A Citizen's Guide to Indiana

HB 1346, introduced by Rep. Teshka, forbids a school from encouraging its employees to use a student’s preferred pronouns or nicknames. Specifically,  School corporations are forbidden from encouraging employees to use:

1) a pronoun, title, or other word to identify a student … that is inconsistent with the student’s sex; or
(2) a name or nickname to identify a student that is inconsistent with the student’s name on the student’s birth certificate.

That second one is written so that my son’s nickname is presumably off limits even though it has nothing to do with sex or gender. My son’s given name is “Lincoln.” That’s kind of a big walking around name for a little guy, so we nicknamed him “Cole.” We ginned it up based on the “col” in the middle of “Lincoln.” But there’s a good case to be made that “Cole” is inconsistent with the name “Lincoln” on his birth certificate; so West Side would have been breaking the law if it encouraged its teachers to use his nickname because he likes it better. Presumably the intent is to go after boys using “girl” names and vice versa. (We might have to outlaw names like “Pat” and “Jan” for those crafty s.o.b.’s looking for a loophole.) But that’s not how it’s written.

In fact, as written, a teacher is only permitted to use the preferred nickname or pronoun if the parent makes a written request and provides a medical note that the student has a “sincere, persistent, and consistent” belief that the student’s gender differs from their sex. So, if our nickname was deemed inconsistent with our kid’s birth certificate name, we’d be out of luck. We could make the request, but we’d be unable to get a doctor’s note that complies with the requirement. 

Additionally, the bill defines “gender fluidity” as any “theory or ideology” that adopts views such as one that it’s possible for an individual’s gender to be based on the individual’s preferences or that an individual’s (biological) sex can be changed to align with the individual’s gender if the biological sex and gender are inconsistent. Schools are forbidden from requiring teachers to be supportive of gender fluidity.

I guess if I were a better person, it wouldn’t take personal experience to help me form my opinion on this issue. But, as luck would have it, I have several friends with transgender children. I’ve known the kids and their parents for a long time now. So, it’s hard for me not to take offense at this legislation because it seems like a monstrous attack on these kids that I know and like and their families. They’re working through issues that can be challenging enough to navigate even when everyone wants good things for the kids and is tackling the issues with an open mind. Now you’ve got the Indiana General Assembly turning these kids into another front in the culture wars.  Just marvelous.

HB 1066, introduced by Representatives Errington and Pfaff, would amend the approach to sex education in Indiana schools. It speaks to medically accurate information, and adds concepts like consent, healthy relationships, and healthy communication skills. Adding those concepts would seem to de-emphasize abstinence which looks to be a primary focus in current Indiana law. Current IC 20-30-5-13 states:

IC 20-30-5-13 Instruction on human sexuality or sexually transmitted diseases

Sec. 13. Throughout instruction on human sexuality or sexually transmitted diseases, a state accredited school shall:
(1) require a teacher to teach abstinence from sexual activity outside of marriage as the expected standard for all school age children;
(2) include in the instruction that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems; and
(3) include in the instruction that the best way to avoid sexually transmitted diseases and other associated health problems is to establish a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage.

The legislation would also repeal IC 20-34-3-17 which requires the State Board of Education to provide information “stressing the moral aspects of abstinence” in any HIV literature it provides.

I can’t see this getting a hearing, but good on Reps. Errington and Pfaff for trying. It’s o.k. to recommend abstinence, but in terms of educating kids on sex, that’s not really a plan. For starters, a lot of kids will ignore that recommendation. And even the ones who aren’t ready to jump into sex now are going to need good information about sex and the role it plays in relationships eventually. Parents can be a good source of such information, but there are plenty who are unable or unwilling to provide that information for a variety of reasons.

Sen. Doriot has introduced SB 132 which is similar to SB 90 that he introduced last year. The bill would prohibit local government from requiring people developing real estate to dedicate rights-of-way as part of the development process. Instead, local government would have to use the more cumbersome and expensive eminent domain process. Last year, I had this to say:

Several legislators have introduced bills to make school board elections partisan in nature. Currently, school board candidates run for office without being nominated by a party or declaring a party affiliation. Rep. Cash has introduced HB 1036 which would require candidates for school board elections to be nominated by political parties like with other local elections.

Rep. Morrison has introduced HB 1074 which would require school board candidate’s party affiliation to be stated on the ballot and certificate of nomination. In other words, a candidate wouldn’t have to be nominated by the party but they would have to declare a party affiliation. Under this legislation, a candidate can state whatever they want as their party affiliation (or “independent” if they don’t identify with a party). However, a declared affiliation as a Republican or Democrat can be challenged. If the challenger shows that the candidate did not either vote in the Republican or Democratic primaries (as the case may be) in the most recent two elections or get a certification from the county party chair, the candidate can’t claim affiliation with that party. If I’m reading the legislation correctly, a declaration that the person is independent or Libertarian or Green Party or anything else isn’t subject to challenge. (Which, if we’re going to do this, seems suspect. The person who lives in a far left school board district but has voted Republican every election since the 80s can run for school board under a socialist label if he or she wants.)

Sen. Sandlin has introduced SB 188 which reads pretty much the same as Rep. Morrison’s HB 1074.

Whatever issues school boards have, I don’t see these proposals making them any better.

Friends, imagine if you will, the early 80s in the Middle West of Indiana. Perhaps it’s Richmond, Indiana. Junior high school boys engaged in good-natured but intense debates about the capabilities of ninjas. How would they fare against the chain-swinging New York City street gang members of our imaginations? Do they possess magic or just sufficiently advanced skills that are indistinguishable from magic? Documentary films such as the Octagon and Enter the Ninja provide guidance for some but not all of these questions. In a fit of enthusiasm, the boys cobble enough money to buy replica throwing stars from the Comic Book Guy type hobby store on Main Street. Did they know these were replicas? Absolutely not. But, when thrown at houses being constructed in the local subdivision, they bounced off disappointingly and harmlessly. Come to think of it, maybe rolling up Dungeons and Dragons characters would be more fun.

This was possible prior to 1985 when the killjoys at the Indiana General Assembly adopted IC 35-47-5-12 which prohibits the manufacture, import, sale, or possession of a “Chinese throwing star” (defined as “a throwing-knife, throwing-iron, or other knife-like weapon with blades set at different angles.”) The casual racism of that terminology is jarring. Times really are changing. Also, I have to imagine it was a kind of moral panic that prompted this legislation. The popularity of ninja movies leading to maybe a few incidents where such throwing stars were used improperly and more than a few legislators born in the 1930s bemoaning corruption of the youth with all this damn chopsocky stuff.

Sen. Brown has introduced SB 77 which would allow a return to the fun of the early 80s under tightly regulated conditions. First of all, the legislation would change “Chinese throwing star” to simply “throwing star.” But the thrust of the legislation would be to allow possession, import, and sale of throwing stars for recreational use at a business with lanes set up for such throwing stars. It has regulations for the lanes — e.g. they have to have walls that are at least eight feet high and fifteen feet long staffed by someone “trained in the possession and use of throwing stars.”

This sounds like someone has or wants to set up a business like those axe-throwing venues only with throwing stars which honestly sounds like a blast. It’s just the fact that these things are outlawed in the first place and the necessarily stilted language of legislation that makes this particular legislation sound a little silly. Given that it’s the wild-west with respect to firearms in Indiana and that other types of bladed devices don’t seem to be particularly regulated, probably the better approach is to just repeal the prohibition on throwing stars. But, if that’s not in the cards, this legislation doesn’t strike me as objectionable.

(Hat tip to u/saryl on Reddit for this one)

First a caveat – I go through these bills pretty quickly and I’m painfully aware that I’m not familiar with the context in so many of these issues and probably just get things wrong more often than I’d care to admit. Particularly on my mind at the moment is the possibility that things which seem reasonable on the face of a given bill might be pernicious when compared to actual practice. Or a bill that seems objectionable might be an improvement over the status quo.

In any event, Senator Doriot has introduced SB 135 concerning resident tuition. It appears that it is allowing resident tuition for certain individuals who are not necessarily present in the state or the country legally. Such eligible individuals would be those who attended high school in Indiana for at least four years, graduated from an Indiana high school, files an affidavit certifying that the individual is attempting to obtain legal immigration status, and certifies that the individual “is not applying for any state or local public benefit or federal public benefit” other than the resident tuition benefit.

I’m not sure I care for the last bit. I know it’s an effort to fend off concerns that feckless alien hordes are living parasitically off of good, hardworking Americans. But: a) I think the data show that immigrants, lawful and otherwise, tend to give our communities more than they take; and b) I suspect that applicants who qualify under this bill are mostly going to be younger people whose use of and/or need for public benefits are a function of their parents circumstances; and the children should not be punished for the sins of their parents.

Sen Bohachek has introduced SB 68 which would require that a personal finance course serve as a substitute for Algebra II where the Indiana State Board of Education has adopted a Core 40 curriculum model that requires Algebra II as a math requirement.

Candidly, I don’t remember Algebra II well enough to know how it differs from Algebra I and, therefore, the utility of adding a personal finance class would exceed whatever is lost by removing an Algebra II requirement. On its face, I guess it doesn’t sound like a horrible idea. But, in my mind, the personal finance requirement conjures up complaints about “kids these days” being frivolous with their money. I’m thinking of those arguments resisting health care reform because Millennials had iPhones and were eating avocado toast. I think personal finance education is a good idea, but it’s nothing like a panacea for the financial challenges people face.

(I’ve suggested in the past that maybe the State could issue “model” budgets for families at various income levels but cynically thought that the idea wouldn’t fly because then the State would have to recognize that most of the things that families “should” be doing simply aren’t possible at some of the income levels that are common in Indiana.)

Sen. Tomes has introduced SB 12 which is a resurrection of a provision that took a lot of heat during last year’s General Assembly concerning schools and “material harmful to minors.” The rhetoric opposing that provision — and the title to this post — was probably overblown compared to the actual text of the legislation. However, the motive for introducing this legislation also appears to be an unjustified moral panic over materials available to kids at school libraries. In the war of public opinion, it’s probably too optimistic to expect a nuanced discussion over the text of legislation and the real world need for that legislation.

The way I described the similar SB 17 from last session was as follows:

SB 17 removes protections for school librarians that currently exist with respect to material alleged to be “harmful to minors.” The public commentary on this has been a little overwrought since “material harmful to minors” is defined by IC 35-49-2-2 and basically tracks the definition of obscenity: appeals to prurient interest, patently offensive to prurient interests, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. So, the likelihood of schools having much in the way of qualifying material seems pretty small. But, by the same token, the utility of removing bars to prosecution of school librarians is nil. It’s a political move to exploit a panic among parents that naughty stuff might be in the school libraries. Probably comes from the same folks who were certain that there was Satanic ritual abuse of children in the Comet Ping Pong basement. And, now that I type it, I suppose there’s a group of people who similarly imagine that our public schools are immoral corrupters of children.

 

Senator Young has introduced Senate Joint Resolution 9 which would amend the Indiana Constitution concerning the right to bail. Currently Article 1, Section 17, says that “with sufficient sureties,” a person accused of crimes other than murder or treason is entitled to bail. (Which is to say, entitled to be released from jail pending trial or conviction.) This amendment would add a list of offenses for which bail is not required (although the court may, at its discretion, grant bail for these offenses):

• A person charged with a serious crime (defined as a crime for which the punishment can be a term of imprisonment of at least three years) if the person was awaiting trial on another crime.
• A person charged with a new felony if the person allegedly committed the new felony while awaiting trial on a serious crime.
• A person charged with a serious crime if no conditions of bail are sufficient to protect the public from harm; protect any person from harm; ensure the appearance in court of a person charged  with a crime; or ensure that a person charged with a crime does not 32 commit another crime.

The amendment would also place into the Indiana Constitution the following purposes for bail:

• Protect the public from harm;
• Protect any person from harm, including a person charged with a crime;
• Reasonably ensure the appearance in court of a person 6 charged with a crime; and
• Reasonably ensure that a person charged with a crime does not commit another crime.

The discussions I’ve been seeing lately mainly seem to favor a more permissive approach to bail, primarily based on the recognition that a person who has only been accused of a crime shouldn’t be prematurely punished for that crime; and that bail necessarily falls hardest on poor people. (As the man said, “the law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal loaves of bread.” The man, in that case, being Anatole France.) On its face, this amendment seems to be more restrictive of bail. And maybe that’s a reaction to the move toward greater permissiveness. But I’ll confess that my practice is civil rather than criminal, so there could be nuance of which I’m unaware.