Richard Primus
@richardprimus.bsky.social
Professor, University of Michigan Law School. Senior Editorial Adviser, Journal of American Constitutional History. I study the constitutional past and try to do my part for the rule of law in the present.
I hear you. But it’s also my understanding that in the drafting process, they had originally written “teach” instead of “advocate” and that “advocate” was substituted by amendment. Which suggests that at least somebody was conscious of a distinction.
Doesn’t defeat your basic point.
Doesn’t defeat your basic point.
November 16, 2025 at 2:21 PM
I hear you. But it’s also my understanding that in the drafting process, they had originally written “teach” instead of “advocate” and that “advocate” was substituted by amendment. Which suggests that at least somebody was conscious of a distinction.
Doesn’t defeat your basic point.
Doesn’t defeat your basic point.
I do think I understand what the Regents were *trying* to say.
So let’s see how this thing is enforced. And let’s look forward to the challenge to its application. (5/5)
So let’s see how this thing is enforced. And let’s look forward to the challenge to its application. (5/5)
November 15, 2025 at 10:28 PM
I do think I understand what the Regents were *trying* to say.
So let’s see how this thing is enforced. And let’s look forward to the challenge to its application. (5/5)
So let’s see how this thing is enforced. And let’s look forward to the challenge to its application. (5/5)
A policy restricting teaching on the topics of sexual orientation or gender identity would apply to, say, courses that address monogamous heterosexual marriage/romance in history or literature or sociology or religion, etc. And perhaps ballroom dance classes, too. (4/5)
November 15, 2025 at 10:28 PM
A policy restricting teaching on the topics of sexual orientation or gender identity would apply to, say, courses that address monogamous heterosexual marriage/romance in history or literature or sociology or religion, etc. And perhaps ballroom dance classes, too. (4/5)
I also doubt that the policy is supposed to mean that faculty need administrative permission to *teach* about “topics related to sexual orientation or gender identity,” because “straight” is a sexual orientation and “cisgender” is a gender identity. (3/5)
November 15, 2025 at 10:28 PM
I also doubt that the policy is supposed to mean that faculty need administrative permission to *teach* about “topics related to sexual orientation or gender identity,” because “straight” is a sexual orientation and “cisgender” is a gender identity. (3/5)
I don’t understand what it means to “advocate” a “topic.” One can advocate the discussion (or non-discussion) of a topic, but I don’t think a topic itself can be the subject of advocacy. (2/5)
November 15, 2025 at 10:28 PM
I don’t understand what it means to “advocate” a “topic.” One can advocate the discussion (or non-discussion) of a topic, but I don’t think a topic itself can be the subject of advocacy. (2/5)