How Ohio Teachers Discuss "divisive concepts" Up for Debate in the Statehouse

by Christian Pearson

October 29, 2021

House Bills 322 and 327 currently pending before the Ohio House of Representatives have brought a fierce debate to Columbus on what can and cannot be discussed in public schools with respect to what legisators call "divisive concepts." (Photo: 12019/pixabay.com).

Recently, state legislatures across the country have moved towards enacting legislation which would place restrictions on what can and cannot be said in the classroom with respect to America’s history of racial issues. Ohio joins nearly two dozen other states, such as Iowa and Texas, in introducing legislation to ban a concept known as “critical race theory.”

States which have enacted legislation to ban critical race theory are shaded in red compared to states shaded in orange, which are considering legislation to ban critical race theory. States not shaded have not moved on such legislation. (Photo: Christian Pearson).

Just last month, as this legislation was being considered by the General Assembly, a set of hearings were held for public comments on House Bills 322 and 327, the Republican-backed effort to change how “divisive concepts,” such as slavery, are taught in classrooms throughout Ohio.

In essence, however, the bills would ban anything remotely related to a concept known as “critical race theory.”

Critical race theory, commonly shorthanded as “CRT,’ was developed as a legal theory in the 1970s which shines light on how the remnants of slavery still impact Americans in everyday life. Critical race theory isn’t taught in schools directly, but supporters of this type of legislation say that CRT is being let into the classroom - and that it’s making students uncomfortable.

Both bills say that anyone to teach about the matter - directly or indirectly, would be subject to penalties from the state. An example cited by one Grandview student before state legislators alluded to how his teachers would be subject to personal lawsuits and that the Grandview district would lose state funding, should they not be “impartial” about a “divisive concept.”

Representative Dianne Grendell (R-Chesterland), who is also a main sponsor of the legislation, told the Committee on State and Local Government that her bill “does NOT prevent schools or government entities from teaching about racism, slavery, and segregation,” while opponents of the legislation, such as Scott DiMauro - President of the Ohio Education Association, claims that House Bill 327 does the opposite by inhibiting honesty in education.

Despite the commanding presence of supporters from behind the dais - as Republicans hold a two-to-one majority in both the General Assembly and on the Committee on State and Local Government, the legislation’s opponents packed a hearing room in the statehouse to the point where an overflow room could not contain the rest of the speakers. The long lines to speak and likely chances that their testimony would not stop House Bills 322 and 327 from advancing appeared to be no deterrent to those who wanted their voices heard.

On the first night of testimony, twelve out of thirteen speakers were in opposition to the legislation. These speakers included teachers and activists from across the state, concerned parents, as well as a few GHHS students. Among them was sophomore Abby Miller. Miller told the panel that prohibiting “these concepts [from being taught] will cut more wounds into our country while we are still trying to heal.”

That sentiment was shared among most parties who testified on September 27th, though there was one proponent called by the committee. John Stover, President of Ohio Values Voters, cited Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I Have A Dream” speech as he told the committee his organization believed that not only was critical race theory an “indoctrination” of the state’s students, but that comprehensive sex education was as well. Stover’s remarks were frequently met with eye rolls and groans from those in the gallery, most of whom were there to oppose the two bills.

Both bills have been in committee since June and no signs have been made as to when any future action will be taken.