AFT-NH Testimony Opposing SB 434
To Chairwoman Ward and Members of the Senate Education 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 want to express our serious concerns with SB 434. While it appears simply to call for all districts to have complaint procedures for reconsideration of library and other school materials, its impact would be much broader. As written, the bill endangers students’ access to information, undermines educators’ professional judgment, and invites constitutional challenges that will distract districts from teaching and learning.
The process described in SB 434 empowers removal of books and learning materials, if that is the remedy sought by the complainant, whenever a principal or any “designee” concludes they are “offensive” or “inappropriate,” terms the bill leaves undefined. That vagueness invites viewpoint‑based exclusion of ideas, identities, and histories, shrinking students’ right to encounter information and limiting exposure to the diverse texts that fuel critical thinking and literacy growth. This is the opposite of what our schools need to build lifelong readers.
SB 434 compels districts to build and maintain burdensome complaint systems, convert instructional decisions into public disputes, and respond on tight timelines, diverting scarce time and resources away from instruction and student support. The complaint‑driven removal mechanism sidelines librarians’, teachers’ and administrators’ expertise and creates powerful incentives to self‑censor preemptively, especially in communities where a single complaint can trigger immediate action. Experience from other states shows that vague standards and fear of liability push schools to restrict or even close access to library materials, hardly a recipe for strong classrooms.
This bill raises constitutional concerns. Because SB 434 authorizes material removal based on undefined notions of “offensive” or “inappropriate,” it risks viewpoint discrimination by a government actor, a core First Amendment problem in the public‑school context. Students possess a limited but real right to receive information; policies that target materials for their ideas or identity‑focused content imperil that right. Compounding the risk, SB 434’s appeals structure guarantees appeal rights to complainants but not to families who wish to preserve access, creating a one‑sided process inconsistent with fair, viewpoint‑neutral governance. These features are precisely the kinds of defects that have drawn constitutional scrutiny elsewhere.
A better path would be to look to those local districts that already have policies and professional committee review practices for evaluating age appropriateness and educational value. These policies would be a better model for any district that has not yet adopted a collection challenge policy. Where procedures need clarity, the Legislature can encourage transparent, balanced review processes that safeguard students’ access to a wide array of materials while respecting legitimate developmental concerns without vague standards, one‑sided appeals, or removal based on offense.
For the sake of students’ literacy, educators’ professionalism, and our constitutional commitments, I respectfully urge you to find SB 434 Inexpedient to Legislate.
Debrah Howes
President, AFT-New Hampshire