If you take out and read the United States Constitution.
Or the New Hampshire Constitution.
Or the Declaration of Independence.
Or the federalist papers.
or Tom Paine’s work “common sense.”
You would not find “equity” (as used in DEI).
George Washington never advocated it.
Abraham Lincoln never mentioned it.
Nobody died at Gettysburg to promote it.
Now, to be sure, the thought changes if you talk about “equality,” not equity.
Equality is a common theme in our laws, our social norms, and in our history. To confuse the two is to confuse two views of civilization.
Equality means that the INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS of each citizen are treated equally by the Government. Equality is an intimate part of a system of Government that elevates the individual to the highest status and sees Government as existing to promote, protect, and defend the rights of the individual citizen. As a part of a system of individual rights, “equality” operates to protect those rights by forbidding Government from promoting one man’s or woman’s rights preferentially over another’s. My first amendment right to free speech is no better nor worse than my neighbor. I am entitled to the same due process as a citizen born across town or across the country. The key is “my” rights: equality is a part of making “my” rights prosper along with everyone else’s rights.
Equity” means that citizens belong to one of two classes: the oppressed or the oppressor. “Equity” assumes that all of society- on all levels (whether spiritual, historical, legal, or educational) – is explained by these two classes. “Equity” declares that individual rights are really just an illusion imposed by the oppressor class to marginalize the oppressed. “Equity ” declares the role of Government (control belongs to a central Government, not local towns or cities) is to take control of society to un-oppress the oppressed and subdue the oppressors. CRT adds to this “equity,” the notion that the oppressors are white and the oppressed are not white.
For more than 250 years, we have been living in a world of individual rights and liberties, a world that treats citizens equally. Individuals may have seen themselves as oppressed, but the Government operated according to a constitution that valued and respected the individual. During all that time- 250 years- a lot of highly educated and freedom loving Judges, legislators, and citizens looked at and interpreted and enforced our Constitution through a filter of freedom, liberty, and individual rights. Not a one of them over 250 years-read “Equity” into the State of New Hampshire’s Constitution.
Kind of created a powerful log jam for the “equity” crowd: how do we replace the “liberty” and
“individual” freedoms Constitution with the value and norms of the “Equity” Constitution?
First step: Let Massachusetts tell us what is in our own Constitution!
Case 1: CLAREMONT SCHOOL DISTRICT V GOVERNOR OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 138 N H 183(1993)
Five “property poor” (as in the average home value for these folks is substantially less than in, say, Hollis) School districts plus one student and one taxpayer in each of these five districts sued the state, claiming that the State was not “spreading educational opportunities EQUITABLY among “its”( i e the entire student body of the state) students.
These plaintiffs argued that the State, as opposed to local school districts, had the duty to provide, on an equitable basis, the same education to each student in the State. A student in a property-poor district is denied “equitable” treatment if a student in a property rich district receives more money.
In other words, the plaintiffs argued basic principles of “Equity” and argued that the New Hampshire Constitution mandated such equity.
This infusion of “equity” was required, they claimed, due to the provision of part II, section 83(1774) of the Constitution, which reads:
“ART. 83: (ENCOURAGEMENT OF LITERATURE)
Knowledge and learning, generally diffused through a community, being essential to the preservation of a free Government…it shall be the duty of legislators and magistrates…to cherish the interests of literature and the sciences, and all the seminaries and public schools, to encourage private and public institutions, rewards and immunities for the promotion of agriculture,arts, sciences, commerce, trade, manufacturers…: to countenance and inculcate the principles of humanity and general benevolence, public and private charity, industry and economy, honesty and punctuality, sincerity, sobriety, and all social affections, and generous sentiments among the people.”
When the Plaintiffs asserted that this provision of the Constitution MANDATED the State to take control of the education system and specifically the funding of each student on an equitable basis, the Honorable Judge Manias basically said, “HUH?”
“New Hampshire’s Encouragement of Literature Clause contains no language regarding equity, uniformity, or even adequacy of education. Thus, the New Hampshire Constitution imposed no qualitative standard of education which must be met. Likewise, the New Hampshire constitution imposes no quantifiable financial duty regarding education; there is no mention of funding or even providing or maintaining education. The only duty set forth is the amorphous duty to “…to cherish public schools and…to encourage private and public institutions.” The language is hortatory and not mandatory.”
It would seem that Judge Manias was spot on. How could anyone read the Encouragement of Literature clause any differently? The plain language is the plain language. Right? Right?
Nope.
In Claremont v Governor, the Supreme Court essentially said that to read the clear, unambiguous words in this clause so as to support our mandate that the State take over the school system, we must ignore the plain meaning and ask,” What did the people at the time mean by those words? “
Ok, fair enough -let’s do that. What did the folks in 1774 in New Hampshire mean when they wrote this article into the Constitution in 1774?
To find out, should we not look to the people in New Hampshire in 1774?
Nope.
We must look to the Massachusetts Supreme Court in 1993.
Why?
Because for a big part of New Hampshire’s history, up until 1680-nearly 100 years prior to the writing of the words we are trying to interpret – we were a part of Massachusetts. Therefore, a Massachusetts Supreme Court decision in 1993 provides mandatory guides for us to know what our citizens thought in 1774.
I hate to be repetitive, but HUH? WHAT? I am not making this up. It is what the New Hampshire Supreme Court said. Pull it up on Google and read it yourself.)
In Mcduffy v Secretary,415 Mass 545, the Mass Supreme Court (which, of course, is made up of justices who knew the citizens of New Hampshire back in 1774 because, after all, the idea is to interpret the subject clauses according to what the people at the time understood them to mean(sarcasm!)) ruled:
The phrase “duty…to cherish…the public schools encompass the duty (on the state) to provide an education to the people of the state.”
The New Hampshire Supreme Court held that because the 1993 Massachusetts court made this pronouncement, that the duty was now established in New Hampshire: Schools and school financing are the duty of the State.
OBJECTION, YOUR HONORS. For 250 years, the people’s legislators, judges, and citizens interpreted the subject phrase as Judge Manias did. Would that not be a better way to determine what the original authors meant?
What about 250 years when the good judges, legislators, and citizens of New Hampshire thought differently- thought like Judge Manias?
Nope.
The deal with this “problem,” the New Hampshire Supreme Court again turned for guidance to the Massachusetts case of Mcduffy:
Without any thoughtful basis, the Mcduffy court simply dismissed any idea that the founding fathers and mothers meant to place control of education into local hands by saying
“That local control and fiscal support has been placed in greater or lesser measure through our history on local governments does not dilute the validity of the conclusion that the duty to support public schools lies with the state.”
(Again HUH? What? Give me a reason. Saying what you feel or want is not a reason.)
In a nutshell, Judge Manias ruled that the plain meaning of the New Hampshire Constitution has no language of “equity” has no language saying that the State has the duty to run the schools. Moreover, 250 years of local school control, with local funding, say clearly that for 250 years, New Hampshire Judges, legislators and good citizens agreed with Judge Manias’ interpretation.
But… Massachusetts disagrees and because we were a part of Massachusetts until 1680, whatever they say goes. They say the state has the duty to provide for, control, and finance the school system by applying principles of EQUITY(DEI).
So, let’s ignore the language of the Constitution; let’s ignore 250 years of New Hampshire folks’ interpretation of the Constitution. And let’s apply Massachusetts law of 1993 to hold that the State of New Hampshire is under a constitutional level duty to take over the Education system, take control from the local school boards and citizens, and apply principles of equity to school financing.
This ruling was cataclysmic by every definition of the word. It represented a sea change of 250 years in how New Hampshire ran its schools. You may not realize how cataclysmic because, for the last thirty years, a lot of good folks in positions of power did not (my opinion) embrace the holding and fought it.
But the wealth, power, and persistence of the woke folks and the weakness of the non-woke means that what began thirty years ago is finally about to visit its full destructive force on the good parents, students, teachers, and taxpayers of this great State. Our system of local control will soon be replaced by a system of centralized control in Concord. An Equity-based tax system will take from the “oppressor” School districts and give to the “oppressed. ”
To understand more of what is happening, I invite your attention to part 2 of this article.
Simply put, there have been eight subsequent Supreme Court rulings – all chipping away at the traditional school system – replacing it with a system based upon EQUITY. Those 8 cases are now joined by two rather dramatic Superior court decisions coming out of Rockingham Superior Court. The full impact of this effort to fundamentally re structure the school system by filtering the New Hampshire Constitution through the eyes of DEI/Equity is now about to be felt. My opinion: we are about to see results -felt for the first time really in 2024-from these rulings that will fundamentally alter not only the school system (i.e., gut local control and local funding) but will fundamentally infuse the State with the EQUITY world view. Certainly, if the Courts are willing to do what they are doing to the school system, then what system is safe from the EQUITY rule?
Part 2 will explore Claremont II( Claremont v Governor 142 N H462(1997)), wherein the Court declared the system for funding education was unconstitutional because it was not based upon Equity.
