Texas Senate passes bill to drop teaching requirements on KKK, Cesar Chavez and more

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
34,056
10,562
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
#1
The Texas Senate has passed an education bill that will END the requirements of Public schools to teach about the women's suffrage movement and the civil rights movement in Social Studies classes

Once REQUIRED material but excluded and no longer required in this bill are
Susan B Anthony
The writings of Sally Hemings
The writings of Ona Judge
The Chicano Movement
Equal Rights
Cesar Chavez
Martin Luther King Jr "I have a Dream Speech" and "Letter from a Birmingham Jail"
ban Critical Race Theory
ban 1619 Project material
Remove the requirement to teach the history of White Supremacy and the Ku Klux Klan was/is morally wrong


These were once specifically spelled out as required for Texas public school students. The Senate revisions have removed these specific topics and replaced with the wording.

Students must learn the history and importance of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the 13, 14, 19 Amendments to the US Constitution. Students should also cover the writing of the founding fathers of the United States


Replacing these requirements is the wording
That teachers should strive to the best of their ability to explore the topics once required in a diverse and contending perspection without giving deference to any ONE perspective


The Bills author Bryan Hughes said that specific topics to be taught and read in school do not belong in state statute.


https://thehill.com/homenews/state-...that-would-nix-requirement-for-teaching-white

It passed the senate vote 18-4 with the Democrats out of town in DC trying to prevent the quorum
 
Mar 11, 2006
3,910
2,236
1,743
#2
The Texas Senate has passed an education bill that will END the requirements of Public schools to teach about the women's suffrage movement and the civil rights movement in Social Studies classes

Once REQUIRED material but excluded and no longer required in this bill are
Susan B Anthony
The writings of Sally Hemings
The writings of Ona Judge
The Chicano Movement
Equal Rights
Cesar Chavez
Martin Luther King Jr "I have a Dream Speech" and "Letter from a Birmingham Jail"
ban Critical Race Theory
ban 1619 Project material
Remove the requirement to teach the history of White Supremacy and the Ku Klux Klan was/is morally wrong


These were once specifically spelled out as required for Texas public school students. The Senate revisions have removed these specific topics and replaced with the wording.

Students must learn the history and importance of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the 13, 14, 19 Amendments to the US Constitution. Students should also cover the writing of the founding fathers of the United States


Replacing these requirements is the wording
That teachers should strive to the best of their ability to explore the topics once required in a diverse and contending perspection without giving deference to any ONE perspective


The Bills author Bryan Hughes said that specific topics to be taught and read in school do not belong in state statute.


https://thehill.com/homenews/state-...that-would-nix-requirement-for-teaching-white

It passed the senate vote 18-4 with the Democrats out of town in DC trying to prevent the quorum
Where those ever specifically included in the law in Texas? I thought the verbiage change was simply from one proposed bill to another.

The story I read was the first proposed bill listed the above requirements, but the modified bill was more general. For example, the first proposed bill in May (HB3979) listed requirement of teaching about Susan B Anthony. But revised bill listed teaching about 19th amendment. That’s pretty similar.
And first bill had specifics on MLK’s speech, but new bill states teaching about Civil Rights movement of the 1960s
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,765
20,596
1,743
#3
Where those ever specifically included in the law in Texas? I thought the verbiage change was simply from one proposed bill to another.

The story I read was the first proposed bill listed the above requirements, but the modified bill was more general. For example, the first proposed bill in May (HB3979) listed requirement of teaching about Susan B Anthony. But revised bill listed teaching about 19th amendment. That’s pretty similar.
And first bill had specifics on MLK’s speech, but new bill states teaching about Civil Rights movement of the 1960s
What you read was incorrect.

HB 3979 was passed by both houses of the legislature and signed by the Governor.

Thus it was law with an effective date of 9/1/21/

Thus, those items were specifically included in the law in Texas.

And the new proposed legislation is an attempt to remove those specific items before the effective date of the law that has them in it as required curriculum.

https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=87R&Bill=HB3979
 
Mar 11, 2006
3,910
2,236
1,743
#4
What you read was incorrect.

HB 3979 was passed by both houses of the legislature and signed by the Governor.

Thus it was law with an effective date of 9/1/21/

Thus, those items were specifically included in the law in Texas.

And the new proposed legislation is an attempt to remove those specific items before the effective date of the law that has them in it as required curriculum.

https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=87R&Bill=HB3979
So it was never a law. Got it.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,765
20,596
1,743
#5
So it was never a law. Got it.
LOL. You definitely don't "got it".

Yes it was a law.

Do you even know when a bill becomes law?

I'll give you a clue....the minute the Governor signs a bill passed by both houses it IS A LAW. It's no longer a "proposed bill". It is a LAW.

Maybe you'll be able to understand that with a little helpful ditty....

https://youtu.be/FFroMQlKiag
 
Mar 11, 2006
3,910
2,236
1,743
#6
LOL. You definitely don't "got it".

Yes it was a law.

Do you even know when a bill becomes law?

I'll give you a clue....the minute the Governor signs a bill passed by both houses it IS A LAW. It's no longer a "proposed bill". It is a LAW.

Maybe you'll be able to understand that with a little helpful ditty....

https://youtu.be/FFroMQlKiag
Thanks Mr. Zzzzz for the lesson. Your information truly completely changed the meaning of my post. We absolutely need more discussions about how laws, that are not in effect - and have never been in effect,, are still laws — that added an incredible amount of value to the thread.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,765
20,596
1,743
#7
Thanks Mr. Zzzzz for the lesson. Your information truly completely changed the meaning of my post. We absolutely need more discussions about how laws, that are not in effect - and have never been in effect,, are still laws — that added an incredible amount of value to the thread.
Cable ok: Was there even actually a law that specifically required those to be taught. I read it’s just a an alternate proposed bill and they decided to go with a different proposed bill.

Me: That factual assertion you just made is incorrect. It was a law, passed by both houses and signed by the Governor that specifically included those items as having to be taught starting 9/1/21.

Cable OK: So no, there never was a law. Got it.

Me: No, it was a law rather than an “alternate proposed bill.”

Also Cable OK: Doesn’t matter anyway. The fact that my entire post was factually incorrect doesn’t change my opinion.

Me: Cool. Then why did you post it in the first place?

Also me: I don’t care why you did. It’s clear to me why you did. It’s also clear to me that you won’t let little old things like facts get in the way of your wildly partisan opinions anyway.

Pigeons man....I’ve got to stop engaging with the pigeons.
 
Last edited: