A new bill proposed in Idaho

Idaho lawmakers have advanced a bill that would prohibit public schools, including public universities, from teaching that "any sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin is inherently superior or inferior," which, according to the bill, is often found in "critical race theory."

It also prohibits teachings arguing that "individuals, by virtue of sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin, are inherently responsible for actions committed in the past by other members of the same sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin."

Critical race theory and teachings like it "exacerbate and inflame divisions on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or other criteria in ways contrary to the unity of the nation and the well-being of the state of Idaho and its citizens," the bill reads. Proponents have argued that students are being indoctrinated.

The bill, HB 377, passed the state House last week and the Senate Monday. It now awaits the governor's signature.

I know of a few countries where teaching something like the emphasized para is probably de facto banned, at least in some respects (i.e. depending whom is implied responsible). I'm something like 95% sure that laws in Turkey against "insulting Turkishness" can easily be interpreted that way by judges, in the sense that saying that Turkish ancestors having done something bad is already on thin ice, irrespective of what those historical facts are even held to imply for the present generations.

But I want to ask in what countries it is explicitly banned/illegal to imply that the present generations owe reparations for the acts of the ancestors? The Idaho bill only seems to propose such a ban in publicly funded education. So I'd accept answers that point to similar prohibitions elsewhere. This can certainly be a bit more dicey as de facto prohibitions may exist, e.g. in terms of national curriculum avoiding such matters, even if not spelled out in some law; for instance, some ink has been spilled on what topics Japanese history education leaves out. But to keep it "on par" with the Idaho bill, the prohibition would have to be reasonably explicit.

  • 2
    There's a lot of ground between this law and an individual's ancestors. I don't think this law (based on text quoted) would be relevant where a specific ancestor was concerned, like the family wealth based on slave plantation ownership
    – Jontia
    May 1, 2021 at 20:06
  • 1
    The bill was actually signed into law: npr.org/2021/05/01/992761507/… May 1, 2021 at 22:27
  • 3
    Aren't "insulting Turkishness" just the opposite of this? And note that acknowleding history is entirely different from accepting responsibility for it.
    – jamesqf
    May 2, 2021 at 4:10
  • I don't think any country is bold enough to announce it publicly, including the US, but does it (ban) behind the scene.
    – r13
    May 2, 2021 at 18:35
  • "present generations owe reparations for the acts of the ancestors" Do you mean individuals or "generations" in some collective sense? An example that comes to mind is Zionists justifying ethnic cleansing because of historical persecution by other groups. May 5, 2021 at 18:58


You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .