Note: The views held in this article are solely those of the author and do not reflect the opinions of Olio Mag as a whole. This article is part 1 of 3 in this series of posts. We ask that you take a seat, buckle up and enjoy the ride.

The political and economic landscape in Kansas since Governor Sam Brownback took office in 2011 has been traveling back in time. I can’t help but think that the Kansas legislature climbed on board the governor’s unscientific experiment for the state and shouted, “Fire up the DeLorean, Doc!” Governor Brownback then quickly dialed in November 5, 1955, went nuclear and reversed Kansas’ educational, fiscal, healthcare and social progress at the speed of 88 miles per hour. And there is no indication that Kansas’ “Doc Brownback” has any intention of bringing us back to 2015. Perhaps he ran out of plutonium…

Education

Education has been a hot button issue in the state of Kansas between new funding measures and varying degrees of restricting teachers’ freedom of speech rights. As I’m not qualified to analyze the fiscal side of things (and reading that funding bill was beyond frustrating with all the unnecessary mumbo-jumbo), let’s focus on the last item: freedom of speech.

Staving Off Dissent

In February of this year, the House Committee on Local Government (which, let me point out is not a committee on education or state employees) proposed HB 2234 which specifically pertains to post-secondary institutions (a.k.a state universities) that would “prohibit employees from using their official title in certain publications.” Upon further investigation, it turns out it’s not “certain publications” this committee was interested in restricting the usage of their professional titles, it’s a very specific type of publication and journalistic piece – a newspaper opinion column.

The individual is writing unaffiliated with the university by which he/she is employed, as is customary practice when contributing to an opinion column, as it is the employee’s personal opinion, but this shouldn’t make their credentials disappear. Not to mention, it is a common journalistic practice for an individual to utilize his/her credentials and official title when authoring a column as it lends to the individual’s expertise on the topic. Stripping a university employee of their credentials is like asking a doctor to contribute to your article on health and medicine but when quoted you fail to note their title as “John Smith, MD.” So why does the Kansas legislature think it’s necessary to strip an individual of their title for a very specific journalistic piece?

To understand that, let’s put those two common practices aside for the time being and focus on when university employees would be prohibited from using their official title.

[…] only when the opinion of the employee concerns a person who currently holds any elected public office in this state, a person who is a candidate for any elected public office in this state or any matter pending before any legislative or public body in this state.

As the intelligent reader you are, do I even need to begin breaking down each section of that sentence to help you understand the absurdity of restricting speech only when it concerns an elected official or public policy issue? It would appear that the legislative body is incapable of handling intelligent criticism or discourse on the issues relevant in Kansas, especially if the person delivering the dissent is qualified to have an expert opinion on the matter.

C’mon, Kansas legislators, you’ve been the laughing-stock of the country multiple times over the past five years; surely you’ve grown some thicker skin by now. And if you haven’t, do you really want to create a Napoleon versus Snowball conflict in the state? Perhaps it’s time we all read Animal Farm again before proceeding down that path, as a cautionary tale in the state seems much needed. Or is that book considered “inappropriate” and grounds for a class B misdemeanor if presented in an English class as reading material?

Presentation of Inappropriate Material

If you follow Kansas politics, you know the state is home to some of the far-right conservative cheerleaders who think we all need to be given moral guidance and their view on what is moral is the absolute truth. Let me introduce you to Senator Mary Pilcher-Cook who has championed SB 56 which makes it a class B non-person misdemeanor for a teacher at any public, private or parochial school to distribute or present materials deemed inappropriate. (This bill was also supported by a group called American Family Association of Kansas.)

I truly wanted to copy and paste the bill in it’s entirety (it’s a short one) into this article and let you read the sheer ridiculousness that’s tied up in legalese. Instead, here’s the brief taken directly from the Kansas Senate Supplemental Notes:

SB 56, as amended, would amend the crime of promotion to minors of material harmful to minors by adding persons having custody, control, or supervision of any public establishment as persons prohibited from engaging in conduct covered by the crime. The bill also would remove public, private, and parochial schools from an affirmative defense provided for educational institutions that obtain and disseminate the allegedly harmful material or device as part of or incident to an approved course or program of instruction at the institution.

Let’s decode a couple of items in that summary. Any public establishment that promotes materials considered harmful to a minor can now be prosecuted and material provided within an educational institution, even if it’s part of the approved coursework, is no longer protected via affirmative defense. What exactly does this all mean? Let’s focus on the material, how “harmful to minors” is defined, and how this directly places educators in a precarious position.

“Material” in this bill is defined as “any book, magazine, newspaper, pamphlet, poster, print, picture, figure, image, description, motion picture film, record, recording tape or video tape.” Read that list one more time. Did they forget to include any type of relevant dissemination of information? Doesn’t appear so.

Pair that with the definition of harmful to minors as “that quality of any description, exhibition, presentation or representation, in whatever form, of nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement or sadomasochistic abuse” when it meets additional criteria as perceived by an average adult. There are three criteria listed, and only one has to be met per the perception of the average adult in order to bring a criminal case against the individual who distributed or presented the material. The one most alarming is the third criterion which states:

[…] a reasonable person would find that the material or performance lacks serious literary, scientific, educational, artistic or political value for minors […]

While there is not a definition given for “average adult,” it is far more disconcerting that no definition is given for a reasonable person. This leaves the law open to broad interpretation by any individual – reasonable or not – simply because my definition of reasonable is sure to differ from yours or the person next to you. For example, I would define a reasonable person as an individual who exhibits intellect, sanity, and objectivity. When, let’s call this person M, was asked to define the same phrase, he said, “Someone who thinks similarly to myself.”

Someone who thinks similarly to myself. What if that’s precisely what it means in this bill? If an educator were to present commonly taught material – even course approved or mandated material (because we do have educational requirements in the state of Kansas) – and it was perceived by “a reasonable person” who disagreed with the content of the material or deemed it harmful, that teacher could be hit with a lawsuit and, if lost, be charged with a Class B non-person misdemeanor which holds a penalty of up to 6 months in a county jail.

If this isn’t the legislature using their powers as a bully pulpit to force teachers to conform to conservative Christian values with the material they present in class, then clearly Kansas didn’t learn from the evolution versus creationism and intelligent design debate. At minimum, this policy is creating a culture of fear within our educational system and opening the door to unreasonable lawsuits brought by parents who believe their children should only be exposed to their subscribed values. In which case, home school your children or place them in a private school that teaches to the values and beliefs you wish them to adhere to in life. Even then, the private and parochial teachers are not protected from this absurd law. Not a single educator is safe.

All I ask is that the Kansas legislature please let us have our literature, biology, art history, freedom of expression, freedom of speech, and the freedom to educate our youth without fear of criminal charges.

Opt-In Sex Education

Remember Sen. Mary Pilcher-Cook from the “harmful to minors” materials bill? Here she’s at it again and is attacking sex-education in the state of Kansas, along with the support of the American Family Association of Kansas and Missouri (AFA-KSMO) and the Kansas Catholic Conference, and trying to impose an opt-in mandate for sex education (HB 2199). In a recent post on the AFA-KSMO website, the organization claims that a poster that was approved as part of a sexual education course is “depraved” and testimony provided by the organization is similarly worded. (This same organization is the main proponent who prompted SB 56. The phrasings of “harmful to minors” and “community standard” in SB 56 are directly taken from the testimony linked above.)

Sex education in Kansas is currently what’s considered an “abstinence-plus” program. Meaning that abstinence, sexually transmitted diseases and birth control must all be covered with the emphasis still on abstinence. Along with this came the decision that each school district would be allowed to determine if their program was opt-in or opt-out. Forcing school districts to go back to an opt-in policy would not only be a logistical nightmare (think of how much additional tracking would have to happen to avoid lawsuits by parents who did not opt-in), but it’s a disservice to our youth.

Abstinence only education has been proven in multiple studies to not be as effective in preventing teen pregnancy as comprehensive sexual education. A study published in 2011 in PLOS One, a peer-reviewed journal, drew some strong parallels between abstinence only education and higher teenage pregnancy rates. Yet, in spite of this scientific data, many states (including Kansas) still spend the majority, if not all, of their sex education efforts on abstinence education. In September 2014, MIC published an article utilizing the most recent information available for teenage pregnancies and sex education standards in each state to draw the same correlation between abstinence only education and high rates of teen pregnancy.

Comprehensive sexual education should be mandated for every student. It’s part of our biology and our humanity. There’s no way around it, conservatives. Sex is not going to disappear just because you want it to be taboo so you can regulate the values of each citizen in this state.

Values are what SB 56 and HB 2199 are based upon. Kansas values according to the AFA-KSMO that is, because if you disagree with their view you are lacking morals and good character. This isn’t 1955, folks.

In 1955, education was actually making strides to prepare the youth for the future. It was the year the Supreme Court came to its ruling on Brown v Board of Education and our schools began the process of desegregating. Just like the fight to end segregation in our schools and afford all children an equal opportunity to education required an abundance of noise, now is when our voices of outrage, disgust, and proposals for progress need to be heard most. We should take a cue from Marty McFly and put our voices out there, even if we’re told we’re too loud.

Click here for Part 2 where I take on a tax break ‘oops’ and healthcare. Be sure to leave your thoughts below. I’d love to have an intellectual discussion with you.