HB 1792 bars public school educators from intentionally teaching that any group is inherently superior or inferior, or that individuals bear guilt for immutable characteristics.
OUR POSITIONHB 1792 repeal-and-reenacts RSA 193:40 to establish a clear, statewide prohibition on educators purposefully teaching students that any racial, ethnic, or other group is inherently superior or inferior to another. It also bars instruction claiming that individuals bear personal guilt for characteristics they were born with, or that treating others without regard to those characteristics is simply impossible. These are the core content claims associated with ideological frameworks that have created genuine conflict in classrooms across New Hampshire and the nation.
The bill's purposeful-intent standard is a meaningful and responsible refinement. It protects teachers who engage in good-faith instruction about difficult historical events, systemic patterns, or moral failures in American history. The law does not forbid honest teaching about slavery, segregation, or injustice. It forbids deliberate indoctrination that assigns collective guilt or fixed inferiority based on how a child was born. That is a distinction worth making clearly in law.
From a faith-informed perspective, the principle at stake is straightforward. Every child bears the image of God and must not be taught to see themselves or their classmates through a lens of immutable guilt or inherent worth defined by race or ancestry. Instruction that does so is not education; it is a form of harm. The state has a legitimate interest in ensuring publicly funded classrooms do not become venues for that kind of teaching.
Enforcement runs through the educator code of conduct and the State Board of Education's disciplinary process rather than through private civil litigation, which was available under prior law. This is a trade-off worth acknowledging honestly. Professional discipline can be meaningful, but parents and communities should remain attentive to whether the board exercises that authority vigorously when violations occur. The substantive prohibition, however, is robust and the moral case for it is sound.