No wonder the contributors to the March 1 and March 3 Forum were alarmed by HB 544, now before the New Hampshire House, and warned against its passage (“Better to deal with ‘divisive topics’ openly, honestly,” and “What won’t be taught in NH?”). They were responding to the misleading Feb. 20 headline that the bill “would bar teaching ‘divisive topics’ ” with the claim that “the New Hampshire Legislature would sweep issues of racism and sexism under the rug.”
That couldn’t be further from the truth. In fact, HB 544 promotes the exact opposite of what people think it does. Shame on the Valley News for misunderstanding and misrepresenting such an important bill. I have read HB 544, attended three hours of House testimony, reviewed critical race theory and its associated training (which this bill addresses) and am a strong supporter of the bill. Read it for yourselves and make up your own minds.
What the bill does do is explicitly protect what its opponents claim it does not. They believe the bill would ban “free and open discourse on the topics of systemic racism and sexism.” In fact, HB 544 states exactly the opposite in its closing paragraphs: “Nothing … shall be construed to prohibit discussing, as part of a larger course of academic instruction, the divisive concepts listed (above) in an objective manner and without endorsement.” Furthermore, it states: “nothing … shall prevent agencies or contractors from promoting racial, cultural, or ethnic diversity or inclusiveness.
The crucial words are “without endorsement.” They are the heart of the bill and address the training sessions and their tactics. They would ensure that debate and discussion are allowed without fear of retribution. Make no mistake, these training sessions are well-intentioned, with honorable goals — a world that is diverse and inclusive, free of prejudice and discrimination and equal opportunity for all. However, these training sessions too often actually restrict or eliminate freedom of speech, difference of opinion and individual agency. Discussions are simply shut down and objectors are sometimes shouted down. This does not mean to say all training sessions are like this, but the bill would ensure that none are.
The “divisive concepts” in the bill are a reference to “critical race theory” — a term used to describe the examination of society and culture as they relate to race, power and the law — which underpins many of these often-compulsory training sessions. Critical race theory’s assumptions are treated as foundational — not as theories, as the name implies, but as universal truths about individuals and the world — and everyone is automatically implicated in them.
Theories are and should be open to inquiry. Critical race theory is not. What’s even more insidious is that critical race theory is accusatory, not open to discussion or question, and the accused have no right to due process or to defend themselves. The result of disagreeing with the critical race theory orthodoxy can be punitive and result in job loss, public shaming and other serious consequences. Not all training sessions necessarily use these techniques, but the bill would ensure none do.
In case you don’t have time to read the bill or research critical race theory, which is premised on white supremacy and systemic racism, here are some of the indisputable “concepts” critical race theory training sessions automatically assume about people, their beliefs and behaviors that HB 544 finds “divisive.” Do readers truly think it right and fair to accuse everyone categorically of believing that “one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex”; that “an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously”; that “an individual’s moral character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex”; or that “any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex.” The list goes on.
Some may agree with these assumptions, and they should be free to do so, but others may not agree and they should be free to do so as well. These surely are controversial, “divisive” topics and to maintain open debate and civil discussion about them is precisely what HB 544 wants to ensure.
What HB 544 is really attempting to do is protect the very essence of our democracy: free speech and the freedom to dissent without fear of consequences. This bill is adamantly against racism, sexism and discrimination. How sad that it is even needed. I urge everyone, especially doubters, to please read the bill and to research critical race theory. Better yet, listen to the poignant and compelling House testimony of the Chinese woman who fled Mao’s China and felt so warmly welcomed here to start a new life and family. She pleaded with the House to pass the bill because if it didn’t pass and America continued down this path, she warned, “America will become like Mao’s China, and then where would people go?”
I recently stumbled on this quote by James Baldwin, from Notes of a Native Son: “I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.” If this bill isn’t passed, that right may very well be lost.
Miriam Richards lives in Norwich.