Senate Bill 100 Seeks To Reinstate Divisive-Concepts Prohibition with Intent Standard; Legal Challenge Expected

Senate Bill 100, introduced by Sen. Tim Lang, would amend the existing prohibition on teaching "divisive concepts" in public education by adding a scienter requirement: that a teacher must have "intentionally or knowingly" taught proscribed concepts. Sen. Lang told the House Education Policy and Administration Committee the change is aimed at remedying a federal court ruling that found the prior law constitutionally vague.

"This bill seeks to correct the constitutional vagueness that was in that law," Lang said, describing the amendment as a narrow fix that would require proof that an educator knowingly and intentionally taught disallowed material.

Ian Hewitt, counsel for Cornerstone (identified in testimony as a Christian advocacy organization), supported the scienter change but urged the committee to do more to address the district court's broader concerns. Hewitt said Judge Barbador's opinion focused chiefly on the law's scope—whether it could be read to prohibit teaching that remedies such as affirmative action are permissible or beneficial—and not only the mental-state language. Hewitt told the committee that changing scienter alone may not be sufficient to overcome the court's injunctive ruling.

Sen. Lang and proponents characterized the bill as restoring the preexisting policy that teaching certain statements declaring any group inherently superior or inferior, or urging discrimination, should not be taught in k-12 classrooms. Lang said the bill preserves the ability to teach history and context, and that the intent standard would shield teachers who are presenting historical facts or analysis.

Proponents said enforcement is not intended to be automatic; the bill keeps the burden on the state to show a teacher acted intentionally and knowingly. Ian Hewitt and others also told the committee that enforcement mechanisms under existing law (Human Rights Commission, Department of Education, and private lawsuit options) have not led to consistent investigations; Hewitt urged clearer agency enforcement responsibilities if the prohibition is to be effective.

Opponents who testified during the hearing raised concerns that the statute's language remains broad and could chill legitimate classroom discussion about history, current events and social systems. Several committee members asked for examples; Senator Lang and testimony cited controversial current events instruction as the motivating complaint from some parents.

Sen. Lang acknowledged a future legal challenge if the amended law were enacted and said the bill will likely face review in the appellate courts. The committee did not vote on the measure at the hearing.