How the “banned concepts” law might affect your community
We are better as a state and community when we can have hard conversations and learn from them. That’s why, as school starts this fall, the ACLU of New Hampshire continues to be concerned about the “banned concepts” legislation, which will limit the ability of public school students to have important discussions about race and gender, and puts teachers at risk of professional discipline and lawsuits if they choose to cover important topics like racism or slavery.
We oppose this racist law, and will not stop fighting for every student’s right to an inclusive education—one that gives a full picture of America and its history.
Because of this vague language and stiff penalties, some educators will inevitably avoid and not engage in these important topics because they fear being the subject of a complaint or lawsuit from an angry parent who doesn’t like what’s in their curriculum.
These important topics potentially include things like the concepts of implicit bias, systemic racism, white privilege, or even historical events like slavery or the genocidal impact of colonization on Native Americans. Teachers fear whether they can even have their students can read and discuss books like “Huckleberry Finn” or the film “Eyes on the Prize” about Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement of the 1960s.
The law has been so misunderstood since its passage that educators have been told to remove books from their classroom libraries that don’t violate the law just to avoid parent complaints. They have been told to remove posters from their classroom walls because they are “too political.”
For example, there appears to be a ban in this law on teaching the idea that someone might be inherently racist or sexist, “whether consciously or unconsciously.” However, we know that things like implicit biases (unconscious stereotypes or attitudes we attribute toward people) exist. Are concepts like implicit bias covered under the law? It might appear from this bill language that Granite Staters would be prohibited from learning about the implicit biases, or how to identify them.
This lack of clarity has been particularly frustrating: if our state government cannot (or is unwilling to) answer basic questions as to what is banned and what is not under the bill’s text, how is an educator supposed to know on the ground what speech is allowed and what is not?