#

For state Rep. Keith Ammon (R-New Boston), Tuesday’s ruling striking down the state’s anti-discrimination in education law meant one thing.

“Judge Barbadoro just put stopping Critical Race Theory back on the ballot in November.”

New Hampshire Democrats, teachers unions, and the state chapter of the ACLU all celebrated United States District Court Judge Paul Barbadoro’s decision to declare the law unconstitutional. The Right to Freedom from Discrimination in Public Workplaces and Education law — often referred to by the judge and its critics as the “divisive concepts” law — was passed in 2021 in response to concerns about Critical Race Theory (CRT) content in classrooms. It barred any public employee from teaching or training others that race, sex, or other inherent characteristics made an individual racist, sexist, etc.

Democrats are delighted to see the law go.

“I am pleased that Judge Barbadoro recognized today what the Senate Democrats have said for years: the Republican’s ‘divisive concepts’ law is an unconstitutional infringement on the rights of Granite Staters,” said state Senate Democratic Leader Donna Soucy (D-Manchester).

And both Democrats running for governor confirmed Ammon’s prediction that the ruling would result in a partisan political battle.

Former Manchester Mayor Joyce Craig promised to shut down any Republican who tries to revive the law.

“As governor, I’ll stop any bill that threatens teachers’ ability to teach and prevents students from receiving an honest education,” Craig said.

Her fellow Democratic candidate for governor, Executive Councilor Cinde Warmington, said the law “sought to undermine public education by subjecting educators to arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement and penalties. I am relieved to see the court’s ruling today declaring this law unconstitutional.”

And House Democratic Leader Rep. Matt Wilhelm (D-Manchester) linked the law to GOP-backed legislation for keeping boys out of girls’ bathrooms and off of girls-only sports teams.

“Make no mistake—the Republican Party will stop at nothing to infringe upon our children’s freedom with nonsensical culture wars like their “divisive concepts” ban, book bans, sports bans, and bathroom bans,” Wilhelm said.

But Republicans blasted the ruling. Sen. Tim Lang (R-Sanbornton) said it will allow teachers to promote racist CRT-inspired ideology in public classrooms.

“Seems odd the court thinks it’s OK to allow teachers to teach, based on your race, you are inherently a victim or a perpetrator of racism. Which is what the ‘divisive concepts’ law prohibited, no person is inherently racist based on race,” Lang said. 

Chuck Morse, who’s running in the GOP primary for governor, helped craft the legislation and get it to Gov. Chris Sununu’s desk. He said he will work to push through a law that passes constitutional muster if elected.

“We must equip our students with the tools to think critically and engage with each other respectfully, without the influence of biased and discriminatory teachings,” Morse said. “My administration will prioritize transparency, and adherence to constitutional principles to ensure that any new legislation will stand up to judicial scrutiny and serve the best interests of our students.”

Teachers union president Deb Howes with the New Hampshire American Federation of Teachers disagrees, saying Tuesday’s ruling should be the end of the lesson. 

“This decision should put to rest the issue, and New Hampshire teachers will no longer have to live under a cloud of fear of getting fired for actually teaching accurate, honest education.” Howes said. 

Ironically, the ruling may boost support for the Education Freedom Account program Howes and her Democratic allies oppose. Parents who discover they can’t prevent their children from being labeled “racist” or “privileged” by their local public school may turn to the EFA program to send their kids elsewhere.

Before the law passed, CRT-based content was being used in school districts like Manchester, Laconia, and Litchfield. However, there is no record of any teacher or administrator being subjected to enforcement under the law.

Manchester School District’s Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) Director Christina Kim Philibotte and Andres Mejia, the former DEI director at SAU 16, said the ruling will let teachers get back to caring for “students of color, students from the LGBTQ+ community, and students with historically marginalized identities.”

“It is critically important that students see themselves in the books they read and in the classroom discussions they have to ensure that they feel cared for and valued,” Philibotte and Mejia said in a joint statement.

A federal judge ruled Tuesday that New Hampshire’s law barring the teaching of discriminatory content in schools is too vague and, therefore, violates the constitutional rights of educators. 

“The Amendments are viewpoint-based restrictions on speech that do not provide either fair warning to educators of what they prohibit or sufficient standards for law enforcement to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement,” wrote United States District Court Judge Paul Barbadoro. The judge based his ruling on the 14th Amendment protection against vague laws, and declared New Hampshire’s legislature passed a law that was nearly “unintelligible.”

The law’s supporters disagree.

Under the law tossed out by Judge Barbadoro:

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

As a result, school districts like Manchester, Litchfield and Laconia could no longer use Critical Race Theory-based curriculum in their classrooms. Striking down the law will allow that content to return.

Barbadoro said the attempt to prevent teachers from telling students they are racist, sexist, etc. crossed the line into viewpoint discrimination.

“The most obvious vagueness problem is presented by the fourth concept, which prohibits teaching that individuals of one group ‘cannot and should not attempt to treat others without regard to’ their membership in another group. As other courts have observed, this language is ‘bordering on unintelligible’ because it employs the dreaded triple negative form,” Barbadoro wrote.

The judge argued the law created an untenable mix of subjective instructions and severe punishment under the law.

“Potential disciplinary sanctions include reprimand, suspension, and revocation of the educator’s certification,” Barbadoro wrote. “In other words, an educator who is found to have taught or advocated a banned concept may lose not only his or her job, but also the ability to teach anywhere in the state.”

New Hampshire Department of Education Commissioner Frank Edelblut’s office declined to comment.

Nixon Peabody attorney Morgan Nighan, who represented the plaintiffs, said a law so unclear that it cannot be followed is a clear violation of the 14th Amendment.

“No ordinary person can understand what is banned,” Nighan said. “Laws like this have been routinely struck down across the country.”

Teachers could not speak about affirmative action legal cases, Israel’s war against Hamas, or any potentially hot button current events issue for fear of breaking the law, Nighan claimed. That meant teachers avoided large sections of history or current events out of fear that could lose their licenses without knowing why.

“For example, teachers may attempt to stimulate discussion by asking students pointed questions or encourage debate by presenting students with ideas contrary to their own. When such techniques are used to explore a banned concept, it is impossible to know whether a banned concept has been impermissibly taught,” Barbadoro wrote.

Supporters of the law dismiss that claim, saying the line between teaching that racism exists and actually advocating racism is easy to see.

Attempts by Edeblut to clarify the law backfired, according to Barbadoro’s ruling. Edelblut tried to explain his views in a June 2021 newspaper oped, but that only added to the confusion and fear, Barbadoro said.

“The threat of arbitrary enforcement based on Edelblut’s personal views has impacted teachers even in the absence of a formal complaint,” Barbadoro wrote.

One incident noted in Barbadoro’s ruling involved Keene Middle School scrapping a plan to teach Ibrahim X. Kendi’s “Stamped: Racism, Antiracism, and  You” after the district bought 250 copies of the books. According to the ruling, Edelblut’s column was why Keene abandoned Kendi’s book.

According to Kendi, “There’s no such thing as a ‘not racist’ or ‘race neutral’ policy,” and any person who doesn’t embrace what he calls “antiracism” — overtly treating white people differently from people of color — is engaged in racism. Some parents objected to the notion that their children would be taught that their skin color makes them inherently privileged and racist.

New Hampshire passed the anti-discrimination law as a set of amendments to the biennial budget in 2021. Rather than banning specific “divisive concepts,” the amendments sought to bar teachers from “teaching, advocating, instructing, or training” students that one group is inherently superior or inferior to another; that people are inherently racist, sexist, etc., based on the group they’re in; that people should be discriminated against based on their group; to stop people from treating other equally.

While the law allowed for teachers to discuss issues like racism and sexism in class, there was no clear legal line that distinguished such discussions from actual teaching, opponents complained.

Megan Tuttle, president of the New Hampshire NEA teachers union, said the law “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.”

Michael Garrity, spokesman for New Hampshire’s Department of Justice, said the state is reviewing Barbadoro’s ruling.

“The state is currently reviewing the court’s order and will consider next steps, including whether to appeal.”

It’s not often that the New Hampshire Legislature proposes a law that goes against a U.S. Supreme Court ruling. But that’s what Rep. Robert L’Heureux’s bill on flag desecration did.

The Merrimack Republican introduced House Bill 532 in the House Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs Committee on Wednesday, which would have prohibited a person who desecrates a United States flag or New Hampshire state flag from receiving financial assistance from the state, including, but not limited to, “financial assistance to needy families, food stamps, and tuition assistance.”

“All we have to do is watch the news on tv and you see the American flag being burned, trampled on, and desecrated,” L’Heureux testified before the committee. “I fully agree and support freedom of speech. However, I don’t think I, as a private citizen or individual, should financially support someone who refuses to accept what we stand for.”

He said he understood that this bill was likely not going to pass and attorneys told him that it’s illegal. In fact, the bill received an “inexpedient to legislate” on a 18-1 vote. Two representatives switched their vote to go against the bill after the committee first voted on whether it “ought to pass.” Rep. Donald LeBrun, R-Nashua, was the only representative to fully support the bill after two rounds of voting.

Even though L’Heureux knew the bill was going to fail, he said he was trying to raise awareness for an issue.

“When we meet veterans and veteran survivors, we need to be able to tell them that we’ve done everything we can within the scope of the law,” he said.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. Johnson (1989) and reaffirmed in U.S. v. Eichman (1990) that due to the First Amendment, it is unconstitutional, including federal, state or municipalities, to prohibit the desecration of a flag due to its status as “symbolic speech.”

However, restrictions may be imposed to regulate the time, place, and manner of flag desecration. For example, if the flag that was burned was someone else’s property, they could be charged for petty larceny or with destruction of property.

There have been several proposed Flag Desecration Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which would allow Congress to enact laws prohibiting the act. To be added to the Constitution, it must be approved by a two-thirds vote of those present in both chambers and be ratified by at least three-fourths of the 50 state legislatures.

The closest the amendment ever came to getting through Congress was in 2006, when the House passed a resolution 286-130, but it fell short in the Senate by one vote, 66-34. The Republican nay votes included Sens. Bob Bennett of Utah, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, and Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

Despite flag desecration being illegal, an Associated Press analysis shows at least 40 states still have them, punishing those who burn or damage the U.S. flag or even state flags with fines and jail time. At least eight people have been arrested since 2007 for burning a flag while walking in traffic or hanging a torn flag from a tree. There are also some Southern states that extend the law to Confederate flags.

But a lot of lawmakers don’t see the need to remove the law from the books because it could be seen as politically motivated even though it’s already been illegal according to the highest court. Arkansas, Connecticut, Missouri, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island have been the only states that took any action to get rid of their flag-desecration laws. Alaska, Wyoming, and Wisconsin don’t have any laws about it.

Opponents of the proposed New Hampshire law found problems that it went against a Supreme Court decision, but also that it would take away state financial assistance from people.

“The fundamental problem with this bill is that is constitutes viewpoint discrimination,” said Gilles Bissonnette, legal director of the New Hampshire chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). “The state can’t withhold that benefit on the basis of someone’s viewpoint. You don’t lose your free speech rights when obtaining government assistance.”

Despite knowing that the bill was illegal, many Republican representatives agreed with the sentiment of the bill, and made that known throughout the hearing.

Rep. Mark Pearson, R-Hampstead, said the ACLU supports colleges and students that want “trigger warnings” to be included on class syllabi or on campus, so why shouldn’t they support people who find flag burning trigger-worthy?

Rep. Martin Bove, R-Londonderry, asked if he were to burn a Mexican or Saudi Arabian flag, would that be considered hate speech?

Bissonnette said the ACLU would consider that free speech.

Sarah Mattson Dustin, policy director for NH Legal Assistance, said the bill targeted low-income families who might not have alternative methods to disposing of flags in a proper manner.

“The bill would prohibit financial assistance that is not limited to Medicaid and other programs,” she said. “When you think about that in context, you think about someone in their youth, should we prohibit them from receiving these programs later in life?”

Mattson Dustin said one of her biggest issues with the bill was that the language was vague.

“The bill does seem directed toward people who are receiving assistance programs, and I don’t know it could apply to someone who would get a state contract,” she said. “The language is very broad.”

L’Heureux said he would be supportive if the committee drafted a resolution saying they believe flag desecration is un-American, and it was subsequently passed in both chambers of the Legislature. Or he would wait until the Supreme Court decision was overturned. Either way, he said he wasn’t done pushing this issue.

Follow Kyle on Twitter.