Idaho AG Office Forces Schools To Take Down ‘Everyone Is Welcome’ Signs For Being ‘Political’

from the giving-away-the-game dept

It’s been interesting to watch the current administration and its GOP backers contort themselves into logical pretzels to explain to Americans why their policies, which are clearly either steeped or tinged with racist elements, are not in fact racist. Immigration policies and practices that are conducted without such annoyances as due process are waved off as the mere enforcement of the law, ignoring just how selective that enforcement is. Facilities that are plainly echoing the practices of the Third Reich, or at least the practice of Japanese concentration camps, are laughed off as though they were exaggerations when they absolutely are not. Instances of fascism, up to and including the military marching the streets of our cities and deployed against our own people, are described not for what it is, but through Orwellian euphemisms to shrug at what should be a scandal.

It’s bullshit and those engaging in the bullshit know it. But every once in a while one of those bullshitters accidentally give away the game. Let’s go to Idaho and talk about how the Attorney General’s office is handling the enforcement of House Bill 41.

House Bill 41, which goes into effect Tuesday, prohibits flags or banners depicting a political viewpoint from public K-12 schools. The law’s vague language led to questions from educators and school leaders.

The IDE asked the attorney general’s office on March 28 for guidance on the new law. It took the attorney general’s office until May 29 to provide a response. The department then took nearly another month to provide guidance to school districts, which it did Thursday.

That guidance said school employees cannot display flags or banners that show opinions, emotions, beliefs or thoughts about politics, economics, society, faith or religion. The guidance and the attorney general’s opinion did not define these terms.

One instance of the enforcement guidance for this complete mess of a law concerned a teacher, Sarah Inama, in the West Ada School District. Inama hung a banner in her classroom in 2020. Here is exactly what it looked like.

In March, the District instructed Inama to take the banner down, citing the new law. She refused. Then guidance was requested over that specific instance from the Idaho AG office, headed up by Republican Raul Labrador, which provided the following response:

Using West Ada as an example, would the two displays in Ms. Inama’s classroom be prohibited by this law?

Yes. These signs are part of an ideological/social movement which started in Twin Cities, Minnesota the 2016 election of Donald Trump. See e.g. https://www.kare11.com/article/news/the-story-behind-the-all-are-welcome-here-signs/89-49621 4879. Since that time, the signs have been used by the Democratic party as a political statement. The Idaho Democratic Party even sells these signs as part of its fundraising efforts. See https://store.idahodems.org/everyone-is-welcome-24-x-18-coroplast-yard-sign/; https://store.idahodems.org/everyone-is-welcome-4-x-2-7-vinyl-sticker-pack-of-two/ Ms. Inama first displayed her sign in 2017, during the height of the above-referenced social movement. In media interviews, she explained she hung the sign to share her personal, ideological beliefs.

Inama quit the district over the banner issue and has instead been welcomed by the Boise School District.

Let’s start by picking apart all the wrong that is in the AG’s guidance above. First, Inama wasn’t even a teacher in 2017, so they have their dates completely wrong as a matter of fact. And, while it’s true that the Idaho Democratic Party fundraises using those banners, they both didn’t come up with the banners and didn’t start selling them until after the conflict between Inama and the district began in March, years after she hung it up. That seems pretty fucking important, no? Finally, the link cited by the AG’s office to support that the banners are political in nature as a matter of activism states exactly the opposite.

The opinion then links to a news story from a Minnesota news station back in 2017 when a group of women came together against hate after racist graffiti appeared at Maple Grove High School the day after Trump’s 2016 election. Their signs read “All are Welcome Here.” The founders of the movement told the TV station that their movement was about combating hate and was nonpartisan and secular.

These are supposed to be lawyers working for a secular state that should know how to properly research and cite their citations. The response on Inama’s case are wrong on nearly every factual question.

But perhaps what’s most interesting about this guidance is what it actually means if you look at it from a purely logic standpoint. We live, unfortunately, in a two-party political system. If the message that everyone is welcome in our public schools is a political statement, cited as being a Democrat policy by the AG, then the converse must be true. The GOP policy is therefore that everyone is not welcome in our public school system.

Now, we already know this to be true, of course. The book-banning community in America is, after all, almost entirely Republican. I’ll also note that nobody seems to be talking about the removal of the American flag from Idaho schools, nor the Pledge of Allegiance, both codified into Idaho law and both of them far more overt political symbols and practices than a banner about inclusion.

Given the casual application of both the letter and spirit of the anti-banner law, the stance of the AG’s office is plainly clear: every child is not welcome in our public schools. While that stance should obviously be abhorrent, I suppose it’s nice of the bigots to say this out loud.

But I, for one, think it would be better to allow benign signs of welcome and inclusion for children to exist. Because if that sort of thing is in fact political, then all is lost.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Idaho AG Office Forces Schools To Take Down ‘Everyone Is Welcome’ Signs For Being ‘Political’”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
75 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

‘Everyone is welcome’ is only ‘political’ if bigotry and exclusion are considered political as well

“Everyone is welcome” seems like an odd sign to put on a school, because aren’t there some people who are intentionally excluded from schools and even the areas surrounding them?

Of course exclusion is political. Excluding others is one of the primary reasons to make a country. It’s been done by pretty much all of them, all the time.

Strawb (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Of course exclusion is political. Excluding others is one of the primary reasons to make a country. It’s been done by pretty much all of them, all the time.

Correction: exclusion can be political. It’s not inherently so.

Even making a country through exclusion most likely had more to do with racial prejudice than politics, originally.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Even making a country through exclusion most likely had more to do with racial prejudice than politics, originally.

Convincing people that humanity is made up of “races” is a political act, the set of supposed races generally being tailored to some political goal. It goes hand in hand with convincing people that various government policies—such as exclusion—are normal and expected.

How many times have you heard people say stuff like “a country has to have borders” (even if what we’re discussing is border checkpoints or their specific policies rather than the mere existence of borders), or talk about whether someone’s in a country legally (with little concern or knowledge about what the laws are, whether they’re fair, or why some people get a pass based on their parentage)?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

“Everyone is welcome” seems like an odd sign to put on a school

…and, as our resident vampire watcher Stephen T. Stone might know, is how one accidentally invites vampires into one’s school (cf. Buffy the Vampire Slayer S02E17, Passion – “I was invited. […] ‘Enter all ye who seek knowledge.’”).

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
MrWilson (profile) says:

Re:

You say that like people aren’t aware of the origin.

All Lives Matter is a direct and hateful response to Black Lives Matter. Black Lives Matter was a statement that the lives of black people were being devalued by systemic oppression and unjust police actions, including extrajudicial murders that they constantly got away with. People uttering All Lives Matter obtusely pretended that Black Lives Matter was stating that only Black Lives Matter, which was bullshit. It also didn’t help that people uttering All Lives Matter have expressly stated the opposite, including their disdain for immigrants and LGBTQ people.

What all of this just emphasizes is that conservatives will make the most benign, the most compassionate, the most obvious, the most logical of stances into a “political stance” simply by opposing basic human and civil rights. Everything is “political” now because you think you can score stupid internet points by being petty and contrarian.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

People uttering All Lives Matter obtusely pretended that Black Lives Matter was stating that only Black Lives Matter, which was bullshit.

From my understanding as a white Christian, the slogan was pretty much stating that black lives matter just as much as other lives, but the shortening of that statement allowed bigots to deliberately misinterpret it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Uhm, no. It was a direct response by white people who was offended by the very notion that Black Lives Mattered as much as white people.

Using that phrase is the equivalent to saying “All children matter” in response to “Poor and starving children matter”. Ask yourself why would anyone use inclusive language in an effort to diminish the plight of others? The answer is simple, they don’t like the “others” and hate it with they get uppity.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re:

That’s because “All Lives Matter” is an explicitly political phrase, since it only became popular with right-wingers after the Movement for Black Lives popularized the phrase “Black Lives Matter” and right-wingers couldn’t stand the idea that Black lives are supposed to matter as much as everyone else’s lives. “All Lives Matter” is political because it tried to drown out a political message and replace it with one that is ostensibly apolitical but, in practice, was (and still is) incredibly political when you know its origins and its primary use case.

Also: You’re a Nazi, so shut the fuck up.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

MrWilson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Surely this time you can get Stephen to self-censor because you convinced him with your completely rational trolling! If you don’t like Stephen’s comment, you don’t have to read it. Koby’s posts and all replies are hidden within an hour of him posting, so you’re manually choosing to open and read them. Criticizing Stephen’s replies are just admitting you’ve chosen to waste your own time that you clearly don’t value, nor anyone else’s.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Trolls get fed

Hey sancho panza you’d be better off not opening Kdawgs replies to see Stephen’s then opening my closed replies to comment on mine because that is clearly a waste of time. Your time might in fact, be better spent trying to see if you can’t convince your buddy up on his high horse that tilting at windmills is a waste of time.

MrWilson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

I get to decide what my time is worth. Stephen gets to do the same with his. You’re the one wasting your time trolling because you’re admitting you’re wasting it and admitting you’re trolling. And you’re wasting it even more because your trolling isn’t effective. You’re not silencing anyone.

Ironically, you’re the one puffing Koby up attempting to legitimize his schtick by attacking people who point out his brain worms.

MrWilson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

Oh but please do continue to tell me what to do with mine.

Quote me where I told you what to do with your time. I just pointed out that you admitted you were wasting it and wasting the time of others. The only thing you’re accomplishing is looking like a fool.

And if you’re a very good lapdog maybe Stephen will let you ride on his high horse too!

It’s telling that you think opposition to sociopathic greed, hate, and authoritarianism is being on a high horse. What kind of sheltered, privileged, toxic life do you live where this seems accurate? You’re just admitting your trauma and taking it out on others. Get some help.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6

It’s telling that you think opposition to sociopathic greed, hate, and authoritarianism is being on a high horse.

Quoting A.R. Moxon here:

If you question these people of evil, they’ll tell you that they are just making the hard-nosed pragmatic decisions that are necessary to ensure our safety. This is clearly pure bosh. If these decisions were pragmatic and necessary, they wouldn’t rely exclusively on lies and self-contradictory nonsense and hypocrisy for their rationales, and if they were meant to ensure safety, they wouldn’t create so much death and destruction and pain and suffering.

I’m also told that one should never ascribe to malice that which can also be explained by ignorance. This is meant to be a morally sophisticated position, but I don’t know. It seems to me that ignorance is a core property of malice, and letting malice off the hook simply because it also happens to be ignorant is not so much a sign of moral sophistication but rather falling for a game that is pretty obviously designed to swindle rubes.

Anyway, it’s hard to credit the conservative movement with ignorance. If they were ignorant they’d sometimes accidentally choose less evil over more evil, but no. No matter where you set them, no matter how many times you spin them around, their moral compasses point with unerring certainty toward maximum atrocity and cruelty, and their gleeful celebration of it suggests that this isn’t about hard-nosed pragmatism, but rather a genuine desire for evil things to happen.

It’s an accurate enough description for Koby and for the people who want people who speak out about such cruelty and horror to shut the hell up. They don’t give a fuck about those cruelties until they happen to them⁠—which is precisely why the Trump administration has now softened its language about completely dismantling FEMA, since the situation in Texas made clear that yes, FEMA is absolutely a necessary component of the federal government. (Could it be better? Obviously.) The cruelty is the point; the feeling of superiority is the reason for the cruelty.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6

“ You’re just admitting your trauma and taking it out on others. Get some help.”

Your projection is almost cute. But do please do keep telling me what to do while telling me not to tell you and your special friend it’s a bad look to treat the resident village idiot like they are tenured professor.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7

it’s a bad look to treat the resident village idiot like they are tenured professor

And if anyone was doing that, you might have a point. But people routinely insult Koby in addition to debunking his shit-ass right-wing talking points. Nobody treats him like he’s anything but a bad faith asshole who takes delight in being so idiotically contrarian and mindlessly cruel that he’d probably cheer on a measles outbreak killing children if such a thing happened in a “blue” state.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9

No, I treat like a bad faith asshole. That doesn’t mean I have to be one myself. I like dismantling his arguments partially because it keeps my own thinking clear and sharp. Writing is how I figure out what I think; writing replies to dipshits like Koby is how I make sure I can back up what I think with at least some rationality. Don’t like what I do? Nobody asked you to obsess over me, least of all me, so door’s to your left and don’t let it hit ya where the folly of nature split ya, son.

MrWilson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7

Hey, look at that, no quote! Tacit admission that you’re making up bullshit. I appreciate your honesty.

But do please do keep telling me what to do while telling me not to tell you and your special friend it’s a bad look to treat the resident village idiot like they are tenured professor.

I’ve pointed out why it’s stupid for you to pretend that anyone dunking on Koby’s bad takes is somehow elevating Koby’s rhetoric. You’ve created that narrative. You seem to be the only one who holds that position. You seem to really care about it so much that you’ll resort to trolling, which is an admission of bad faith argument.

You are definitely free to make yourself look like an asshole, a fool, and a useful idiot for Koby’s sake. That you purport to disagree with him while championing his cause is really weird.

Why do you think Koby’s ideas should be given a free platform with no response? Are you not familiar with the concept of countering speech with more speech? Why do you want Techdirt comments to become a Nazi bar?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:8

You maybe wanna look at the part where I quoted you, champ.

“Tacit admission that you’re making up bullshit. I appreciate your honesty.”

Would you like to quote where I said that?

No? How weird.

Why do you in insist on putting words in my mouth while you get free rein to psychoanalyize me and demand I seek mental health treatment?

MrWilson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9

I said quote me where I told you what to do with your time, not just quote me in general.

Would you like to quote where I said that?

Apparently you don’t understand what tacit means. Your failure to quote me was the admission.

Why do you in insist on putting words in my mouth

Quote me where I did that. I just observed what your statements implicate.

while you get free rein to psychoanalyize me

You’re the one exhibiting the irrational behavior. It’s hard not to observe that. If you don’t want comments on it, you don’t have to show off your issues

and demand I seek mental health treatment?

“Get some help” wasn’t a demand. I have no illusions that you would seek help. If you were inclined to, you’d be doing that instead of trolling.

I don’t take you seriously. You’re a disingenuous troll. Ironically, you’re taking others seriously despite your admonition against doing so.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
MrWilson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

The implication being that it’s somehow irrational to become upset after exposure to upsetting material. “I’m a perfectly calm sociopath who takes nothing seriously and doesn’t care enough about human rights to get worked up about violations of it” isn’t a flex. It’s a confession of being broken.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re:

The point is that if a Christian/conservative posts an includivity poster,then you don’t think that they are welcome

No, we think that they’re being facetious about inclusivity because we’ve seen enough conservative Christian bullshit to know they’re not welcoming of people regardless of their race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, and/or (especially) religious creed. Shit, man, do you even know why conservative Christians latched onto abortion as an issue? It’s because they had to stop fighting desegregation since doing that made them look racist as fuck. These are your people, Koby: hatemongering fascists who would drag this country back at least a century if it meant queer people, women, and Black people didn’t have the same rights as white Christian men.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

MrWilson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

But treating like Kobe is a serious person is just sad.

You seem to be assuming this part. Refuting Koby’s bullshit doesn’t mean you take Koby seriously. You can take seriously what Koby represents, which is trolls and sycophants and repeater stations for propaganda. And not responding means they don’t get opposed, their bullshit is left without correction, their claims retain the pretense of validity in absence of anyone willing to stand against it. That’s complying in advance. That’s self-censorship. That’s what Kobys of the world want. And you’re trying to give it to them. You’re encouraging a system where only Koby gets to say anything. You can’t pretend to disagree with Koby, oppose his speech, and then champion his desire to be in the spotlight at the cost of free speech by others.

And sends the message that he is indeed worthy of consideration, instead of, at best, dispassionate ridicule.

Some of the speech you’re attacking is dispassionate ridicule. And you’ve admitted to trolling. You’ve literally resorted to being as bad as Koby in order to oppose people who oppose Koby in a misguided attempt at somehow hurting Koby…? That doesn’t make any sense.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

The point is that if a Christian/conservative posts an inclu[s]ivity poster,then you don’t think that they are welcome.

Well, I’m a Christian (Unitarian Universalist), and I do believe in inclusivity of people no matter their ethnicity, religious beliefs (including none), etc. Can you say the same? I think not. I think not.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Please don’t say that. It will only encourage bigoted “Christian” book banners who never actually read the book they defend, so they may follow that one like it’s an actual thing in the Bible along with “attack the homosexual perverts because the Good Book totally says they’re sinning!”

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Is Jesus’ “Love one another” is also political?

Absolutely. Jesus was trying to change the power structures of society in pretty major ways, and was eventually killed for it. And even among people who claim to follow Jesus, that statement remains quite radical.

It’s hard to get much more “political” than that.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Kinetic Gothic says:

Of course…

….“Everyone is welcome here” is political…

Because it is the official policy stance of the Idaho’s AG’s political party that they are entitled to use Government power either directly or by enabling others to ignore protections that bind the goverment.

To make it clear that people who aren’t like them are UNWELCOME.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

They can’t be bothered to read or follow the teachings of Christ

Or even the very Ten Commandments required to be posted, notably “Thou shalt not kill.” It has no exception for self-defense, war, capital punishment, non-human animals, or even plants.

(I’m not even kidding about the plants. Root vegetable consumption is avoided in Jain vegetarianism, specifically because the plants would die. This principle of non-violence is not derived from the Old Testament, but is similar, and followers actually take it pretty seriously.)

It has been plausibly said that “Thou shalt not kill” is a mistranslation, and the original text was not nearly that strict. But that’s the exact text required by Texas law, and if we’re talking about Christianity, Jesus wasn’t one for exceptions anyway (notably being said to have forgiven people even while being murdered by them).

Out of Order (profile) says:

In vs. On

The sign “Everyone is Welcome” was inside a classroom, not on the school, an important distinction. Also important is the variety of colors of the arms. While there are many people who have no business inside a children’s school, age-appropriate children, regardless of their appearance, should be welcome and feel welcome.

I was fully expecting to read that the sign was considered inappropriate due to the little hearts that indicated love, which is an emotion, and therefore prohibited by the Idaho AG’s guidance.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get all our posts in your inbox with the Techdirt Daily Newsletter!

We don’t spam. Read our privacy policy for more info.

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...