But my comment did address the article's content...

It did not. The things you say the article says, is clearly nowhere in the text.

What I said was accurate about their intentions. If they said the same thing I did, they'd be saying the quiet part out loud.

They're accusing everyone left of them as teaching "a doctrine", and they're accusing administration of unilaterally making mandates, but then clarifying that affinity groups were consulted.

This is the type of article where they pretend to care about free speech. They tend to keep those separate from when they try to influence legislation on what can and can't be taught.