PA Tells Trump To Back Off In Slickest Way Possible

Some days I love my commonwealth's current administration.

Here's the sequence. First, the US Department of Ed had a civil rights office, the purpose of which was to make sure that states did not violate student civil rights, which mostly meant standing up for students with special needs and pushing back on Certain Parts of the country where some folks have never really stopped trying to get out of providing poor students and students of color with a fully-funded quality education.

The Trump 2.0 repurposed the same department. They kept much of the language of the original mission:

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides that “[n]o person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”

But in one weird trick that right wingers like to use, they have reinterpreted that to mean "don't deny any white guys cool stuff that other people get," grouped those naughty behaviors under the DEI label, and tried to back it up by brandishing the SCOTUS decision for SFFA v. Harvard-- the one that struck down Affirmative Action. 

Having decided that simply declaring their new version of the law was not enough, the regime has declared that every state and local district must sign a loyalty oath, saying they have reviewed the regime demand and admit it's a requirement for federal financial support. This is an attempt to get state and local educators to comply in advance, as if the courts have already agreed with the regime's assertion that DEI is actually illegal. 

Many Democrat-led states and districts have pushed back hard. California and Vermont told districts to go ahead and ignore the loyalty oath demands. Chicago's mayor said, "See you in court." 

Pennsylvania has simply employed ju-jitsu or a double-reverse or whatever you want to call it.

First, the latter from Executive Deputy Secretary of Education Angela Fitterer was sent via e-mail, like the regime's demand, because if the regime doesn't know how to manage major pieces of business, we can play that game to.

Second, the PA letter is addressed "Dear Sir or Madam," underscoring the fact that the regime's edict was sent out unsigned. 

Third, the letter affirms that Pennsylvania follows Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1864, always has, always will. So no problem here. It ignores the attempt to re-interpret that language and simply addresses the issue that the feds pretend to raise--whether or not people are following Title VI. 

We'll see how this plays out. Maybe someone at the federal ed department will actually sign a real letter saying, "No, we need you to swear allegiance to our cockeyed new definition of Title VI." Or maybe they will just say, "See, Pennsylvania also agrees to follow Title VI" and pretend that people don't mean two entirely different thing when they talk about Title VI. Maybe they'll get pissy and yell, "No, you have to agree that Title VI only means what WE think it means and not what people have thought it meant for the last sixty years." 

It's not as feisty as some states, nor as subservient as others, but it puts Pennsylvania on the right side of this issue. I do love a display of passive-aggressive non-compliance, and anything that puts MAGA "clarifying" and reasserting their racist intentions is better than the obsfucatory bullshit they've been employing.

"We're just demanding you follow Title VI," they said, pleased with their own cleverness at owning the libs by turning their own laws against them.

"What a coincidence," says Pennsylvania. "We have been following Title VI all along and have every intention of continuing to do so. So glad we agree on this."

We'll see what the next move is. 

Wendell Berry's Rules for New Tech

 Wendell Berry was born in 1934 and grew to be a writer across a wide number of forms, as well as working as an activist and farmer, mostly in rural Kentucky. He opposed the Vietnam War, debated Then-Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz, and published a critique of George W. Bush's post-9/11 strategy. When he was 76 years old, he and 14 other protestors got themselves locked in the Kentucky governor's office to protest mountaintop removal coal mining (strip mining on steroids). And he's still at it, delivering hearing testimony in 2022. 

Berry came up with rules for things; you may very well have seen some over the years. There are his 17 rules for a sustainable local community, and his 9 rules for consumption, but today I'm looking at his 9 rules for technology. Blogger Ted Gioia reminded me of these rules; Berry whipped them up as a response to friends who were trying to convince him that a computer would be a step up from handwritten copy typed up on a thirty-year-old typewriter  ("Why I Am Not Going To Buy A Computer," 1987).

The rules have many applications, but they fit very nicely for the conversations we continue to have in education, particular the heavily-pushed AI. So let's take a look.

The new tool should be cheaper than the one it replaces.

Part of what is driving the AI love (like many innovations before it) is the dream of replacing expensive teaching professionals with something cheaper. Curriculum in a box appeals to those who want to de-professionalize education, doing for teaching what McDonald's did for cheffing.

AI promises these same folks something even more exciting-- replacing teachers with software that will be cheap and, better yet, never talk back or unionize. 

Is AI really cheaper? We don't know yet; right now, AI companies are trying to conquer the market amazon-style, forgoing making money until after they've planted their flag on the education summit. But at some point they are going to want to make money. Then we'll see the real price.

Probably still cheaper than a human, but then, price paid to the company will be only part of the cost. There's the giant sucking up of electricity, and the blowing through a gazillion gallons of water to cool servers. Plus the cost of students under-educated, because while Musk and Gates can insist that AI can do a teacher's job, they make that claim only because they don't understand what a teacher does or how education works. 

It should be at least as small in scale as the one it replaces.

Computers have been taking teacher ed tech in this direction for years, from the giant computer set-up of twenty years ago to the run-everything-from-a-tablet tech of today. Students, however, have been pushed in the other direction. A book, a tablet, and a pen or pencil are far more compact than a desktop, and a netbook barely competes, particularly because the netbook requires plug-in (and the school's network to be working properly). 

Is AI more small scale than a human teacher? I guess they win on that one.

It should do work that is clearly and demonstrably better than the one it replaces.

Hoo boy. Enshittification has meant that even things that used to meet this start to fall behind. Is Google better than the card catalog or reference books in your library? Well, it used to be. Now if Google (or dozens of other search engines) even correctly interprets what you have asked, you must scroll past mountains of advertising and paid-for search results.

This is perhaps how AI marketeers keep hope alive, because ChatGPT can do better work than your worst teacher or your worst student (as long as it doesn't present too many flat out errors) but cannot keep up with good teachers and students. 

But "do work" is performing feats of Olympic weight-lifting status here, because, yes, if you think the work is to research and write an essay, ChatGPT can mimic that task. But if you think the work is to acquire and synthesize understandings and insights, then no-- ChatGPT can't do any of those things at all, and its performance of those tasks instead of students studenting means the work wasn't done at all.

It should use less energy than the one it replaces.

Oh, no. AI is gobbling up the power supply and only getting worse and worse.

If possible, it should use some form of solar energy, such as that of the body.

As suggested above, Berry was not a fan of coal burning for generating electricity. But the shift to solar isn't happening in any large scale way, and certainly not with AI.

It should be repairable by a person of ordinary intelligence, provided that he or she has the necessary tools.

We've moved steadily backward on this one in many ways. Computerizing tech creates barriers to repairability, but companies have taken other steps. John Deere infamously led the way by forbidding its customers to work on the tractors that they had bought with their own money. There's your annoying printer that now won't work unless you buy the company's official more-precious-than-hold ink. 

AI adds another level to this problem--not even the people who work with LLM and generative AI fully understand what exactly the computer is doing, nor can they necessarily fix it-- though they do have access to ways to push the tech in one desired direction or another. 

It should be purchasable and repairable as near to home as possible.

Berry was writing forty-ish years ago, so I'm not sure how he would have interpreted the ability to order and download stuff when it comes to this rule. AI can, of course, be wherever you want it to be--certainly more so than possible or desirable with a human teacher. Though use of platforms has allowed teachers to extend their "presence" to students 24/7.

It should come from a small, privately owned shop or store that will take it back for maintenance and repair.

Not happening. Wasn't happening back when Berry was writing. 

It should not replace or disrupt anything good that already exists, and this includes family and community relationships.

As Gioia writes, "This may be the biggest tech failure of them all." Tech has been written to exploit creators and manipulate users deliberately and sometimes dangerously. And "disrupt" is of course one of the tech world imperatives. Why? Maybe they just want to work out long-lived anger that they didn't get to sit at the popular kids table, or maybe they feel it's their right to rule over the lesser beings whose understanding is so clearly inferior to their own. 

Whatever the case, anyone who has taught for more than one week is familiar with the teacher "training" for a new solution where the undercurrent (sometimes not all that "under") is "You guys are doing it wrong and we are here to straighten you out." 

"Move fast and break things" is the opposite of what Berry's ninth rule favors, but it's a beloved tech-lord mantra. It would carry a lot more heft if the "things" we were talking about weren't the parts of the system that delivers education to young humans. Berry's rules might seem a little quaint, but I don't think it would hurt us much to pay attention to them.

Dangerous Learning and Culture Panic

Derek Black's new book Dangerous Learning: The South's Long War on Black Literacy is absolutely worth the read. I've talked about it at Forbes.com in my best fake journalist tones. But I want to go back to the book because A) I heard Black talk about it last weekend and B) this book is damned awesome and I can't say "damned awesome" at Forbes.com.

There many damned cool things about the book. First, there's a clearer picture of the story we all think we know. We tend to think that teaching enslaved persons to read and write was just always illegal and frowned on and that's it. But Black points out that, in fact, there was a point early on when lots of folks taught Blacks to read and write-- missionaries, some who held enslaved folks, etc. 

Shutting down literacy was, as Black portrays it, a response to particular events, led by some extraordinary individuals. That starts with Denmark Vesey, who really deserves an entire book of his own, which should then be turned into a movie. Extraordinary man with an extraordinary life that leads him, eventually, to lead at slave revolt in Charleston. Except that the revolt doesn't quite some off. But the planned attempt gets peoples' attention. Then come David Walker and Nat Turner (all well before the Civil War) with increasingly scary slave revolts.

This is what kicks off a huge culture panic in the South. This weekend Black used the word "paranoia." 

The revolt of enslaved persons is seen as a threat to the South's way of life. And at this point history starts to seem awfully damned familiar. It's not just that Blacks are forbidden to learn to read and write. Southern authorities start clamping down on any sort of avenue for subversive ideas. They try to get Northern states to clamp down on the folks printing subversive pamphlets. They start scrutinizing schools for teachers and textbooks for any hint of Forbidden Stuff, only instead of searching for CRT or gender ideology or divisive concepts that might be indoctrinating their children, they're looking for Northern Ideas. And they tried to guarantee that anything that slipped through would not be caught by enslaved persons. The lesson they took away was that a literate Black person was a dangerous one.

Like our current culture panic crowd, they are searching for something so vaguely defined that it covers a very broad area. But those Southerners achieve something that, so far, is only a dream for the modern culture panic crowd-- they managed to shut down all dissenting views. Black makes the argument that there was a variety of views about literacy and Northen Stuff in the South, but the culture panic shut all discussion down. And as Black said this weekend, once that dissent was silenced, an ugly outcome, even war, was inevitable.

This all illuminates why I stay away from the phrase "culture war." A war implies to combatants both charging the field to attack their enemies. But in the struggle for Black literacy (and I'd argue in our present-day attempts to shut down discussions of race and LGBTQ and Naughty Sex stuff), only one side is trying to attack the other. That other side is just trying to live their lives and make a better future for themselves. But for them to have that future is seen by the combative side as a threat to their way of life. 

There's lots more to find in this book. The story of secret schools that managed to deliver education t0o Blacks even when it was illegal--and dangerous to be caught. Plus the always-depressing tale of how things unspooled under Reconstruction and Jim Crow. 

It's a hell of a book. Black combines deep and thorough research with compelling narratives. I came away with more knowledge about things I hadn't known and a better perspective for things I had known. And the way that this earlier moment echoes our current one gives the book a sharp edge of relevance. If you have not already done so, grab a copy of this book. 

ICYMI: Columbus Edition (4/6)

Greetings from the NPE conference in Columbus, Ohio. It's also  the first time in quite a while that the CMO and I have been out without the board of directors. So it's a great weekend, even if Columbus reminds me very much of a big concrete hamster tunnel run. I've still got some reading for you. 

Naval Academy removes nearly 400 books from library in new DEI purge ordered by Hegseth’s office

Book banning for the military, because if there's anyone we want to have a limited view of the world...

If You Thought Mike DeWine Hated Public School Kids, Wait'll You Meet Matt Huffman

Stephen Dyer traces the source of Ohio's newest school budgeting failures.

Connecting the Dots

Why is Trumpworld so obsessed with education? Jennifer Berkshire has an answer for that question, and a suggestion for edu-journalists.

No Future in Our Dreaming

Audrey Watters spins off the Berkshire piece, plus other bonuses.

Teachers warn AI is impacting students' critical thinking

Ivana Saric at Axios with some of the least surprising news ever.

Will Religion’s Remarkable Winning Streak at the Supreme Court Continue?

Adam Liptak at the New York Times reminds us what's at stake with the upcoming SCOTUS take on a Catholic charter school.

The Battle Over Church and State Could Take Down the Charter School Movement

Adam Laats at the New Republic makes the case that this Supreme Court case is really a lose-lose moment for the charter industry.

Oklahoma Democrats file joint resolutions to disapprove social studies standards

Not that Oklahoma Democrats have a lot of say, but there's a fight continuing in that legislature over the proposed christianist nationalist social studies standards.

Columbus parents, leaders express frustration over student name changes

Columbus schools surprised students and parents with a little comply-in-advance rollback of name use.

West Virginia teachers unions vote to combine and form ‘Education WV’

AFT and NEA merge for the first time in West Virginia, where any little bit of gain in teacher power is a big deal.

Protect Funding for College & Career Readiness Programs—Take Action Now!

Florida is, as always, in the forefront of terrible education choices. How about slashing the heck out of CTE, AP, and a host of other programs? Sue Kingery Woltanski has the details.

So it's 'lawfare' to question paying $80 million to a 'D'-rated charter school?

In Arizona, a failing charter is being shut down, and wining about it. Laurie Roberts offers a blistering op-ed.

Boys

Nancy Flanagan looks at the question of what has happened to boys.

With Trump’s Education Department, Public Schools Can’t Count on Previous Federal Funding Commitments

Trump's old personal policy of stiffing people for their work is now federal policy. Jan Resseger looks at the new normal of the feds reneging on contracts.

Mortal Thinking

Well, this is pretty damn awesome. Audrey Watters and Benjamin Riley together for a podcast.

The Tech Fantasy That Powers A.I. Is Running on Fumes

Tressie McMillan Cottom for the New York Times with a take that I hope turns out to be the right one (and which pissed off all sorts of techbros on line), which is that AI is just mid.

This week at Forbes.com I took a look at Derek Black's new book, and you should, too. 

Have some George Harrison.

And as always, I invite you to subscribe to my newsletter, a slightly more reliable way to keep updated in this wonky webby world.

Maybe It's The Racism

I want to return to West Ada because I think there's more to learn here, and not just foir folks in Idaho.

Quick recap. Sarah Inama is a 6th grade world civilizations teacher in West Ada School District (the largest district in the state). She had two posters in her classroom. Here they are.

She was told to take them down. She did. Then she went home, thought about it, and put the second one, the one with many skin tones hands, back up. She's been told to get rid of it by year's end. She took her story to a local reporter, and then all hell broke loose.

We know a lot more now thanks to some stellar reporting by Carly Flandro and the folks at Idaho Ed News, who FOIAed 1200 emails surrounding this. You should read the resulting stories (here and here). I'm going pick out just a few points. 

The district had Inama when she disobeyed the order; the word "insubordination" was used. In my local union president days, the standard advice in situations was "comply, then grieve" because once you refuse to comply, you are insubordinate. Inama's high profile made disciplining her a PR nightmare for the district,  but it also seems the district admins and board couldn't really decide where they wanted to go with this.

Inama was told the poster was divisive, that it was "not neutral," that the problem was not the message, but the hands of v arious skin tones. Teachers shouldn't have political stuff in the classroom.  Inama nails the issue here

“I really still don’t understand how it’s a political statement,” she said. “I don’t think the classroom is a place for anyone to push a personal agenda or political agenda of any kind, but we are responsible for first making sure that our students are able to learn in our classroom.”

And yet many folks within and outside the district saw this as a political issue. How could anyone do that? Meet district parent Brittany Bieghler, who was dropping her kids off the day that parents were chalking the "Everyone is welcome here" message on the sidewalks.

“The ‘Everyone is Welcome’ slogan is one filled with marxism and DEI, there is no need for those statements because anyone with a brain knows that everyone is welcome to attend school, so there is no need to have it posted, written or worn on school grounds,” she wrote. “My family and I relocated here from a state that did not align with our beliefs and we expected it to be different here, but it seems as time goes by, its becoming more like our former state, which is extremely disheartening.”

"Anyone with a brain" might begin to suspect that everyone is not welcome here under these circumstances. And the school board itself couldn't decide what to respond, drafting an assortment of emails that tried to show conciliation to those that were defiant and defensive, including one complaining in MAGA-esque tones that Inama was naughty for going to "new media."

But I want you to look at the offending poster again. The curent Trumpian argument is that all this Marxist DEI naughhtiness is bad because it unfairly elevates people of color above white folks, that white folks are being discriminated against and denied what they deserve. The new Ed Dpartment civil rights office is dedicated to rooting out discrimination--against white folks. But look at those hands, the ones that make this poster controversial. The hands are all the same size, all have the same prominence and weight in the poster. It's not as if the Black and Brown hands are dominating the frame. Is it political to suggest that they are somehow equal? What could explain that?

Maybe it's the racism.

What would be the acceptable alternative? White hands given greater prominence and weight in the image? No hands at all so that folks can imagine whatever relationship between tghe skin tons they prefer, even if what they imagine contradicts the message of the poster? 

Inama has also been the target of district concern trolling, the whole "Of course we agree with the message, but we don't want to see our teachers embroiled in controvefrsy like this" thing. But that's an admission that given the choice between making children feel welcome in your district and maintaining the comfort of racists, your district chooses the comfort of racists. That is not a great district policy, no better than folks who suggested that Black students should not try to show u at newly-integrated sc hools because there would just be trouble. 

The district also says that it took this action because of Idaho's anti-diversity bill, which parallels the anti-diversity edicts comeing out of DC. While the Trump edict on DEI in education has been vague as hell, if this is how it's going to be interpreted, things are going to get extremely ugly. If it's discrimination against white people to admit that people of color exist and have just as much value as white folks--well, what would explain such a viewpoint?

Maybe it's the racism.

There's one more layer here, and the district seems to be missing this entirely. There's a world of difference between never putting that poster up in the first place and taking it down after it was already up. The latter is a pretty explicit rejection of the message, and it makes matters far worse.

West Ada is a bad harbinger of what's to come. If a public school system can't bring itself to say unequivocally, "All students are welcome here, and that means students of every race, religion, and creed" then we are in a bad place. If a school leader can't identify racism when we see it and call it wrong, they have really lost their way.

Trump, McMahon, and Gollum's Lie

They couldn't resist. Faced with a choice between either sending education back to the states in the form of unrestricted block grants or using the power of that big pile of money to force states to bend the knee, the administration just could not throw the Ring of Power away. Especially when they can use The Precious to force their most favorite thing in the world-- making someone bow to them and kiss the ring, acknowledging that Dear Leader is their master, and they will do as Dear Leader tells them to.

So the Department of Education will require every school and state to sign a statement certifying that they will absolutely comply with the administration's demand that they never, ever touch that nasty DEI stuff. Otherwise, the administration will withhold the money. Dance, puppets! Dance!

This is yet another probably-illegal Trump move; the federal government is expressly forbidden to dictate to local schools how they are going to do business. But Trump wouldn't be the first President to look at that obstacle and say, "I'll bet we can work around this." No Child Left Behind and Race To The Top wore that obstacle down to barely a speed bump.

So rather than wait for the courts to weigh in and then Trump to ignore them and then for them to weigh in again, I have an idea about how districts can deal with this. 

Lie.

Pinky promise that you will never ever touch the dirty DEI. Make the pledge. Sign whatever piece of paper they concoct. And then go back to doing what you know is right.

I mean, lying is the Trump way. Say whatever the hell you want, make whatever claims suit you, and then go back to doing whatever you intended to do. Breaking agreements and welching on contracts is the Trump business way, and given the amount of government contractual obligation being cut off in mid progress, it's apparently the Trump government way as well. 

And Trump and McMahon are lying right now with this demand. The administration continues to be coy and vague about what, exactly, about DEI they want stopped. One reason is because having clear rules reduces the dependence on Dear Leader. It's not just that the chilling effect will lead to people over-complying in advance. It's that having a clear rule would mean that people wouldn't have to constantly turn back to Dear Leader for approval. "There are no rules," says the authoritarian ruler. "Not even rules I make. There is only me. Don't ever take your attention away from me."

The DEI rules are also vague because even these guys know that saying out loud, "The nice things must always be only for the white people. You must never give attention, privilege, or support to non-white people that is more than what white people get."

See, they are lying about what this edict requires. 

If you are a long-time regular reader, you know that I am not a fan of lying. I hate lies. Lying is a toxic activity, and it always comes with a cost.

They are lying about what they want, about what they are demanding schools to do. What they appear to want is A) for every school and state in the country to acknowledge that Dear Leader is the boss of them and B) stop trying to give nice things to people who aren't white. 

I hate lies. But schools are now in a lose-lose, lie-lie situation. Either they accept the lies implicit in the edict, or they lie about what they are going to do. One of those lies allows for mistreatment of students and erosion of the independence and local control of schools. The other lets educators do the work they are supposed to be doing. 

Gollum could not willingly give up the ring of power, and he used it for terrible purposes. Would it have been wrong to lie to him? These are the kinds of moral dilemas we face these days.

I was about halfway through my career when I concluded that teaching is a sort of guerilla battle in which one pursues the work and does whatever one must to circumvent obstacles, even if those obstacles are things (and people) that are supposed to be supporting you. How many teachers dealt with requirements to tag every bit of every lesson plan with the specific standards it would address by simply adding whatever tags filled up the space and then went back to work, paperwork requirements met. Schools could do that again. 

Difficult times call for difficult choices. I'm just saying.

OK: Another First Amendment Lawsuit

Oklahoma's Education Dudebro-in-Chief just loves him some lawsuits, so he's decided to launch another one, this time going after the Freedom From Religion Foundation in a federal lawsuit that pushes back against a challenge to his efforts to inject Christianity into Oklahoma classrooms.

The triggering event for Walters appears to have been a cease and desist letter sent to Achilles Public School on behalf of a parent who objected to a beginning the day with a mandatory prayer and teachers reading Bible verses to students. Walters says this is about more than a single school, but does not name other schools in the suit. FFRF surmises that these may be references to other complaints against Oklahoma schools that were peacefully settled in previous years. 

Walters statement about the suit boils down to "We won't let these out-of-state atheists try to erase faith from public life." FFRF is based in Wisconsin.

The sequence of event laid out by the complaint puts the letter in the context of his drive to address the “dismantling of faith and family values in public schools.” It notes that he made his Bibles-in-classrooms directive, then opened the Office of Religious Liberty and Patriotism, and so, in line with that, an APS teacher started using Bible verses in lessons, and the school started including prayers in morning announcements. Shortly after that, the superintendent received the letter regarding “unconstitutional school-sponsored prayer and bible readings.” FFRF requested that the school knock it off.

The actual argument cites the "trendy disdain for deep religious convictions" line from Espinoza. It argues that Oklahoma is super-religious (therefor, I guess, they want religion injected in schools). OSDE and Walters are doing their job of determining what Oklahoma students should learn, and FFRF 

has interfered with and continues to interfere with Superintendent Walters’s and OSDE’s statutory duty to oversee Oklahoma’s public schools and their duty to implement curricular standards, investigate any complaints levied against an Oklahoma school, and advocate for its students and parents.

 There is the usual dismissal of the wall between church and state:

FFRF claims as its basis for such interference as its desire to “promote the constitutional principle of separation of church and state.” Curiously, neither the word “separation” nor the word “church” appears anywhere in the text of the United States Constitution. By contrast, the Declaration of Independence makes reference to God, a “Creator,” a “Supreme Judge,” and “Divine Providence,” thereby solidifying the notion that a complete “separation of church and state” was never the intention of the Nation’s founders.

The complaint also paints FFRF as just annoying busybodies, going all the way back to their response to the 1996 Oklahoma bombing. The audacity.  

In reality, their actions are nothing more than the very prejudice, hatred, and bigotry they pretend to despise hidden behind a thinly woven cloak of constitutional championship.

Finally, Achille is a small town and FFRF has 40,000 members. So FFRF, argues the complaint in "an analogy sure to draw FFRF's ire, is Goliath picking on a David. 

And while the plaintiffs face "irreparable injury," not so the FFRF

as the Defendant has no interest in how the State of Oklahoma chooses to govern its citizens, how the duly elected Superintendent of Public Instruction performs the duties of his office, or how Oklahoma’s public schools implement curriculum and standards set forth by the OSDE and the State Board of Education. Granting an injunction weighs in favor of public interest. If the citizens of Oklahoma are unhappy with their elected officials, the solution is at the ballot box, and not in the hands of an out-of-state organization with little else to do but issue non-stop cease and desist letters to rural and independent school districts in states that are half a country away from them.

I include all these quotes just to give a sense of how angry the lawsuit is. Walters, like many MAGA christianists, just seems so angry and unhappy. 

The lawsuit can't quite make up its mind about what's going on here. This Bible reading shouldn't be a big deal because the Supreme Court has long recognized "the secular value of religious texts, including the Bible, in school settings" but also the court should enjoin FFRF from interfering with the school faculty, staff or students "exercising their rights under the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment." So, there are no religious practices going on here, and also, how dare you interfere with these religious practices. But they're correct in mentioning the First Amendment, because if Walters' various Religion (But Only My Religion) In The Classroom policies aren't a violation of the Establishment Clause, I don't know what is. 

So here we go-- one more case to pry apart the First Amendment and batter the separation of church and state. Who knows how this will turn out, other than resulting in one more Ryan Walters media blitz. But in the meantime, if you'd like to join or contribute to the Freedom From Religion Foundation, you can do that here.