The bill signed by Brewer on Tuesday prohibits any classes which promote the overthrow of the United States government, promote resentment toward a race or class of people, or are tailored for pupils from a particular racial group.
Let's break that down:
The bill signed by Brewer on Tuesday prohibits any classes which promote the overthrow of the United States government . . .
What's wrong with that?
The bill signed by Brewer on Tuesday prohibits any classes which * * * promote resentment toward a race or class of people . . .
Where's the problem with that?
The bill signed by Brewer on Tuesday prohibits any classes which * * * are tailored for pupils from a particular racial group.
If that means the classes are intended (or applied) for ONLY the particular group, as seems to be inferred, what's the trouble with prohibiting that, especially but not only if the other two clauses are present?
Seems to me that prohibiting those three things (or any of those three things separately) is salutary.
****
And someone (I forget who, and can't find it right now) said that many teachers in ethnic studies state they don't do those things. FINE! In that case the law doesn't apply to them and their classes.