Ohio cases mentioned in national study of ‘discriminatory censorship laws’

A national review of laws that seek to regulate school discussions on things like racism and gender identity included Ohio cases as part of its discrediting of such laws.

Researchers from the Boston University School of Law and the West Virginia University College of Law watched as “discriminatory censorship laws” came about even after a reckoning over racial justice happened in the Summer of 2020, spurred by the murder of George Floyd.

Those censorship laws, defined by researchers as “certain official acts that regulate classroom conversations about racism, gender identity and other targeted topics,” seek to “demean inclusionary practices and to deny students access to critical knowledge, inquiry and thinking,” according to the piece, released by the National Education Policy Center.

“Discriminatory censorship laws expose students and educators to a heightened threat of race- and sex-based harassment, as well as formal sanctions, economic distress and social ostracization,” study authors Jonathan Feingold and Joshua Weishart wrote.

The analysis of the nation’s laws on this topic showed the need to “adopt laws, policies and practices that promote inclusive, safe learning environments that encourage critical thinking and respect the dignity of all school community members,” the study stated.

Mentioned among the debates over whether or not topics like race in history should be discussed in schools was a federal lawsuit out of Cincinnati’s Forest Hills School District, in which parents and teachers took issue with a resolution passed by the district’s school board that banned “critical race theory,” a term used by opponents for the inclusion of racial conflict in American history.

The resolution said school educators or guest speakers couldn’t demand participation or create assignments “that require, guide or nudge the student to consider his or her race, socioeconomic class, religion, gender identity, sex, sexual preference, ethnicity or culture as a deficiency or a label to stereotype the student as having certain biases, prejudices or other unsavory moral characteristics or beliefs based on these immutable characteristics,” according to the lawsuit’s explanation of the resolution.

Among other parts of the resolution, it said schools “shall not force individuals to admit privilege or oppression, or to ‘reflect,’ ‘deconstruct,’ or ‘confront’ their identities based on race, socioeconomic class, religion, gender identity, sex, sexual preferences, ethnicity or culture.”

That case hasn’t yet been decided. A motion to dismiss was denied by a judge in the U.S. District Court’s Southern District of Ohio Western Division in October, and hearings in the case are scheduled well into 2024.

Another case still being decided in that same federal court pits parents against Hilliard City Schools. This time, however, the parents claim “activist teachers” are being allowed “to specifically solicit from children as young as six-years old, private, intimate conversations about sexual behaviors, sexual attitudes, mental and psychological questions of the student and the student’s family and private religious practices,” according to the lawsuits, filed in Jan. 2023.

The parents in the case claim the problems began when “federal bureaucracies” proposed a rewrite of Title IX to include sexual orientation and gender identity in the education anti-discrimination law. Those suing Hilliard City Schools claim interpretations of the changes are “deeply offensive to a large segment of the American population – while they are adamantly demanded by another.”

The NEPC study of the laws and the legal challenges of the laws noted there are few challenges across the nation to those laws, and even those that exist may not put a dent in the impact of the laws themselves.

“Even if anti-censorship lawsuits prevail, little suggests that existing litigation will swiftly and decisively remedy the harm discriminatory censorship laws have already caused,” researchers wrote.

The study had recommendations from the federal court to state legislators and local advocacy groups as to how to proceed as these piece of legislation pop up nationwide.

For state legislators, the researchers recommended legislation “that requires or affirmatively permits anti-racist, inclusive and culturally sensitive pedagogy and curriculum,” and prohibitions on book banning and material-removal “because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval.”

Ohio has seen the opposite, with legislation introduced in the last few general assemblies that would ban what state legislators call “divisive concepts,” similar to those mentioned in the Forest Hills resolution.

Most recently, Republican state representatives are co-sponsoring a bill to establish a “parent’s bill of rights,” which would require a school to notify parents of any curriculum or class that included “sexuality content.” Critics of the bill say the language could create risky situations for some students, including the possibility of “outing” students in ways which may make the students uncomfortable.

Language of the bill says schools are “prohibited from keeping changes in the health of the student from their parents, and the school district is also prohibited from encouraging the student to hide these issues from their parents,” according to bill co-sponsor D.J. Swearingen, R-Huron.

The bill has already passed through the Ohio House, and was introduced in the Senate Education Committee on Dec. 5. It’s set to receive more hearings for opponent and proponent testimony before it’s up for a vote in the committee and before the full Senate.