The New and Improved Textbook Bill for 2007 or
Using Textbooks to Silence the Opposition to Homosexuality
As sure as spring brings daylight savings time in California, certain legislators in Sacramento continue to bring back bad ideas. Last year Senator Shelia Kuehl put through a bill to have textbooks used in California's public schools to be gay friendly. Thankfully the Governor vetoed it.
Not taking no for an answer, Senator Kuehl has introduced SB777. SB777 provides that no textbooks or other instructional material will be allowed in public and in many private schools that reflects adversely upon a long list of persons including people's sexual orientation (i.e. homosexuals, bisexuals, transgender people, etc.). The bill does not define the term - reflects adversely - so the term will likely be given a very broad definition by courts attempting to enforce this proposesd law.
As usual, Senator Kuehl does not provide for any rights of conscience exemption or parental opt out provisions. In other words, the schools, including some private schools can not say anything adverse about homosexuality and parents have no say in the matter, period. What makes this bill so far reaching is its application to private schools. The only exception granted under the bill is for private religious schools...if the application would not be consistent with the religious tenets of that organization. Therefore SB777 will apply to those private schools that are not religious and religious schools that have not stated specifically that homosexuality is inconsistent with the schools' religious tenets.
There are several problems with this type of legislation. First, this bill fundamentally ignores that parents are the persons who should instill values in their children. Not the California legislature. Homosexuality is not universally accepted in our society. It is very controversial and many millions of Californians do no want their children to be taught that this is an acceptable lifestyle. The bill is vague in its use of the term "reflecting adversely". What does that mean? To not say anything negative? What about teaching the sad truth that the AIDS epidemic began with the homosexual community in the early 1980s? Is the textbook barred from teaching this inconvenient truth? Does this phrase mean that a textbook must "out" historical figures (usually based on the textbook author's speculations)? Also, schools should be about the business of teaching children basic skills such as reading and writing, not highly debated social policy from a one sided point of view.
Another problem is the enforcement of SB777 on religious schools. How are the courts (who normally take great pains to avoid being involved in ecclesiastical matters or church affairs) to be guided on what is an acceptable tenet of faith for the private school to fit into the religious exemption. There is nothing in the bill to guide the courts.
It would be tempting to suggest changes in the bill such as putting the burden of proof on the government when it enforces this proposed law against a religious school or providing for parental opt out rights. However, the bill's basic concept is flawed.
Instead of using textbooks to silence opposition to homosexuality (which is what SB777 is really all about), the legislature should celebrate freedom of speech and religion by dropping this bad bill. I recommend you write to your Assemblyperson, State Senator and the Governor and let them know you oppose SB777.
Craig Alexander, Esq.
Education Alliance Member
