AFT-NH and AFT Celebrate Victory in U.S. District Court Decision Rejecting New Hampshire’s ‘Divisive Concepts’ Law

CONCORD, N.H.—AFT-New Hampshire President Deb Howes and AFT President Randi Weingarten issued the following statements on the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire’s decision to grant summary judgment rejecting as unconstitutional the state’s so-called divisive concept law, the misleadingly named Right to Freedom from Discrimination in Public Workplaces and Education law.

AFT-NH President Deb Howes said: “All New Hampshire teachers and students won big today. The U.S. District Court in Concord correctly decided that educators have the constitutional right to teach honest, accurate lessons and wasn’t dragged into the clutches of the extreme right. The vague, unconstitutional divisive concepts law was a dreadful effort to limit truthful discussion about history, gender, race and identity.

“The court agreed that the law unconstitutionally restricted what teachers can teach. This decision should put to rest the issue, and New Hampshire teachers will no longer have to live under a cloud of fear of getting fired for actually teaching accurate, honest education.”

AFT-NH was the lead group filing suit against the law, arguing it is unconstitutionally vague and violates teachers’ speech rights. The order in favor of the plaintiffs said: “The amendments are viewpoint-based restrictions on speech that do not provide either fair warning to educators of what they prohibit or sufficient standards for law enforcement to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. Thus, the amendments violate the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.”

The judge wrote that “given the unclear line between acceptable and unacceptable discussions, teachers have virtually no way of knowing whether a lesson that touches upon the banned concepts violates the Amendments.”

AFT President Randi Weingarten said: “The judge saw this case for what it was: a politically based, divisiveness-fueled attempt to stoke fear—fear of honest history, fear of critical thinking, fear of knowledge. It was about chilling educators and stopping them from meeting the needs of their students.

“The vagueness was a feature, not a bug, and was written to confuse and confound so educators would never know whether they would lose their license. That’s not supporting teaching and learning—it’s an attack on professionals who’ve dedicated their careers to helping kids thrive.

“I’m grateful that the judge put a stop to this charade and recognized it as a grievous assault on knowledge, learning, history and critical thinking. And it serves as a lesson: Instead of denying students an honest education and intimidating teachers, states should focus instead on providing teachers and students the resources and supports they need.”