Revises the state's ban on teaching discrimination in public schools by requiring intentional or knowing conduct, limiting the prohibition to targeting specific racial groups, and creating an enforcement process through the educator code of conduct and civil actions.
(New Title) relative to the prohibition on teaching discrimination.
SB100, retitled "relative to the prohibition on teaching discrimination," became the vehicle for a non-germane amendment (#2332h) reviving New Hampshire's "banned concepts"/"divisive concepts" restrictions on classroom discussion of race, sex, and related topics -- provisions a federal court had already struck down as unconstitutionally vague. The large majority of submitters oppose the bill and amendment, citing the prior court ruling, concerns it would prevent honest teaching of history, vague statutory language, and objections to the non-germane amendment process itself. A smaller number of supporters back restoring and enforcing the underlying law, want the adverse court ruling appealed, and argue schools should focus on core academics rather than DEI or critical race theory content.
Supporters back SB100 and its amendment (#2332h), urging that the underlying law be restored, actively enforced, and defended on appeal against the court ruling that struck it down.
Supporters argue schools should prioritize traditional academic subjects and that teaching about discrimination or critical race theory amounts to indoctrination that has contributed to declining test scores.
Opponents argue the amendment revives New Hampshire's "divisive concepts"/"banned concepts" law, which a federal court already struck down as unconstitutionally vague, making further attempts to salvage or rewrite it pointless or illegal.
“Divisive concepts was struck down by US District Judge Barbadoro in Concord- saying the law is impermissibly vague and in violation of the first amendment”
— Mariam Levy, Exeter · #522673 — read full submission →
“The banned concept laws was ruled unconstitutional. No amount of tinkering will make such a foolish fit with a Constitution that explicitly outlines the right to free speech for all citizens.”
— Alyssa Goss, Henniker · #522501 — read full submission →
Opponents contend the bill would stop teachers from presenting the full and accurate history of discrimination, slavery, and other difficult topics, arguing that omitting uncomfortable facts does not erase them and risks repeating past mistakes.
“We need to learn from our history.. We cannot learn from history if we seek to erase it and alter it. Facing the wrongs of the past, admitting that mistakes have been made”
— Martha Pitt, Greenfield · #512070 — read full submission →
“It is so important to teach all aspects of our history. We will never learn from the past if chunks of uncomfortable information are left out. Black history and women's history is American history.”
— Anne Eiseman, Durhamn · #511869 — read full submission →
Opponents argue the bill infringes on teachers' academic freedom and professional judgment, characterizing the classroom restrictions as censorship inconsistent with free expression and open inquiry.
“We should be able to handle difficult subjects in education. Coddling students with the idea of sugar-coating history does no one any favors.”
— Megan Hughes, Walpole · #512093 — read full submission →
“This goes against every fiber of our Live Free or Die state motto by seeking to punish trained professionals for their informed judgments.”
— Charles Rhoades, Dover · #522721 — read full submission →
Opponents say terms describing prohibited teaching are vague and subjective, making violations hard to define or prove and likely to make teachers avoid legitimate topics out of fear of complaints.
“This ammendment would make it nearly impossible to prove violation of this prohibition. It is very easy for someone to say it was unintentional or accidental. How can you prove or disprove that?”
— JoAnn Martin, Concord · #522486 — read full submission →
“This bill would make the teaching of history subjective. Who would have the authority to decide what can and cannot be taught? This is a slippery slope.”
— Susan Richman, Durham · #511462 — read full submission →
Several submitters object on procedural grounds, arguing the amendment is "non-germane" to SB100's original purpose and represents an improper attempt to revive rejected policy through legislative maneuvering.
“This bill, especially with its non-germane amendment, is nothing more than a "Free-Stater" carbon copy re-write of bills introduced in other states by so called 'freedom' advocates.”
— Lynn McRae, Lyme · #522596 — read full submission →
“I oppose the non-germane amendment which brings back “banned concepts,“ already labeled unconstitutional by the courts. Please spend your time on more lawful bills.”
— Pam Mueller, Durham · #522441 — read full submission →
Opponents argue that pursuing a law already found unconstitutional will lead to costly, losing court battles and diverts legislative attention from other priorities like housing, health, and school funding.
“Ordinary NH citizens do not want to deny history nor do we want you discriminating against our friends and neighbors in our names. We want you to fix the housing crisis, protect our kids from getting cancer from our water and asthma from our air, and lower our electricty costs.”
— Deb Baker, Concord · #509115 — read full submission →
“Stop creating legal issues that will waste taxpayer dollars in the courts trying to fight to save these unconstitutional bills. Get some real work done and stop wasting time.”
— Danielle Alley, Dover · #522746 — read full submission →
Some opponents argue the bill's restrictions themselves discriminate against or harm marginalized students by shifting responsibility away from institutions and ignoring the experiences of underrepresented groups.
“This bill supports discrimination, racism, exclusion, and imposes a political agenda on the development of unbiased and fact based educational curriculum.”
— Cynthia Vascak, Campton · #511038 — read full submission →
“I remained stunned that there are people who want to discriminate against those who are discriminated against. Please do not support this!”
— PEGGY HERBERT, Hopkinton · #522689 — read full submission →
Opponents argue that decisions about curriculum content should rest with local school boards and professional educators rather than being dictated by the state legislature.
“This is another attempt by the legislature to control what is taught in schools. Local school boards should handle these matters, not the legislature.”
— Megan Kilar, Candia · #511333 — read full submission →
“This bill is unconstitutional. It is imperative that our students learn history as decided by the educators are not politicians.”
— Shea Flanagan, Goffstown · #510941 — read full submission →
A submitter argues the bill would make teaching a less attractive profession, worsening an already difficult educator hiring and retention environment.
Generated by claude-sonnet-5 (claude code agent) on Jul 22, 2026. Quotes are verbatim excerpts, verified against the cited submission before publication. Summaries are AI interpretation of the record, not part of it.
Stop creating legal issues that will waste taxpayer dollars in the courts trying to fight to save these unconstitutional bills. Get some real work done and stop wasting time. If you think passing unconstitutional bills is your job, you should revisit the oath you took. So tired of Concord legislators destroying my state.
We live in a society where discrimination occurs. To not teach this subject is to indoctrinate children. Please give children the facts.
I have to accept that the majority of committee members will not ready this. If someone does read this, they probably already oppose the bill. Looking forward to November 2026, Terry Carter
This bill has already in another form been found unconstitutional. There is no reason to support this bill and many reasons to oppose this bill.
This goes against every fiber of our Live Free or Die state motto by seeking to punish trained professionals for their informed judgments. It is a totalitarian measure that is more germane to another century and another country.
I urge the committee to oppose this unconstitutional amendment. Our teachers are faced with enough challenges in our schools; censoring what they say or even how they answer a students questions is a slippery slope to unnecessary threats to education and free speech.
I believe this was already ruled unconstitutional. Bills like this keep teachers from teaching truths about our history and culture. The kids can handle the truth. Stop trying to demonize public education.
THe law needs to be repealed.
I remained stunned that there are people who want to discriminate against those who are discriminated against. Please do not support this!
Testimony is for non-germane amendment.
Testimony is for non-germane amendment.
This bill changes the emphasis of responsibility onto those who do not have power such as students, to giving unlimited powers to educators with much less acknowledgment of how discrimination can be used in many subtle ways to stand in the way of people who are under represented and therefore easily ignored. I value a diverse country and stand behind marginalized groups.
Dear Education Committe- I am writing to ask you to oppose SB100 and the non-germane amendment being voted on today. In May 2024- Divisive concepts was struck down by US District Judge Barbadoro in Concord- saying the law is impermissibly vague and in violation of the first amendment because it does not provide fair notice to teachers as to what they may not teach, does not explain when classroom discussion of a forbidden topic crosses the line into impermissible teaching, etc.” This has already been decided by the courts, please do not waste more taxpayer dollars on passing legislation that has already been determined to be illegal and that puts our educators in an impossible position. Thank you, Mariam Levy
As a long-time educator in secondary and tertiary contexts, and having taught internationally as well as in New Hampshire, I am deeply concerned at this bill. Although it sets out to say that it is not prohibiting teaching about historical and social issues and merely prohibiting teaching that anyone is "inherently" at fault, in my experience this is an overreach into the professional sphere belonging to teachers, and opens up a pandora's box of complaints that students feel victimized, based on their feelings. Let me explain. Someone hearing about the treatment of enslaved peoples by white landowners may ASSUME that because they too are white, that the teacher is implying that their skin color makes them guilty by default--students until late in secondary school are still very much developmentally in concrete thinking, and can shift very quickly into assuming a meaning even where a teacher is very careful with their phrasing. To give the students this sort of power of veto, in effect, means that every teacher will need to avoid teaching such subjects altogether so as to keep their job, in service to people who are not yet able to think in more developmentally mature, nuanced ways, and this opens the way for harassment and intimidation of educators based on the spurious "my teacher hates me" which could be used as adolescent revenge on perceived intent to harm. I have heard of, taught and known many, many students who equate a C with "my teacher hates me" when this is the farthest from true, and then to be able to weaponize this against teachers means that nobody will dare teach anymore. It also means that the many, challenging and nuanced layers of human history will not be able to be discussed. In short, this short-sighted and reductive bill pretty much ensures a vapid and shallow curriculum and school system, at at time when we need our young people to be prepared to handle a far more complex world than their parents have had to. This bill hamstrings teachers, gives full power to the varying and unreliable feelings and moods of developing young people, and results in creating students who are unable to have rational, grounded, and generative conversations around major issues affecting the US and the world. I utterly oppose this bill.
Testimony is for non-germane amendment to SB 100. I ask you to vote ITL on this amendment.
I am an independent voter in Dover. I do not have children or any connection to public education other than being a member of my community who considers public education important for our economy and our democracy. I feel like I have had to communicate with Concord regarding interference in local education far too often this year. The sponsors and supporters of this bill seem to have no regard for the opinions of most NH parents, educators and citizens. They seem to have no regard for the law. This bill is just another attempt to enact the 'banned concepts' law that was supported by a extreme minority of NH citizens and elected officials, and promoted by out of state special interests. It was judged to be unconstitutional already. But this extreme minority is playing dirty politics by trying to sneak it through again with this amendment. Please stop trying to push your personal views onto other citizens and their children by prohibiting educators from discussing valid topics like gender identity, race, sexual orientation, disabilities. Please stop violating the Constitution of the US and NH and inviting unnecessary lawsuits that cost NH taxpayers money. Please stop meddling in local decisions and the important work of our educators and causing problems and instead focus on solving NH's many problems.
The so-called "Banned concepts" law has been ruled to be unconstitutional. There is no way to rewrite this bill to make it acceptable. I am urging to you to do the right thing and OPPOSE this bill.
The only way to fix the banned concepts law, which limits how teachers can discuss with students issues such as race, sexual orientation, gender identity and disability, is to repeal it.
I believe that all students should be taught the true history and current conditions of the United States. We have been taught only the privileged white European view for 100's of years too long!
If you support this bill, you support leaving New Hampshire students in ignorance, when what they (and we) need is opening their eyes to the bigger world, helping them learn to navigate it so they may become better citizens -- and human beings.
This is a terrible amendment
I urge you to vote NO on the non-germane amendment to SB 100. The courts have ruled on the banned concepts bill as unconstitutional. Education is designed to broaden the minds of students and free speech is fundamental to our society. Ideas are not dangerous to an educated people who question an investigate, the very aspects a quality education is created to instill.
I urge legislators to oppose this proposed amendment, which is well understood to try circumventing court ruling by trying again to limit free speech and educators' professional judgement to bring back to life the so-called "banned concepts" law. We have already seen that illegally broad attempts to unfairly limit how teachers can discuss with students issues such as race, sexual orientation, gender identity and disability are unconstitutional. As a parent of two public school children and a strong believer in our constitution and civic democracy, let me be clear. This is not indoctrination, but attempts to delegitimize educators and narrow learning to ignore our nation's history and the needs of students and facilities. Please reject this amendment and the underlying effort to disable our public education.
It is essential to maintaining academic rigor that teachers are allowed to teach subjects fully based on factual information rather than being restricted to narrow ideological artificial parameters
I Oppose the non-germane amendment to SB100