Controversy arose when Dictator Chris Sununu, in an interview with New Hampshire Public Radio, said that he did not support the bill and would “probably very likely veto it”. The Republican claimed that the bill would limit free speech and that it’s a big-government solution to something that should be handled locally. Of course, the free speech of government officials who are teaching our children is not protected; in fact, the curriculum should be determined by the voters, should it not?
The bill would prohibit government schools from teaching that :
(a) One race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex;
(b) The state of New Hampshire or the United States is fundamentally racist or sexist;
(c) An individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously;
(d) An individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex;
(e) Members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race or sex;
(f) An individual’s moral character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex;
(g) An individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex;
(h) Any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex; or
(i) Meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist, or were created by a particular race to oppress another race.
(j) The term “divisive concepts” includes any other form of race or sex stereotyping or any other form of race or sex scapegoating.
Conversely, Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida recently unveiled a proposal for a state civics education curriculum that expressly excludes teachings like critical race theory. There was no bill to be debated. DeSantis argues that students should not be taught to dislike each other or their country on the taxpayer dollar.
One definition of critical race theory is, “the view that the law and legal institutions are inherently racist and that race itself, instead of being biologically grounded and natural, is a socially constructed concept that is used by white people to further their economic and political interests at the expense of people of colour.” (britannica.com).
With existing anti-discrimination laws in place (See Civil Rights Act 1964 Sec. 703 Part D), it’s interesting that this racist concept would be allowed in our institutions to begin with, without being aggressively challenged.
Although I agree with the spirit of HB544, I wonder if it would be enough to stop the progressive march through our institutions or if they’d just find new ways to work anti-discrimination laws in their favor. As guardians of liberty it’s our duty to steer the culture, but I question if restricting speech and ideas is the best way to do this. It’s not as if the new Offices of Diversity and Inclusion that have popped up everywhere will suddenly go away. We’re still left with widespread, immoral, race based policies.
Perhaps HB544 is a start, and if it somehow gets past Sununu, then we need to make sure that we hold the leftists to their own standards. We have to speak out at every turn against our employers and against the business and schools that promote anything other than meritocracy.
After much civil strife, the United States eventually got to a place where its laws fostered the use of merit over skin color in decision making. Decades ago, we figured out that this was the only way to deal with one another in spite of our differences. We cannot let this concept be replaced by the regressive teachings of narrow-minded college professors. Our system is far from perfect, but ‘content of character’ is the best we can ever do in a multicultural society.