrument and these issues are best left to the discretion of the teacher, the principal, and the school district. Are there actually any school districts so libertine and so heedless of the wishes of the parents that the state needs to restrain them? I doubt it. I'd put this law into the "seeks to solve problems that have not presented themselves in New Hampshire, and in doing so invites unnecessary discord" category (I would say "culture war bullshit" category, but that's why I'm not the governor) but at the same time I think vetoing a law passed by the state legislature shouldn't be done lightly and the problems caused by this law are sufficiently minor that a veto isn't necessary.
I suppose I should elaborate on what I meant by "appropriate for New Hampshire". I didn't mean "what I would personally prefer" but rather "what strikes a good balance between protecting vulnerable people and being responsive to voters". I think a lot of the voters want to fight in the culture war, the governor clearly doesn't (and rightly so), he's doing what he can to reduce tensions without just ignoring what the voters want, and in this case what the voters want is mostly symbolic.