Summary: SB 78 adds additional categories of protection from “discrimination” in public schools.
Analysis: SB 78 presents itself as an anti-discrimination measure but ultimately reads like a performative checklist of identity categories, lacking a clear definition of what “discrimination” actually means. By protecting an expansive—and at times absurd—range of traits while simultaneously permitting gender-based admissions carveouts, the bill creates legal confusion and undermines coherent standards of fairness. Rather than offering clarity, it raises troubling questions about the logic and consistency of its protections.
SB 78 is a bureaucratic performance of virtue at best and a complete undermining of the legitimacy of biological differences at worst. In the name of anti-discrimination, the legislation expands a list of protected characteristics so long and oddly specific—ranging from “body size” to “protective hairstyle” and “housing status”—that it almost becomes a parody of itself. Strikingly absent, however, is a definition of the term at the heart of the entire bill: discrimination. We’re left to wonder what this loaded word even means in practical terms, and whether its ambiguity opens the door to unintended and absurd consequences.
Take, for instance, the real-world implications in a school setting. If a female student is barred from attending a male-only health lesson—where self-testicular exams are taught—but thereby misses out on information relevant to her health, like breast self-exams, is she being “discriminated against”? Or would this be included in the exception that the bill makes for gender-restricted charter schools? The legislation allows such gender-based separation for admissions, yet outlaws nearly every other conceivable basis for differentiation. The inconsistency is not only confusing—it borders on nonsensical.
This bill attempts to codify fairness by enumerating every possible identity category, but in doing so, it treats students as little more than collections of demographic traits. Without a clear definition of discrimination, the law becomes a patchwork of political sensitivities rather than a coherent standard of justice. Is protecting someone’s “socioeconomic status” in the same legal breath as their disability or race a meaningful policy, or performative excess? And how does one enforce equality in environments where even the concept of “same-gender” is open to interpretation under evolving definitions of gender identity?
Instead of clarifying how to protect students, the bill confuses the issue with vague language and contradictory carveouts, ultimately raising more questions than it answers. What exactly are we protecting students from, and what are we protecting them for?