Latest news with #SenateBill266
USA Today
3 days ago
- Politics
- USA Today
I'm a Florida teacher. My passion to teach could be in violation of the law.
I'm a Florida teacher. My passion to teach could be in violation of the law. | Opinion This is the real damage: When fear begins to replace curiosity, and when silence replaces speech. Show Caption Hide Caption What we know now about President Trump's reshaping of education Education, especially higher education, has been a major focus of President Trump's term. Here is what we know now about his changes to education. As I prepare to teach a new literature course at Palm Beach State College (PBSC) this term, I find myself hesitating over something that, until recently, would have been routine: Selecting the works I assign to my students. The anthology adopted by our department includes powerful selections from African American, Latino, Asian American and LGBTQ+ writers – voices that capture the richness, contradiction and struggle of the American experience. These are voices I have taught for decades. But now I ask myself: Am I allowed to? Florida's 2023 legislation – most notably, Senate Bill 266 – prohibits instruction that espouses theories suggesting systemic racism, sexism or privilege are inherent in the institutions of the United States and that they were created to maintain social or economic inequities. The language is broad, and the intent seems clear: Restrict the way educators discuss identity, history and power. But what is less clear is what this means in practice for teachers like me, particularly in college classrooms. I am a lifelong educator. I spent 36 years in the New York City Department of Education as a teacher, department chair and supervisor. For the last 12 years, I have taught English literature at PBSC. Does my passion to teach violate the law? My passion has always been to encourage students to read deeply, think critically and reflect honestly – especially about the kind of country we live in and the lives we each bring to the table. That requires a broad and inclusive literary canon. It requires teaching James Baldwin and Langston Hughes not only for their artistry, but also for the searing truths they offer about race and belonging in America. It means examining the cultural double-consciousness in Sandra Cisneros, the generational trauma in Ocean Vuong, the gender defiance in Audre Lorde. Literature becomes real when it speaks both to and through the student reading it. That is the essence of education. Opinion: We desegregated schools 71 years ago. We still have more work to do. But now, when I consider assigning those same texts, I worry: Will presenting such works – even neutrally, even for discussion – be seen as violating this law? If I ask students to consider the historical roots of injustice in a work by August Wilson or Toni Cade Bambara, could that be construed as "promoting a theory" rather than simply exposing students to a reality reflected in literature? Worse, the chilling effect has begun to erode the classroom itself. Faculty colleagues increasingly wonder whether they should self-censor – not out of agreement with the law, but out of a desire to avoid trouble. This is the real damage: When fear begins to replace curiosity, and when silence replaces speech. I do not seek to indoctrinate my students. I never have. I seek to challenge them, to open doors through literature that lead into the complicated, layered and sometimes uncomfortable questions that make up life in a pluralistic democracy. That is not political. That is educational. Opinion: As a college professor, I see how AI is stripping away the humanity in education Forbidding certain materials only limits our understanding Let us be clear: Removing or discouraging the inclusion of marginalized voices in the classroom does not eliminate discomfort. It only eliminates understanding. If our students cannot engage with difficult truths in college classrooms, where are they to encounter them? If we cannot safely present a range of American experiences through our literary heritage, what remains of our intellectual freedom? I do not write this out of defiance, but out of love – for teaching, for literature and for the role education plays in shaping thoughtful citizens. The danger of this legislation is not only in its enforcement but also in its ambiguity. It turns teachers into second-guessers. It turns students into cautious bystanders. And it risks turning Florida's classrooms into places where only the most neutral, safest voices are heard. But the world is not neutral. Literature is not safe. And education, at its best, is a form of illumination, not erasure. Carmine Giordano is an adjunct lecturer in English at Palm Beach State College. This column originally appeared in the Palm Beach Post.
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Bill claiming to lower energy costs by reducing some NC climate goals moves through House
A bill to eliminate some of North Carolina's emission goals and change the way utilities pass on the cost of power plant construction onto customers is moving through the statehouse under a new name. Wednesday, the House Energy and Public Utilities Committee took up the newly named 'Power Bill Reduction Act,' an amended version of Senate Bill 261, the Energy Security and Affordability Act. ALSO READ: Duke Energy files to dismiss climate change lawsuit Now, Senate Bill 266, which previously focused on regulations for rebuilding homes destroyed in flooding events, the Power Bill Reduction Act includes SB 261's provision to eliminate the state's interim climate goal requiring Duke Energy reduce its carbon emissions by 70% of 2005 levels by 2030, though it maintains the requirement for the utility to reach carbon neutral by 2050. SB 266 also includes the provision that allows utilities to seek rate increases to help defray the cost of construction work in progress. The bill's sponsor in the House, Rep. Dean Arp (R-Union), explained these provisions will lead to improved reliability and lower energy bills in the long run because they allow utilities to be more flexible with their power generation and avoid sudden price hikes which can come after the completion of large, capital expense-heavy construction. 'For instance, if you take out a credit card and you don't pay it off for 10 years, you're going to pay a huge finance charge,' he explained. 'This allows that interest rate to be paid earlier, thereby eliminating the financing cost and the compounding aspect of that the [construction work in progress].' This provision has earned warnings and criticism from those in South Carolina, including former Public Service Commissioner Tom Ervin, who explained a similar law in their state resulted in ratepayers facing years of rate hikes to cover the construction of two new nuclear reactors that were ultimately never built. 'That's a big mistake,' he said. 'Because it may never be completed. We've learned that lesson in South Carolina already, and if you pay as you go, that's money just thrown away.' Rep. Arp explained that SB 266's version has more guardrails than South Carolina's version, which would protect ratepayers should a similar situation arise. The legislation requires that the North Carolina Utilities Commission can only approve rate increases for construction in progress if it finds the facility is cost-effective, will save ratepayers money in the long run, and meets the state's reliability needs. It also allows the Commission to revoke approval if the project no longer meets the public interest. Everyone who appeared for public comment spoke favorably of SB 266, including representatives from Duke Energy, Electri-Cities, and NC Electric Cooperatives, the state's largest energy providers. Economic stakeholders like the Chamber of Commerce and the NC Manufacturers' Alliance said the bill will help the state maintain its momentum in attracting new businesses and development to the state by keeping energy costs low and predictable. Some committee members were skeptical of the savings claimed in the bill. Arp explained research from Public Staff, which represents ratepayers in negotiations with the Commission, shows Duke Energy's current plan would result in an estimated $150B in construction costs by 2050. Under this bill, those costs are expected to drop to around $137 billion. Some on the committee were not satisfied that those calculations factored in all appropriate externalities. Other committee members expressed concerns about how quickly the bill was brought to a vote after appearing on the docket Tuesday night and requested more time to read it. Rep. Pricey Harrison (D-Guilford) was worried about what the bill would mean for the state's commitment to reducing its emissions and fighting climate change. 'If we're thinking about the future of the state and the sustainability of the state, we would be thinking in a more sustainable fashion, and wouldn't be narrowly minded, focused on a bill that I think promotes natural gas and nuclear at the expense of cleaner energy sources,' she said. Rep. Arp pushed back, explaining that new nuclear construction, which this bill would help facilitate, is carbon neutral and that natural gas is necessary to help maintain reliability while the state retires its coal plants. 'This is a responsible, prudent bill that understands that we're not, in fact, backing away from our commitment to responsibly look at our energy production related to our carbon plan,' he said. The bill was approved by the Rules Committee and is expected to be on the House floor early next week. VIDEO: Duke Energy files to dismiss climate change lawsuit
Yahoo
01-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Mecklenburg County leaders consider buyout for flood-prone properties impacted by Hurricane Helene
CHARLOTTE, N.C. (QUEEN CITY NEWS) – The Mecklenburg County Board of Commissioners is set to vote Tuesday on final approval for accepting offers to buy several properties near Mountain Island Lake impacted by flooding after Hurricane Helene. The proposals are part of the county's voluntary Floodplain Buyout Program, to which Storm Water Services allocated $8.5 million to the program. The properties listed on the meeting's consent agenda include lots on Riverside Drive, Harwood Lane, Lake Drive, and Riverhaven Drive, all of which sit among one of the hardest hit areas of Mecklenburg County after the storm. RELATED | Commissioners approved several buyout grants in November to help cover the cost of demolition or elevating a home to prevent more flooding in the low-lying area. County officials say around 170 structures in the Catawba River Floodplain took on damage last September. Grant totals awarded to each owner will vary based on property value, federal assistance offered, and private insurance. Properties eligible must be at risk of flooding again or pose a risk to human life. On the state level, lawmakers in Raleigh are considering a bill to lessen restrictions on rebuilding in floodplains. Senate Bill 266 removes state and local floodplain requirements if the building was destroyed in a '200-year flood event' and has less than a 0.5% probability of flooding again. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
12-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Lawmakers consider bill to ease floodplain rules for rebuilding after Hurricane Helene
State lawmakers are weighing a bill that could make it easier to replace homes and businesses lost in the floodwaters as western North Carolina rebuilds from Hurricane Helene. What Helene's more than 2,000 landslides can teach us about how and where to rebuild Senate Bill 266 would exempt projects from state and local floodplain requirements if those projects involve the reconstruction or replacement of buildings destroyed in a 200-year flood event. This would allow builders to reconstruct properties without elevating them. VIDEO: Gov. Stein visits western NC after Senate approves round of Helene disaster relief
Yahoo
18-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Attorney General's higher education reform package gets stopped in committee
SANTA FE, N.M. (KRQE) – A controversial multi-million dollar payout at Western New Mexico University was blasted by a chorus of top state leaders while lawmakers heeded calls for reform, and now they've tabled a bill aimed at doing that. Attorney General Raul Torrez backed a reform package after the WNMU spending scandal, but today, opponents are saying the changes go too far. 'I mean we're talking about one incident but they continue to happen and continue to happen,' said Senator George Muñoz, (D- Gallup). That feeling from one lawmaker is about what happened at Western New Mexico University. That university's president stepped down late last year after the state auditor found misspending. However, before he left, the board also approved a buyout. Lawmakers look to set aside $5M for UNM/NMSU athletics 'The board of regents for Western New Mexico took the opportunity to negotiate the severance agreement which gave Dr. Shepard $1.9 million in severance compensation, full tenured-track professorship, and a sabbatical,' said Billy J. Jimenez, Deputy Attorney General, New Mexico. Aiming to stop that in the future, the Attorney General has proposed a series of reforms, under Senate Bill 266. The bill would, in part, empower the state's Board of Finance and the A.G. to review contracts for high-level university administrators before they're approved, but that idea is raising opposition. 'We are not going to have that ability if we have to tell a candidate, 'You have thirty days, and guess what? This contract may not be upheld by the attorney general or the board of finance,' said James Chavez with Central New Mexico Community College. Democrats, Republicans weigh in on Public Safety Package bills Others think the proposal would affect university accreditation, saying higher education institutes must have independent governing boards. 'It threatens institution's ability to obtain institutional accreditation as the board will have outside influence placed on it, in the hiring of the president,' said Vanessa Hawker, Executive Director for New Mexico Independent Community Colleges. Before tabling the bill on Monday, some lawmakers claimed the changes could scare away potential candidates for New Mexico University leadership positions. 'It is not just review, it is oversight and the ability to stop those. This bill, in my opinion, has already caused huge damage and harm to higher education, particularly those universities that are looking to hire new leaders,' said Senator William Soules (D- Doña Ana). Lawmakers tabled that bill unanimously in a committee hearing today, meaning it's unlikely to go any further this session. Responding to the decision, the New Mexico Department of Justice said in a statement they are quote 'profoundly disappointed' with lawmakers choice. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
