#

New Hampshire’s largest teacher’s union supports so-called “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) policies so much that it’s going to court to defend them.

The New Hampshire chapters of the National Educators Association and the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court in Concord on Wednesday in response to the Trump administration’s DEI order.

The lawsuit claims the Trump administration is violating the Constitution by seeking to ban DEI practices and instruction. The complaint pinpoints the Feb. 14 letter that then-nominee for Education Secretary Linda McMahon sent to schools across the nation threatening a loss of funding if those institutions continue DEI programs as part of their educational offerings.

The letter defines DEI as programs that “teach students that certain racial groups bear unique moral burdens that others do not” and/or “stigmatize students who belong to racial groups.”

It’s part of the Trump administration’s attempt to end the practices promoted by President Joe Biden and his administration. Trump’s order instructs agencies to “terminate all discriminatory and illegal preferences, mandates, policies, programs, activities, guidance, regulations, enforcement actions, consent orders, and requirements.”

The national NEA and ACLU are backing the New Hampshire lawsuit to block the Trump policy.

“Across the country, educators do everything in their power to support every student — no matter where they live, how much their family earns, or the color of their skin — ensuring each feels safe, seen, and prepared for the future. Now, the Trump administration is threatening to punish students, parents and educators in public schools for doing just that: fostering inclusive classrooms where diversity is valued, history is taught honestly, and every child can grow into their full brilliance,” said Becky Pringle, president of the National Education Association. 

Gilles Bissonnette, legal director of the ACLU of New Hampshire, said in a statement Wednesday’s lawsuit is similar to one he successfully brought against New Hampshire’s Department of Education in the wake of the state passing its education anti-discrimination law. That law banned teaching that one group of people is inherently superior or inferior to another and that people are inherently racist, sexist, etc., based on the group they are in, among other concepts.

“Like New Hampshire’s classroom censorship law that we successfully challenged in court, this unconstitutionally vague letter is an attack on educators who are simply doing their job,” Bissonnette said. “Teachers are already reporting being afraid to teach for fear of having their teaching deemed unlawful, and that deprives Granite State students of the complete education that they deserve.”

The lawsuit claims McMahon and Trump have no legal authority to dictate what gets taught in New Hampshire classrooms. New Hampshire teachers frequently use DEI programming as they see fit, the lawsuit states.

“They have incorporated issues of race, diversity, equity, and inclusion in the content and approach to their teaching, in their broader educational practices, and in training and support for educators, all in accordance with sound pedagogical practice,” according to the lawsuit.

“We’re urging the court to block the Department of Education from enforcing this harmful and vague directive and protect students from politically motivated attacks that stifle speech and erase critical lessons. Teaching should be guided by what’s best for students, not by threat of illegal restrictions and punishment.”

New Hampshire’s biggest teacher’s union, the National Education Association-NH, and the state chapter of the ACLU have joined forces to combat New Hampshire’s new anti-discrimination law.

Unlike a previously filed lawsuit that used the phrase “divisive concepts” 103 times (a phrase that does not appear anywhere in the law), the lawsuit has updated its language, referring to the law as the “banned concepts” law.

The phrase “banned concepts” does not appear anywhere in the new law, either.

On Monday, the groups announced a new federal lawsuit filed in the United States District Court in Concord against the state’s new anti-discrimination law.

“This unconstitutionally vague law disallows students from receiving the inclusive, complete education they deserve, and from having important conversations on race, gender, disability, sexual orientation, and gender identity in the classroom,” said Gilles Bissonnette, legal director of the ACLU of New Hampshire.

Meg Tuttle, the president of New Hampshire’s NEA branch, claimed the law prevents teachers from teaching full facts around controversial subjects.

“Parents and educators agree students should learn complete facts about historical events like slavery and civil rights. They agree that politicians shouldn’t be censoring classroom discussions between students and their teachers and that educators shouldn’t have their licenses and livelihoods put at risk by a vague law,” Tuttle said.

The problem for Bissonnette and Tuttle is the law passed this year does nothing to ban any concept from being taught but instead bans students from being discriminated against. Indeed, the law explicitly states it does not prohibit, “as a larger court of academic instruction,” teaching about this history of racism, sexism, etc. 

“I don’t think there’s any statement of facts (in the lawsuit) they can make other than people’s feelings,” said state Rep. Keith Ammon, R-New Boston, one of the legislators behind the bill. “The left created this false image of what the law actually states.”

According to the legal guidance issued to schools by the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office and the New Hampshire Department of Education, the law does nothing to stop any facet of American history from being taught in the classroom.

“Nothing prohibits the teaching of historical subjects including, but not limited to: slavery, treatment of the Native American population, Jim Crow laws, segregation, treatment of women, treatment of LGBTQ+ people, treatment of people with disabilities, treatment of people based on their religion, or the Civil Rights movement. Nor does anything prohibit discussions related to current events including, but not limited to: the Black Lives Matter movement, efforts to promote equality and inclusion, or other contemporary events that impact certain identified groups,” the legal advice from the Attorney General states. 

Instead, the law prohibits students being taught that “a person, because of their membership in one or more identified group(s), is inherently either: (1) racist, sexist, or oppressive, consciously or unconsciously or (2) superior or inferior to people of another identified group.”

Ammon said the lawsuit, like the error-filled lawsuit filed last week by New Hampshire’s American Federation of Teachers, is simply a fundraising stunt by the unions and the ACLU.

“They are using it to fundraise off their woke base,” Ammon said. “This how far the ACLU has fallen, they are challenging an anti-discrimination law in federal court.”

The lawsuit lists Andres Mejia as one of the plaintiffs. Mejia is director of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Justice for the Exeter Region Cooperative School District, the school district where a Catholic student was punished for expressing tenets of his faith to another student outside the school’s purview.

“This law chills the very type of diversity, equity, and inclusion work that is absolutely necessary to ensure that each student is seen, heard, and connected, especially as New Hampshire becomes more diverse,” Mejia said in a statement.

The Catholic student and his family are suing the Exeter district, though without any help from New Hampshire’s ACLU. Bissonnette did not respond to a question on Monday as to why the American Civil Liberties Union would not defend a student punished for expressing his faith. 

Mejia is also a board member of Black Lives Matter Seacoast, a group that demands the removal of police officers from schools. 

Ammon says he does not think the lawsuit will succeed but does think New Hampshire taxpayers will still lose.

“We have to pay to defend the state in court against their lame allegations,” Ammon said.