I mean I know western media outlets never tried to hide their bias, but this is like bingo night. Let's see how many hits we get:
Use of the word sweeping:
"China has approved a sweeping new law which claims to help promote "ethnic unity" - but critics say it will further erode the rights of minority groups."
Use of the word rubber-stamp:
"The law was approved on Thursday as the annual rubber-stamp parliamentary session drew to an end."
So-called expert using emotionally charged language:
"The law is consistent with a dramatic recent policy shift, to suppress the ethnic diversity formally recognised since 1949," Magnus Fiskesjö, an associate professor of anthropology at Cornell University said in a university report.
"The children of the next generation are now isolated and brutally forced to forget their own language and culture."
Again use of absolute language:
"The law was voted and passed on Thursday at the National People's Congress in Beijing, which has never rejected an item on its agenda."
Suspicious anonymous monk quotes:
When the BBC visited a monastery that had been at heart of Tibetan resistance in July last year, monks spoke of living under fear and intimidation.
"We Tibetans are denied basic human rights. The Chinese government continues to oppress and persecute us. It is not a government that serves the people," one of them told us.
Again some no-name "professor of government", lmao i mean truly bottom of the barrel:
"The Communist Party says it embraces different ethnicities. The country's constitution states that "each ethnicity has the right to use and develop their own language" and "have the right to self-rule".
But critics believe this new law will cement Xi's push toward assimilation.
"The law makes it clearer than ever that in Xi Jinping's PRC non-Han peoples must do more to integrate themselves with the Han majority, and above all else be loyal to Beijing," Allen Carlson, an associate professor of government at Cornell University said, referencing China by the initials of its official name.
I think people need to divorce the idea that school education should be expected to be in the exact same variety of language that the students would use with their family and friends. It's honestly not even a good thing. Unless there's a grand total of 100 native speakers, nobody uses the same exact variety of language. Tibetans don't all speak a single variety of a Sino-Tibetan language called Tibetan. They speak various closely related varieties, what most people would called dialects. What's called Tibetan is Standard Tibetan, which is based on a particular dialect or group of dialects along with various other changes to smooth over any regionalism. And if it's done right, Standard Tibetan wouldn't just be the Tibetan spoken in the largest Tibetan city with some token regionalisms thrown in to disguise the copypasta job, but a constructed variety that is equaldistant enough from major Tibetan varieties that no speaker of a Tibetan variety can say, "See, I'm speaking real Tibetan that's taught in school and used in government, unlike you dumbass losers who are speaking grammatically incorrect Tibetan." You're just replacing ethnic majority chauvinism with a regional chauvinism.
The ideal policy would be students are taught the regional lingua franca and the national lingua franca, especially if the regional lingua franca and national lingua franca are too different from each other. Both the standardized regional lingua franca and standardized national lingua franca ought to be different enough from an actually spoken variety in order to suppress regional chauvinism. But I don't agree with the idea that education ought to be done in the same exact variety spoken at home or by the local village at all. People are more than capable of learning multiple languages.