AFT-NH Testimony Opposing HB 1792
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 urge you to find HB 1792 Inexpedient to Legislate. The bill is unconstitutional and would significantly damage student learning conditions in New Hampshire.
HB 1792 harms students’ right to an honest, complete education. It censors core content and prohibits teaching methods required by state standards. New Hampshire’s Minimum Standards for Public School Approval (Ed 306) require districts to deliver comprehensive, competency‑based instruction that develops critical thinking and analysis in social studies, civics, English language arts, and other content areas. Teachers routinely use scholarly frameworks to guide students in analyzing primary sources, literature, and historical movements, as well as to demonstrate required competencies. HB 1792 would limit these practices, making it harder for districts to meet Ed 306’s expectations for rigorous, standards‑aligned instruction.”
Passing HB1792 with its restrictions on the ideas that can be considered in a classroom conflicts with the State’s constitutional duty to “cherish” public schools. Part II, Article 83 obligates the Legislature to “cherish the interest of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries and public schools.” The Claremont decisions interpret that duty to require broad educational opportunities suitable for participation in the “marketplace of ideas.” A law that prescribes a “patriotic disposition” and bans accepted scholarly perspectives narrows rather than cherishes public education and undermines adequacy and breadth.
HB 1792 recreates a proven chilling effect created by the Divisive Concepts law, which was found unconstitutional. Under the 2021 “Divisive Concepts” law (RSA 193:40), teachers narrowed or altered lessons (e.g., on Toni Morrison’s Beloved) out of fear of complaints and credential risk. In Local 8027, AFT‑N.H. v. Edelblut (D.N.H. May 28, 2024), the court held those provisions unconstitutional “viewpoint‑based” and “fatally vague” noting educators were “gambling with their careers.” HB 1792 replicates and expands these defects, so the chilling effect on students’ learning would be severe.
This bill harms safe, inclusive learning environments for all students, especially for LGBTQ+ students.
Labeling “affirmation” of LGBTQ+ identities as “ideology” stigmatizes students and discourages age‑appropriate, factual inclusion in history, literature, and classroom culture. Public testimony already warns of reduced safe spaces and adult support, undermining engagement and well‑being
HB 1792 violates teachers’ First Amendment rights.
- This bill amounts to viewpoint discrimination.
HB 1792 bans specific viewpoints (critical analyses of race, gender, systemic inequity, LGBTQ+ identity) while favoring so-called “neutral or patriotic” perspectives. The Local 8027 court already found New Hampshire’s earlier law imposed “viewpoint‑based restrictions on speech”, violating due process and chilling lawful instruction. HB 1792 is even more explicit in selecting ideological winners and losers. - The bill suffers from vagueness and overbreadth, which would make it impossible to know exactly which classroom activities would violate it. The prior law was struck down for lack of fair notice, unclear boundaries, and arbitrary enforcement. HB 1792 uses equally or more indeterminate terms, “dialectical world‑views,” “critical consciousness,” “LGBTQ+ ideology as a prescriptive world‑view,” “anti‑constitutional indoctrination,”and adds lawsuits and licensure penalties, heightening the risk of self‑censorship and selective enforcement.
- HB 1792’s private right of action invites ideologically motivated complaints, compounding professional‑discipline exposure and replicating the problems condemned in litigation over
While states may set academic standards and frameworks and local school districts may adopt curriculum, they may not do so through viewpoint‑discrimination and vague bans that chill protected academic speech. Local 8027 underscores those limits in New Hampshire
In Local 8027, AFT‑N.H. v. Edelblut, the federal district court held the 2021 ban on teaching divisive concepts (including RSA 193:40) was unconstitutional because the prohibitions were viewpoint‑based and vague, producing a documented chilling effect and enabling enforcement driven by officials’ personal views. HB 1792 repeats and broadens these defects by blacklisting named frameworks (CRT, intersectionality, culturally relevant pedagogy, “critical consciousness”), prescribing a “patriotic” curriculum posture, and bolstering private enforcement and sanctions. The Department of Education has acknowledged the ruling and disabled guidance pending appeal. Re‑enacting and expanding the exact same kind of law the court already rejected invites further lawsuits with little reason to expect a different outcome. It also harms students’ education.
The bottom line is this, for students, HB 1792 narrows curricula, sanitizes history and civics, and erodes inclusive school climates, undermining Ed 306 and the State’s constitutional duty to provide a robust, adequate education. For teachers, it revives and expands a viewpoint‑discriminatory, vague prohibition that chills lawful instruction and invites lawsuits and licensure risk. For the State, it conflicts with Local 8027 and invites renewed litigation on due process, the First Amendment, and equal protection, this time on broader, and even less defensible terms. For students, it harms the quality of instruction, discussion and debate in the classroom and takes away much needed resources.
For these reasons, we urge you to find HB 1792 Inexpedient to Legislate.
Sincerely,
Debrah Howes
President, AFT-New Hampshire