FR 2025-03353

Overview

Title

Notice of Public Meetings of the Missouri Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

Agencies

ELI5 AI

The Missouri team, which helps with fair treatment rules, will talk on March 14, 2025, about school book bans. People can listen by phone or Zoom and say what they think by writing.

Summary AI

The Missouri Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will hold a meeting on March 14, 2025, at 12 p.m. Central Time. The purpose of the meeting is to review, edit, and approve a report on Curriculum Censorship. Members of the public can listen to the discussion through a conference call or Zoom, and they may also submit written comments within 30 days after the meeting. For further details, individuals can contact David Barreras or visit the Commission's website.

Abstract

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Missouri Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Friday, March 14, 2025, at 12 p.m. Central time. The purpose of the meeting is for the Committee to review, edit, and approve the report on Curriculum Censorship.

Type: Notice
Citation: 90 FR 11038
Document #: 2025-03353
Date:
Volume: 90
Pages: 11038-11039

AnalysisAI

The document in focus is an official notice of a public meeting to be held by the Missouri Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Scheduled for March 14, 2025, at 12 p.m. Central Time, the meeting will center on reviewing, editing, and approving a report concerning Curriculum Censorship.

General Summary

The notice outlines the logistics of the upcoming meeting and provides information on how the public can participate. It includes details about calling or joining via Zoom to listen to the discussion. Additionally, there is a provision for the public to submit comments after the meeting within a 30-day window. For those interested in further details, contact information is provided.

Significant Issues or Concerns

Upon reviewing the notice, several issues stand out:

  1. Financial Accessibility: Individuals are informed that while calling in from a landline is free, wireless charges may apply. This could discourage participation from individuals concerned about telephone costs, posing a barrier to those with limited finances. Introducing a toll-free number for mobile users could improve accessibility.

  2. Feedback Accessibility for Missouri Residents: The instructions direct comments to a regional office in Chicago. Providing an online submission option or a more localized address could better engage Missouri residents.

  3. Time Allocation for Public Comments: The notice states that members of the public can comment as time allows, but specifics on time management are absent. Without clear guidance, potential participants may feel uncertain about fair access to express their views.

  4. Comprehension and Communication: Legal and formal language could limit understanding for some individuals. Simplifying terms for widespread accessibility would enhance clarity.

  5. Agenda Clarity: The agenda includes 'Next steps' without explanation, potentially leaving stakeholders uncertain about the meeting's follow-up actions.

  6. Accessibility for Deaf or Hard of Hearing Individuals: While there is an instruction to use the Federal Relay Service, the process might benefit from further clarification to ensure inclusivity.

Impact on the Public

Broadly, this document serves as a vehicle for public engagement in governmental discussions about civil rights. It enables community involvement in the evaluation of curriculum censorship, a topic that could have wide-ranging implications for education systems and freedoms of expression.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

General Public: The meeting offers an opportunity for individuals to partake in a significant civil discourse, thereby fostering a more inclusive civic environment.

Educational Institutions and Professionals: Stakeholders in education may be directly impacted by the outcomes of this report, as it addresses curriculum content regulation.

Deaf or Hard of Hearing Individuals: While provisions are made for accessibility, the process could benefit from simplification to ensure effective participation.

Conclusion

The notice highlights an essential dialogic process regarding curriculum censorship, a subject critical to the intersection of education policy and civil rights. Nonetheless, attention to accessibility, clarity, and engagement consistency will ensure maximal effectiveness and equity for all involved parties.

Issues

  • • The document does not provide detailed information on the potential financial implications or costs associated with the meeting, such as the cost of organizing or facilitating the meeting or any potential honoraria for participants, which may be relevant for evaluating wasteful spending.

  • • The contact information for submitting comments directs the public to send their input to the regional office in Chicago, which might be inconvenient for Missouri residents who wish to provide feedback. Alternately, a more localized address or digital submission could be beneficial.

  • • The document states that individuals who wish to make a public comment can do so as time allows, but it does not specify how much time will be allocated or how the time will be managed to ensure fair participation, which could be seen as vague or ambiguous.

  • • Callers are informed they will incur regular charges for wireless calls, which may act as a deterrent for participation from individuals unable to afford these costs. Offering a toll-free option for wireless calls might improve accessibility.

  • • The agenda does not explicitly explain what 'Next steps' entails, which could leave stakeholders uncertain about the follow-up actions post-meeting.

  • • Instructions for deaf or hard of hearing individuals involve calling the Federal Relay Service, but the process might benefit from further clarification or simplification to ensure accessibility.

  • • The document uses formal and legal jargon which might not be easily understood by all members of the public, affecting transparency and comprehension.

Statistics

Size

Pages: 2
Words: 584
Sentences: 29
Entities: 51

Language

Nouns: 198
Verbs: 41
Adjectives: 17
Adverbs: 5
Numbers: 42

Complexity

Average Token Length:
4.83
Average Sentence Length:
20.14
Token Entropy:
5.04
Readability (ARI):
14.70

Reading Time

about a minute or two