Interesting perspective from this article. The article is about HB377 in Idaho. The article makes it seem like the below items are bad. But shouldn’t these be goals that we all can find common ground and agree?
* “The bill would prohibit public schools from teaching that "any sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin is inherently superior or inferior”.
Who would disagree with this, besides David Duke? Why would we want our children to be taught a race was better or worse than another? Isn’t that the definition of racism?
* The bill also bans teachings that argue that people should be treated differently based on things like race or gender”
Same comments — how is this remotely bad? Have we become so partisan that just because someone in one party proposes something that members of the other party must disagree...even when it is an idea or goal that they also support?
Honestly interested if anyone disagrees with the above two items ...and if so, why --- am I missing something?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/idaho-wants-illegal-schools-teach-043511642.html
* “The bill would prohibit public schools from teaching that "any sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin is inherently superior or inferior”.
Who would disagree with this, besides David Duke? Why would we want our children to be taught a race was better or worse than another? Isn’t that the definition of racism?
* The bill also bans teachings that argue that people should be treated differently based on things like race or gender”
Same comments — how is this remotely bad? Have we become so partisan that just because someone in one party proposes something that members of the other party must disagree...even when it is an idea or goal that they also support?
Honestly interested if anyone disagrees with the above two items ...and if so, why --- am I missing something?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/idaho-wants-illegal-schools-teach-043511642.html
Last edited:
-
1
- Show all