Analysis: Activists Determined To Bring Race-Based Instruction Back To NH Schools

By Michael Graham, NH Journal

Granite State Democrats and their progressive allies have launched a two-pronged strategy to get race-based instruction like Critical Race Theory back into New Hampshire classrooms.

Curriculum like CRT, based on the premise that members of one race are uniquely flawed or inherently racist, violates an anti-discrimination law passed by the GOP-controlled legislature and signed by Gov. Chris Sununu in 2021.

Top Democrats and leaders of the state’s teachers unions spoke out Thursday on behalf of HB61. It would repeal the new law, which opponents incorrectly refer to as the “divisive concepts” bill.

Later that day, U.S. District Court Judge Paul Barbadoro ruled a lawsuit filed by the state’s two largest teachers unions challenging the law can move forward to the discovery phase.

“An amazing result today in federal court. So proud of our clients — [teachers] Tina Philibotte and Andres Mejia — who do this work in schools and made this happen,” tweeted ACLU-NH legal director Gilles Bissonnette. “This case is about them. And it’s about their students.”

Prime sponsor Rep. Peter Petrigno (D-Milford) appeared in support of the bill during a public hearing before the Education Committee in Representatives Hall. He repeated the critique made both in the legislature and in court that the law is too vague and teachers are uncertain about what content they are allowed to teach.

“Teachers wonder if they can refer to the KKK as an inherently racist group.” How is an elementary teacher who is celebrating MKL Day with her student supposed to respond when her first grader asked, ‘Why were some White people so mean to Black people?'”

In fact, the law — which can be read in its entirety here — does not apply any restrictions on descriptions of any organizations, from the Ku Klux Klan to the Nation of Islam. And as for the Martin Luther King Day example, the law explicitly states, “Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit discussing, as part of a larger course of academic instruction, the historical existence of ideas and subjects identified in this section.”

Teaching “many White people treated Black people badly during the Jim Crow era because they believed in racist ideas” is clearly legal. Teaching “all White people, even the ones who marched with Dr. King, are racist” is banned.

Teaching children that all White people participated in racial discrimination because they are inherently racist is a fundamental premise of the so-called “anti-racism” philosophy that has been used in the past in Manchester and Laconia schools.

Opponents of the law continue to insist the restriction must be repealed.

“Purposefully vague laws like this one are aimed directly at stopping educators from teaching the truth,” said NEA-New Hampshire president Megan Tuttle.

Asked what “truth” teachers need to teach but is currently banned, Tuttle declined to answer. Neither did any other opponents of the anti-discrimination law contacted by NHJournal, including the ACLU and the AFT-NH.

Grace Kindeke, New Hampshire program coordinator for the American Friends Service Committee, was more direct. In a statement supporting repeal she explained, “To reduce systemic racism, sexism, and ableism solely to individual and interpersonal guilt is in itself a tactic meant to distort the very real disparities embedded in our laws and institutions.”

In other words, saying people aren’t racist because they, as individuals, have not engaged in racist behavior is wrong and must be corrected. The current law prevents teaching students about their inherent bigotry and should therefore be overturned.

Republicans show little interest in joining Democrats in this effort.

“It’s appalling to see that Democrats in our state are attempting to repeal our anti-discrimination statute,” said House Majority Leader Jason Osborne (R-Auburn) and Deputy Majority Leader Jim Kofalt (R- Wilton) in a joint statement after Thursday’s hearing.

“The current law does nothing to prohibit the teaching of racism and its effects throughout history. What it does prohibit is teaching children that some of them are inherently racist based on their skin color, sex, race, creed, etc.

“Is that not what Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. called for when he said, ‘I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character’?”

Democrats opposed the passage of New Hampshire’s law banning discrimination based on race and sex in Granite State classrooms, and now they are attempting to overturn it. Their public statements and press releases refer to it as the “banned concepts” law.

Read it and decide for yourself who’s right:

Right to Freedom from Discrimination in Public Workplaces and Education

354-A:29 Right to Freedom from Discrimination in Public Workplaces and Education.

I. The general court hereby finds and declares that practices of discrimination against any New Hampshire inhabitants because of age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin are a matter of state concern, that discrimination based on these characteristics not only threatens the rights and proper privileges of New Hampshire inhabitants but menaces the institutions and foundation of a free democratic state and threatens the peace, order, health, safety and general welfare of the state and its inhabitants.
II. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to prohibit racial, sexual, religious, or other workplace sensitivity training based on the inherent humanity and equality of all persons and the ideal that all persons are entitled to be treated with equality, dignity, and respect.
III. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to limit the academic freedom of faculty members of the university system of New Hampshire and the community college system of New Hampshire to conduct research, publish, lecture, or teach in the academic setting.

354-A:30 Definitions. In this subdivision:
I. “Government program” means any activity undertaken by a public employer, both as an employer and in performance of its government function.
II. “Public employee” means any person working on a full-time or part-time basis for the state, or any subdivision thereof, including, but not limited to counties, cities, towns, precincts, water districts, school districts, school administrative units, or quasi-public entities.
III. “Public employer” includes the state or any subdivision thereof, including, but not limited to counties, cities, towns, precincts, water districts, school districts, school administrative units, or quasi-public entities.

354-A:31 Prohibition on Public Employers. No public employer, either directly or through the use of an outside contractor, shall teach, advocate, instruct, or train any employee, student, service recipient, contractor, staff member, inmate, or any other individual or group, any one or more of the following:
I. That people of one age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin, are inherently superior or inferior to people of another age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin;
II. That an individual, by virtue of his or her age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously;
III. That an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin; or
IV. That people of one age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin cannot and should not attempt to treat others equally and/or without regard to age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin.

354-A:32 Prohibition on the Content of Government Programs and Speech. No government program shall teach, advocate, or advance any one or more of the following:
I. That people of one age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin are inherently superior or inferior to people of another age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin;
II. That an individual, by virtue of his or her age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously;
III. That an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin; or
IV. That people of one age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin cannot and should not attempt to treat others equally and/or without regard to age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin.

354-A:33 Protection for Public Employees. No public employee shall be subject to any adverse employment action, warning, or discipline of any kind for refusing to participate in any training, program, or other activity at which a public employer or government program advocates, trains, teaches, instructs, or compels participants to express belief in, or support for, any one or more of the following:
I. That people of one age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin are inherently superior or inferior to people of another age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin;
II. That an individual, by virtue of his or her age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously;
III. That an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin; or
IV. That people of one age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin cannot and should not attempt to treat others equally and/or without regard to age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin.
354-A:34 Remedies. Any person aggrieved by an act made unlawful under this subdivision may pursue all of the remedies available under RSA 354-A, RSA 491, RSA 275-E, or RSA 98-E, or any other applicable common law or statutory cause of action.

298 New Section; Prohibition on Teaching Discrimination. Amend RSA 193 by inserting after section 39 the following new section:
193:40 Prohibition on Teaching Discrimination.
I. No pupil in any public school in this state shall be taught, instructed, inculcated or compelled to express belief in, or support for, any one or more of the following:
(a) That one’s age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion or national origin is inherently superior to people of another age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin;
(b) That an individual, by virtue of his or her age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously;
(c) That an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin; or
(d) That people of one age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin cannot and should not attempt to treat others without regard to age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin.
II. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit discussing, as part of a larger course of academic instruction, the historical existence of ideas and subjects identified in this section.
III. Any person claiming to be aggrieved by a violation of this section, including the attorney general, may initiate a civil action against a school or school district in superior court for legal or equitable relief, or with the New Hampshire Commission for human rights as provided in RSA 354-A:34.
IV. Violation of this section by an educator shall be considered a violation of the educator code of conduct that justifies disciplinary sanction by the state board of education.
V. For the purposes of this section, “educator” means a professional employee of any school district whose position requires certification by the state board pursuant to RSA 189:39. Administrators, specialists, and teachers are included within the definition of this term.

299 Severability. If any provision of sections 297-298, or the application of any provision to any person or circumstance is held to be invalid, the remainder of such sections, and their application to any other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

This story was originally published by the NH Journal, an online news publication dedicated to providing fair, unbiased reporting on, and analysis of, political news of interest to New Hampshire. For more stories from the NH Journal, visit NHJournal.com.