[ABANDONED] Nonpartisanship in Education

[Tinhampton]

Character count: 3,221
Word count: 505

Lydia Anderson, Assistant to the Delegate-Ambassador: Following is a bill to prevent students from being brainwashed into following Communist doctrine by their teachers. Tinhamptonians in the know refer to this as Action Civics...

OOC:

• A proposal to ban the teaching of action civics in schools. This will likely be submitted a few months from now, if not later.
• Not inspired by anything from the Arrellyooenn, lol . See also Maine HP 350 [which was defeated only because Maine's State House Democrats unanimously opposed it], Texas HB 3979 [in particular Sections (h-3)(1), (h-3)(2), and (h-3)(3)], the first four paragraphs of Section B of Stanley Kurtz' Partisanship Out of Civics Act, and to some extent Sections 406-407 of Britannia's Education Act 1996.
• I do not believe that a ban on "Critical Race Theory" in schools which has been bolted onto many such bills is likely to pass the World Assembly in almost any circumstances, or is indeed anything more substantial than a Republican Party (or otherwise Gabbardite ) concern.

Nonpartisanship in Education
A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.

Category: Political Stability

Strength: Mild

Proposed by: Tinhampton

---

Whereas the job of teachers should be to educate rather than indoctrinate, the General Assembly hereby:

1. defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
   
   1. a "newsworthy event" as any event that is ongoing or has recently occurred, is currently the subject of much public discussion and is relevant to the governance and management of any member state (including any political subdivision of a member state) or the World Assembly,
   2. "relevant people" in a particular school as anybody who is employed by that school, otherwise works at that school, or is a student at that school, and
   3. "political activities" as expressing support or opposition for:
      
      • any proposal currently being considered (or which has previously been considered) by the World Assembly, any nation, or any national political subdivision,
      • any decision that has already been made (or will be made at a confirmed future date) or ordered by any court established by the World Assembly or by any nation,
      • the election of any candidate or slate of candidates standing for any elected position anywhere in the multiverse, or for
      • any option offered in a referendum organised anywhere in the multiverse, whether binding or non-binding,
2. requires that all individuals who teach their students about any newsworthy event as part of those students' primary, secondary or tertiary education present that event in a manner that does not privilege, disparage, praise or criticise any viewpoint which has achieved prominence in the public discussion of that event, where such presentation does not constitute:
   
   1. the presentation of something that is evidently false, such as the value of a particular mathematical constant, as being true,
   2. the promotion of war crimes and crimes against humanity (including terrorism, genocide, torture, slavery and human trafficking),
   3. the promotion of the illegal killing of any person, including the violation of any person's right to sexual autonomy, or
   4. the promotion of any activity that has been made illegal under those pieces of international law that may be active at the time such presentation occurs,
3. requires member states to forbid relevant people from engaging in political activities while they are at their school or an event organised by their school, and
4. clarifies that Article c must not be read as:
   
   1. preventing relevant people from engaging in political activities while out of their school and not at an event organised by it,
   2. requiring or forbidding relevant people to hold any opinion about any subject in any location,
   3. regulating elections or referenda held solely for the use and benefit of members of a particular school, such as elections to a school council,
   4. forbidding students at a particular school from lobbying for or against changes to their school's policies, such as its uniform requirements,
   5. outlawing the discussion or debate by relevant people of anything for which expressing support or opposition would count as a political activity, or as
   6. restricting the regular activities of trade unions, such as strike ballots and the delivery of union communications, in schools.

Whereas the job of teachers should be to educate rather than indoctrinate, the General Assembly hereby:

1. defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
   
   1. a "newsworthy event" as any event that is ongoing or has recently occurred, is currently the subject of much public discussion and is relevant to the governance and management of any member state or the World Assembly,
   2. a "teacher" as any individual who is employed by any entity to educate one or more students as part of those students' primary, secondary, or tertiary education, and who acts in the course of their duties as such, and
   3. "political activities" as expressing support or opposition for:
      
      • any proposal currently being considered (or which has previously been considered) by the World Assembly, any nation, or any national political subdivision,
      • any decision that has already been made (or will be made at a confirmed future date) or ordered by any court established by the World Assembly or by any nation,
      • the election of any candidate or slate of candidates standing for any elected position anywhere in the multiverse, or for
      • any option offered in a referendum organised anywhere in the multiverse, whether binding or non-binding,
2. declares that no teacher shall be required by any entity, including by the member state where they work, to teach their students about any newsworthy event,
3. clarifies that, notwithstanding Article b, all teachers opting to teach their students about any newsworthy event must present that event in a manner that does not privilege, disparage, praise or criticise any viewpoint which has achieved prominence in the public discussion of that event, where such presentation does not constitute the promotion of:
   
   1. war crimes and crimes against humanity (including terrorism, genocide, torture, slavery and human trafficking),
   2. the illegal killing of any person, including the violation of any person's right to sexual autonomy, or
   3. any activity that has been made illegal under those pieces of international law that may be active at the time such presentation occurs,
4. further clarifies that the activities of trade unions in schools and universities are not political activities in themselves, and
5. requires member states to forbid school staff from engaging in political activities while they are at their school or an event organised by their school. For clarity, this article must not be read as to prevent such individuals from engaging in political activities while out of their school and not at an event organised by it, nor from holding any opinion about any subject in any location.

[Bananaistan]

“Only an absolute imbecile would permit teachers to make up their own curricula. Opposed.

“Also GAR#80. Nations are required to educate their citizens about politics. The idea that the Party would have to organise separate political schools is ridiculous and needlessly expensive.”

[Brezzia]

"The Brezzian delegation is disgusted by this clumsy reactionary attempt by the bourgeoisie to prevent the development of critical thinking in the younger generation. This proposal demonstrates to the Assembly that the objective of Capital is the alienation of individuals in order to transform them into non-thinking consumers. Free peoples like the Brezzian one can only oppose the slimy apologists for the exploitation of man by man."

[Goobergunchia]

We cannot support any proposal that would restrict nondisruptive student speech while on campus, or the ability of educators to collectively bargain and elect representatives for that purpose.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador

[Hulldom]

We cannot support any proposal that would restrict nondisruptive student speech while on campus, or the ability of educators to collectively bargain and elect representatives for that purpose.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador

“We agree wholeheartedly with the Goobergunchian Ambassador.”

[Tinhampton]

Anderson: Mister Hornwood, the resolution on Promot[ing] Basic Education requires members to endow upon their citizens "a familiarity with their nation’s governmental policies, processes, civics, rights and freedoms;" it says nothing about whether members - or, more precisely, teachers at state schools - should be entitled to present to their citizens the Sex Trafficking Reduction Bill in a favourable light and the Decriminalisation of Prostitution Bill in an unfavourable light. My proposal would forbid the aforementioned practices.
In response to the concerns of Evif and company, Article d now applies only to "school staff," not to "students, teachers and other school staff." An Article d on union activities not necessarily being political activities has also been added. These combinations have led me to move this proposal from being Significant to Mild.

OOC: I believe I wrote this draft before Texas HB 3979 (and, more sneakily, Kurtz's POC Bill) were both amended to include prohibitions on school staff teaching "that slavery and racism are anything other than deviations from, betrayals of, or failures to live up to, the authentic founding principles of the United States" along with other Critical Race Theory concepts. Nonetheless, Article c(i) applies and this proposal is not intended to cover CRT concepts.

[Araraukar]

OOC: So you're wanting to make a teacher refusing to follow curriculum just fine and peachy exactly why?

In other words, good gods, woman, what kind of vacuum did you go to school in? How did you learn about politics if ongoing/current events weren't used as examples???

And what are "trade unions" in d.?

And does e. cover politics in student council elections? Why forbid teachers from partaking them in any shape or form? Or debate classes when political topic is used? Last bit of iii. (due to "a referendum" not being defined) would include ANY voting, like raising hands in class to indicate which amusement park you want your class wants to gather money to go to.

[Tinhampton]

IC: A reference to pupils being forbidden from engaging to political lobbying has been indirectly re-inserted by Delegate-Ambassador Alexander Smith. See below for OOC reasoning in relevant part. Everything below this line is OOC.

Regarding Araraukar:

1. OOC: So you're wanting to make a teacher refusing to follow curriculum just fine and peachy exactly why?

   
   See preamble. In any event, Article b (former contents: "declares that no teacher shall be required by any entity, including by the member state where they work, to teach their students about any newsworthy event") has been very reluctantly* removed to avoid further, potentially highly significant backlash. I am open to introducing a reworked Article b, which would require that school curricula not require the teaching of newsworthy events, if there is sufficient support for it.
   
   *Extremely OOC: If you click on "Partisanship Out of Civics Act" in my OP, and then click on the second "here" in the Editor's Note, you will be redirected to an article written in the National Review by the author of the POC Act in which he asserts that - at least in an American context - "[c]ivics can be taught perfectly well without invoking current controversies." Section h(2) of this year's Texas House Bill 3979, also linked in OP, emphasises the understanding by students of "the founding documents of the United States," "historical documents related to the civic accomplishments of marginalized populations," and major documents authored by defenders of the American civil rights movement in civics education. There is a world of difference between this and going out and telling pupils to take part in a Black Lives Matter protest or a School Strike for Climate or a March for our Lives or a Women's March - or hell, even another January 6th!

   ---

2. In other words, good gods, woman, what kind of vacuum did you go to school in?

   
   One of the bagged ones; Dysons didn't go on sale until 1992 or thereabouts.

   ---

3. And what are "trade unions" in d.?

   
   Trade unions.

   ---

4. And does e. cover politics in student council elections? Why forbid teachers from partaking them in any shape or form?

   
   Because they're student council elections. As far as I remember, my school's SC elections had no teacher participation; my daughter's SC elections certainly didn't.

   ---

5. Or debate classes when political topic is used?

   
   "[D]ebate classes" are supposed to facilitate debate, rather than sheepish nodding. It is in nobody's interest for such clubs - for example - to organise so-called debates on whether "Araraukar is a systematically racist country!" where the only resources given by the organiser are overwhelmingly in support of that claim. I did not consider this when writing what is now Article b, but I am now increasingly confident in its ability to ensure that fair and open debates (in schools) remain fair and open - not lopsided.

   ---

6. Last bit of iii. (due to "a referendum" not being defined) would include ANY voting, like raising hands in class to indicate which amusement park you want your class wants to gather money to go to.

   
   Good spot - I've added an Article d(iii) to clarify that "elections or referenda held solely for the use and benefit of members of a particular school" are not covered by Article c's restrictions (as well as an Article d(iv) to prevent any possible "chilling effects" in relation to students lobbying for or against non-partisan school policies, i.e. banning schoolgirls from wearing skirts).
   
   I do not intend to go any softer on Article c's provisions unless there is a good reason to do so. My intention with this proposal, and in particular Article c, is to remove action civics from the curriculum of all schools in member states. Refer (for example) to Pages 13-14 and 35-42 of this excellent briefing paper by Thomas Lindsay, in which campaigns about "raising the minimum wage/putting body cameras on officers," at least two gun violence-related walkouts, the hoisting of "[p]osters displaying #NoBanNoWall, lobbying against gentrification, mass incarceration, and gun violence," and a slew of climate change-related projects are all offered as among twenty-seven "Examples of Action Civics Projects Provided by Generation Citizen and its Allies." If students want to lobby for or against particular political causes, they should do so on their own time - not while they are supposed to be learning.

And done just in time for Charlotte Hawkins' Smooth Classics at Seven, too...

[Potted Plants United]

OOC: So what are trade unions? In school setting. EU is pretty much a trade union or started that way at least but I don't think that's what you actually mean. Do you mean workers' unions? Also called labour unions I think?

[Bears Armed]

OOC: So what are trade unions? In school setting. EU is pretty much a trade union or started that way at least but I don't think that's what you actually mean. Do you mean workers' unions? Also called labour unions I think?

OOC: Yes, in the UK those are -- and AFAIK have been since they were invented -- called 'Trade Unions'. Presumably it's by analogy with the older 'Trade Guilds'.

[Potted Plants United]

OOC: So what are trade unions? In school setting. EU is pretty much a trade union or started that way at least but I don't think that's what you actually mean. Do you mean workers' unions? Also called labour unions I think?

OOC: Yes, in the UK those are -- and AFAIK have been since they were invented -- called 'Trade Unions'. Presumably it's by analogy with the older 'Trade Guilds'.

OOC: I don't think I've ever run into those words in that meaning. Or at least never known that that was the meaning of the words. Trade is trading. (More serously, "workers' union" might be more universal wording for it?) But why are they singled out and other political rights organizations are kept out in the dark?

And unrelated to that, why is critical thinking teaching being banned? "[Teacher must teach about current events] in a manner that does not privilege, disparage, praise or criticise any viewpoint". Seriously? Why not just ban teaching favouritism and instead require teaching of critical thinking so that the kids learn to think for themselves instead of believing the Brexiteers propagandists promising them impossibly good things following them supporting their current holy cow, because I assume that is the point? The rest of that clause sounds odd too, as it sounds like you supporting Creationism and Flat-Earthers and other pseudosciences, if teachers aren't allowed to tell the kids that hogwash is hogwash no matter how many thumbs ups it gets in Youtube. EDIT: In this latter bit the "you" is Tin, not Bears. Also you can remove "Ara" from the RL blab before the proposal, I never pay that any attention (only noticed it mentioning me when it was pointed out to me).

[Tinhampton]

The player behind this nation is British and is prone to using British English with remarkable frequency.

Whether mankind was created by God or evolved from another species, and whether the Earth is flat or round, are not matters that have any bearing on "the governance and management of any member state (including any political subdivision of a member state) or the World Assembly" and are therefore not newsworthy events. (The only IRL exceptions I can think of are Tennessee's ban on teaching evolution and Indiana's attempt to recognise pi as equalling three.) They are matters of fact and fiction that should be disproved accordingly; Article b(i) has therefore been added in the interim.

RE critical thinking education: I've been considering drafting a resolution about that (and similar) for a number of weeks, yes.

[Potted Plants United]

OOC: Creationism being taught instead of theory of evolution was definitely very much a newsworthy thing some years ago in RL, and might still be in some nation(s). But any more comments will have to wait until later. Brain just gave me lights out warning.

[Waldenes]

The Ambassador from Waldenes looks down at the resolution, looks back up, then down again in a double take.

“... HUH? ...” is about the only word he could muster before frowning. “Opposed!”

[Brezzia]

*Extremely OOC: If you click on "Partisanship Out of Civics Act" in my OP, and then click on the second "here" in the Editor's Note, you will be redirected to an article written in the National Review by the author of the POC Act in which he asserts that - at least in an American context - "[c]ivics can be taught perfectly well without invoking current controversies."

Why should the "American context" be an example for all the nations, so different from each other, of NationStates? Who determines that civics are "taught perfectly well"?

Section h(2) of this year's Texas House Bill 3979, also linked in OP, emphasises the understanding by students of "the founding documents of the United States," "historical documents related to the civic accomplishments of marginalized populations," and major documents authored by defenders of the American civil rights movement in civics education.

In the "American context", is the teaching of these "major documents" consistent with the onslaught of the legislature by armed nationalists fomented by the outgoing president?

Whether mankind was created by God or evolved from another species, and whether the Earth is flat or round, are not matters that have any bearing on "the governance and management of any member state (including any political subdivision of a member state) or the World Assembly"

How can a nation allocate funding for space exploration or even just produce nautical charts without knowing "whether the Earth is flat or round"?

and are therefore not newsworthy events.

Isn't any topic of discussion at national or local level a noteworthy event (nationally or locally)?

[Tinhampton]

*Extremely OOC: If you click on "Partisanship Out of Civics Act" in my OP, and then click on the second "here" in the Editor's Note, you will be redirected to an article written in the National Review by the author of the POC Act in which he asserts that - at least in an American context - "[c]ivics can be taught perfectly well without invoking current controversies."

Why should the "American context" be an example for all the nations, so different from each other, of NationStates? Who determines that civics are "taught perfectly well"?

If all GA resolutions had to be based off completely original ideas with no foundation in any real-world concept whatsoever, we would not have progressed past The World Assembly... we might have never even gotten that, either, because it was only passed as a direct result of the collapse of the old Yooenn.

Section h(2) of this year's Texas House Bill 3979, also linked in OP, emphasises the understanding by students of "the founding documents of the United States," "historical documents related to the civic accomplishments of marginalized populations," and major documents authored by defenders of the American civil rights movement in civics education.

In the "American context", is the teaching of these "major documents" consistent with the onslaught of the legislature by armed nationalists fomented by the outgoing president?

I was trying to argue that there is a difference between what most Americans recognise as classic civics and modern-day "action civics" - not that the two are somehow indistinguishable.

Whether mankind was created by God or evolved from another species, and whether the Earth is flat or round, are not matters that have any bearing on "the governance and management of any member state (including any political subdivision of a member state) or the World Assembly"

How can a nation allocate funding for space exploration or even just produce nautical charts without knowing "whether the Earth is flat or round"?

Article b applies only to teachers in schools. It does not apply to scientific researchers or those who fund research and development.

and are therefore not newsworthy events.

Isn't any topic of discussion at national or local level a noteworthy event (nationally or locally)?

The term "newsworthy event" (not "noteworthy") has a very specific definition that can be found in Article a(i) of this proposal.

[Brezzia]

If all GA resolutions had to be based off completely original ideas with no foundation in any real-world concept whatsoever, we would not have progressed past The World Assembly... we might have never even gotten that, either, because it was only passed as a direct result of the collapse of the old Yooenn.

World Assembly is a supranational entity like the UN. Why should it take inspiration from national or sub-national laws (Maine, Texas) for its resolutions? Furthermore, this resolution is not based on real-world concepts, but on real-world existing laws.

I was trying to argue that there is a difference between what most Americans recognise as classic civics and modern-day "action civics" - not that the two are somehow indistinguishable.

Why would classical civics be better than modern-day "action civics"? Time ago, the laws of segregation and apartheid were classic civics, while the movements against them were modern-day "action civics".

Article b applies only to teachers in schools. It does not apply to scientific researchers or those who fund research and development.

How can a nation train aerospace engineers if they cannot learn that the earth is round unless flat-earth is also taught in school? Do they have to wait to enter university? Or do they have to graduate first?

The term "newsworthy event" (not "noteworthy")

Sorry for the huge misspelling.

has a very specific definition that can be found in Article a(i) of this proposal.

Isn't any topic of discussion at national or local level a newsworthy event (nationally or locally)?

Following is a bill to prevent students from being brainwashed into following Communist doctrine by their teachers. Tinhamptonians in the know refer to this as Action Civics...

Your declared purpose is the repression of a political faction. Why don't you write a resolution that openly pursues that goal? Why should you disguise it with a proposal to "save our children"?

[Bears Armed]

Why don't you write a resolution that openly pursues that goal? Why should you disguise it with a proposal to "save our children"?

Why was a proposed [& subsequently passed] resolution that effectively prohibited the use of capital punishment called 'Protection of Innocents', even though -- bearing in mind existing GA legislation on fair trials -- it's quite likely that most of the people spared from execution under its terms would actually have been guilty? Why was a proposed [& subsequently passed] resolution in support of abortion called 'Reproductive Rights', when it was actually more a matter of 'Rights Not To Reproduce'? Authors sometimes choose "fluffier" options rather than more accurate ones in order to attract more support for their works...

[Illu-chi]

Full support. Will it actually pass? Doubt it.

[Brezzia]

Why don't you write a resolution that openly pursues that goal? Why should you disguise it with a proposal to "save our children"?

Why was a proposed [& subsequently passed] resolution that effectively prohibited the use of capital punishment called 'Protection of Innocents', even though -- bearing in mind existing GA legislation on fair trials -- it's quite likely that most of the people spared from execution under its terms would actually have been guilty? Why was a proposed [& subsequently passed] resolution in support of abortion called 'Reproductive Rights', when it was actually more a matter of 'Rights Not To Reproduce'?

Dear Ambassador, why are you asking these questions? Why to this delegation? Why now? You could have looked for answers from the authors of those proposed long ago.
Let me remind you that the fair trial is not meant to prevent the innocent from being punished for mistakes, but from being intentionally punished.Errare humanum est, therefore there is retrial. Regarding the use of capital punishment, it is pure barbarism.
Moving topic, Ambassador, do you argue that the Right Not To Reproduce is not part of Reproductive Rights? Doesn't a woman have the right to decide whether to reproduce, with whom to reproduce, when to reproduce, how to reproduce? All of these are Reproductive Rights.
Ambassador, you refer to the titles of these proposals, but they probably reported references to capital punishment and abortion in their texts in order to be effective. The author of this proposal aims to suppress the workers' struggle for their freedom, but they do not mention this vile repression neither in the title nor in the text of his proposal, which would affect not only the fight of the working class, but also the fight of the petite bourgeoisie against the haute bourgeoisie.

Authors sometimes choose "fluffier" options rather than more accurate ones in order to attract more support for their works...

Dear Ambassador, you say "in order to attract more support for their works", but we all know in this Assembly that you mean "in order to hide one's nefarious ends".
Furthermore, this delegation must blame your clumsy attempt to divert the attention of this Assembly from the subject of this proposal. Do the alleged mistakes of others justify someone's knowing mistakes?

[Herby]

Ehhhh what? Do you realize if this were to pass you’d be outlawing Model WA competitions?

[Bautizar]

... whether the Earth is flat or round, are not matters that have any bearing on "the governance and management of any member state (including any political subdivision of a member state) or the World Assembly" and are therefore not newsworthy events ... They are matters of fact and fiction that should be disproved accordingly; Article b(i) has therefore been added in the interim.

I believe anyone who has to utilize maps and charts on a routine and regular basis - fishermen, navigators on warships and commercial cargo vessels, and airplane pilots, to name a few - would beg to disagree. Considering that the regulation of trade and commerce, to include regulation of shipping and aviation corridors, is very much the business of the state ... need I go on?

[CoraSpia]

"Although the Havenic government supports this proposal in principle, we feel that certain exceptions ought to be added to article D in order to not prejudice certain activities that enrich the political education of students in a non-partisan way.

For example, staff should not be prohibited from arranging hustings or other debates between candidates for elected office at a time close to an election, so long as the husting or debate is carried out in a non-partisan way which does not provide advantage to one or more candidates over others.
Furthermore, staff should not be prohibited from arranging school trips to places of political interest, such as the legislature or world assembly debating chambers or providing for simulations of the activities which go on in these places.
Additionally, staff should not be prevented from assisting students of voting age to cast their votes should they require this help, for example through disability or as a result of coercive pressure on the part of family members."

[Scalizagasti]

"The Scalizagastian delegation is absolutely opposed to any form of this legislation. Not only does it, in our opinion, allow the World Assembly to interfere in school curricula more than we believe it ought to, it also has drastic and negative impacts towards free speech in general. There is absolutely no reason why political party campus clubs should be banned internationally, for instance. If a government acts contrary to the interest of students, do the students not have a right to express their discontent on-campus? Will the state place secret police in high school lunchrooms to detain a group of teenagers discussing the news among themselves?"

[Tinhampton]

Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: In my view, the provisions of this proposal are unsalvageable. I have therefore instructed Mrs Anderson to withdraw this proposal from further consideration and perhaps consider working on something more useful in the meanwhile.