AFT-NH Testimony Opposing HB 1778
To Chair Noble and Members of the House Education Policy & Administration Committee
My name is Debrah Howes, President of the American Federation of Teachers–NH. I am here today on behalf of our 3,500 members who work in preK through grade 12 public education, in public services, and in private and public universities across the Granite State. We are taxpayers and citizens of New Hampshire, and many of us are parents or grandparents of public-school students.
We strenuously oppose HB 1778. New Hampshire has already seen the consequences of passing vague, speech‑restricting laws targeting discussions of identity, race, gender, and discrimination. This bill repeats those same errors and does so in direct contradiction to the federal court ruling in Local 8027, AFT‑NH v. Edelblut (2024), which struck down the state’s previous “divisive concepts” law. In addition, HB 1778 recycles the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion prohibitions from RSA 186:72, a statute already under injunction for violating constitutional rights, and tries to make them law again.”
This bill will harm all students' education and foster a stressful, potentially hostile school environment for some students. HB 1778 broadly bans curricula, programs, and activities tied to “personal identity ideology,” encompassing race, color, biological sex, sexual orientation, national origin, religion, and gender identity. This sweeping prohibition will chill essential instruction, narrowing students’ access to historically and culturally relevant content. The bill’s ban on practices involving pronouns or gender identity sends an unmistakable message to LGBTQ+ students that their identities are unwelcome in their own schools. Such exclusion undermines safety, belonging, and academic engagement.
This bill also poses harm to educators and their ability to do their jobs. Teachers lose access to professional development involving identity‑related content, impairing their ability to recognize and prevent bullying and support diverse learners. HB 1778’s enforcement mechanisms. allowing civil action by any “aggrieved person” and discipline under the educator code of conduct, will force educators into defensive self‑censorship rather than authentic teaching. The result is not clarity, but fear, hesitation, and inequity.
This committee should take careful note of the federal district court’s decision in Local 8027 AFT-NH v Edelblut striking down New Hampshire’s “divisive concepts” law as unconstitutionally vague. The court found that laws of this type fail to give “fair notice” of what concepts are prohibited and invite arbitrary enforcement, particularly dangerous when they regulate classroom speech. Judge Barbadoro emphasized that vague restrictions on expressive activity cause educators to “steer far wider of the unlawful zone,” leading to systemic self‑censorship. HB 1778 contains the same defects: its prohibition on “prioritizing personal identity characteristics” is just as subjective and prone to discriminatory interpretation as the law already struck down.
Beyond vagueness, HB 1778 raises serious First Amendment issues by imposing viewpoint‑based restrictions on instruction and limiting students’ right to receive information. It also raises Equal Protection concerns because its practical effect disproportionately harms LGBTQ+ students and educators, as well as students of color.
HB 1778 mirrors the structure and flaws of the so-called “divisive concepts” law that the federal court invalidated in Local 8027 v. Edelblut. Passing another law that is vague, punitive, and unconstitutional will only expose the state to renewed litigation while harming students and educators alike.
For all these reasons, we urge the committee to find HB 1778 Inexpedient to Legislate.
Debrah Howes
President, AFT-New Hampshire