California may soon lift a ban on state-funded travel to states with anti-LGBTQ+ laws and instead focus on an advertising campaign to bring anti-discrimination messages to red states.

California started banning official travel to states with laws it deemed discriminatory against LGBTQ+ people in 2017, starting with Kansas, Mississippi, North Carolina and Tennessee. Since then, the list has grown to include a total of 26 states, most of them Republican-led, following a surge of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation these past few years.

The prohibition has prevented elected officials, state workers and university scholars from traveling to more than half of the country using the state’s money. That has posed a significant challenge to sports teams at public colleges and universities, which have had to find alternative funding sources to pay for their road games in states like Arizona and Utah. It has also complicated some of the state’s other policy goals, like using state money to pay for people who live in other states to travel to California for abortions.

California lawmakers in the state Assembly on Monday passed legislation to end the travel ban. The bill, introduced by state Senate leader Toni Atkins, would also establish an outreach and advertising campaign in states on the travel ban list to promote pro-LGBTQ+ messages. Atkins, who is a lesbian, said the travel ban has helped raise awareness about many anti-LGBTQ+ issues, but it has also led to unintended consequences.

  • SheeEttin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    10 months ago

    State college, state college sports program. I don’t see an issue.

    Where I see an issue is when the sports program gets more attention and funding than the academic programs. Students should be students first, athletes second.

    • bobman@unilem.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      The issue is that these institutions charge tuition yet still receive taxpayer dollars.

      It should be one or the other.

      • candybrie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        I don’t see why it should be all or nothing. The split/pricing definitely needs some work, but having higher education be subsidized but not completely funded by the state is pretty reasonable.

        • bobman@unilem.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Why should they get taxpayer money to waste it on sports? To appease meatheads who don’t belong in college in the first place.

          Why should they get taxpayer money and still charge tuition? To make rich people richer faster.

          • timespace@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            10 months ago

            Why should they get taxpayer money and still charge tuition?

            Because if they didn’t tuition would be even higher.