Allows a person aggrieved by an intentional or knowing violation of the state's prohibition on teaching discrimination to bring civil action against the school, and deems such violations by an educator a code-of-conduct violation.
(New Title) relative to intentional or knowing violation of the prohibition on teaching discrimination.
HB50 concerns New Hampshire's 'divisive concepts' law restricting how discrimination-related topics are taught in public schools and workplaces. A non-germane amendment was introduced mid-session that would keep the restriction in place and add civil/criminal penalties for violations, reversing the original bill's intent to repeal it. Supporters generally argue for honest, complete history education and protection for teachers from censorship or punishment, while opponents overwhelmingly object to the amendment as an improper reversal of a bill they say should simply repeal an already-unconstitutional law; a smaller number of opponents instead argue the bill removes anti-discrimination protections or that discrimination should not be taught in schools at all.
Supporters argue students need a complete and accurate education that includes difficult chapters of history, such as slavery, segregation, and the treatment of marginalized groups, rather than a sanitized version of events.
“Our students deserve a wholesome and truthful education. They deserve to know the truth about what's happened in our world - flowers, rainbows and unicorns or not. We can't white wash history.”
— Lauren Treitman, Plaistow · #470672 — read full submission →
“Let's not "whitewash"S history for our students. We must acknowledge both the good and bad aspects of American history. Thank you.”
— William Thomas, Manchester · #469890 — read full submission →
“Teaching individuals about our country's history of discrimination doesn't hurt anyone or encourage anyone to hate those who have been responsible for the discrimination. It teaches us history so we can learn from our mistakes and not repeat bad policy.”
— Peggy Sheets, Hollis · #479505 — read full submission →
Supporters argue the bill shields educators from the threat of lawsuits, discipline, or license loss for teaching accurately about discrimination and history, allowing them to do their jobs without fear of retaliation.
“Teachers should not fear lawsuits or threats of loss of jobs or licenses from the public for teaching history and current events. Even the unpleasant topics. Thank you.”
— Mary Jensen, West Chesterfield · #476772 — read full submission →
“HB 50 allows educators to present accurate, thoughtful discussions about discrimination, systemic inequalities, and civil rights movements without fear of punishment.”
— Blossom Dodge, Concord · #489978 — read full submission →
“Teachers and employers and employees in public work places should not be in fear of teaching about historical discrimination or current discrimination that has occurred or does occur in the U.S.”
— Anne Grossi, Bedford · #465977 — read full submission →
Supporters argue that exposing students to diverse perspectives and the history of discrimination builds critical thinking, empathy, and prepares young people to participate in a diverse society and economy.
“As educators, it is our responsibility to teach students HOW to think, not what to think - and by exposing them to diverse perspectives in a developmentally-appropriate manner, we are challenging them to think critically and expand their worldview”
— Nicole Gordon, Keene · #473027 — read full submission →
“Business depends on an education system that teaches our history, our whole history, so that our country can continue to innovate and strengthen our economic leadership.”
— Michelle Veasey, Atkinson · #479429 — read full submission →
Opponents argue that attaching an unrelated amendment to reverse the bill's original repeal language is procedurally improper, and that such non-germane amendments should not be allowed on any bill regardless of their substance.
“The litigation to repeal the unconstitutional law banning teaching so-called Divisive Concepts, is an extremist effort to rewrite the bill passed previously.”
— Krolyn Campbell, Epsom · #495809 — read full submission →
“I am opposed to any & all amendments proposed in a legislative body that is considered not relevant or related to the main subject matter of the bill it is being attached to.”
— Deanna Wilson, Rindge · #500086 — read full submission →
“I oppose the non-germane amendment #2025-0595h to bill HB50. The only fix to the unconstitutional banned concepts law is to repeal it.”
— Nancy Lehoux, Portsmouth · #489967 — read full submission →
Opponents note that the existing 'divisive/banned concepts' law was already found unconstitutionally vague by a federal court, and argue that amending or reviving it rather than fully repealing it is legally unsound and invites further costly litigation.
“I oppose the amendment outlined in HB 50 and I encourage you to not adopt it. It is a recycled attempt to sneak into NH law something that has already been declared unconstitutional.”
— Lynn McRae, Lyme · #488939 — read full submission →
“The banned concepts bill has been correctly declared unconstitutional. Do not try to revive it.”
— Laura Steel, Plainfield · #497619 — read full submission →
“This does not fix the problem that the Banned Concepts law is unconstitutional. The only fix is to repeal the entire thing.”
— Kimberly Bleier, CONCORD · #499901 — read full submission →
Some opponents argue the bill repeals existing statutory protections against discrimination (citing RSA 354-A), removing legal safeguards and recourse for victims of discrimination in schools and workplaces.
“it simultaneously removes longstanding protections outlined in RSA 354-A:29 through 354-A:34. Repealing these anti-discrimination provisions undermines key legal safeguards for individuals in public workplaces and schools”
— Jeff Giles, Keene · #498162 — read full submission →
“This bill is extraordinarily racist! By repealing RSA 354-A:32, it would allow New Hampshire students to be taught that one race is "inherently superior or inferior" to another. I cannot think of a worse idea.”
— Russell Hodgkins, Amherst · #473423 — read full submission →
“DO NOT REPEAL A LAW THAT PROVIDES FREEDOM FROM DISCRIMINATION IN PUBLIC WORKPLACES AND EDUCATION.”
— Cathy Baker, Portsmouth · #477996 — read full submission →
A small number of opponents argue that discussion of discrimination has no place in schools or workplaces, favoring a focus on traditional core subjects or a more celebratory account of the country's history instead.
“Teachers need to stick to teaching Math, English, Science and Social Studies. The teaching of discrimination has no place in the public education system or workplace.”
— Tiffney Castellucci, Merrimack · #500132 — read full submission →
“I am in complete agreement with this bill. CRT should remain out of the schools. Our children should be taught about the greatness of our country.”
— Rick Dumont, Manchester · #465471 — read full submission →
Some opponents object to the amendment on general-priority grounds, arguing that lawmakers are wasting time and attention on this issue instead of addressing more pressing concerns.
“The Republican party has stooped low when they attach a ridiculous amendment to unrelated legislation in hopes that no one notices.”
— Terry Carter, Dover · #500273 — read full submission →
“Why is our state wasting time on these ridiculous bills that only reason is to destroy public education”
— Elizabeth Schnackenberg, Spofford · #462204 — read full submission →
Generated by claude-sonnet-5 (claude code agent) on Jul 20, 2026. Quotes are verbatim excerpts, verified against the cited submission before publication. Summaries are AI interpretation of the record, not part of it.
We support the original bill, which would repeal the law that prohibited teachers from teaching “banned concepts”. But now extremist Republicans are trying to amend the bill to make it do the opposite. Under the amendment, they would keep the banned concepts law in place and add penalties for any school or educator who knowingly violates it.
The Republican party has stooped low when they attach a ridiculous amendment to unrelated legislation in hopes that no one notices. Gosh, don't our elected leaders have more important things to work on, like border security or national infrastructure?
I am writing to voice the Disability Rights Center-NH's opposition to the Non-germane amendment to HB 50.
Good, common sense bill. I am in support.
/
The teachings of anything other than standard Math, English Science and social studies should not be taught by any school employee.
The teachings of discrimination in a school setting should not be allowed by any school employee. depending on where personal views lay could cause a negative effect on students.
Teachers need to stick to teaching Math, English, Science and Social Studies. The teaching of discrimination has no place in the public education system or workplace. Children should not be taught discrimination by a teacher because that teacher's personal bias may stray from historical factual data.
I'm writing to oppose amendment 2025-0595h to this bill offered by Rep. Cordelli inasmuch as it reverses the purpose of the bill. I support the bill as originally written, repealing the current Divisive Concepts law.
I support the bill itself but do not support the Non-germane amendment. I am opposed to any & all amendments proposed in a legislative body that is considered not relevant or related to the main subject matter of the bill it is being attached to. This practice should not be allowed for ANY bills. If removed from this bill I would support the bill. Thank you, Deanna Wilson
My testimony is specifically directed at the non-germane amendment offered by Rep. Cordelli. I oppose this amendment, because it effectively reverses the meaning of the bill and attempts to put the divisive concepts law back into place in a similarly problematic form. This law threatened teacher speech and chilled the teaching of texts that address the experiences of groups who have been marginalized and discriminated against. This law harmed educators and curricula, and was found to be unconstitutionally vague for good reason. I oppose this amendment, as well as other bills or amendments that seek to restore it.
I oppose the change to this bill, which was found unenforceable, that would add penalties ofr any school or educator who knowlingly violates the oeiginal bill. (The law is currently unenforceable because it was found by a court to be unconstitutional, but the sponsors of this amendment are apparently hoping the court decision will be overturned.)
The law itself is unconstitutionally vague and needs to be overturned, as the US DIstrict Court has found. The nongermane amendmendment does not make it constitutional.
I oppose this bill.
This does not fix the problem that the Banned Concepts law is unconstitutional. The only fix is to repeal the entire thing.
All students must be exposed to fact-based education.
We want truth and facts to be taught in our public schools and for all granite staters to feel welcome.
The original bill was good by protecting teachers. This amendment will do the opposite!! Please do not support this amendment to the original bill!
This is
This is an unethical work around to try to undo the repeal the law that prohibited teachers from teaching “banned concepts”. We don’t want the opposite; banned concepts is trying to enforce bigotry and ahistorical behavior and was already judged unconstitutional and unenforceable.
The original bill is better without the amendment. It provides that no education law of this state shall be construed to bar any school employee from teaching the historical or current experiences of any group that is protected from discrimination.
I oppose this bill.
pass the bill. This bill doesn’t not need the amendment.
Here's a "no-brainer" - This MUST be OPPOSED!!!!!!!!
It's incredibly important we don't brush discrimination under the rug. We need to remember how people have suffered from discrimination in the past and how people are still suffering from it today.