Michael L. Fischler of Holderness is a professor emeritus of counselor education and school psychology at Plymouth State University. He founded the university’s Counseling and Human Relations Center, which he directed for 40 years, and taught courses on comparative culture and diversity for 50 years.
Stop for a moment and remember a significant time in your life when you felt threatened. The threat might have involved a cherished relationship, your security, self-worth, status, respect, or freedom. As you remember that time, recall how it felt and affected your behavior.
While it’s not unusual to experience threat, what is unusual is that “Live Free or Die” New Hampshire, ranked fifth in the nation for its K-12 education, would choose to threaten educators. One might ask, “What have educators done to merit being targeted?” The answer resides in their responsibility to teach K-12 students about prejudice.
Of issue is the Right to Freedom from Discrimination in Public Workplaces and Education Act, which became law in June of 2021. The act (a.k.a., the “Divisive Concepts” act) identifies four prohibited concepts which if violated, could trigger one or both of the sanctions below:
“A complaint with the New Hampshire Office for Human Rights; a complaint with the New Hampshire Office of the Attorney General; or filing a civil claim in superior court to seek damages or declaratory or injunctive relief,” and/or “disciplinary sanctions by the state board of education.”
The four prohibited concepts are:
■That one’s age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion or national origin is inherently superior to people of another age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin.
■That an individual, by virtue of his or her age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.
■That an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin.
■That people of one age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin cannot and should not attempt to treat others without regard to age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin.
Now imagine you’re an educator providing K-12 instruction to public school students in areas designed to facilitate an understanding of prejudice. Your instruction focuses on identifying those who are prejudice’s targets — its cost, motives, victims, beneficiaries, times when your students were victims, times they victimized others, examples of prejudice in literature and history, critically analyzing events, and identifying methods for prejudice reduction.
As you instruct, you are mindful of the four prohibited concepts, and sanctions associated with violations. Would you be concerned about your instruction being interpreted as “discriminatory,” a complaint being filed, court, damages, or losing your teaching credential?
Do you clearly understand what would constitute a violation or are you confused? (Count me in as confused. Reread the fourth prohibited concept, which contains a triple negative and determine how comfortable you are being judged by it. I’m not.)
Adam Drapcho of the Granite State News Collaborative discussed the effect the Right to Freedom Act has had on education and observed, “While no educators have been punished or even investigated, that doesn’t mean that the law hasn’t had an impact. Several professionals say that having a law on the books that deputizes the public to report alleged violations, and one that could result in a career-ending loss of teaching license for the offender has changed the way they go about their work.”
“They passed a law for something that no one was doing. No one was teaching that someone was inherently racist or deserved to be discriminated (against). The law has created an “atmosphere of fear” that is steering teachers away from discussions they may have felt comfortable having two years ago.”
Now recall that time when you felt threatened, how it felt and how you responded. Fear? Anxiety? Sadness? Anger? I wonder what educators have done to merit living with this threat.
Are these sanctions, developed and adjudicated by politicians, necessary to get professional educators to act “professionally?” Where is the evidence that their behavior has been problematic? Is this the kind of climate we want to create for career professionals, our state’s employees, or for anyone?
On January 16th we celebrated Martin Luther King Jr. Day, and one can only speculate the effect the “atmosphere of fear” had on instruction. Consider the following wisdom from King, and what the cost would be to our students and future leaders if discussion of their historical and here-and-now significance was avoided.
“I am convinced that men hate each other because they fear each other. They fear each other because they don’t know each other, and they don’t know each other because they don’t communicate with each other, and they don’t communicate with each other because they are separated from each other.”
Our educators and students deserve better. MLK, in his wisdom, implored us to act if we identify an issue that needs addressing. He said, “History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people.”
It’s time to recognize that the “divisive concepts” law represents an egregious mistake. It’s time to add our voices to those who seek to end it. In doing so we can add meaning to our state’s credo, to “Live Free or Die” and to the spirit of King’s dream, to “let freedom ring from the hilltops of New Hamsphire” and to our American dream, of peace and tranquility, by removing a bit of the oxygen that fuels our divisive culture wars, and gave birth to this intensely divisive statute.