So What Does the NH Budget Actually Say About 'Divisive Concepts?'

News

Politics

So What Does the NH Budget Actually Say About ‘Divisive Concepts?’

Posted to Politics June 08, 2021 by Michael Graham

New Hampshire Democrats and their progressive allies are adamant that the “divisive concepts” language in the GOP budget is an outrage, an assault on free speech and, as several local Democrats have put it, promoting “white supremacy.”

But does it? The original bill filed by Rep. Keith Ammon (R-New Boston) was sweeping in its scope, but the language that came out of the GOP-controlled Senate is barely a shadow of that legislation.

For example, the updated version explicitly allows “workplace sensitivity training,” though not if it’s based on the premise that some people are inherently biased or racist based solely on their skin color. Here’s the language:

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. [Emphasis added]

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.

And yet the complaints from the bill’s opponent remain the same. In the NHJournal podcast, Andrew Cline of the Josiah Barlett Center suggested that one reason the legislation’s opponents keep saying things that aren’t true is because they’ve never read the updated language. The language can be read here.

But the highlights are below, starting with the key prohibitions, items I through IV. Each section has these same restrictions, and it’s hard to believe that Democrats really oppose prohibiting these actions by the government or its representatives.

Translated into plain English, the prohibitions are:

I: You can’t “teach, advocate, instruct or train” people that one group is inherently superior or inferior to another.
II: You can’t teach that people are inherently racist, sexist, etc. based on the group they’re in.
III: You can’t teach that people should be discriminated against based on their group.
IV: You can’t teach people not to even try to treat people in other groups equally (the “race shouldn’t matter/colorblind” approach)

Here are the key elements of the language, each followed by the same four prohibitions.

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:

[The I – IV prohibitions]

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:

[The I – IV prohibitions]

193:40 Prohibition on Teaching Discrimination.

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:

[The I – IV prohibitions]

And then this section on teaching adds this protection:

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.

Opponents argue that if they can’t teach that all people of specific racial groups are racist (or incapable of racism), then they can’t teach what they need to teach our children and/or our co-workers.

Supporters will say the opponents are being honest, which is why they need this language enacted.