Heated testimony as committee considers amended bill tweaking divisive-concepts law and adding private civil remedies

House Bill 50, as amended in the House, would preserve the existing state statute commonly described as the ‘‘divisive concepts’’ law but add an evidentiary scienter requirement (intentional or knowing violations) and permit aggrieved persons to bring civil actions and seek remedies, including potential educator-discipline procedures in some cases.

Representative Peter Petrino (presenting for the bill as amended) said the original bill he filed sought repeal of the statute but that the House amendment instead retained the law while creating a cause of action for intentional or knowing violations. Representative Glenn Cordelli, a co-sponsor of the amended language, told the committee the changes aim to address a federal court ruling that had found parts of the law unconstitutionally vague; he said inserting ‘‘intentional or knowing’’ (a scienter term) and clarifying that the statute protects all races equally responds to the court’s concerns.

Opponents, including higher-education and business representatives and bioethics and disability scholars, said the amended bill’s civil-suit and disciplinary provisions would chill classroom teaching and academic freedom. Testifiers argued that teachers already avoid sensitive topics and that the threat of civil litigation or professional discipline would deter instruction about well-documented historical practices — including slavery, medical abuses, systemic discrimination and disability history — that critics said are essential to training future professionals and a functioning democracy.

Business-representative testimony noted that major employers and hundreds of member companies had opposed prior versions of divisive-concepts measures, arguing the bills harm workforce development and civic education. Several speakers urged the committee to refine the bill by removing private civil remedies, extending clear academic-exception language or otherwise narrowing enforcement mechanisms so that historically grounded academic discussion cannot be the basis of civil suits or educator discipline.

Committee members asked questions about the scope of the amended language, how it interacts with academic discussion exceptions and whether the presence of a private cause of action would chill teaching. Representative Cordelli said the amended language reiterates that academic discussion of historical facts and ideas is not prohibited and that the scienter provision should address vagueness concerns from the court ruling. The hearing concluded with multiple public speakers and no committee vote recorded that day.