'Don't Say Gay' and Capitalist Activism in Florida

Graphic by Maggie Sparling

Modern education is facing a McCarthian attack. Much like the infamous senator, lawmakers and parents across the nation are scrambling to censor ideas that may eschew the supposedly morally upright values they hope to instill in the next generation. While this phenomenon is observed most prominently in the debate surrounding critical race theory, similar arguments are currently being pushed against education on LGBTQ+ history in schools. A recent bill proposed in Florida concerning LGBTQ+ education, aptly labeled the “Don’t Say Gay” bill by its opponents, forbids the teaching of LGBTQ+ issues and history to students who do not meet the age or developmental requirements as set by the state. While this bill’s central tenet is outrageous to many, it is also important to focus on its other components, mainly those concerning children’s mental health and the antagonizing of educators who choose to teach what parents may deem “inappropriate.” This bill is not only a threat to a free marketplace of ideas but also to the development of children and the livelihood of educators in both the state of Florida and the nation as a whole. It is imperative to oppose this bill with both capital and individual opposition in order to ensure the safety and welfare of the next generation of both students and educators. 

Much like a number of controversial bills that have swept the nation in recent times, Florida’s HB 1557, entitled “Parental Rights in Education,” is intentionally written in vague language to evade judicial review and pointed, specific criticism. However, its implications are dire, and it is important for any informed citizen to read between the lines while examining the legal text in order to fully understand what is at stake if this bill is enforced. The bill’s central tenets include plans to “require[s] school boards to adopt procedures that comport with certain provisions of law for notifying student’s parent of specified information” and thus “reinforce [the] fundamental right of parents to make decisions regarding [the] upbringing and control of their children.” What exactly this “specified information” is relatively unclear until the bill’s latter half, wherein it “prohibits discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in certain grade levels,” thus implying that issues of sexuality and gender identity are not to be discussed publicly in an academic or personal context. Beyond its implied harm to the LGBTQ+ community on a broader scale, it also jeopardizes proper mental healthcare for children who may be confused and asking questions pertaining to their sexual orientation. Not only does it give schools the freedom to betray information told in confidentiality to students’ parents, but it also forbids “school district personnel from discouraging or prohibiting parental notification & involvement in critical decisions affecting [the] student’s mental, emotional, or physical well-being.” This may sound well-meaning initially, but it gives schools the ability to involve parents in decisions with no regard to the well-being of the child involved and removes any mitigating factors. For children in abusive families or families who hold intensely homophobic or transphobic beliefs, reporting such information could prove disastrous and extremely dangerous for the very well-being of the child it is supposed to protect. While this law may hide its insidious implications behind a façade of intentionally indistinct language, it is critical to understand its more extensive impacts on the mental welfare of the education system and the students coursing through it.

According to The Trevor Project, more than 1.8 million LGBTQ+ youth contemplate suicide on a yearly basis, with 42% of LGBTQ+ youth considering taking their own lives within the past year. Though suicide is an issue for youth as a whole, LGBTQ+ adolescents are approximately four times more likely to commit suicide than their straight or cisgender peers. With these troubling statistics in mind, it is horrifying to imagine the consequences of this ongoing cycle of self-repression and censorship perpetuated by the Republican establishment in Florida. Silencing discussions of sexuality and gender identity in classrooms will not promote heterosexuality or cisgenderism in children; instead, it will teach them to be ashamed of their differences, creating a breeding ground for bullying, self-hatred, and mental illness. There is no regard for the safety of children in a bill that portrays homosexuality and transgenderism as evils too horrific for children to bear. Fortunately, this sentiment appears to be shared by a plurality of both Florida and United States citizens.

Since its introduction into the public sphere, the bill has been met with widespread criticism, ranging from Florida educators to Disney employees and celebrities. In interviews with the Miami Herald, Florida teachers expressed disdain for what they perceived as “an attack on educators” for something that teachers “haven’t been teaching.” Not only are these educators concerned for the well-being of their students, whom they fear “can’t be who they are,” but also for the future of their careers, noting the bill’s provision allowing the parent to “bring action against [the] school district to obtain declaratory judgment” should they feel that the bill’s ordinances have been violated. In Burbank, California, employees at Disney walked out in protest of the company’s inadequate response to the bill given its major foothold in the state of Florida due to the revenue brought in by Walt Disney World. These employees found a larger voice in that of comedian John Oliver, who criticized both Disney’s delayed response and continued donations to Republican sponsors of the bill on his show Last Week Tonight. Ex-Disney CEO Robert Iger also commented on Disney’s insufficient response to the legislation, remarking that CEOs must take the risk of “weigh[ing] in on issues” even at the expense of business and criticizing the bill’s harmful impact on children. While much of this outrage has been dismissed by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis as “woke,” it is worthwhile to examine the tremendous impact that public outcry and reallocation of funds can have on such controversial legislation. 

While this bill can be combated in a variety of ways, it is emotionally fueled at its core. Both sides of the issue claim to protect children, yet both disagree on the definition thereof. To Florida Republicans like DeSantis and concerned parents, to protect children is to shield them from topics that may be deemed inappropriate so that they may live a childhood free of modern society’s more complex issues. However, this perspective neglects the very fact that children must be included in these conversations because they, too, are integral parts of modern society. The message this bill sends to young children struggling with questions about their own sexuality is incredibly damaging, communicating to confused children that what they feel is inherently wrong to the point that it is unspeakable. The bill also restricts the routes that children can take to discuss these issues with trusted adults such as school counselors or beloved teachers and puts their confidentiality at constant risk of being betrayed. The long-term effects of such censorship on conversations about sexuality could be deadly. 

With the implications of this bill in mind, what is a company entirely based on entertaining children to do? If the Disney corporation leverages its economic stronghold in Florida and its widespread influence, it could become a key player in the fight against HB 1557. In 2019 alone, Disney created over 460,000 jobs and generated $5.8 billion in state tax revenue in Florida due to the looming presence of Walt Disney World. In the realm of politics, Disney has taken a relatively silent stance, with many lobbyists “sit[ting] silently” in committee meetings while other lobbyists aggressively pursue their legislative agenda. However, given the backlash Disney has already received, it is ill-advised for a corporation oriented entirely around children to remain neutral on a piece of legislation that will directly and perhaps negatively affect them. Therefore, Disney should use the most powerful weapon it has: capital.

Reports indicate that Disney is a regular donor to Florida election cycles, with the company donating approximately $4.8 billion in 2020. The company donates substantially more to Republican efforts, with over $1 million combined being allocated to the Florida Republican Party and GOP Senate campaigns in comparison to a meager $313,000 for the Florida Democratic Party. Though the Florida GOP is largely responsible for the bolstering of this bill, its public face can be found in none other than Governor Ron DeSantis, to whom the company donated $50,000 in the 2020 election cycle. If these funds were to be rescinded, pressure could be applied to the Florida GOP, possibly in the positive direction of policy change. 

However, it is important not to underestimate the power and scope of Disney’s social influence. Walt Disney World functions as a sort of landmark for the state of Florida, and not just for its economic stronghold. The theme park amasses more than 58 million visitors annually, with an average of 57,000 people visiting the Magic Kingdom theme park on a daily basis. With the recent introduction of the Disney+ streaming service, Disney’s revenue and viewership have increased. Operating income increased by almost $2 billion in the three-month period during which Encanto and West Side Story were released due in part to the accessibility provided by a newer streaming format. Disney is an ever-present force in American households, and by openly rescinding capital from the Florida GOP, it can use this salience to garner greater public opposition against HB 1557 simply by making its stance known to its viewers and visitors. Disney’s influence appears to be wider and more profound than ever, and it is vital to use both its social influence and economic prowess in tandem to turn public opinion against a bill with such disadvantageous effects.

Though it is easy to write off issues of legislation as those best left to the justice system, legislation that is so vaguely written is created with the intent of avoiding judicial scrutiny. Thus, money should be the weapon of choice. When a media conglomerate such as Disney finds itself in the center of a highly sensationalized debate, it has the choice to turn the other cheek or utilize its economic and social capacity for good. The correct choice between the two is abundantly clear. Disney can and must leverage its economic might to oppose and dismantle this bill for the good of the very individuals that empower it to exist: children.