Email This to a Friend:

August 31, 2006

More on the Massive Attack on Freedom of Speech in California

My recent post on this subject is generating a lot of interest. To recap, Gov. Schwartzennegger has just signed bill SB 1441, that ties funding to a repression of free speech in all schools, public and private:

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has tossed out all sexual moral conduct codes at colleges, private and Christian schools, daycare centers and other facilities throughout his state, if the institutions have any students who get state assistance.

The governor yesterday signed a bill that would require all businesses and groups receiving state funding -- even if it's a state grant for a student -- to condone homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality.

One of the responses to the post was sheer disbelief. From comments posted on Digg:

Inaccurate as hell. Please pass it on.

...and:

There is a bill out there, waiting for his signature. I hope this is inaccurate or it will be headed for the Supreme Court.

(A quick trip to Google news turns up numerous confirming articles.)

Another response has been well-considered. One of my favorite bloggers, Rob Port at Say Anything, has posted a discussion of the article. An excerpt:

A Violation Of The Establishment Clause?

I don't think this [links to my post] probably is.

Here is the establishment clause of the 1st amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

...If these schools/religious organizations fail to condone homosexuality, etc. the state of California won't close them down, they'll simply withhold funding. These schools and religious organizations would be free to continue to exist, but they wouldn't get government funding.

In the comments, Rob adds:

The government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion. Nothing says they have to fund it.

Rob appears to agree with me in principal on the issue, but just questions whether the bill is unconstitutional:

Personally, I don't exactly like the idea of government bullying private schools and organizations in this manner, but this is the situation we have left ourselves in by becoming so dependent upon money from the government.

I agree with Rob on almost everything, and as always he's making great points here.

The argument, of course, turns on the meaning of the word "prohibit," and says, the government isn't prohibiting something by defunding it. A reasonable argument.

But I would respond that it needs to be remembered that the the subject of sexuality is only one of hundreds or thousands that is taught in schools. By legislating that all funding for the school as a whole will be removed if the school does not teach the view demanded by the state on one specific subject, the bill leverages the full financial power of the state against one single issue. The school must lose all its state funding, and all its students who receive loans from the state, or teach a view that the state demands. This overwhelming leverage may be considered prohibitive.

Now, let's turn to the freedom of speech issue, which Rob did not address, and which cannot be denied. When the subject comes up in class, schools are ordered to say something the state demands, even if the teachers themselves do not believe it, or lose state funding. This is not equivalent to saying that public schools may not say anything good about religion, as has previously been demanded under the false interpretation of the establishment clause of the Constitution. This goes far beyond that, by suppressing all discussion within a school on one side of the subject, and permitting only views approved by the state to be spoken aloud. Under this bill, the expression of a view on this subject that is not permitted by the state, will have dire consequences. And this is on a subject about which reasonable people in this country disagree. This is a massive and insupportable attack on freedom of speech, and it must not stand.

In practice, it will inevitably lead to schools being forced, not only not to say a view that contradicts that of the state, but to actively say things that the teachers do not believe. This is because, under the bill, only those supporting the state-approved view on this subject, will be able to speak their minds. All others would not be permitted to speak their minds. If they do they will meet massive, overwhelming punishment in the form of defunding by the state. Yet the subject will come up in class. It is inevitable that in practice the institutions would be forced to demand that all professors "profess" to believe as the state demands, whether they do or not. It's completely unsupportable under the freedom of speech guarantees of our Constitution.

Finally, lets turn to the so-called discrimination issue. Proponents of the bill argue that it's a matter of eliminating discrimination against homosexuals.

Here's how Randy Thomasson, President of the Campaign for Children and Families, put it in a debate yesterday carried on Fox TV:

It's a deception to say this is about quote unquote discrimination. Look who's being victimized: Christian colleges, day care centers, even after school programs. If they take a dime of state money, and we're talking about state scholarships for students, we're talking about child care vouchers for single moms, those institutions, those colleges, those schools, will no longer be able to say or uphold the standards that they support for marriage, family, and sexuality. Mr. Kors' bill is basically gonna force Christian colleges to hire men dressed up as women as professors, and this is a gigantic clash between church and state, and the religious values are being swept asunder by the gay activists' agenda. It's absolutely intolerant.

Video of Debate between Randy Thomasson and Geoffrey Kors.

The bill itself is discriminating against people based on their beliefs. It's discriminating against people based on their religion. It's discriminating against all who don't believe as the state demands. It discriminates against all who want to teach their children that being homosexual isn't appropriate for them. As an audience member shown in the above video puts it, to applause:

Well you know, I feel sexual orientation is nothing like the color of your skin, or nationality, and I get sick of it getting shoved down my throat.  

So the discrimination argument is full of holes because the bill itself is discriminating against millions of people.

This bill has got to be challenged on freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and establishment clause grounds.