19 hours Ago By Annmarie Timmins
Of the 146 students who enrolled at Kreiva Academy last year, nearly 30% had disabilities and over 70% qualified for free or reduced price lunch.(Casey McDermott / NHPR )Education officials, local government leaders, and disability rights advocates are voicing deep concerns over a last-minute budget provision that would cut state funding to New Hampshire schools and public agencies with diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.The proposal was approved as part of the House Finance Committee’s final budget recommendation on Thursday and will be part of the state budget package that House lawmakers vote on next week.
Related coverage: The latest on the New Hampshire House budget proposalIt comes amidst a national effort by Republicans and the Trump administration to end diversity, equity, and inclusion programs in public schools, public agencies, and private businesses that hold federal contracts.Under the legislation attached to the House budget proposal, New Hampshire school districts and public agencies would be prohibited from pursuing DEI-related activities, programs, trainings, or polices. That would include assessments, race-based hiring, and implicit bias training.
School districts and public agencies would have to notify state officials of any DEI-related contracts. That information would also be shared with the governor and lawmakers.Click here to read the full text of the amendment.
“What we want is that individual merit and talent, irrespective of the color of the skin, is the predominant reason why people are hired and promoted and succeed in life,” Rep. Jess Edwards, an Auburn Republican who backs the bill, told House budget writers Tuesday. “And not because there's competition for these jobs that’s based on things other than talent, merit and individuality.
”But others are warning that the amendment could give the state undue authority over local decision making — and that it could jeopardize programs that support a range of underrepresented communities.The policy caught Democratic lawmakers and education officials by surprise because it was added to the budget late Tuesday, without notice or a public hearing. And tucking it into the budget makes it harder to defeat.
Republicans took the same approach in 2021 with legislation banning most abortions after 24 weeks.“It's a sad day for New Hampshire when the majority wants to play procedural games to pass policy through the back of the budget through this maneuver,” Rep. Mary Hakken-Phillips, a Hanover Democrat, told Republicans during a House Finance Committee meeting Tuesday.
“A vote today for this amendment will go down in history.”She predicted costly litigation would follow.DEI definition could cover many programsThe legislation’s broad definition of DEI is a chief concern for many advocates.
It would prohibit programs that classify people not only by race, gender, and ethnicity but also “other group characteristics for the purpose of achieving demographic outcomes.”Democratic lawmakers and others cautioned that it could impact people with disabilities and other shared experiences, but Republicans were adamant the legislation has a more narrow focus.“It’s all in the context of race, sex, ethnicity or other group characteristics for the purpose of achieving demographic outcomes,” Rep.
Joe Sweeney, a Salem Republican who co-sponsored the bill, told House budget writers Tuesday. “Accessibility in public schools and accessibility to public buildings is not for the purpose of achieving demographic outcomes.”That did not reassure the legislation’s opponents.
They said “other group characteristics” could apply to veterans, who receive state employment preferences and education assistance, and people with disabilities, whose accommodations include special parking permits, accessibility to public buildings, and special education services.Karen Rosenberg, policy director for the Disability Rights Center - NH, said the plain language of the legislation could include special education services because they are intended to have demographic outcomes, such as higher graduation and lower dropout rates.She said the legislation would put public agencies and school districts in a no-win dilemma.
“Do they comply with this law and violate federal law? Do they violate federal law and deny equal access to their services to people with disabilities?” she said. “I mean, what liability do they want to assume?”Republicans behind the bill disagree. Rep.
Rich Nalevanko, an Alstead Republican, is the legislation’s prime sponsor. He said Tuesday it does not apply to programs for people with disabilities because “people are born with disabilities or (acquire) them, they are not ever lumped together as a group.”Asked why veterans would not be impacted, Nalevanko said veterans who sit on the House Finance Committee didn’t read the legislation that way.
He said the ban stemmed from his concerns about “a lot of the stuff being taught in schools under DEI,” though he could not offer specific examples of curriculum that he wanted to restrict.“You want people to be treated equally,” Nalevanko said. “You want it to be merit based.
You shouldn’t be getting a special advantage.”Schools scramble to keep up with state, federal changesThe legislation includes unique requirements and penalties for schools.Districts would have to demonstrate their progress in “eliminating DEI-related provisions from contracts.
” Violating the law would cost schools their state funding “immediately,” even if they did so “unknowingly.” There is no mention of penalties for state and local agencies that fail to comply.The New Hampshire Department of Education declined to comment, saying in an email it does not “typically” weigh in on pending legislation.
The bill’s broad reach and significant consequences worries education leaders, who learned of the legislation just this week. Local K-12 schools receive at least $4,100 from the state for each student. The University System of New Hampshire, which includes the state’s public universities and colleges, receives $95 million annually from the state.
“We are studying it to understand the legal, pragmatic and logistical impacts that it will have across the system,” said Lisa Thorne, spokesperson for the University System of New Hampshire. “In the meantime, our focus is on the state budget process and new laws that are passed during this legislative cycle. USNH will review and adapt policies and programs to comply with new state laws.
”The Manchester School District, which has the state’s highest number of students receiving English language instruction in the state, is doing the same. “As with all potential legislative changes, our distinct leadership and legal team are monitoring the situation for possible impacts,” said spokesperson Andrew Toland.The National Education Association of New Hampshire joined a federal lawsuit last month challenging the Trump administration’s ban on diversity, equity and inclusion programs in schools.
President Megan Tuttle said it's too early to say how her union will respond to state Republicans’ efforts to do the same.She said her members are concerned about the legislation implications.“All students deserve that high quality education.
They all deserve a safe and welcoming public school that they go to. And they all deserve the support that they need to thrive,” Tuttle said.Barrett Christina, executive director of The New Hampshire School Boards Association, questioned the legality of the legislation, noting its similarities to a 2021 state law limiting teaching on racism that was struck down by a federal court last year.
The state is appealing.It’s not Christina’s only concern.“(The association) also believes the threat of withholding state funding to school districts who may potentially violate a vague state (law) is similarly unconstitutional,” he said in an email, noting state courts have said the state has a constitutional obligation to fund an adequate education.
“There are no carve outs or exceptions to the ...
decisions based on particular school district programming,” Chrstina said. His office is advising school boards to consult with their attorneys.The New Hampshire School Administrators Association will be monitoring the amendment as it moves through the Legislature, said Executive Director Mark MacLean.
He noted this comes as districts are being asked to comply with a flurry of similar orders from the Trump administration.“The pace of these (executive orders), along with the retractions, attempted clarifications, related court rulings, inconsistencies with existing state and federal laws, and new lawsuits in reaction to these orders has created much confusion,” MacLean said in an email.Across state government, a range of equity initiativesThere are a number of state and local initiatives, launched to comply with federal civil rights protections or to target the specific needs of marginalized communities, that could also be impacted.
The state Department of Health and Human Services, for example, operates “health equity” programs for underserved populations, including refugees and different racial populations. The department contracts with a group home for LGBTQ+ youth.Dr.
Marie Ramas, a family physician in Nashua and president-elect of the New Hampshire Medical Society, said the legislation could undermine essential health programs and make it harder for doctors to care for diverse patients.Support services for New Americans, efforts to collect data on health disparities, health centers that focus on under-served groups – even grants serving people with substance use disorders or mental health conditions could conceivably be suspect under the broad language, she said.Health services aren’t the only ones that could be affected by the ban.
The Department of Education provides education services for migrant students and English language learners.Earlier this year, the commissioner of the Department of Environmental Services told lawmakers that a bill proposing the elimination of funding for “environmental justice” could impact its obligations under federal anti-discrimination laws, including translating documents into multiple languages.The Police Standards and Training Council requires police officers to take two hours of implicit bias training annually.
The New Hampshire Judicial Branch’s Steering Committee on Diversity and Inclusion calls for similar training for judges and staff. It also calls for increasing the diversity of the workforce to reflect the community it serves.Local leaders are also bracing for impact.
The budget proposal would require cities, towns and counties to review all existing contracts “for the presence of DEI-related provisions.”Margaret Byrnes, the executive director of the New Hampshire Municipal Association, said that would create a huge administrative burden. Each of New Hampshire’s 234 towns and cities would have to go through their existing contracts, and the amendment’s broad language makes it hard to tell exactly what would be covered.
And canceling valid contracts would raise additional legal questions, she said.A state ban on DEI language at the local level would undermine local control, Byrnes said. She said the municipal association would oppose a bill requiring DEI language in contracts for the same reason.
“NHMA opposes any legislation that would take away local control or otherwise micromanage local decision making,” she said. “And really, that is what this bill is.”NHPR Reporter Paul Cuno-Booth contributed to this story.
.
