To live in the United States in 2023 is to be well familiar with partisan politics, regardless of where one might find themself on the political spectrum. In the post-Trump era, where it is all too common to hear reports of far-right politicians and conspiracy theorists (or, often, individuals who fall within both categories) pushing often-outlandish ideas and legislation, it is perhaps not shocking that the facets of education bound to help form young peoples’ opinions and political ideas has come under fire. Enter: the stop WOKE act.
Though Florida may be known as the “Sunshine State,” the implications of this 2022 bill do nothing except dim the potential for students to understand the often-dark past of the ground they stand on. Passed by the Florida State legislature with the support of the state’s controversial governor, Ron DeSantis, the bill has a variety of alarming implications that stretch far beyond the state itself. First and foremost, the mere title of the bill– an acronym standing for “Wrong to our Kids and Employees,” insinuates the idea that it is wrong to teach and understand history and concepts in ways other than those proposed by those in power– a very dangerous assertion.
While not every single facet of the bill is outlandish, much of the language within it has serious potential to do harm. A pamphlet released by the governor’s office on the act directly mentions the idea that concepts such as implicit bias, examining the origins of traditionally American virtues and values and questioning their origins in regards to race or sex, and the idea of privilege based on those things are to be considered “indoctrination–” when, in reality, many of them are simply factual, or, at the very least, worth examining and allowing people to think through. If those things are not taught, there is no opportunity to think through them, and thus no chance to understand them.
Unfortunately, though this may be the first bill of its kind in the nation, the ideas within it are not unpopular– meaning more bills like it may very well follow.
Though I do not have the space nor the skill to put into words every single nuance of the bill or why its contents are so harmful, I do invite you to think beyond the ideas prohibited by this bill and examine more broadly the idea of censorship in education. It is, undoubtedly, a very slippery slope– and students have the right to be able to think and understand different perspectives on ideas that bills like this attempt to censor. With no ability to learn something– even something one may not agree with– how is one supposed to understand or form a nuanced understanding and opinion of anything?
Ideas should be accessible, and ideas should be available. Being in power should mean serving the people, and limiting what they are allowed to know and be exposed to is doing them nothing if not a disservice. Regardless of where your opinion may fall on any given matter, you could not have formed that opinion without some sort of education that made it feasible in your mind. Even the most poorly-formed opinions do not come out of thin air– which is why there will be no prevention of the forming of one. If students are not exposed to all possible sides or perspectives, they will simply form their opinions off of their limited knowledge. While this may unfortunately be the goal of those behind this legislation, it should not be.They should aim for what is best for those they lead, and censorship is not that.
It is impossible to live at Conn right now without at least some knowledge of the resignation of Dean Rodmond King, the actions of Katherine Bergeron allegedly behind said resignation, and the immense and expansive work of student voices and coalitions to advocate for and enact institutional change as a result. There are many fantastic articles and resources available that are far beyond what I could provide on that for anyone looking to find out more (which I encourage you to do), but it has certainly shed light on the importance of information. If one were only to read the emails sent by Katherine Bergeron and the Board of Trustees on the current situation, they would get a far different and more limited perspective on why Dean King felt it necessary to resign and why students are as angry and desirous of change as they are than if they were to also have access to and engage with sources such as local news articles, firsthand accounts from students, and King’s letter to the Board of Trustees– all of which provide much more context and nuance to the situation.
Access to information and the ability to learn are paramount to ensuring well-rounded learners with nuanced opinions and ideas– and thus, to progress. No one in power should limit this. •
