When I taught English as an adjunct college instructor, one literary genre that I considered extremely interesting was that of the slave narrative. Hundreds of slaves, overcoming unimaginable obstacles, not only learned how to read but also wrote down their stories which revealed the truth about the horrors of slavery.
We want to thank NH State Rep. Arlene Quaratiello for this Op-Ed. Please submit yours to Editor@GraniteGrok.com.
The publication of these inspiring testaments hastened the end of this egregious institution. Frederick Douglass, famous for saying, “Once you learn to read, you will be forever free,” wrote the best-known slave narrative, The Autobiography of Frederick Douglass. In my classes, I highlighted the theme he conveyed of literacy providing a pathway to freedom not only literally for slaves but figuratively for all human beings. The truth of this theme revealed in slave narratives is timeless and needs to be appreciated by all students. That is why I was dismayed when I learned that many educators are now uncomfortable teaching about slave narratives, slavery, and many other race-related historical topics because they fear that by doing so, they will break the law and be fired.
As a member of the State Legislature’s House Education Committee, I recently had the opportunity to hear the testimony provided by dozens of teachers regarding HB61, a bill which would, if it were passed, repeal the “Anti-discrimination Law” (RSA 193:40) currently in effect. Although the emotional testimony I heard seemed sincere and heartfelt, it was ultimately misguided because the law, which HB61 seeks to repeal, does not prevent teachers from covering the topics they fear teaching. Several times, testifiers were asked how RSA193:40 would prevent a teacher from covering historical topics related to race, but no one seemed able to provide a satisfying answer citing the legal text. Surprisingly, it appeared likely that some of those who spoke in support of the bill had an inadequate understanding of the law that HB61 seeks to repeal.
If you read the text of RSA193:40, you will find that it simply prohibits teaching that one’s inherent characteristics (sex, race, religion, national origin, etc.) make a person inherently superior or inferior. Many of those who testified against this law criticized its “vagueness” that led to their discomfort in the classroom, but the New Hampshire Department of Education has provided clear guidelines available on its website which define what is prohibited under this statute and what is not. The NH-DOE asserts, “Nothing prohibits the teaching of historical subjects” (and even goes on to say, “Nor does anything prohibit discussions related to current events”). It further clarifies that the intent of the law is to prohibit schools “from teaching that one identified group…is inherently superior or inferior to people of another identified group.”
Therefore, teachers can say, “Slave owners abused slaves.” They can describe the horrors of the institution of slavery and have discussions in which students share their thoughts about this topic. Teachers cannot, however, insinuate that students in their classrooms belonging to a particular racial group should somehow feel guilt and shame over these events of the past which were in no remote way their fault. To put it bluntly, a teacher cannot imply that “white people oppressed black people.” Considering that numerous people who happened to be white helped slaves learn to read and get their stories published, the latter statement would be historically inaccurate.
What is prohibited by RSA193:40, the law that HB61 seeks to repeal, is stereotyping based on skin color or any other inherent characteristic such as sex, religion, or national origin. For this reason, the aptly named “Anti-discrimination Law” should never be repealed. Please contact the members of the Education Committee (see https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/links.aspx?x=2&id=1 ) and urge them to oppose HB61.
