Slashdot Mirror
WA Bill Takes Aim at Boys' Dominance In Computer Classes
theodp writes Boys' over-representation in K-12 computer classes has perplexed educators for 30+ years. Now, following on the heels of Code.org's and Google's attempts to change the game with boys-don't-count gender-based CS teacher funding schemes, Washington State lawmakers have introduced House Bill 1813, legislation that requires schools seeking K-12 computer education funding to commit to preventing boys from ruling the computer class roost. Computer science and education grant recipients, HB 1813 explains, "must demonstrate engaged and committed leadership in support of introducing historically underrepresented students [including girls, low-income students, and minority students]" and "demonstrate a plan to engage historically underrepresented students with computer science." Calling it "a bold new bill that we hope more states will follow," corporate and tech billionaire-backed Code.org tweeted its support for the bill.
I do have a issue with how's its been pushed on the country via the courts rather then referendums. As we saw with Roe v Wade, when a divisive social issue of this magnitude is decided by the courts before the popular support is there, it stays divisive. Unfortunately, that's what will happen w/ gay marriage.
But isn't that one of the roles of the judicial branch? If there is popular support for Jim Crow laws, the courts can throw those laws out usually with a judicial precedent (or setting one from a law). The people have power to vote for law makers. But that doesn't mean the laws created by the legislature will be inline with the constitution or other higher state laws (state constitution).
It isn't perfect but what is the alternative? The popular vote (whether direct or legislature) decides on all laws and issues? It seems, on various issues, the judiciary intervenes primarily on divisive topics ending the division (not for the public in discussion but for legal purposes and affected laws).
If you wanted to overturn some judicial precedent you can through a higher law. (state to overturn city, constitutional to overturn court)... It is slow and takes a lot of support and time... but that is the point. If a topic continues to be devisive to the point the courts get involved... I might be best to remove that from the legislature until enough people change their mind and it becomes the majority enough to change a higher law. (see Prohibition)
It is a subtle check and balance in our government that I think is a good thing. Really, when you say it forces people and states to accept a certain law or interpretation. What you are really complaining about is that to overturn that decision, it takes longer, more time, and more people to get your way on a divisive issue.