In a previous Bengal’s Purr news article, psychology teacher Mike Jones shared about how Idaho’s House Bill 239 can have negative impacts on students. Further analysis of HB239 shows that the bill is unnecessary, as it strips students of learning opportunities and suppresses the idea of embracing identity.
The most important effect of the bill is that it forces obstacles on teachers’ instructional processes regarding human sexuality. The bill fully defines sexuality as “sexual conduct, sexual pleasure, sexual intimacy, sexual abuse, sexual violence, eroticism, pornography, deviant sexual behavior, sexual attraction, sexual orientation, or any form of sexual identity, gender identity, gender ideology, or gender conversion.”
While most terms in this definition are those students would hear in sex-ed, other terms do not fit in, such as sexual or gender identity. That being said, teachers should not have to limit the information they give to students, especially ideas that surround self-identity. When information such as this is hidden without pedagogical judgment, it constitutes unlawful censorship, as it violates First Amendment rights.
Following that point, teachers do have limitations on their First Amendment rights. The National Education Association (NEA) states, “When the government is a public school or university, it has broad authority to limit educators’ speech on the job as well as to limit speech off the job that directly impacts the workplace.” However, again, sexuality does not count as material that harms the learning environment. In actuality, it brings knowledge to students by exhibiting just how diverse people are.
All in all, the bill should be more selective of what material to restrict in schools. It is very clear that the legislature is attempting to push down gay and trans rights, and is not protecting education. After all, representation is the very purpose of providing students with full knowledge. It is a movement that people of many generations have dedicated their lives to; this bill hinders that progress.
Another issue that lies within the bill is how it succumbs to parents who are hostile towards academic material involving sexuality. Parents who are not accepting of non-traditional sexual or gender orientation will be less tolerant in allowing their children to attend such lessons. When those children are part of a minority, that strips away a major source of comfort that allows them to accept themselves. Parents should have the right to know what their children are learning in school. However, when they fail to provide them a safe environment, it is important that another agent fulfills it for them. This bill undoes that service, as many students are now less trusting of Idaho’s education system.
The bill may not be as much of a concern here in Lewiston, as our school district has fewer opt-ins than others in the state. We still need to consider, though, how the other districts are facing it, especially its apparent main targets: gay and transgender students. Lewiston schools may have the privilege of its non-severity for now, but this does not mean we should ignore the real problem: the bill’s target harms students’ self-expression.
It does not matter if someone supports minority rights regarding this issue. Every student — every person -– deserves to feel comfortable in themselves and while in their general environment. Ideology opposing this should not be pushed on anyone simply because it doesn’t suit someone else’s lifestyle.
All in all, Idaho’s House Bill 239 brings nothing but harm to students and educators. Impeding representation in academic lessons actively undermines the hard work invested in political movements and the education system.
