A new South Dakota policy to stop the use of gender pronouns by public university faculty and staff in official correspondence is also keeping Native American employees from listing their tribal affiliations in a state with a long and violent history of conflict with tribes.
Two University of South Dakota faculty members, Megan Red Shirt-Shaw and her husband, John Little, have long included their gender pronouns and tribal affiliations in their work email signature blocks. But both received written warnings from the university in March that doing so violated a policy adopted in December by the South Dakota Board of Regents.
“I was told that I had 5 days to remove my tribal affiliation and pronouns,” Little said in an email to The Associated Press. “I believe the exact wording was that I had ‘5 days to correct the behavior.’ If my tribal affiliation and pronouns were not removed after the 5 days, then administrators would meet and make a decision whether I would be suspended (with or without pay) and/or immediately terminated.”
The policy is billed by the board as a simple branding and communications policy. It came only months after Republican Gov. Kristi Noem sent a letter to the regents that railed against “liberal ideologies” on college campuses and called for the board to ban drag shows on campus and “remove all references to preferred pronouns in school materials,” among other things.
That sounds like a clear first amendment violation to me. It’s not like a political affiliation either, gender and ethnic background are core to identity
On the one hand, I see what you’re saying. It sounds much like something my savior Jesus would say.
On the other hand, something something fuck them queers and Injuns.
The first amendment doesnt apply to governmental communications.
Its the reason that things are able to be censored in public schools.
The reason things can be censored in schools is because of the “bong hits 4 Jesus” case that went to the Supreme Court who said the school taking it down didn’t violate their freedom of speeech because “it could reasonably seen as promoting drug use at a school event”.
Fucking stupid case because if I recall it was at a parade for the Olympic torch coming through their town (doesn’t sound like a school event to me) and was not on school property.
Just a kid who happened to go to school being harassed, outside of school, by a principal at a public parade in their town, for holding a silly sign.
So what is there a caveat to 1A that says, “Congress can make no law […] unless that speech or expression may reasonably be seen as promoting drug use”?
What a bullshit country run by octogenarian Christians who just won’t leave people the fuck alone.
deleted by creator