Letters to the Editor do not reflect the opinions of The Reporter, its publisher or its staff. You can submit your own Letter to the Editor by email to News@ReadTheReporter.com.
Editor’s note: Click here if you’d like to read the Reporter’s exclusive interview with Rep. Tony Cook (R-Cicero), the author of House Bill 1134.
Dear Editor:
The recent articles published in numerous local papers highlight a serious lack of understanding of House Bill 1134. Legislation can be difficult to read; however, the purposeful omission of the specific key word “should” changes the entire meaning of the statute. Community members continue to omit this word and we should consider why that is. Have they neglected to read the bill for themselves and are repeating others’ misinterpretations?
On page 31, line 2, the language reads “Nothing in this chapter may be construed so as to exclude the teaching of historical injustices committed against any sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or political affiliation or ideals or values that conflict with the Constitution of the United States or IC 20-30-5-7(a)(3)”.
Therefore, in plain English, teaching history is absolutely allowed. The eight tenets of divisive concepts prohibit educators from teaching children they “ARE” inherently superior or inferior to others, that they “SHOULD” be discriminated against, that they “SHOULD” treat others with disrespect, that their character “IS” determined by immutable characteristics, that they “bear responsibility for actions committed in the past”, or that they “SHOULD” feel discomfort, anguish, or guilt.
Despite the heavy focus on critical thinking, why do educators feel the need to blame, shame, accuse, demean, and guilt students into feeling a certain way?
In November 2020, eighth graders in my district were subjected to an “oppressor” v. “oppressed” activity where white students were accused of oppressing others. The white males were told they would have been “slave owners” had they been alive at the time. “Oppressed” students were allowed to leave early for lunch and when the “oppressors” attempted to defend themselves, a social media campaign was later launched (presumably by older siblings) to encourage “oppressors” to self-harm. Can you imagine the school’s liability for such a careless and reckless lesson had any child harmed themselves?
Constituent surveys indicate 66 percent of Hamilton County respondents are in favor of banning divisive concepts in the classroom and 77 percent are in favor of curriculum transparency. Hopefully educators realize that lobbying against anti-discrimination legislation is the same as supporting discrimination. This is breaking down what little trust remains in the public education system. As a parent, it is my responsibility to protect my student’s Constitutional Rights in the classroom.
Jennifer Hendrix
Carmel
Any and every means available to all decent people must be used to eliminate racism. Shaming children who were taught discrimination by their misguided parents or other adults is not a useful tactic. Getting the children together to understand they are the same, just people, may be a better approach.