The basic idea of making Open Source a requirement for selecting software solutions would just be a criterium added to the existing processes of selecting software/services.

Please explain how this decree is neutral and non-biased.

The Document Foundation and contributing developers are not better off or worse off if a public school district uses LibreOffice or not. It simply does not matter. They rely on donations for revenue instead of using monopoly powers to extract revenue by permitting the use of their software. Same goes for OnlyOffice and other FLOSS office suites.

On the other hand, if a public school district chooses for example Microsoft Office, this is to the direct detriment of Apple iWork and StarOffice and Lotus(does it still exist?), etc.. This of course becomes a subject of public acquisitions which should be handled through transparent auctions. How often should the choice be made? Once a year, once 2 years? Should there be a round-robin strategy to switch from one provider to another in order to not favour one through network effects? All large software corps rely on the network effects of schools and piracy to further solidify their grip on an industry.

Even if you claim that choosing the FLOSS option is non-neutral due to the network effect, in this case the network effect does not have the same ramifications it does for proprietary offerings.

So even if the FLOSS choice may not be absolutely neutral, it is MORE neutral than any proprietary option.

Racism is at least neutral in terms of not favoring one white European instead of another.

Government should decree the need to justify any deviation from white and non-profit --- because they are clearly better in most cases.

In effect, you expect government to mandate your viewpoint because it hasn't been successful on it's own merits. This is not "neutral" and "unbiased", it is precisely the opposite.

Sorry ¯\_(ツ)_/¯