The New Hampshire House is currently considering HB 1255, ostensibly a reworking of a Cold War-era loyalty requirement for teachers. In fact, it is a poorly written bill with vague requirements and severe penalties. A deadly combination.
Teachers, most of whom have persevered under extremely stressful conditions for the past two years, are understandably outraged that their very loyalty might be questioned at this time. I suspect that they form a good portion of the over 2,000 people who have registered opposition to this bill.
I want to focus on one sentence in the second part of the proposed bill: “No teacher shall advocate any doctrine or theory promoting a negative account or representation of the founding and history of the United States of America in New Hampshire public schools which does not include the worldwide context of now outdated and discouraged practices.”
So what does this mean?
Imagine if a history teacher wanted to teach about the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII. 120,000 of them were placed in internment camps for the entire war if they had even 1/16 Japanese ancestry. This internment is viewed now as an act of racism and xenophobia, and a reparations bill was signed by President Reagan.
So, is this covered by the bill? Is it a “negative account or representation?” And there are sociological theories and theories of racial trauma to explain the internments and their effect on those interned. Is it covered? It’s not clear.
But suppose we decide it might be covered. What is required? The teacher must “include the worldwide context of now outdated and discouraged practices.” I have no idea what this means.
“Worldwide,” that’s a gigantic ask. Indonesia, Australia, China? And why? Who would have the time, the knowledge base? What are “now outdated and discouraged practices.” Discouraged by whom? Could anyone explain it to this teacher? The language is impossibly vague, a pile-up of undefined terms.
In her comments on the bill, one of the authors, Alicia Lekas, stated the real intent was to prohibit indoctrination, though even that is not clear from the bill. As one questioner pointed out, it prohibits advocating for communism, Marxism, and socialism— but not authoritarianism or white supremacy.
In fact, there is already a clear NH School Board policy that prohibits teachers from using their instructional position to promote partisan positions. Should teachers violate this policy, local superintendents have the authority, by district contract, to initiate a range of penalties from a warning, to a behavior plan, and in extremely rare cases, to termination. A superintendent is best-positioned to examine the context of a complaint and to resolve it. It’s called local control.
There is a particular danger in the vagueness of this proposed law. Teachers will not know what is prohibited and what is allowed, and with their teaching credentials at stake, who would blame them if they didn’t touch topics like the Japanese internment. This would be a disservice to New Hampshire students. These stories need to be told.
Any attempt to regulate in a few sentences something as complex as the teaching of history is destined to be misinterpreted and have unintended consequences. The language in this bill is particularly sloppy and unworthy of being passed into law. It will have a chilling effect on the honest teaching of our history, and should be ruled “inexpedient.”
(Thomas Newkirk is a Professor of English, emeritus at the University of New Hampshire. He currently serves on the Oyster River Cooperative School District Board. The opinions in this commentary are his own.)