What does it mean to objectively teach the Civil Rights Movement?

What does it mean to objectively teach the Civil Rights Movement? Who decides if a discussion of controversial aspects of history is partisan or non-partisan? What dangers are inherent in the state board of education investigating any report from a student, parent, teacher, or community member alleging that a teacher, school administrator, or school district superintendent violated a section of a bill?

These are just some of the questions that cause us, the Ohio Federation of Teachers, to oppose HB 327 (Teaching of Divisive Concepts) introduced by state representatives Diane Grendell and Sarah Fowler Arthur last May. Since its introduction, the bill has been modified twelve times and now includes not only K-12, but also higher education and all state agencies or political subdivisions.

Similar bills, often dubbed “Book Ban” bills or “Both Sides” bills because of the resulting impact, have been passing across the country, so we do not have to speculate about the inherent dangers associated with them. We can learn from the mistakes other states have made.

In Southlake, Texas, a school administrator advised teachers that if they have a book about the Holocaust in their classroom, they should also have a book with an “opposing” perspective. What would an opposing perspective about the Holocaust look like? And in San Antonio, Texas, a school district removed more than 400 books from their school libraries in response to pressure from a legislator, who claimed that the books all violate the state’s new ban on “controversial” content.

In Tennessee, after legislation similar to HB 327 was passed, the state Dept. of Education received a complaint that a book about Martin Luther King and the March on Washington violated the state’s new ban on “critical race theory” in school. The complaint was dismissed only because the law hadn’t gone into effect yet, but presumably this complaint will be raised again.

In Florida, the climate of fear regarding this issue has led a school district to cancel a professor’s civil rights history seminar for teachers, even though it had absolutely nothing to do with “critical race theory.”

In New Hampshire, Moms for Liberty offered a $500 bounty on teachers who are reported for breaking the law that prohibits teaching divisive concepts.

We really have to look no further than Ohio though to see how this bill could play out. Last week, Morgan Trau, statehouse reporter for WEWS, released an interview with one of the sponsors of the bill, Rep. Sarah Fowler Arthur, in which she made several comments indicating that both sides of the Holocaust should be taught. The comments reverberated across the state generating a wide range of comments including from the Anti-Defamation League and House Speaker Cupp who called the remarks “inappropriate” and “uninformed.”

Representative Fowler Arthur claims that she has been misrepresented. If so, then she should clearly understand the fear that this bill causes teachers. After all, the state board of education is required to investigate any report from a student, parent, teacher, or community member alleging that an educator committed a violation. After a third offense, a teacher can lose their license. Those three offenses can happen in one day. So if a teacher teaches three sections of the same subject, says something that someone deems is inappropriate in each section, that teacher will be under threat of license suspension. Were Rep Fowler Arthur’s comments just reckless? If she were a teacher, and this bill passed, she would have to be investigated. If she made the comments once during the day, she could receive an official license admonishment. If comments were made in two classes, her license could be suspended. Three classes, license revoked.

And what is a violation? Again, the bill is so vague that it leaves it open to interpretation. For example, one section of the bill covers discussing or using supplemental materials to teach about any of the concepts in the bill in an objective manner and without endorsement. The materials may include the nonpartisan discussion of controversial aspects of history. But what is nonpartisan? If a teacher teaches about the current redistricting process in Ohio, and says that the Supreme Court ruled the Republican maps unconstitutional three times, can a Republican who thinks the court is wrong and wants to impeach the Chief Justice call that partisan?

The same section also talks about the nonpartisan instruction on the historical oppression or treatment of a particular group of people based on national origin, race, color, ethnicity, religion, sex, class, or geographic region. If a teacher chooses to have her class read a memoir from someone who suffered from that oppression, can that be considered partisan? What if the memoir was written by someone who is openly gay? Would that potentially be a violation since there might be one community member who thinks this is liberal propaganda? According to the bill, it would at least have to be investigated.

This section also talks about the objective teaching of the American civil rights movement. Does objective mean that you teach the facts — which our history teachers currently do — or does it mean that you have to teach both sides. Does that then mean that when we teach about the Freedom Riders, we also have to give equal credence to the mobs who violently attacked them?

The bill goes on to state that the state board of education shall amend the licensure code of professional conduct for Ohio educators to include the following as unbecoming actions:

• Promoting a teacher’s personal political or ideological belief or position;
• Failing to fairly present both sides of a political or ideological belief or position;
• Unfairly evaluating a student’s work because it does not reflect the teacher’s political or ideological belief or position.

Again, while on the surface level this might appear to those outside the teaching profession as reasonable, the vagueness and subjectivity of it leaves almost every educator open to an investigation. All it takes is one student, parent, or community member alleging a violation, and it has to be investigated.

The most dangerous potential outcome from this is that students will be denied a robust, well-rounded, complete education because teachers will be censored — either from outside allegations or from administrators who are trying to avoid repercussions. Or worse yet, teachers will self-censor in order to protect their careers.

This just scratches the surface of everything that is included in the bill. It does not even begin to discuss what happens in higher education or in the public sector, including the very likely possibility that public entities will no longer be allowed to address issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion in their workplaces.

I ask you to think about this bill in a nonpartisan way. Think about the ways that you could possibly be impacted and the consequences that could come from someone from the opposite party bringing allegations against you. More importantly, think about the impact this could have on students as the government starts censoring what they can and cannot hear.

Take action and tell your legislators to oppose HB 327. Let them know that you’re an educator, school support staff, or children’s services worker, and tell them why you oppose this vague and dangerous bill.