On Monday, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed the Parental Rights in Education Act. Bill critics called it “Don’t Say Gay,” HB 1557 has a prerequisite This may seem harmless on the face of it – but it undermines the basic freedom of expression and due process rights of teachers, students, and families in Florida.
We can assume that direct teachers are less likely to be caught in the crossfire of HB 1557 than their LGBTQ colleagues.
The ruling states: “Classroom instruction by school staff or third parties about sexual orientation or gender identity in kindergarten through third grade may not occur in a manner that is inappropriate for the age or developmentally appropriate to students in accordance with state standards.” Parents may apply this provision By filing a lawsuit against the school district for litigation, damages, and attorneys’ fees.
Let’s break down this ruling. First, classroom teaching “about sexual orientation or gender identity” is prohibited in kindergarten through third grade classrooms. Second, this provision prohibits teaching the classroom “about sexual orientation or gender identity” that is “not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate” without restrictions with respect to grade level. Furthermore, each of these prohibitions applies to both school personnel and unidentified “third parties”.
On the surface, these requirements may seem harmless. After all, many people may feel some discomfort at the idea of kindergarten children receiving instruction “about sexual orientation.” And who could argue against banning sexual instruction — or any topic for that matter — that is not “age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate”?
However, a moment’s reflection reveals how vague these prohibitions are. Nowhere does HB 1557 define its operational terms: “instructions”, “on sexual orientation”, “on…gender identity”, “appropriate” or “third parties”.
For example, if a gay teacher mentions her wife by name when describing what she did with her family during the winter break, and thus expresses the fact that she is married to a woman, does that amount to a “guideline” for the students “on the gender direction”? What if the teacher is gay or straight – Assigns a mathematical problem that states “Sally has two nations”? In this regard, if a second grader with parents draws a picture of her family and shares it with her classmates, does that constitute a “third party” giving actual instructions?
A well-crafted law will carefully define its terms. Since HB 1557 does not specifically do this, it can be read to prohibit any of these activities. However, the US Constitution does not allow this degree of ambiguity.
Sixty years ago, the Supreme Court considered another Florida law that had been passed in the context of a moral panic that subjected public school employees to a vague, unconstitutional ban. Crump vs. General Instructions Board It involves a McCarthy-era oath requiring all public servants to swear that it “has not, will not, and will not provide, assistance, support, advice, advice, or influence to the Communist Party”.
Noting the “exceptional vagueness” of this language—what if you once voted for a candidate you knew some Communist Party members also supported, for example—the court took an oath of allegiance to Florida under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
since spasm, Courts have distinguished between three interrelated harms linked to ambiguous lawsall embodied in HB 1557.
First, they said, vague laws deprive citizens of proper notification of behavior that will and will not make them vulnerable to legal penalties. Denies the extraordinary ambiguity of HB 1557 to members of the educational community”Reasonable chance to find out what is forbidden“Required by due process of law.
Second, vague laws invite arbitrary and discriminatory application. For example, when interpreted literally, HB 1557 can be read to prevent a heterosexual teacher from mentioning her husband of the opposite sex; After all, doesn’t it “instruct” students to “sexual orientation” – that is, teacher heterogeneity or the fact of sexual difference in general? However, we can assume that straight teachers are less likely to be caught in the crossfire of HB 1557 than their gay colleagues.
Third, when vague laws regulate expressive behavior, they have a chilling effect on free speech rights under the First Amendment. Not sure what’s forbidden and what’s forbiddenteachers and “third parties” alike will “direct a much wider scope of the illegal area . . . than if the boundaries of the restricted areas were clearly defined.”
The chilling effect of HB 1557 could underline the primary harm it causes: the burden on the free speech rights of LGBTQ teachers and students. Over the years, courts have consistently recognized that LGBTQ students and educators have a fundamental right in the First Amendment to express their identity without facing legal penalties.
In fact, since 1974, federal courts have recognized The right of LGBTQ students to form associations on campus and organize social events. Recently, courts have recognized that the right to freedom of expression protects the right of transgender students To present their identity at school. Moreover, federal courts have recognized since the 1990s that First Amendment bans schools from firing teachers Just to point out in class the fact that they are gay.
In general, these cases illustrate a clear constitutional principle: School boards and state legislatures may not abuse General Latitude Regarding Campus Speech To keep teachers and students in the locker. However, the extraordinary mystery of HB 1557 threatens to do just that. To that extent, HB 1557 burdens First Amendment rights for Florida teachers and students who happen to be LGBT.
Nor is this technical. Conversely, it is essential to remember the human risk of HB 1557. LGBTQ youth continue to have disproportionately high rates of suicidal ideation, with 42 percent of all LGBTQ youth and more than half of transgender and non-binary youth. Seriously contemplating suicide last year. This statistic should shock the conscience.
The good news is that LGBTQ students who are educated about LGBTQ issues or people in school are less likely to attempt suicide, According to The Trevor Project, a suicide prevention organization for LGBTQ youth. The bad news is that HB 1557 will effectively prevent schools from providing these life-affirming lessons. The inevitable conclusion is as stark as it is simple: If “Don’t Say Like Me” remains the law of the land in Florida, some children may die who would otherwise live.
