Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances revised ban on teaching discrimination after court concerns; adds scienter and clarifying language
Summary
The committee reported SB 100 ‘ought to pass, as amended’ after adopting changes intended to address a federal court ruling. The amendment adds an intentional/knowing (scienter) requirement and clarifies that the prohibition covers any racial group; it also preserves classroom discussion of historical events.
The House Education Committee voted to advance an amended Senate Bill 100 that revises the state prohibition on teaching discrimination. The amendment seeks to respond to questions raised in recent litigation by adding a scienter (intent/knowledge) requirement, clarifying the statute’s scope, and explicitly preserving historical or academic discussion in classrooms.
Why it matters: The original statute prohibiting instruction that promotes discrimination had been the subject of litigation; a federal district judge flagged vagueness concerns. Committee sponsors and legal advocates said the changes increase clarity and reduce constitutional risk while preserving the state’s interest in preventing instruction that intentionally promotes or indoctrinates students to support discrimination.
Representative Glenn Cordelli, sponsor of the amendment, told the committee the draft seeks to “mitigate” the vagueness identified by a judge and to make clear that the prohibition applies to discriminatory instruction directed at any racial group. “A scienter requirement may mitigate a law’s vagueness,” Cordelli said in committee discussion, and the amendment inserts “intentionally and knowingly” language in several sections.
The amendment also adds a statement that “nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit discussion by educators or others as part of a larger course of academic instruction of the historical existence of ideas and subjects identified in this section,” language intended to ensure that teachers can discuss historical facts (for example, Jim Crow laws, historical discrimination or redlining) within academic courses.
Attorney Ian Hewitt, representing the advocacy group Cornerstone, testified in support of the drafted changes and described them as a package that addresses both implementation and litigation vulnerabilities. Hewitt told the committee the amendment is “the first amendment or bill that any legislative body in New Hampshire has seen this term that could even plausibly restore the efficacy of our prohibition on teaching discrimination” by addressing several issues the court noted.
Some members and witnesses emphasized that historical facts and evidence‑based discussion should remain teachable. Representative Murray and several others asked whether lessons about historical injustices (for example, the consequences of Jim Crow or redlining) would remain lawful classroom instruction; sponsors and supporters said the amendment explicitly preserves academic discussion and that a report or complaint would trigger an investigation but not automatically discipline without proof of an intentional or knowing violation.
Votes and next steps: The committee adopted the amendment (2332h) and then voted 9–8 to report SB 100 “ought to pass, as amended.” A minority report was noted in the record. Committee discussion suggested floor debate will focus on the precise scienter language, how investigations would be triggered, and how the statute will be applied in classrooms conducting legitimate historical instruction.
