A federal judge has overturned a New Hampshire law restricting schools from teaching divisive concepts of race and gender in K-12 schools. This decision marks the first time a measure limiting teaching on these topics has been deemed unconstitutional despite similar policies being in place in more than 25 states.
Historic Decision
U.S. District Judge Paul J. Barbadoro ruled that the New Hampshire law is unconstitutional, signifying the first time a similar measure has been overturned for K-12 public schools.
Content of the Law
Specifically, the New Hampshire law prevents school districts in the state from discussing “divisive concepts” of race and gender. The law also prohibits curriculum and teaching that specific categories of people are “inherently superior” due to race, religion, gender, sex, or any other characteristics.
Context of the Law
The New Hampshire legislature passed the law in question in 2021 when President Biden revoked an executive order put in place by former President Trump that prohibited federal dollars from funding training for educators based on “anti-American race and sex stereotyping and scapegoating.”
Judge’s Ruling
Federal Judge Barbadoro concluded that New Hampshire’s law is “unconstitutionally vague” and thus violates the 14th Amendment. This means that the law’s restrictions on speech do not provide clear guidelines for enforcement and are based on the enforcer’s subjective point of view.
Legal Reasoning
According to Barbadoro, the law’s vague nature does not give teachers and school staff a fair warning about the limits of speech. This could lead to arbitrary enforcement of the law without a rigid, objective standard.
Enforcement Issues
Barbadoro emphasized that the way the law is drafted leaves enforcement decisions to the opinion of the state education commissioner, who is currently Frank Edelblut but will be another individual in the future. The Judge stated that educators currently have to rely on a guess as to Edelblut’s personal opinion on what constitutes a “divisive concept” and that insight into his understanding can be better gleaned from reading his published op-ed articles rather than any legal guidelines.
Response to Lawsuits
The lawsuit against Frank Edelblut was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the National Education Association (NEA), and the American Federation of Teachers.
Victory for Academic Freedom
ACLU of New Hampshire claimed the decision to strike down the state law was a victory for inclusive education and academic freedom.
Educators’ Reactions
The NEA New Hampshire chapter also touted the victory over the ruling, claiming that the law stifled the students’ right to learn and the teaching of truth.
Parent Rights Groups and Conservative Voices Not Represented
While the Judge sided with the teacher’s unions in their concern that the standards in the law were not clear and remained open to interpretation, thereby causing confusion and an arbitrary standard for judgment, the underlying problems of parents and conservatives remain that students should not be unduly influenced on divisive topics by educators and textbook authors who want to push their views onto impressionable students, many times against the wishes of parents and the local community.
Decisions made at higher levels by high level teachers’ unions trickle down to local school districts and communities who find the values in the curriculum are often out-of-touch with local community values. This concern is not isolated to New Hampshire.
Impact on Future Legislation
At least 25 states have similar laws restricting specific topics in K-12 classrooms and textbooks. New Hampshire’s case is the first to be successfully challenged in court. The outcome in New Hampshire may set a precedent for judicial evaluation of related laws in half of the other states in the U.S.
New Hampshire Response
New Hampshire is determining how to proceed when the law is overturned. The Attorney General’s office stated they are “reviewing the court’s order and will consider next steps including whether to appeal.” If New Hampshire appeals the ruling, the case will be heard in the U.S. Circuit of Appeals in Boston, Massachusetts.
Broader Implications
As the New Hampshire case makes its way up the appeals ladder, new laws will be shaped around the ability of states and local districts to constrict the narratives and discussions in the classrooms. Parents and conservative bodies are interested in preserving the rights of parents to influence their children’s worldview.
At the same time, the teacher’s unions and progressive state officials are interested in presenting students with a more diverse and inclusive worldview despite the demands and requests of parents within the public school system.
