Fact or Fiction: New California Laws
I must say that today I was talking with a friend and he mentioned some new laws that were passed by the California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. There are two laws and I’ve found some information on them, but only one seems to be happening now. The other was last year. So if you have any news on this, please enlighten this by commenting below. For the two bills - the 2006 version SB 1437 link 1 (SB 1437 was vetoed by the Governor) and the 2007 version SB 777 link 1 and link 2 (SB 777 was signed by Gov. Schwarzenegger a few days ago). Here are a few sites with some information on the fact or fiction about what this change in law means. Here is a response to SB 1437 from last year on truthorfiction.com.
Summary of the eRumor: The eRumor says that new legislation passed in California would cater to homosexuals by not allowing state textbooks to have any references to “mom” and “dad.”
The Truth: SB1437 was a bill designed by its authors to prohibit discriminatory content in state textbooks. There isn’t any place in the language of the bill that eliminates references to “mom” and “dad,” but what is there has brought controversy. What the bill would do is change the wording of the state education code. The current code says ”No teacher shall give instruction nor shall a school sponsor any activity which reflects adversely upon persons because of their race, sex, color, creed, handicap, national origin, or ancestry.
“SB1437 would change that to: “No teacher shall give instruction nor shall a school district sponsor any activity that reflects adversely upon persons because of their race or ethnicity, gender, disability, nationality, sexual orientation, or religion.” It would require instruction in social sciences and the early history of California to include study of the “…role and contributions of men, women, various ethnic groups and and people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender, to the economic, political, and social development of California and the United States of America, with particular emphasis on portraying the role of these groups in contemporary society. “The phone numbers for the California governor’s office are correct as of this writing.
They call this rumor “Fiction”.Read more here. Additional reading about the California legislature approving this bill. The bill last year was vetoed by the Governor and the bill has since died.Now regarding the 2007 bill that was signed by the Governor: SB 777. Here is an article that discusses what this means. Debate and discussion continues to rage as this bill comes to fruition at the beginning of 2008.
“Boys in girls’ restrooms? Girls in boys’ restrooms?
Dixon community members gathered together Thursday evening to discuss a “gender identity” law signed by the governor, which will take effect Jan. 1.
The law, SB 777 says: “No person shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained.
‘The California Code of Regulations defines “gender” as “a person’s actual sex or perceived sex and includes a person’s perceived identity, appearance or behavior, whether or not that identity, appearance or behavior is different from that traditionally associated with a person’s sex at birth.”
Another article discusses some other possible ramifications regarding this bill - such that it might result in reverse discrimination against those with religious and traditional values. Here is a comment suggesting caution when interpreting the results of this bill. I would suggest the same - until I find out more about this. Here is another article talking about some possible meanings behind this law. I thought was helpful.
Not surprisingly, SB 777 adds the term “sexual orientation” to the categories of persons protected against “hate crimes,” a concept based on the assumption that a violent crime against a gay or lesbian person is particularly heinous, more so than when committed against others.
The main part of the bill concerns public education. All public school districts will be responsible for forbidding any discrimination and monitoring for compliance. Thus, while religious schools whose tenets conflict with homosexuality and lesbianism are exempted, publicly funded alternative and charter schools are not. The new law specifies that “No teacher shall give instruction nor shall a school district sponsor any activity that reflects adversely upon persons because of [sexual orientation].” (Italics in text.) The same requirement is laid on districts’ adoption or use of textbooks or other instructional materials.
Near the end, here is another article suggesting that this law is to entitle all to be free from any form of harassment.
The California Student Civil Rights Act (SB 777) recently signed by Gov. Schwarzenegger is designed to update and define all prohibited categories of discrimination in publicly funded K-12 schools and institutions of higher education. The bill in no way “stifles expression.” But it does attempt to eliminate or prohibit all discrimination for disability; gender; nationality; race or ethnicity; religion; sexual orientation; and all characteristics of hate crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the California Penal Code. The purpose is to protect all students from all forms of harassment, bullying and discrimination. This legislation insures all students are safe and protected in California’s public schools.
Lastly, here is a letter that I wrote to the Governor before I did any research on the topic. Now I haven’t received a response (not even an auto-response email confirmation saying that received my email).
Dear Governor Schwarzenegger,
I am emailing as a former citizen of California. I lived in Loma Linda a year ago and have intentions to move back to California. I am extremely disappointed by the two things that I have heard today. I have tried to research and find more information on the topics but what I have heard is that you signed bills recently that allow for boys and girls to enter either bathroom without any problems from administrators or peers. I have see that as a very backwords way to help non-heterosexuals to receive the acceptance and help that they need. I can see huge problems with sexual assault and abuse and where is the line drawn to make it unacceptable for boys and girls to go in as peeping toms to see those of the opposite sex undress and bath.
I am actually appalled by this news. I supported you in your election when I was in California and I had agreed with many positions that you’ve taken in the past but I am saddened by this recent choice. Like I said, I can’t find much info on your site that tells me about this. I just have news articles that are poorly describing what the real bill is so any enlightenment would be helpful.
My second concern is relating to a ban on the use of mom and dad and husband and wife in school settings and in textbooks there. I find it astonishing that you would vote in such a fashion.Please give me more details because I would really like to know.
D. Phillip Scoville
I think that I was a bit hasty in my email to the Governor. I don’t know what this law means but I hope that it means greater acceptance and love for all and that forms of harassment are removed from our public institutions and systems. Now I mean this for all (e.g., religious, sexual, and racial). Also I’m not sure the sources that my friend is citing but I know that sometimes I get excited about certain prior to my own clarity on the subject-he may be in the same boat.
