The Danger of Florida's "Don't Say Gay" Law

Florida’s proposed “Parental Rights in Education” Law, often referred to as the “Don’t Say Gay” law by opponents, has been generating headlines and controversy ever since it was introduced two years ago, and while it has since become law the debate surrounding the bill has yet to die down. The debate isn’t limited to Florida either, with at least a dozen states considering similar laws. While large parts of the bill have nothing to do with the LGBTQ community at all, the section that's causing the most controversy reads: “Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students following state standards”. Later, the Florida State Education Department declared that any instruction on sexual orientation was developmentally inappropriate in grades 4-12 as well, effectively expanding the scope of the law to all K-12 years. This is the section that caused opponents to dub the bill the “Don’t Say Gay” law, with critics claiming the section is designed to suppress LGBTQ youth in the state. Proponents of the bill claim that this section simply restricts kids from learning about what they consider to be age-inappropriate subjects and topics that would be better covered by parents, hence the “Parental Rights” name. 

While this law is currently only enacted in Florida, the danger of copycat laws being passed throughout the United States is too great a threat to ignore. While many would argue this issue is only relevant to those living in Florida, this is not the case given the widespread push for similar bills to be enacted nationwide. As an LGBTQ student myself, I take a particular issue with this bill as I know if a similar law was enacted in Colorado it would have had genuine impacts on my life throughout school. Of course, the bill does not currently directly impact me, as I do not live in Florida, and I’m also not really in a position to change the law as I am not a Florida voter. This doesn’t mean it's a non-issue or nothing can be done about it either. Understanding the dangers of the bill is crucial, as this allows those living in other states to campaign against passage of similar laws, and support candidates who are opposed to copycat bills. 

Of course, those in favor of the bill don’t see it as anti-LGBTQ at all. Following the passage of the bill, Ron Desantis claimed it protected parents from the school giving instruction that would “sexualize their kids as young as 5 years old”. All of those in support of the bill shared similar sentiments, with one of Ron Desantis’s spokesmen notably calling it an “Anti-Grooming” bill. All of those in support of the bill consider it to be protecting young children from learning about age-inappropriate topics and view it as an important addition to the “Parental Bill of Rights” in Florida. To many, the bill simply serves to protect parents' rights, as they view LGBTQ issues as something that should be up to parents, and not the state, to teach. The bill’s supporters see it as a necessary piece of legislation to protect children from over-sexualization, especially in a school setting. 

While proponents of the bill don’t openly view the “Parental Rights in Education” Act as an LGBTQ issue, the opponents do, as evidenced by their “Don’t Say Gay” nickname for it. The main issue opponents have with the bill is the way it frames sexuality as a taboo topic, which they worry could negatively impact both LGBTQ students and teachers. Indeed, the bill is extremely similar to a law that used to be in effect in the UK, referred to as section 28. This law harmed LGBTQ teachers who taught under it, with studies showing that 64% of LGBTQ teachers who taught while the act was in effect had experienced a serious episode of anxiety or depression linked to their sexual or gender identity and role as a teacher.  While the wording of section 28 and the Floridian “Don’t Say Gay” law aren’t identical, they both restrict classroom instruction regarding homosexuality and would likely have similar effects on teachers and students. With many people discovering their sexuality during their formative school years, it can be difficult for them to fully accept themselves if they feel like they can’t discuss it based on the rules in their school. Opponents of the bill believe that the fear LGBTQ students already feel regarding being accepted by their peers will only be further amplified if such a law is passed, as they’d feel even more like their sexual or gender identity is something that they should be ashamed of. 

Although supporters of the bill frame it as being pro-parents and as a way to protect kids, the “Parental Rights in Education” act will undeniably cause issues for LGBTQ students and teachers who have to attend schools under the law. LGBTQ individuals already struggle with feeling accepted and supported by their community, and extending this fear to school will only further alienate an already marginalized community. Many LGBTQ individuals don’t feel safe being themselves around their families, and school may be the only place they truly feel like they’re safe. Removing this safe space from kids will only cause LGBTQ students to feel more like how they want to express themselves is wrong. For a group that is already faced with higher health and suicide risks, the potential dangers of such a law cannot be ignored. The intentionally vague wording of the law even means that LGBTQ teachers could potentially be punished just for mentioning their spouses to students, as any non-heterosexual relationship being discussed could be construed as “instruction on sexual orientation”. Whether or not the bill was intended to promote parental rights, the negative impacts it will have on LGBTQ students and teachers far outweigh any potential benefits of the bill; therefore, the law should be repealed in Florida, and voters in states where copycat laws are being considered should not vote for candidates who would support such legislation in their state. 

An important thing to remember is that this issue isn’t just a political one, but a human issue that could have very real consequences for very real people. I remember when I realized I was gay in 10th grade I was terrified of what people would think of me or if I would be treated differently because of my sexuality. Looking back, I should’ve realized my sexuality long before I did, but even with accepting parents it was hard to accept myself when large parts of society were so unaccepting. And this was in Colorado, the first state in the nation with an openly gay governor. With all my struggles of coming to terms with my sexuality, I can’t imagine how much harder it would be to accept myself had I lived in a state where a similar law was in effect. If the very state I lived in treated being gay as a taboo subject and something that should be hidden, I undoubtedly would’ve taken even longer to accept such an important part of myself. For those who aren’t a member of the LGBTQ community, it may seem like society is very accepting of gay individuals, but this is honestly far from the truth. Even those who are “accepting” will still treat people differently when they learn of their sexual identity, and people’s preconceived notions of how LGBTQ people should act can also be extremely harmful. I’ve known people who aren’t stereotypically gay, and they fear coming out and being seen as a different person. Despite all the progress, there is still a long way to go before LGBTQ people truly feel able and welcome to be themselves. Laws like this one can just make it harder for people to accept themselves, and I know that had the school I gone to treated being gay as something to be hidden and not discussed at school I would certainly have a lot harder of a time recognizing my sexuality for what it is. 

The “Parental Rights in Education” bill is ultimately harmful due to the way it can further isolate LGBTQ students. Although initially framed as a way to protect K-3 graders from learning about age-inappropriate topics, the bill was later expanded to encompass all K-12 years, which cements its position as an anti-LGBTQ bill. While an argument can certainly be made for having limited discussion on issues as complex as gender identity and sexual orientation in lower grades, the act was expanded to include all grades including those where sexual education, a much more mature topic, is taught. Discussion on sexual orientation is now effectively banned in Florida schools even during the period when students are becoming aware of their sexuality, a change that will undoubtedly have severe negative effects on LGBTQ youth in the state. If students are unable to discuss their sexual orientation with their peers or teachers without fear of repercussion, they will feel alone. One student who grew up under the UK’s similar section 28 said, “I thought I was the only person who was gay at my school”. LGBTQ students already feel alone due to differences between them and their peers, and by making them afraid to speak out and find others going through similar things as them they’ll only grow more isolated and feel more alone. Teachers can serve as a critical support point for LGBTQ students, especially those with unsupportive parents, and if teachers feel they can’t help those students without losing their jobs then that marginalized group loses another pillar of support, making them even more alone. 

The law applies to schools as a whole, which can alienate teachers in addition to students. As previously mentioned, a major flaw with the bill is the intentionally vague wording; a violation of the act could theoretically take place just for an LGBTQ teacher mentioning a same-sex spouse. While teachers' primary job is to teach, completely barring them from discussing their personal lives at school is a completely unfair expectation, especially considering sharing about their personal lives can be a crucial step in connecting with their students. This is even more unfair considering that non-LGBTQ teachers would not face this same expectation; only teachers discussing same-sex spouses could potentially be punished under this act. In addition, the act effectively requires teachers to 'out' LGBTQ students to their legal guardians. Not only could this place a huge strain on student-teacher relationships as teachers are essentially forced to violate student trust, but it also places even more strain on already-overworked teachers as they need to ensure that, in addition to their regular duties, any potential mention among students of being LGBTQ must be reported back to the parents. This can be an especially difficult dilemma for LGBTQ teachers, who may have to choose between their careers and protecting their students from unsupportive parents, a fight that the teachers themselves may be all too familiar with. A teacher’s sexual orientation and/or gender identity has nothing to do with their ability to effectively educate youth, and this law effectively places more restrictions on LGBTQ teachers than their heterosexual counterparts. Teaching is an underpaid and underappreciated profession, and the last thing they need is for their job to be made even harder. 

The vague wording of the bill is perhaps one of its largest issues, as the text allows it to be utilized in ways far beyond the intended purpose. In addition to the previously mentioned impacts of the vague wording (restricting LGBTQ teachers' speech and expansion of the law to all grades), the bill also can have widespread implications for school funding. The law specifically says that “The costs of the special magistrate shall be borne by the school district”. By requiring the school district to foot the bill for any violation, real or imagined, of the bill, the law essentially allows any disgruntled parent who alleges a violation of the bill to cost the school district money. With the law having very loose definitions (no definition is provided for ‘sexual orientation’ or ‘gender identity’), it’s not unreasonable to imagine a large number of lawsuits being brought against various schools for supposed violations of the law. Is the mere mention of a same-sex couple “instruction on sexual orientation”? With the law being so vague, and schools being forced to cover all associated costs in the adjudication of disputes regarding alleged violations of the bill, already underfunded schools can lose more of the little money they have. The dangers of the “Parental Rights in Education” law extend beyond just the potential alienation of LGBTQ staff and students, as it also can have a direct impact on school funding. 

While proponents of the bill would argue that it serves as a necessary expansion of parental rights, the bill does quite the opposite. To begin with, the bill doesn’t require the parents to be informed of what exactly their students are being taught and provides the ability to opt-out; rather it just outright bans discussion on sexual orientation and gender identity. This doesn’t increase parent rights, a goal that could be much easier met by providing parents with the option to opt their student out of any LGBTQ-specific education. Instead, the stated goal of the bill is to leave it “up to the parent to decide if and when to introduce these sensitive topics”. Placing the burden of educating on the parents is not the same thing as increasing their rights. All it does is disadvantage the parents who don’t have time to educate their kids on LGBTQ topics and limit the education of kids all across the state. An opt-out system for LGBTQ-related topics would be a much more effective way to give parents more control over their children’s education, but the bill instead completely bans that discussion across the board. This effectively limits parental rights, as the state is essentially opting kids out of certain topics on behalf of their parents. While Ron Desantis’ Administration would argue that such a controversial topic should be left up to the parents, and not the state, to teach, that’s not the reality of the situation. Plenty of topics outside of LGBTQ issues are controversial, such as evolution, sex education, and even aspects of US history. But the bill doesn’t ban all controversial discussions across the board. And for good reason; if every potentially controversial issue were banned there’d be very little schools could teach. Even well-recognized facts, such as the roundness of the Earth, are controversial in some circles. If the goal of the bill was truly to protect parental rights, it would either ban all controversial topics being taught in school or provide parental opt-outs to controversial topics. Instead, it focuses solely on LGBTQ issues, cementing it as more of an anti-LGBTQ bill than a pro-parental rights bill. 

The nickname opponents have coined for the “Parental Rights in Education” Act is truly more fitting for the bill. After all, the bill seems designed more towards preventing discussion of LGBTQ issues than genuine protection of parental rights, warranting the “Don’t Say Gay” moniker. Not only could this act have irreparable harm to LGBTQ students and teachers who feel the need to hide an important part of themselves, but it could also endanger school funding as a whole. A repeal of this law in Florida, and preventing the passage of similar laws nationwide, would be very beneficial to society. After all, the first step to any successful society is a strong education system, and people can’t be properly educated if they or their teachers don’t feel comfortable. A safe learning environment is crucial to foster actual learning, and that’s impossible to achieve if people feel like they can’t be themselves.  That’s why it is essential that everyone, not just those in Florida, stand up against these types of laws. An important first step is educating yourself on the issue; are similar laws being considered in your state? If so, consider writing your local representative and asking them their position on the law, and encouraging them to vote against it. Even if the bill wouldn’t directly impact you, there are millions of LGBTQ people nationwide it would affect, and it’s important to take a stand against it on their behalf. No one should have to feel like they have to hide who they love, especially not at a place that’s supposed to be safe like school.