HB7 prohibits employers from “subjecting any individual, as a condition of employment, membership, certification, licensing, credentialing, or passing an examination, to training, instruction, or any other required activity that espouses, promotes, advances, inculcates, or compels such individual to believe” any of 8 concepts, many of which are related to the concept of systemic oppression. Similarly, it prohibits the Florida K-20 public education system from “subject[ing] any student or employee to training or instruction that espouses, promotes, advances, inculcates, or compels such student or employee to believe” any of the 8 concepts. In both cases, the law asserts that doing so “constitutes discrimination based on race, color, sex, or national origin.” Also, in both cases, the law clarifies that the law “may not be construed to prohibit discussion of the concepts … as part of a larger course of training or instruction, provided such training or instruction is given in an objective manner without endorsement of the concepts.”

Specifically, HB7 prohibits instruction in an academic setting based on the following 8 statements:

1. Members of one race, color, sex, or national origin are morally superior to members of another race, color, sex, or national origin.
2. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.”
3. An individual’s moral character or status as either privileged or oppressed is necessarily determined by his or her race, color, sex, or national origin.
4. Members of one race, color, sex, or national origin cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race, color, sex, or national origin.
5. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, bears responsibility for, or should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of, actions committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, sex, or national origin.
6. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment to achieve diversity, equity, or inclusion.
7. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, bears personal responsibility for and must feel guilt, anguish, or other forms of psychological distress because of actions, in which the individual played no part, committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, sex, or national origin.
8. Such virtues as merit, excellence, hard work, fairness, neutrality, objectivity, and racial colorblindness are racist or sexist, or were created by members of a particular race, color, sex, or national origin to oppress members of another race, color, sex, or national origin.

The negation of many of these prohibited concepts resurfaces in another section of HB-7 as 6 endorsed “principles of individual freedom” which it implies follows from “the fundamental truth that all persons are equal before the law and have inalienable rights.” Taken together, this implies our current governmental and legislative system has achieved this state of perfect equality. These 6 principles are described in HB-7 as follows:

1. No person is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously, solely by virtue of his or her race or sex.
2. No race is inherently superior to another race.
3. No person should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, disability, or sex.
4. Meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are not racist but fundamental to the right to pursue happiness and be rewarded for industry.
5. A person, by virtue of his or her race or sex, does not bear responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex.
6. A person should not be instructed that he or she must feel guilt, anguish, or other forms of psychological distress for actions, in which he or she played no part, committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex.

HB-7 mandates that all public school “instruction and supporting materials,” “school district instructional materials,” and “each school district[’s] … professional development system” must be consistent with these principles. It even requires that the professional development system for “the Department of Education, school districts, schools, Florida College System institutions, and state universities” must “be reviewed and approved” to ensure it does not contradict these principles.

We, as private citizens who serve as students, faculty, educators, and staff, oppose the statements outlined by HB7, as this Bill fundamentally ignores history and its effects on present day society. We have outlined below evidence demonstrating the existence of historical and present-day oppression, as well as the deleterious effects of not acknowledging and directly challenging such oppression. Any naming of an institution is for identification purposes only.

In order to work toward liberation from injustice, it is important to understand foundational key concepts such as privilege and oppression. According to Hardiman and colleagues (2007), social groups consist of individuals who share a range of physical, cultural, or social characteristics within one aspect of identity (e.g., race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, socioeconomic status, etc.). Within the overarching social dynamic, there exists a system that “maintains advantage and disadvantage based on social group membership and operates, intentionally and unintentionally, on individual, institutional, and cultural levels” known as oppression (Myers & Ogino, 2017). Identifying oppression and privilege also involves acknowledging its intersection across individual, environmental, institutional, structural, and systemic levels. Oppression has several dimensions that differentially affect social groups including 1) exploitation of a social group’s labor, 2) marginalization or the denial of participation in the economy and society, 3) powerlessness in decision making, 4) cultural imperialism, resulting in maintaining a dominant social group perspective while stereotyping or washing away perspectives of another, and 5) violence (e.g., unprovoked attacks or threats towards other social groups) (Young, 1990). Oppression can take several forms, including but not limited to racism, sexism, ageism, classism, religious oppression (e.g., antisemitism), heterosexism, and ableism. As a result of oppression within the system, some social groups inherently experience “privilege,” which can be defined as the “unearned access to resources only readily available to some people as a result of their advantaged social group membership” (Hardiman et al., 2007). In contrast, other social groups are denied access or have limited access to these same resources (i.e., “targeted”, “marginalized”, “oppressed” groups). These experiences of oppression are often internalized by targeted groups and can be further maintained by members of a privileged group and social institutions (Fletcher, 1999; Griffith et al., 2007; see below for examples). Recognizing, discussing, and teaching about privilege and oppression can be challenging, as the benefits of inherent privilege are usually “invisible” or perceived as “normal” to those who receive it (McIntosh, 1998). However, differences between privileged and oppressed groups are socially constructed, arising from multiple historical, political, and social factors. It is necessary to acknowledge these differences in order to deconstruct them and create an equitable society.

The deleterious effects of discrimination, racism, racial trauma are well-documented (Mosley et al., 2021; Carter, 2007; Pascoe & Richman, 2009; Michaels et al., 2022). Adverse symptoms of racial trauma include negative cognitions and mood, avoidance, arousal, and re-experiencing trauma (Mosley et al., 2021; Carter, 2007). Indeed, racism is a key driver of health inequities (Michaels et al., 2022; Williams et al., 2019). For example, racial/ethnic discrimination is associated with extensive negative physical and mental health outcomes, including but not limited to increased allostatic load, inflammation, hypertension, poorer sleep, anxiety, lower self-esteem, greater externalizing behaviors, and lower academic engagement, motivation, and achievement (Williams et al., 2019; Benner et al., 2018).  

Policies and practices within and across institutions (intentionally or unintentionally) can produce outcomes that favor a particular racial group over another (i.e., structural racism). Throughout history, this has included Jim Crow laws enforcing racial segregation in public schools. Additionally, in Milliken v. Bradley (1974), the Supreme Court walked back anti-segregation legislation that was designed to counteract Jim Crow school segregation laws. They distinguished between de jure (“of right”; i.e. by law) and de facto (“of fact”; i.e. in actuality) segregation, ruling that de jure segregation was illegal while de facto segregation was not. This means that there is no legal issue if social, political, and/or economic reasons cause schools to become racially segregated, as long as there are no formalized policies which explicitly sort students into schools based on their race.

The detrimental effects of racism also extend beyond the individuals who experience racial trauma and have adverse effects within communities. These effects include but are not limited to poverty, housing discrimination, mental health disparities, community violence, educational disparities, anti-immigrant sentiment, and governmental divestment (Santiago-Rivera et al., 2016; Williams et al., 2019). Importantly, literature suggests increases in experiences of racism for some individuals in recent years. For example, Asian Americans have experienced elevated racism during the COVID-19 pandemic, such as microaggressions, hate crimes, and vicarious discrimination. These experiences are linked to poorer physical health, mental health (anxiety, depression), and sleep outcomes (Lee & Waters, 2021). Further, unfair advantages continue into the present because the oppressive practices themselves have been institutionalized (i.e., woven into the fabric of our social-political-economic system). For example, effects of unfair housing practices like redlining continue to exist de facto nationally and within the state of Florida through gentrification and underlie the racial wealth gap (Faber, 2020). Additionally, Black/African American individuals are less likely to be offered jobs due to their names, highlighting the racial biases underlying resume screening (Bertrand & Mullainathan, 2004). Black women are also shown to face even more difficulty receiving jobs due to their intersectional identity (Weller, 2019). Drake and colleagues found that teachers of minoritized racial/ethnic groups are 50% more likely to receive lower evaluation ratings than White teachers within the same schools (2019). White students are also perceived as more compliant than students of color, which results in higher attrition rates for Black students because they are more likely to be expelled than their White counterparts (Roberts & Rizzo, 2021).

These disadvantages then go on to take a profound toll on oppressed people’s future higher education and career opportunities. According to the most recent data available at the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES; U.S. Department of Education), the public high school 4-year adjusted cohort graduation rate (ACGR) for White students is 89.4%, but the rate for Black students is nearly 10% lower (79.6%), the rate for Hispanic students is about 8% lower (81.7%), and the rate for American Indian/Alaska Native students is 15% lower (74.3%). Similar disparities are seen in college enrollment rates. The most recent NCES data shows that the college enrollment rate of 18- to 24-year-olds is 5% lower for Black people, 6% lower for Hispanic people, and 18% lower for American Indian/Alaska Native people compared to White people. In addition to disparities in enrollment rates, retention is also significantly lower for students of color relative to White students. Specifically, recent NCES data on 6 year graduation rates show that for public school students, when compared to White students, the rate is 22% lower for Black students, 8% lower for Hispanic students, 10% lower for Pacific Islander students, and 26% lower for American Indian/Alaska Native students. This data illustrates the domino effect that begins at an early age and results in a wide-scale unjust denial of barriers to higher degree attainment and larger incomes for people of color in the United States. Factors such as these contribute to the lingering racial wealth gap in America. Thompson and Suarez (2015) found that in most years between 1989 and 2013, the average net worth of White families was between 5-6 times greater than Black families and 4-5 times greater than Hispanic families. They found that this wealth gap was 80-100% explained by differences in demographic variables, including years of formal education and differences in employment status, occupation, and industry.

Prohibiting advocacy for corrective action against ongoing processes of systemic oppression can also have deleterious effects. While some believe that colorblindness is a way to move past systemic racism, research suggests the opposite: denying structural racism (i.e., colorblind racial ideology) is a barrier to racial equity (Yi et al., 2022). This ideology leads to prejudice against people of color, reduced racial empathy and openness to diversity, lower levels of multicultural competencies, and increased victim-blaming. Such a mindset decreases the likelihood that White people and organizations will take responsibility for the ongoing effects of systemic racism and work to dismantle power structures of oppression (Yi et al., 2022). Furthermore, while individuals may endorse use of a colorblind approach interpersonally, research has shown that perceptual differentiation of race is unavoidable, automatic, and emerges at a very young age (Apfelbaum et al., 2012). In fact, people exposed to arguments promoting colorblindness have subsequently displayed greater explicit and implicit racial bias (Apfelbaum et al., 2012). HB-7’s colorblind approach is consistent with a common misinterpretation of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s 1963 I Have a Dream Speech, which Dr. King addressed 4 years later: “I must confess, that dream that I had that day has, at many points, turned into a nightmare.”

Progress toward a society in which all members are included, respected, and provided equitable treatment necessitates acknowledgement and understanding of the historical and ongoing harm perpetuated by oppressive systems, coupled with corrective action. Equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) efforts involve those promoting anti-racist attitudes, beliefs, policies, and practices to actively challenge racism, discrimination, and oppression at the individual, institutional, societal, and systemic levels. Many professional organizations have adopted an EDI framework. For example, the American Psychological Association (APA) has committed to a specific strategic plan promoting equity, diversity, and inclusion across all areas of psychological science and practice. Specifically, APA commits to uplifting marginalized and oppressed voices while learning from history to create a more inclusive, equitable, and diverse field of psychology. Additionally, the University of Florida is one academic institution that has delineated antiracism as well as EDI as part of its strategic plan for The Decade Ahead . As individuals operating within academic institutions, we aim to continue to uphold these values outlined by our parent organizations through our research, education, and clinical practice.

We therefore strongly oppose HB7, as it inherently undermines EDI efforts by promoting inaccurate conceptions of “fairness, neutrality, objectivity, and racial colorblindness.” In reality, prohibiting advocacy for corrective action against ongoing processes of systemic oppression is not fair or neutral. It is critical to acknowledge and teach about historical and present-day oppression and advocate for corrective action against systemic oppression. We must engage in these critical topics within academic settings, as this promotes inclusive and equitable practices more broadly. Thus, we the undersigned believe this law preserves the unfair advantages that have been built into the societal, political, and economic structure of the United States, as the data show unambiguously that inequalities flow from systemic oppression. HB-7 is not supported by objective data, as detailed in the attached appendix, and we directly and firmly stand against its statements and application.

Sincerely,

The Students, Faculty, Educators, and Staff of Florida’s Public Education System

 

References

Apfelbaum, E. P., Norton, M. I., & Sommers, S. R. (2012). Racial color blindness: Emergence, practice, and implications. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(3), 205-209.

Benner, A. D., Wang, Y., Shen, Y., Boyle, A. E., Polk, R., & Cheng, Y. P. (2018). Racial/ethnic discrimination and well-being during adolescence: A meta-analytic review. American Psychologist, 73(7), 855.

Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. (2004). Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination. The American Economic Review. 

Carter, R. T. (2007). Racism and Psychological and Emotional Injury: Recognizing and Assessing Race-Based Traumatic Stress. The Counseling Psychologist, 35(1), 13–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006292033

Drake, S., Cowen, J., & Auletto, A. (2019). Race and gender differences in teacher evaluation ratings and teacher employment outcomes. Education Policy Innovation Collaborative. 

Faber, J. W. (2020). We built this: Consequences of new deal era intervention in America’s racial geography. American Sociological Review, 85(5), 739-775.

Fletcher, J. K. (1999). Disappearing acts: Gender, power, and relational practice at work. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Griffith, D. M., Mason, M., Yonas, M., Eng, E., Jeffries, V., Plihcik, S., & Parks, B. (2007). Dismantling institutional racism: theory and action. American Journal of Community Psychology, 39(3), 381-392.

Lee, S., & Waters, S. F. (2021). Asians and Asian Americans’ experiences of racial discrimination during the COVID-19 pandemic: Impacts on health outcomes and the buffering role of social support. Stigma and Health, 6(1), 70–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/sah0000275

Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717 (1974). https://www.oyez.org/cases/1973/73-434

Mosley, D. V., Hargons, C. N., Meiller, C., Angyal, B., Wheeler, P., Davis, C., & Stevens-Watkins, D. (2021). Critical consciousness of anti-Black racism: A practical model to prevent and resist racial trauma. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 68(1), 1.

Myers A. & Ogino Y. (2017). Power, privilege, and oppression [PowerPoint slides]. Teaching Resources on Allyship & Privilege, Global Campaign for PEACEducation. https://www.peace-ed-campaign.org/teaching-resources-allyship-privilege/

Pascoe, E. A., & Smart Richman, L. (2009). Perceived discrimination and health: a meta-analytic review. Psychological bulletin, 135(4), 531.

Roberts, S. O., & Rizzo, M. T. (2021). The psychology of American racism.American Psychologist, 76(3), 475–487. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000642

Santiago-Rivera, A. L., Adames, H. Y., Chavez-Dueñas, N. Y., & Benson-Flórez, G. (2016). The impact of racism on communities of color: Historical contexts and contemporary issues. In A. N. Alvarez, C. T. H. Liang, & H. A. Neville (Eds.), The cost of racism for people of color: Contextualizing experiences of discrimination (pp. 229–245). American Psychological Association.

Thompson, J. P. & Suarez, G. A. (2015). Exploring the racial wealth gap using the Survey of Consumer Finances,” Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2015-076. Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. http://dx.doi.org/10.17016/FEDS.2015.076

U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.

Weller, C. (2019). African Americans face systematic obstacles to getting good jobs. The Center for American Progress. 

Williams, D. R., Lawrence, J. A., Davis, B. A., & Vu, C. (2019). Understanding how discrimination can affect health. Health Services Research, 54, 1374-1388.

Yi, J., Neville, H. A., Todd, N. R., & Mekawi, Y. (2022). Ignoring race and denying racism: A meta-analysis of the associations between colorblind racial ideology, anti-Blackness, and other variables antithetical to racial justice. Journal of Counseling Psychology.

Young, I. M. (1990). Chapter 2: Five faces of oppression. in Justice and the Politics of Difference, p. 39-65.