In the 1980s, The Washington Post’s director of polling, Richard Morin, coined the term, “dog-whistle politics” He was making reference to a tactic used in polling in which the language of polling questions was developed in a manner that causes the respondent to understand the question to mean something entirely different than it actually means. The tactic was used to get the desired results when polling issues that were controversial, or had large opposition. It crosses over into policy when the language of legislation is framed in a way that is appealing to the general population, but the true intent is known to a small subset of the population. Literally, the dogs who hear the whistle. It is an extremely common practice, and it is often employed by education reformers.
On April 4th, the House Education Committee heard HB-343 by Rep. Steve Carter. The bill amends the “Teacher Bill of Rights” to reflect that teachers have the right to teach uninterrupted, be free from unnecessary pressure or coercion, and the right to not have valuable information withheld from them. During committee testimony, a number of educators testified in favor of the bill which was supported by the usual cohort of LABI, CABL, Stand, APEL and DFER. The teachers described their experiences of being interrupted while teaching to sign papers, listen to sales pitches, etc. One teacher described in detail how an insurance salesman somehow made it up to his third floor room on a very popular street in New Orleans. That is disturbing! More on that, below.
Of course, it passed out of the House Education Committee. Later that day, the apparent originator of the bill, Stand for Children, tweeted pictures of the dedicated teachers who spent their Spring break at the Capitol lobbying legislators to support the bill. Really? I didn’t know teachers could do that. It turns out that some of those teachers weren’t actually on Spring break. Their schools were back in session on the 2nd and 3rd. The committee meeting was on the 4th, but really…”no one cares how teachers use their sick days.” Notice the quotes.
On April 10th, the bill appeared on the House floor for debate. Thanks to questioning by representatives Dustin Miller, Chad Brown, Rogers Pope, Larry Bagley, Jay Morris, and Katrina Jackson, the true intent of the bill was revealed when Rep. Carter got flustered by the push back. The bill failed to garner the 53 needed votes, thanks to the 35 representatives who voted “NO” and the 22 who were absent. Of course the supporters of the bill were furious as evidenced by the rants on social media. The very next day, they asserted their influence on the House Education Committee to kill two bills submitted by Rep. Frank Hoffman that actually did help teachers. One bill reduced the stringent requirements to earn tenure; the other, reduced the weight of VAM on a teacher’s evaluation from the current 35% to 15%. Both of these were the result of Act 1, and Hoffman was the author of the bill that implemented VAM. He made the commitment to repeal it, if it didn’t work.
Today, April 16th, the bill was brought back up on the calendar for debate as if the author’s right. HB-343 passed with the exact number of votes needed (53) with 36 voting “NO” and 16 absent. A lockout vote was called; however, the lockout didn’t confirm 20 representatives because Speaker Barras moved on quickly with 19 yeas, and 1 nay, on the board. Seems sketchy.
An amendment was submitted and adopted by Rep. Falconer to limit the language of the bill to “during work hours” in an effort to address the “perceived” opposition to the bill expressed by both teacher unions, the school board association, and individual superintendents who made calls. Falconer missed the mark. Here’s why.
The reason that the unions, school boards, principals, superintendents, and all teachers should oppose HB-343 is because the things that it proposes to do for teachers, with absolutely zero force of law, is already in criminal statute, WITH PENALTIES!
Revised Statute 14:328 says that “No person shall, on the campus or grounds of any educational institution or at or in any building or other facility owned, operated, controlled or administered by the governing authority of any such institution, willfully obstruct or impede any member of the faculty or administrative staff or other personnel of such institution in the lawful performance of their duties, or willfully obstruct or impede any student of such institution in the lawful pursuit of his educational activities or activities related thereto or a part thereof, through the use of restraint, abduction, coercion or intimidation, or by any action as a result of which force and/or violence are present or threatened.” The law protects students, as well, and administers up to a $500 fine and/or 6 months in prison.
Further in the statute, it states, “Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent lawful assembly and peaceful and orderly petition for the redress of grievances, including any labor dispute between an educational institution and its employees, or any contractor or subcontractor or any employees thereof. Providing that nothing herein contained shall apply to a bona fide legal labor organization or to any of its legal activities such as picketing, lawful assembly or concerted activities in the interest of its members for the purpose of accomplishing or securing more favorable wage standards, hours of employment and working conditions.” And there’s the dog whistle.
You might wonder why the opposition? What’s the difference if the same thing is in the “Teacher Bill of Rights?” It’s simple. The enforcement of the above referenced statute would require “proof of guilt.” The seemingly insignificant “right” stated in the bill would allow for unwarranted accusations based on personality differences, competitiveness, or differences of opinion to be construed as harassment, or coercion. Asking someone to attend a union meeting, or telling someone which candidate you support in an election and inviting them to learn more about a candidate, could be construed as harassment, or coercion. But there’s no force of law, you say. That’s correct, but any one of those unwarranted complaints could result in discipline, or corrective action, and it would take only one to prevent any other teachers from taking that chance. It would essentially suppress the right to organize, which is protected in law, and your First Amendment Right to Free Speech.
To be perfectly clear, if someone is threatening, or coercing, someone to support a particular candidate, or join a particular organization, or buy insurance, then their behavior is unacceptable. This bill, under the guise of support for ALL teachers, attempts to sidestep the very laws that make that behavior criminal.
Oh, and about that salesman on the third floor. I was extremely concerned that something like that could happen. I contacted the principal of the school to ask if he was aware that this sort of thing was happening, and if so, what were the circumstance? It appears that some of the testimony given by teachers wasn’t truthful.
