Idaho legislators need to have meaningful discussions and the public needs to be able to follow them.  

We need to pay attention to the miscommunication between Rep. Dale Hawkins and Rep. Monica Church.  It’s demonstrative of a big problem that has important consequences. There has got to be a real acknowledgement of, and grappling with, the alternate realities within which we’re viewing issues from our various political stances.

Idaho Ed News did the best job of quoting Hawkins and Church directly, but with a little research you can find that lots of outlets published truncated versions of their back and forth.

On Feb. 20, Rep. Church, who is always identified as a public educator from Boise (and never by her Idaho native roots which include grandfathers, Frank Church and Cecil Andrus), asks twice for Rep. Hawkins, who is never identified as part of a NAR ministry who homeschools his kids and is an Idaho transplant drawn to Idaho by our reputation in some circles as an Alt-right sanctuary (though his website and campaign bio make those things apparent) to define exactly what he meant when he introduced a bill that “would direct school districts to adopt policies prohibiting instruction ‘by public school personnel on sexual orientation or gender identity’ for children in kindergarten through third grade.” Asking for Rep. Hawkins to define his meaning is reasonable.

According to IDEdNews, Hawkins responded, “I think you know the answer, so I don’t know why you’re asking me.” And the discussion apparently ended there.

A similar back and forth occurred again on 3/3/25. An extension through grade 12 of the same prohibition on teaching sexual orientation and gender identity was being brought by Rep. Hawkins.  Here’s how IDEDNews reported it:

 Rep. Monica Church, D-Boise, asked whether the bill would bar schools from teaching about Harvey Milk and his assassination. A gay rights activist and member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in the 1970s, Milk was one of the first openly gay men elected to public office in the United States. 

Hawkins responded, “I am completely unaware of the issue that you’ve raised as far as this other individual. This is dealing with instruction to students from their educators on these two subjects.” 

And it appears to have ended there with no further debate.

Not good enough!  

It’s clear that Rep. Hawkins assumes that all Idahoans understand his perspective and that he’s protecting important rights as defined by his beliefs. On the other hand, Rep. Church is probably thinking that he would have knowledge of a significant political figure in American history and that he would be able to incorporate that knowledge into a definitive answer that provides clarity on the implementation of the legislation he proposed. Instead, we’re left with a de facto denial of the lack of shared reality and understanding of the issues at stake….and a totally dissatisfying non-answer.  

Not good enough. There is a discussion to be had here! There are big questions that need to be answered. What exactly is this debate at its core? Are we really just talking parents’ rights in education here… or what? The refusal to deconstruct each side’s argument and grapple with what may or may not be at the heart of the issue is chicken-hearted and ultimately damaging to the quality of education policy in our state. 

Legislators, have these discussions, in full, please.  Talk like you want everyone to fully understand what you mean and trust that we can manage more than soundbites.  Be humble, brave and straight-forward enough to flesh out where you’re coming from and why and how you hope it will impact Idahoans and our kids. Reporters, we need accurate and complete statehouse debate to be on the record and we want as much of the picture as your reporting can capture, please.  And reporters, if you think personal background and identity matter, and I’d say it sometimes serves as a handle for context in an argument, then lay it out for all of our legislators when you quote them.  It’s past-time to be as clear as we can be on what our political leaders have in mind for us.