Looking Forward: The “Don’t Say Gay” Bill

In late March, Florida governor Ron DeSantis signed into law what is colloquially known as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill, which prevents school staff or third parties in Kindergarten through Third Grade classrooms from discussing gender identity or sexual orientation. Under the premise that schools should gain “education, not indoctrination” and a belief that the aforementioned topics are “not age appropriate,” many Republicans have lauded the measure, though its ramifications extend far beyond the classroom.

For example, the Walt Disney Company — which is the largest single-site employer in the state of Florida — garnered substantial criticism, first for not taking a stance on the bill, and later for doing just that. Many saw the move as “half-hearted,” outing the company for its donations to sponsors of the bill and claiming that its actions were only the result of protests and “employee pressure.” Is it fair to criticize a company for taking a stand on “matters not related to their area of business?” Would opting for silence indicate an implicit endorsement?

With states having agency over their school curriculum, they can take one of two paths: replicate Florida’s framework, or distance themselves from a state-specific iteration of the Florida bill. Ohio, for example, is drawing up a similar bill to eliminate “divisive concepts” in the classroom and workplace. This proposal goes a step further, proscribing any discussion of critical race theory or the 1619 Project for the alleged “protection” of students in elementary school. In Texas, a bill similar to Florida’s is also on the docket, much to the consternation of teachers, who worry that answering questions about sexuality honestly may jeopardize their employment.

Children, themselves, will be the group most directly impacted by this bill. Some argue that children’s mental health will be harmed, paricularly those who come from same-sex families and will inevitably encounter same-sex relationships in the real world. With most youth exposed to the word “gay” in a negative light, or not having experienced an inclusive curriculum, the spread of similar bills is likely to deepen negative outlooks and make conversations about inclusivity inaccessible. At the same time, the language of the bill is rather vague. Is “instruction” limited to texts? Does “classroom discussion” extend to mental health services with counselors or other staff? The danger of this vagueness cannot be overlooked; teachers or students may be unfairly reprimanded on unclear technicalities.

This vagueness may border on being unconstitutional. In Keyishian v. Board of Regents (1967), the Supreme Court required a statute limiting classroom discussion “[to] not be so vague that people of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning.” While the Constitution allows state governments to decide how they will structure messages conveyed to students, the related law(s) must give teachers a clear view of how they must progress: what they can and cannot speak about, specifically. The abstinence-only policy introduced during the Bush administration, for example, specifically outlined the goal of not including information about contraceptives — a level of clarity that one may argue the Florida bill lacks.

Is the “Don’t Say Gay” bill part of a larger trend attacking members of the LGBTQIA+ community? Recent developments point to the answer being yes. Its passing follows Alabama’s recently-passed legislation criminalizing gender reassignment services to transgender youth, and Iowa and Arizona’s ban on transgender student athletes playing sports. As of March 20, 2022, almost 240 anti-LGBTQIA+ bills have been filed, marking an exponential increase in limitations on bathroom use, healthcare, and athletics. In same cases, these proposals eventackle a problem that does not exist; states passing anti-transgender legislation in sports, for example, have no records of transgender athletes competing. Other initiatives attempt loopholes in existing rhetoric, like Iowa grouping discrimination against LGBTQIA+ people under “sincerely held religious beliefs and moral convictions.” 

The future paved by Florida’s bill is uncertain and riddled with endless questions. How will this precedent impact legislation passed by other states? How might the groups impacted by these decisions, from children to educators, seek to combat or struggle to conform with new regulations? And most importantly, if the legislation is truly indicative of a push against the LGBTQIA+ community, what are the most effective ways to respond, retaliate, or push for reform? Student demonstrations are among the movements already underway, but the first step towards a crucial consideration of these issues can start from the very comfort of your room. So read, question, and stay updated — these bills are just the beginning, but the conversation is far from over.