The Tennessee General Assembly is at it again, considering bills meant to censor what can be taught in public schools.
Conversations during last year’s legislative session centered on critical race theory, a legal concept that examines how racism can be perpetuated through legal frameworks. Though CRT isn’t taught in Tennessee’s public schools, discussions sparked by national Republican-driven outcry led to legislation that can financially punish districts in Tennessee that knowingly violate the law, which doesn’t mention CRT specifically but lists 14 concepts that cannot be taught in public schools. Those include the concept that “an individual, by virtue of the individual's race or sex, is inherently privileged, racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or subconsciously.”
Some lawmakers are trying to extend this law to public higher-education institutions, while others have utilized phrases like “age-appropriate” and “parents’ rights” in an attempt to censor curricula.
HB2670, House sponsor Cameron Sexton (R-Crossville)
HB2670 would extend the bill that limits race-related conversations in public K-12 schools to public higher-education institutions. The bill states that students and employees of public higher-education institutions “must not be penalized, discriminated against, or receive any adverse treatment due to the student's or employee's refusal to support, believe, endorse, embrace, confess, act upon, or otherwise assent to one or more divisive concepts” nor be “required to endorse a specific ideology or political viewpoint to be eligible for hiring, tenure, promotion, or graduation.” Institutions would also be prohibited from inquiring about students’ or prospective staff members’ “ideological or political” viewpoints. Those who believe these rules have been violated would be allowed to sue.
The “divisive concepts” include the same 14 concepts that are in effect for public schools, with added restrictions over “stereotyping” or “scapegoating” people based on sex or race. The proposed legislation also prohibits colleges and universities from requiring or conducting training that includes these topics and from using state funds to incentivize educators to teach them. Employees whose primary responsibilities include diversity “must include efforts to strengthen and increase intellectual diversity among the students and faculty.” The bill also requires a biennial survey measuring “the campus climate with regard to diversity of thought and the respondents' comfort level in speaking freely on campus, regardless of political affiliation or ideology.”
As is the case for the similar public-school-related legislation, many of the elements of this bill are hard to specifically define or quantify, though critics believe they could create fear and hesitancy around having race-related conversations. The bill will be discussed in the Senate Education Committee and the House Education Administration committee on Wednesday, Feb. 23.
SB2407/HB2154, House sponsor William Lamberth (R-Portland), Senate sponsor Jack Johnson (R-Brentwood)
The so-called Age-Appropriate Materials Act of 2022 would require districts to create processes that disclose the contents of their schools’ libraries, review library collections, hear feedback from parents and students and remove books that are not deemed age-appropriate. The bill doesn’t define what materials are appropriate for what ages, but this is a topic that conservative parent group Moms for Liberty often brings up in school board meetings. It will be discussed in the House K-12 Subcommittee Tuesday, Feb. 22, at 4:30 p.m.
HB2666, House sponsor Cameron Sexton (R-Crossville)
HB2666 would require the state’s Textbook and Instructional Materials Quality Commission to give copies of proposed materials to the assembly. What they would choose to do with this knowledge is anyone’s guess.
HB 2451, House sponsor Terri Lynn Weaver (R-Lancaster)
If you took all the aspects of public education that Republicans are currently attempting to control and forced them into one little package, it would be this bill. The Parent Bill of Rights Act would require districts to share instructor names, library materials and “teacher manuals and curriculum.” It would also require written parental consent for “any extracurricular activity, family life lesson, field trip, school assembly, or guest speaker events.” Recalling Michelle Fiscus’ controversial firing from her role as a top vaccine official for the state, the bill also seeks to prohibit health care workers from administering medical treatment to a minor “without parental consent or an appropriate court order.”
HB01944, House sponsor Scott Cepicky (R-Culleoka)
Put simply, this bill bans public schools from having “obscene materials or materials harmful to minors.” Parents, including those from Mom for Liberty, have been approaching school boards and reading explicit excerpts from books found in school libraries. The bill will be discussed in the House Criminal Justice Subcommittee on Wednesday, Feb. 23.
HB1723, House sponsor Glen Casada (R-Franklin)
Another bill that would give parents increased access to school libraries is HB1723. This would require school districts to allow parents to review their children’s learning materials and tests. It also allows parents to check textbooks out of the library for up to 48 hours. There is, of course, a difference between transparency and certain parents’ desire to control and define the education of all children in Tennessee’s public schools — especially parents motivated by political agendas.
