Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Curriculum Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Heated hearing on HB1792, the 'Charley Act,' as DOJ and educators warn of vagueness and legal risk
Summary
Representative Mike Belcher introduced HB1792 (the 'Charley Act') to prohibit certain pedagogical methods he describes as indoctrination. The Department of Justice and multiple educators testified in opposition, citing vagueness (e.g., what constitutes 'affirmation'), conflicts with anti-discrimination law, chilling effects on teaching, and potential litigation costs; the hearing was recessed with many speakers to return next week.
Representative Mike Belcher introduced House Bill 1792 — labeled in testimony the "Charley Act" — saying the measure narrowly defines indoctrination and would prohibit pedagogical methods that compel students to affirm ideological views or adopt certain analytic frameworks as praxis. He told the committee the bill is designed to allow neutral or pro‑American teaching and to use the code of conduct as the enforcement mechanism while privileging corrective training over employment actions.
During lengthy questioning, committee members pressed the sponsor for concrete evidence of widespread indoctrination in New Hampshire public schools and for legally precise definitions of terms such as "LGBTQ ideology" and "affirmation." The sponsor cited examples he said have appeared in curricula and social-media discussions, and argued the bill targets compelled speech rather than classroom discussion.
Sean Locke, senior assistant attorney general who leads the Department of Justice’s civil-rights unit, testified the Department opposes HB1792 as written. He said the bill raises viable constitutional challenges because key terms are vague — for example, what constitutes "affirmation" — and it risks conflict with existing state law that prohibits discrimination in K–12 education on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Locke warned the bill could put teachers and schools in a "catch‑22" when responding to bullying or harassment, and that it would impose new, unbudgeted enforcement and litigation costs.
A wide range of educators, school-board members, students and union representatives testified in opposition. Former and current teachers described how prior similar measures chilled classroom discussion and made educators reluctant to teach sensitive but essential topics; students and parents described personal accounts of bullying and said supportive teachers can be critical to student wellbeing.
Representative Nick Germana — a historian — urged caution about listing ideological "lineages," warning the approach risks banning the teaching of ideas and conflating scholarly work with indoctrination. Multiple witnesses recommended the committee refer the bill for interim study or reject it; the committee recessed the hearing with many public witnesses remaining on the list.
