Law & Courts

Federal Judge Overturns New Hampshire Law on Teaching ‘Divisive Concepts’

By Mark Walsh — May 28, 2024 4 min read
Students walk into the front doors at Hinsdale Middle High School, in Hinsdale, N.H., on the first day of school on Aug. 30, 2022.
  • Save to favorites
  • Print

A federal judge on Tuesday struck down a New Hampshire law that bars the teaching of “divisive concepts,” such as that one individual’s race is superior to others or that any person is inherently racist.

U.S. District Judge Paul J. Barbadoro of Concord, N.H., said the law is impermissibly vague and in violation of the First Amendment because it does not provide fair notice to teachers as to what they may not teach, does not explain when classroom discussion of a forbidden topic crosses the line into impermissible teaching, and does not make clear when teacher speech outside the classroom violates the law.

The judge, who referred to the 2021 law as four amendments to the state’s education and antidiscrimination laws, said the measures “force teachers to guess as to which diversity efforts can be touted and which must be repudiated, gambling with their careers in the process.”

Violations of the provisions could lead to teachers having their credentials revoked and expose them to civil liability, the judge said.

“Although teachers do not face criminal penalties for teaching a banned concept, it is difficult to conceive of more serious consequences that could befall a person in a civil proceeding than those that a teacher might face if they are found to have done something that the Amendments prohibit,” Barbadoro said.

Similar laws in a handful of other states

The New Hampshire measure is one of more than a dozen around the nation seeking to limit teaching about race. There are still pending legal challenges to similar laws in Florida and Oklahoma, while a measure in Arizona was blocked by state courts in 2021 and later repealed.

New Hampshire lawmakers modeled their state’s divisive concepts provisions on an executive order that President Donald Trump had signed in 2020 that targeted federal training perceived as based on critical race theory and similar topics.

The New Hampshire law identified four concepts that students may not be “taught, instructed, inculcated, or compelled to express belief in, or support for.” The first was “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.”

The second banned concept was that a person, by virtue of any of those characteristics, was “inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.” The third was that any individual should be discriminated against by virtue of the covered characteristics. The fourth was that people of any covered characteristic cannot and should not treat others without regard to such characteristics.

New Hampshire Education Commissioner Frank Edelblut endorsed the provisions, writing in op-eds that they were a necessary “contribution to the education system” because of “anti-racist” materials being spread within the system.

The provisions were challenged in separate lawsuits by teachers and the state affiliates of the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association.

Barbadoro, in his May 28 summary judgment ruling in Local 8027, AFT-NH v. Edelblut, said that one problem with the state law provisions is that “rather than take on issues like structural racism, implicit bias, and affirmative action directly,” they employ general terms such as teaching that one race is superior to another, that individuals are inherently racist, and that individuals should not be subject to adverse treatment because of their race.

“While these banned concepts may appear straightforward at first glance, their ambiguity comes to light when put into practice,” he said. Teachers might wonder whether they can teach about the benefits of affirmative action in college admissions or even teach the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on that topic last year without worrying that they might violate the state laws, he said.

“All told, the banned concepts speak only obliquely about the speech that they target and, in doing so, fail to provide teachers with much-needed clarity as to how the amendments apply to the very topics that they were meant to address,” Barbadoro said. “This lack of clarity sows confusion and leaves significant gaps that can only be filled in by those charged with enforcing the Amendments, thereby inviting arbitrary enforcement.”

The measures are also unclear about what it means to teach the banned concepts, as opposed to merely discussing topics that might touch on them, he said.

“Teachers are thus left in the untenable position of having to wager their careers on a guess or else refrain from discussing matters that implicate the banned concepts altogether,” the judge said.

Megan Tuttle, the president of NEA-New Hampshire, said in a statement that the banned-concepts provisions “stifled New Hampshire teachers’ efforts to provide a true and honest education. Students, families, and educators should rejoice over this court ruling which restores the teaching of truth and the right to learn for all Granite State students.”

Deb Howes, the president of AFT-New Hampshire, said: “The vague, unconstitutional divisive concepts law was a dreadful effort to limit truthful discussion about history, gender, race, and identity.”

There was no immediate reaction from Edelblut or the New Hampshire attorney general’s office.

Events

This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
School & District Management Webinar
Leadership in Education: Building Collaborative Teams and Driving Innovation
Learn strategies to build strong teams, foster innovation, & drive student success.
Content provided by Follett Learning
School & District Management K-12 Essentials Forum Principals, Lead Stronger in the New School Year
Join this free virtual event for a deep dive on the skills and motivation you need to put your best foot forward in the new year.
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Privacy & Security Webinar
Navigating Modern Data Protection & Privacy in Education
Explore the modern landscape of data loss prevention in education and learn actionable strategies to protect sensitive data.
Content provided by  Symantec & Carahsoft

EdWeek Top School Jobs

Teacher Jobs
Search over ten thousand teaching jobs nationwide — elementary, middle, high school and more.
View Jobs
Principal Jobs
Find hundreds of jobs for principals, assistant principals, and other school leadership roles.
View Jobs
Administrator Jobs
Over a thousand district-level jobs: superintendents, directors, more.
View Jobs
Support Staff Jobs
Search thousands of jobs, from paraprofessionals to counselors and more.
View Jobs

Read Next

Law & Courts Student Says Snapchat Enabled Teacher's Abuse. Supreme Court Won't Hear His Case
The high court, over a dissent by two justices, decline to review the scope of Section 230 liability protection for social media platforms.
4 min read
The United States Supreme Court is seen in Washington, D.C., on July 1, 2024.
The U.S. Supreme Court is seen in Washington, D.C., on July 1, 2024. The high court declined on July 2 to take up a case about whether Snapchat could be held partially liable for a teacher's sexual abuse of a student.
Aashish Kiphayet/NurPhoto via AP
Law & Courts What the Supreme Court's Chevron Decision Could Mean for Biden's Title IX Rule
The decision overrules a 40-year-old precedent and could impact lawsuits challenging the final Title IX rule.
5 min read
Visitors pose for photographs at the U.S. Supreme Court on June 18, 2024, in Washington.
Visitors pose for photographs at the U.S. Supreme Court on June 18, 2024, in Washington. The high court on June 28 overruled a longtime precedent and held that courts, not federal agencies, have the primary authority to interpret ambiguous federal statutes.
Jose Luis Magana/AP
Law & Courts Religious Charter School Is Unconstitutional, Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules
The state high court says the planned Catholic virtual charter school violates a state provision against aid to 'sectarian' institutions.
4 min read
The Oklahoma Supreme Court is pictured in the state Capitol building in Oklahoma City, May 19, 2014. The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled Tuesday, June 25, 2024, that the approval of the nation's first state-funded Catholic charter school, St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual Charter School, is unconstitutional.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court is pictured in the state Capitol building in Oklahoma City, May 19, 2014. The high court ruled Tuesday, June 25, 2024, that the approval of the nation's first state-funded Catholic charter school, St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual Charter School, is unconstitutional.
Sue Ogrocki/AP
Law & Courts Supreme Court Case on Transgender Youth Medical Care May Impact Schools
The justices will decide whether a Tennessee law that bars certain treatments for transgender minors violates the equal-protection clause.
5 min read
FILE - The Supreme Court is seen under stormy skies in Washington, June 20, 2019. In the coming days, the Supreme Court will confront a perfect storm mostly of its own making, a trio of decisions stemming directly from the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to take up a case about a state law that bars certain medical care for transgender minors, with the legal issues holding potential implications for schools.
J. Scott Applewhite/AP