Network Schools – Wayne Gerseny to https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/04/03/magazine/thomas-piketty-interview u w B l.html?h I’ll smid=url-share the Is for

News coverage on Texas’ recently passed abortion legislation has gotten widespread national coverage as has the anti-CRT legislation passed or under consideration in 28 states. What seems to be lost in an examination of these laws is that the anti-CRT bills have the potential to harm the accused teacher far more than anyone who abets an abortion and requires a much lower legal threshold to place the accused teacher in the spotlight.

The vigilante justice inherent in the Texas anti-abortion bill is tempered somewhat by the requirement that the accuser must go to court where the accused will presumably have an opportunity to present evidence that supports their innocence. The anti-CRT bills, though, offer teachers no such due process and the “evidence” an accuser presents could be hearsay based on a 7-year old child’s interpretation of a lesson the teacher taught, “evidence” the teacher or Principal might hear for the first time at a public school board meeting. Worse, unlike “abortion” which is a clearly understood action, a clear definition of CRT is non-existent. Laws like the one recently passed in NH that ban “divisive content” further complicate matters since the accuser gets to define which topics they perceive as “divisive”. A teacher might withstand a hearsay accusation leveled by a irate parent on behalf of their child who felt uncomfortable by the content of a lesson, but the price they would pay if they are “exonerated” is immeasurable. Should a teacher lose their case, they could lose their job, a cost far more than any fine a court would levy for teaching a lesson on an undefined topic. The Star Chamber trials will begin soon. Stay tuned.

apple.news/AFWL-BVcETMauBdjO76p4SQ