[PASSED] Educational Equality Act

[Goobergunchia]

Ooc: This is a redraft of the now-repealed GA #603 I worked on with Evinea. As they contributed both to the original resolution, and to this draft, they have been cited as a co-author.

Other notes,
-The definition of "school" itself is unchanged; however the requirements for schools are. This means that while all schools still have to provide the resources, and to take action against harassment/hate speech, they no longer all have to provide the Section 3 education. Instead, that is mandated as part of a national curriculum requirement; so as long as every student is taught all the relevant materials at some point, that is sufficient, even if it does not happen in every individual school.
-The scope is now changed to all forms of discrimination and bigotry, rather than merely those against LGBTIQA+. This is reflected by the title change, as well as the new preamble.
-I am aware that Minskiev was drafting a replacement themselves for the resolution. However, the thread has been inactive since the repeal passed in January, hence I have posted this thread.

Discrimination and harassment against protected classes in schools, such as targeting of minority students and discriminatory hate speech, is a widespread problem in some member nations, denying such students a safe and healthy education experience. Such discrimination and harassment can also create undue pressure on minority students to conceal their identity or minority status. However, some schools still take little to no action against discrimination within their schools, or merely engage in "lip service" against discrimination in the absence of strong legislation protecting minority groups in education. The World Assembly thus enacts as follows,

1. For the purposes of this resolution, these terms are defined as follows,
   
   1. A "school" is defined as an institution designed for the organised education of students by providing learning spaces and environments.
      
      
   2. A "protected class" is any social categorisation implicitly or explicitly defined by World Assembly law as arbitrary or reductive, or which is protected as such under national or subnational law.
      
      
   3. "Hate speech" is defined as public speech which expresses or promotes, whether explicitly or implicitly, hate or discrimination towards a protected class; this includes, but is not limited to, the use of slurs against said class.
2. Every school must actively and continuously work to prevent, and take action against, any instances within the scope of said school's authority of (a) hate speech, or (b) harassment of individuals based on their real or perceived membership of a protected class. Every school must also encourage its students to report and try to stop such acts should they occur. However, this provision shall not be interpreted as prohibiting the use of examples of hate speech for educational purposes, so long as this occurs in a manner which does not construe such hate speech as correct or legitimate.
   
   
3. Every school must offer resources to its students to
   
   1. assist them in coming to terms with their belonging to a protected class;
      
      
   2. help them overcome harassment or discrimination for their real or perceived membership of a protected class; and
      
      
   3. otherwise support its students' mental health from issues involving said students' real or perceived membership in a protected class, including discrimination motivated thereby.
4. Every member nation must prescribe, as part of a mandatory curriculum for all its students under the age of majority, regardless of whether relevant schools are publicly owned, and in a manner appropriate to said students' age, an understanding of discrimination against protected classes in said member nation, including
   
   1. the subjects, forms, and prevalence of discrimination in the present day, including recognising such discrimination, how and why it is unjust, and the impacts of various types of discrimination;
      
      
   2. any history in that member nation of discrimination against protected classes, regardless of state-enforced nature or lack thereof in such discrimination; and
      
      
   3. how such students can personally act to prevent or otherwise halt observed acts of discrimination or harassment against individuals based on their protected class status.
5. All member nations must prohibit schools under their jurisdiction from discriminating against their students on the basis of their real or perceived membership of a protected class.

Co-author: Evinea

[The Ice States]

Discrimination and harassment against protected classes in schools, such as targeting of minority students and discriminatory hate speech, is a widespread problem in some member nations, denying such students a safe and healthy education experience. Such discrimination and harassment can also create undue pressure on minority students to conceal their identity or minority status. However, some schools still take little to no action against discrimination within their schools, or merely engage in "lip service" against discrimination in the absence of strong legislation protecting minority groups in education. The World Assembly thus enacts as follows,

1. For the purposes of this resolution, these terms are defined as follows,
   
   1. A "school" is defined as an institution designed for the organised education of students by providing learning spaces and environments.
      
      
   2. A "protected class" is any social categorisation implicitly or explicitly defined by World Assembly law as arbitrary or reductive, or which is protected as such under national or subnational law.
      
      
   3. "Hate speech" is defined as public speech which expresses, whether explicitly or implicitly, hate or discrimination towards a certain group; this includes, but is not limited to, the use of slurs against said group.
2. Every school must actively and continuously work to prevent, and take action against, any instances within the scope of said school's authority of (a) hate speech, or (b) harassment of individuals based on their real or perceived membership of a protected class. Every school must also encourage its students to report and try to stop such acts should they occur. However, this provision shall not be interpreted as prohibiting the use of examples of hate speech for educational purposes, so long as this occurs in a manner which does not construe such hate speech as correct or legitimate.
   
   
3. Every school must offer resources to its students to
   
   1. assist them in coming to terms with their belonging to a protected class;
      
      
   2. help them deal with harassment or discrimination for their real or perceived membership of a protected class; and
      
      
   3. otherwise support its students' mental health from issues involving said students' real or perceived membership in a protected class, including discrimination motivated thereby.
4. Every member nation must prescribe, as part of a mandatory curriculum for all its students under the age of majority, regardless of whether relevant schools are publicly owned, and in a manner appropriate to said students' age, an understanding of discrimination against protected classes in said member nation, including
   
   1. what protected classes are most often subject to discrimination;
      
      
   2. the forms discrimination against protected classes can take, including recognising such discrimination, and how and why such discrimination is unjust; and
      
      
   3. how such students can personally work to halt, end, or otherwise prevent discrimination against protected classes.
5. All member nations must prohibit schools under their jurisdiction from discriminating against students on the basis of their real or perceived membership of a protected class.

[Aivintis]

I'm not really a GA person, nor do I think I will ever be great at it, but I saw this in the "latest forum topics" and gave it a read, so I do have some comments.

For one, I'm wondering if "lip service" is too informal a term in that preamble. I mean, like, you could say "protect it only in name and not in practice" or something more like that - sure, it takes more characters, but it's more official, I feel. Same with "deal with", I think it would be better as "overcome discrimination and harassment."

One major thing I noticed here, is that it's more focused on bullying by other students, and doesn't address much on institutional equality. Like, for example, denying spots in universities, or denying scholarships, or school sports (a big issue IRL is trans participation in sports, although to be fair that is an issue probably too controversial to be a small part of a bigger proposal) or stuff like that. I mean unless that's already another GA resolution.

I also feel like the mandatory curriculum thing could be tweaked a little. I'd be in favor of it including something about, say, "the member nation's history of discrimination and oppression of certain minority groups". Also maybe combining "the forms of discrimination" and "what minority groups" as "the subjects, forms, and prevalence of discrimination in the present day" or something similar. I also am hesitant on "how such students can personally work to halt, end, or otherwise prevent discrimination against minority groups." Or rather, I guess, more on the wording. Because no one can really work to "halt" or "end" discrimination, unless they specifically end up in careers which can. Instead, maybe focus more on the last verb there, "prevent" and do something maybe like "how such students can be more sensitive of the challenges facing discriminated minority groups" or "how such students can be more sensitive of minority status and act to prevent observed harassment". Or something like that. I don't know.

Again, not a GA guy. I do like the leftist indoctrination tho

[The Ice States]

I've updated the definition per comments by Cessarea and Wallenburg on the Discord. Regarding Aivintis' comments, I also intend on addressing that but it may take longer to do so (hopefully it will be done also by today!)

[Juansonia]

"Strongly opposed to clause 2-Alfa. The right to free expression does not end at the schoolhouse doors, especially those which are administered publically."
- Maria-Fernanda Novo, WA Ambassador for the Armed Republic of Juansonia

[Honeydewistania]

Micromanaging schools is still a bad idea in 2023.

assist them in accepting and coming to terms with their belonging to a protected class;

I don't believe schools should be in the business of doing this. And in any case, it is way too one-size-fits-all. Given the fluidity of gender, schools being legally-bound to make students 'accept' their belonging to a certain protected class may hinder their journey. Also, do prostitutes count as a protected class in this resolution due to the wide-ranging protections of Sex Worker Protections Act?

[The Ice States]

Micromanaging schools is still a bad idea in 2023.

assist them in accepting and coming to terms with their belonging to a protected class;

I don't believe schools should be in the business of doing this... Also, do prostitutes count as a protected class in this resolution due to the wide-ranging protections of Sex Worker Protections Act?

I am going to reply to this as if I were to assume good faith. Can you please explain why you "don't believe schools should be in the business of doing this"? Regarding Sex Worker Protections Act, I'm not sure how legalising something automatically makes anyone participating part of a "protected class" under the definition. You could make the same argument regarding, say, abortion practitioners or journalists, so it strikes me as very selective to single out sex work for this argument. The closest SWPA does is the hate crime and violence requirements in Section 5, which are quite clearly limited to "hate crime and violence". However this resolution does not make anything a criminal offence, it merely requires schools to take action against such acts (inter alia).

And in any case, it is way too one-size-fits-all. Given the fluidity of gender, schools being legally-bound to make students 'accept' their belonging to a certain protected class may hinder their journey.

This is a good point and I have amended the draft to hopefully address this.

[Honeydewistania]

I am going to reply to this as if I were to assume good faith. Can you please explain why you "don't believe schools should be in the business of doing this"? Regarding Sex Worker Protections Act, I'm not sure how legalising something automatically makes anyone participating part of a "protected class" under the definition. You could make the same argument regarding, say, abortion practitioners or journalists, so it strikes me as very selective to single out sex work for this argument. The closest SWPA does is the hate crime and violence requirements in Section 5, which are quite clearly limited to "hate crime and violence". However this resolution does not make anything a criminal offence, it merely requires schools to take action against such acts (inter alia).

Thank you for the clarification. I only pointed out sex work due to 'each state must address hate crime and violence against an individual motivated by that individual's employment or self-employment as a sex worker with the same haste and severity as any other like hate crime declared under relevant national or international law'.

[Tinhampton]

There is no reason to clarify that private schools are included in Article 4. Private schools are schools as per Article 1a and the remaining mandates on schools are quite clearly laid to "every school".

[The Ice States]

There is no reason to clarify that private schools are included in Article 4. Private schools are schools as per Article 1a and the remaining mandates on schools are quite clearly laid to "every school".

Ooc: The reason is to avoid scenarios where private schools are exempt from national curricula. Other aspects of a national curriculum need not be implemented per this resolution, but I think it is worth explicitly stating that it applies even in such scenarios.

Snip

Thanks for the comments! Most of this should be addressed. As to what I haven't addressed,
-In all honesty, I think the term "lip service" does work best in the preamble for clarity; but I have changed "deal with" to "overcome" as suggested.
-Institutional equality is not addressed as GA #514 largely does so.

For posterity, Section 3 was also rewritten yesterday to add the "educational purposes" exception as requested by Goobergunchia on Discord.

[The Ice States]

Bump.

[The Ice States]

Bump.

[The Ice States]

Absent additional comments I will be submitting next week.

[Tinhampton]

The Fire States has two major football clubs, Northport City Rovers and Wizardfort United. Both clubs are supported by people from all protected classes. On Monday morning, Joe - a ten-year-old NCR fan - goes into school and says "Wizardfort fans are stinky." Supporters of Wizardfort United are a group. Therefore, Joe is engaging in hate speech and must be punished by some means pursuant to Article 2. Is this intended?

[The Ice States]

The Fire States has two major football clubs, Northport City Rovers and Wizardfort United. Both clubs are supported by people from all protected classes. On Monday morning, Joe - a ten-year-old NCR fan - goes into school and says "Wizardfort fans are stinky." Supporters of Wizardfort United are a group. Therefore, Joe is engaging in hate speech and must be punished by some means pursuant to Article 2. Is this intended?

Ooc: Thanks, it is not. I've changed the definition accordingly.

[Second Sovereignty]

[1.c.] "Hate speech" is defined as public speech which expresses, whether explicitly or implicitly, hate or discrimination towards a protected class; this includes, but is not limited to, the use of slurs against said class.

"The Sovereign suggests that the definition include 'speech which expresses, or promotes, whether implicitly or...' you get the idea. These are subtly different things, and the omission of one may well provide opportunity to undercut the mandate. Beyond that," Raxes clicked, "We find this all to be, quite stellar work. I think your preamble is a bit heavy on the amble, but, well, that's immaterial. The Sovereign looks forward to seeing this at vote."

[The Ice States]

[1.c.] "Hate speech" is defined as public speech which expresses, whether explicitly or implicitly, hate or discrimination towards a protected class; this includes, but is not limited to, the use of slurs against said class.

"The Sovereign suggests that the definition include 'speech which expresses, or promotes, whether implicitly or...' you get the idea. These are subtly different things, and the omission of one may well provide opportunity to undercut the mandate. Beyond that," Raxes clicked, "We find this all to be, quite stellar work. I think your preamble is a bit heavy on the amble, but, well, that's immaterial. The Sovereign looks forward to seeing this at vote."

"Thank you for the comments and support, Ambassador. We have amended the definition to include 'or promotes' as suggested."

~Robert Desak,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

[The Ice States]

Ooc: It's been a month now, if there's no further comments I will submit around Monday. I think marking this on Last call would thus be apt.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: Why is the last part of 4a necessary? Debating whether racism, sexism, ableism, et cetera is a more important issue does not seem particularly important.)

[The Ice States]

(OOC: Why is the last part of 4a necessary? Debating whether racism, sexism, ableism, et cetera is a more important issue does not seem particularly important.)

Ooc: I think while obviously all forms of discrimination should be protected against, it is still worth covering the fact that eg racism is a substantial or common issue in a member nation.

[Cessarea]

(OOC: Why is the last part of 4a necessary? Debating whether racism, sexism, ableism, et cetera is a more important issue does not seem particularly important.)

Ooc: I think while obviously all forms of discrimination should be protected against, it is still worth covering the fact that eg racism is a substantial or common issue in a member nation.

OOC: Also worth noting that "racism" can refer to any type of race-based discrimination, not just the most prominent ones. It may be obvious why, say, studying the history of discrimination against blacks in the US is more urgent and should be given more attention than studying the discrimination of whites in the US. The opposite may be true in some other country.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: Why is the last part of 4a necessary? Debating whether racism, sexism, ableism, et cetera is a more important issue does not seem particularly important.)

Ooc: I think while obviously all forms of discrimination should be protected against, it is still worth covering the fact that eg racism is a substantial or common issue in a member nation.

(OOC: Perhaps consider changing “what protected classes are most often subjected to discrimination” to “the impacts of various types of discrimination on the victims”. It has broadly the same effect, but without the idea of making a judgement between different discriminations and deciding which is better or worse.

On a different note, I have rather a large issue with the fifth clause, in that it bans Catholic schools from having only Catholic students, for example. More to the point, it would ban seminaries from accepting only persons of the religion in which the seminary is educating, despite that being the entire point. It also might ban schools for the blind, for the deaf, et cetera, since that would involve discrimination on the basis of disability, or rather lack thereof.)

[Cessarea]

Ooc: I think while obviously all forms of discrimination should be protected against, it is still worth covering the fact that eg racism is a substantial or common issue in a member nation.

(OOC: Perhaps consider changing “what protected classes are most often subjected to discrimination” to “the impacts of various types of discrimination on the victims”. It has broadly the same effect, but without the idea of making a judgement between different discriminations and deciding which is better or worse.

On a different note, I have rather a large issue with the fifth clause, in that it bans Catholic schools from having only Catholic students, for example. More to the point, it would ban seminaries from accepting only persons of the religion in which the seminary is educating, despite that being the entire point. It also might ban schools for the blind, for the deaf, et cetera, since that would involve discrimination on the basis of disability, or rather lack thereof.)

OOC: How does a Catholic school even determine who's a real Catholic? Seems a bit arbitrary. Regardless, I agree, there should be an extra bit of wording clarifying that discriminating in favour of those protected classes is authorised, or something along those lines.

[The Ice States]

Ooc: I think while obviously all forms of discrimination should be protected against, it is still worth covering the fact that eg racism is a substantial or common issue in a member nation.

(OOC: Perhaps consider changing “what protected classes are most often subjected to discrimination” to “the impacts of various types of discrimination on the victims”. It has broadly the same effect, but without the idea of making a judgement between different discriminations and deciding which is better or worse.

On a different note, I have rather a large issue with the fifth clause, in that it bans Catholic schools from having only Catholic students, for example. More to the point, it would ban seminaries from accepting only persons of the religion in which the seminary is educating, despite that being the entire point. It also might ban schools for the blind, for the deaf, et cetera, since that would involve discrimination on the basis of disability, or rather lack thereof.)

Ooc: First part is done. Regarding the second, I do not believe it would do this as individuals yet to be enrolled in the school are not "students" -- I think GA #514 addresses enrolment well enough. I have added "their" to "students" to make this more clear.

[Cessarea]

(OOC: Perhaps consider changing “what protected classes are most often subjected to discrimination” to “the impacts of various types of discrimination on the victims”. It has broadly the same effect, but without the idea of making a judgement between different discriminations and deciding which is better or worse.

On a different note, I have rather a large issue with the fifth clause, in that it bans Catholic schools from having only Catholic students, for example. More to the point, it would ban seminaries from accepting only persons of the religion in which the seminary is educating, despite that being the entire point. It also might ban schools for the blind, for the deaf, et cetera, since that would involve discrimination on the basis of disability, or rather lack thereof.)

Ooc: First part is done. Regarding the second, I do not believe it would do this as individuals yet to be enrolled in the school are not "students" -- I think GA #514 addresses enrolment well enough. I have added "their" to "students" to make this more clear.

OOC: Hmm... Seems like it. Article 1 of GA#514 is pretty clear.