What the Florida CRT Bill Actually Says

Isaac has already hit the Associated Press for misrepresenting Florida’s anti-critical race theory bill. TV commentators are running with the AP’s spin, claiming that it outlaws “white discomfort,” a phrase nowhere found in the bill:

The actual bill text is here. It nowhere protects any particular racial or ethnic group, but extends its protections equally. It addresses “discomfort” in two places; I will emphasize the relevant sections in bold. One is in the section on prohibited forms of employment discrimination:

760.10 Unlawful employment practices.—
   44         (8)(a) Subjecting any individual, as a condition of
   45  employment, membership, certification, licensing, credentialing,
   46  or passing an examination, to training, instruction, or any
   47  other required activity that espouses, promotes, advances,
   48  inculcates, or compels such individual to believe any of the
   49  following concepts constitutes discrimination based on race,
   50  color, sex, or national origin under this section:
   51         
   71         7. An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or
   72  any other form of psychological distress on account of his or
   73  her race, color, sex, or national origin.

The other is in the section on state curricular standards:

(3) The Legislature acknowledges the fundamental truth that
  280  all individuals are equal before the law and have inalienable
  281  rights. Accordingly, instruction on the topics enumerated in
  282  this section and supporting materials must be consistent with
  283  the following principles of individual freedom:
  284         (a) No individual is inherently racist, sexist, or
  285  oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously, solely by
  286  virtue of his or her race or sex.
  287         (b) No race is inherently superior to another race.
  288         (c) No individual should be discriminated against or
  289  receive adverse treatment solely or partly on the basis of race,
  290  color, national origin, religion, disability, or sex.
  291         (d) Meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are not
  292  racist but fundamental to the right to pursue happiness and be
  293  rewarded for industry.
  294         (e) An individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex,
  295  does not bear responsibility for actions committed in the past
  296  by other members of the same race or sex.
  297         (f) An individual should not be made to feel discomfort,
  298  guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on
  299  account of his or her race.
  300  
  301  Instructional personnel may facilitate discussions and use
  302  curricula to address, in an age-appropriate manner, the topics
  303  of sexism, slavery, racial oppression, racial segregation, and
  304  racial discrimination, including topics relating to the
  305  enactment and enforcement of laws resulting in sexism, racial
  306  oppression, racial segregation, and racial discrimination.
  307  However, classroom instruction and curriculum may not be used to
  308  indoctrinate or persuade students to a particular point of view
  309  inconsistent with the principles of this subsection or state
  310  academic standards.

Now, the critics have one small point here: It probably would be better to bring the language in the curricular section in line with the language in the employment-training section, which specifically targets training that aims as a goal to induce discomfort on the basis of race or other prohibited categories. Which is something we should all be against, no? But the curricular section is written to offer general principles. It does not bar all things that make people (white or otherwise) uncomfortable, but only targets efforts to do so on the basis of race. Which is something we should all be against, no?

It sets this in the context of a list of similar principles: nondiscrimination, treating people as individuals, not applying collective guilt or concepts of essential characteristics tied to race, denouncing racial generalizations and stereotypes. Again: All things we should all be against, no? Moreover, as the concluding section makes clear, the standards being proposed explicitly permit the discussion of racism, sexism, slavery, Jim Crow, etc., both as general concepts and as systemic elements of American and Florida law. It simply aims to root out indoctrination in concepts that are inconsistent with the fundamental, liberal principles of American individual equality. Public schools can never be entirely neutral about ideas; they have to teach something, and every choice to teach is a choice to exclude. The Florida legislature aims here to ensure that what is taught is not indoctrination against values we all share, aspire to share, or at least pretend to share.

Should Florida, or other states, ban indoctrination in white supremacy and indoctrination in favor of slavery and the Confederacy? If it is good to prohibit that, how is it not also good to do this?