The opinion by Justice O'Leary is worth reading in its entirety, but one portion was particularly illuminating -- or, perhaps, cringe-worthy.
There was a fair amount of discussion in the opinion and at oral argument about whether a teacher might face discipline for talking about Jim Crow-era laws; for example, "[i]f a teacher of color shares a personal anecdote exemplifying modern
ramifications of the Jim Crow era, could they be disciplined for teaching that
“merely ‘minority status . . . brings with it a presumed competence to speak
about race and racism’”? This led to the following discussion in the opinion:
"In their appellate briefing, Defendants state that “[t]he
Resolution does not ban discussions on slavery, historical figures (i.e., Jim
Crow), or the human rights issues concerning such topics.” . . . . We find this confusing
because Jim Crow was not a “historical figure,” but a pejorative term
referring to a Black man, derived from a musical caricature of a Black man
played by a white man in blackface. [Footnote:] Despite discussing Jim Crow in Defendants’ appellate briefing,
Defendants’ appellate counsel stated at oral argument that she believed Jim
Crow was 'a civil rights individual.'"
Yikes. When you're a lawyer who's arguing in the Court of Appeal that education about Jim Crow laws should be more limited, it's probably fairly damaging to reveal that you don't even know yourself what "Jim Crow" entails. "A civil rights individual" indeed.
Defendants' counsel at oral argument was Julianne Fleischer of the Advocates for Faith and Freedom, an honors graduate from the Regent University School of Law.