A federal judge on Tuesday struck down a New Hampshire law that bars the teaching of 鈥渄ivisive concepts,鈥� such as that one individual鈥檚 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鈥檚 education and antidiscrimination laws, said the measures 鈥渇orce teachers to guess as to which diversity efforts can be touted and which must be repudiated, gambling with their careers in the process.鈥�
Violations of the provisions could lead to teachers having their credentials revoked and expose them to civil liability, the judge said.
鈥淎lthough 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,鈥� 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to similar laws in Florida and Oklahoma, while a measure in Arizona was blocked by state courts in 2021 and later repealed.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鈥檚 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 鈥渢aught, instructed, inculcated, or compelled to express belief in, or support for.鈥� The first was 鈥渢hat one鈥檚 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.鈥�
The second banned concept was that a person, by virtue of any of those characteristics, was 鈥渋nherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.鈥� 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 鈥渃ontribution to the education system鈥� because of 鈥渁nti-racist鈥� 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 , said that one problem with the state law provisions is that 鈥渞ather than take on issues like structural racism, implicit bias, and affirmative action directly,鈥� 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.
鈥淲hile these banned concepts may appear straightforward at first glance, their ambiguity comes to light when put into practice,鈥� 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鈥檚 decision on that topic last year without worrying that they might violate the state laws, he said.
鈥淎ll 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,鈥� Barbadoro said. 鈥淭his 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.鈥�
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.
鈥淭eachers 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,鈥� the judge said.
Megan Tuttle, the president of NEA-New Hampshire, said in a statement that the banned-concepts provisions 鈥渟tifled New Hampshire teachers鈥� 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.鈥�
Deb Howes, the president of AFT-New Hampshire, said: 鈥淭he vague, unconstitutional divisive concepts law was a dreadful effort to limit truthful discussion about history, gender, race, and identity.鈥�
There was no immediate reaction from Edelblut or the New Hampshire attorney general鈥檚 office.
