Connect with us

New Hampshire

As UNH hosts rally against Gaza war, lawmakers weigh campus free speech protections • New Hampshire Bulletin

Published

on

As UNH hosts rally against Gaza war, lawmakers weigh campus free speech protections • New Hampshire Bulletin


As campus demonstrations protesting Israeli actions in Gaza continue across the country, New Hampshire lawmakers are seeking to regulate how public colleges and universities respond to questions of free speech. 

House Bill 1305 would insert freedom of speech rights on college campuses into state statute. The bill would establish that outdoor areas of campuses “shall be deemed public forums for members of the campus community” and would limit how much colleges and universities could bar demonstrations there. 

The bill would also prevent public colleges and universities from discriminating against any religious, political, or ideological student organizations, even if the organization requires members to adhere to its beliefs, standards of conduct, or mission. 

Proposed by Rep. Daniel Popovici-Muller, a Windham Republican, the bill follows similar campus speech legislation passed in other states. It was introduced partly in response to instances where conservative or Christian organizations in New Hampshire say they have been held back from participation on campus.

Advertisement

But it also comes against a backdrop of student demonstrations over the Israel-Hamas war that have divided campuses outside of New Hampshire, and that have prompted police crackdowns and fierce debate over the last week.  

On Thursday evening, the student organization Palestine Solidarity Coalition UNH held a rally at Thompson Hall Lawn at the University of New Hampshire in New Hampshire. 

HB 1305 is not in effect; the bill passed the House in March and has yet to receive a vote in the Senate. Representatives of the University System of New Hampshire have argued that they already have free speech policies that adhere to much of what is in the bill. 

Others have taken issue with the provisions of the bill that apply to student organizations, arguing that the bill would prevent universities from banning groups that are discriminatory or exclusionary of certain groups. 

But supporters say if signed by Gov. Chris Sununu, the bill would provide clearer guidelines for how administrators could act during difficult campus speech situations. 

Advertisement

“What we’re doing is putting this into state law, so that universities are fully on notice – they know exactly what’s expected of them,” said Tyler Coward, lead counsel for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which advocates for free speech on campus. 

The current rules

To some free speech advocates, HB 1305 is merely putting into law practices that colleges and universities should already be following. The 1989 U.S. Supreme Court case Ward v Rock Against Racism set a standard that a government or public authority can impose restrictions on the time, place, and manner of an event as long as they are content-neutral and narrowly tailored.

HB 1305 would codify that doctrine, allowing a public higher education institution to “maintain and enforce reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions” on events, so long as they were both content and viewpoint neutral, meaning that they apply to all groups. That means that a college could set a time limit for a demonstration, or set limits on how close to other buildings protestors could stand.

By some metrics, UNH already has strong freedom of speech protections in its policies. The university received third place in the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression’s national rankings for free speech in 2024, the second time in three years. Those rankings rely on surveys to determine whether students on campus feel free to voice their opinions as well as the university policies themselves. 

One of those, UNH’s Outdoor Events and Assemblies policy, states that organizers of any demonstration expected to draw more than 25 people must apply for a permit to do so. To get a permit they must obtain permission from the Durham Fire Department, the chief of UNH police, the relevant manager of grounds and roads, and other campus officials depending on location. 

Advertisement

Demonstrations are not allowed everywhere; UNH’s policy states that they include areas open to the public “that do not serve a specific educational, administrative, research, health, residential, dining, athletic, or recreational purpose.” 

A divide over student clubs

Despite UNH’s high rankings for free speech, supporters of HB 1305 argue the state should include protections in statute – and should add new protections for student groups. That argument was driven by incidents involving conservative students. 

In 2022, a group of students at the University of New Hampshire Franklin Pierce School of Law attempted to create the “Free Exercise Coalition. 

The campus club would bring together students who subscribe to a belief “that it is OK for law students to have traditional Christian values” and to share those values, Jeff Ozanne, a UNH law student and current president of the club, told lawmakers in testimony this year. But the students received tough scrutiny from the Student Board Association, whose members raised concerns that those beliefs could be discriminatory, Ozanne said.

That same year, a different organization, the Christian Legal Society, also struggled to obtain recognition from the SBA and faced similar concerns that their mission and required beliefs would discriminate against others, including LGBTQ+ students. 

Advertisement

Facing resistance, the groups sought help from a national organization standing for freedom of religion, the First Liberty Institute, which lobbied for UNH administrators to override the Student Board Association and approve the groups anyway, Ozanne said.

HB 1305 is in part designed to prevent that resistance, supporters say.

But critics of the bill have pointed to the UNH law school disputes as examples of the potential for universities and colleges to be required to approve groups that could discriminate against other viewpoints. 

“It would allow student organizations to exclude others from membership based on race, gender identity, sexual orientation, or any other discriminatory beliefs and receive the same benefits as other student organizations, including financial support paid for through tuition, fees, and state taxes,” argued Rep. David Luneau, a Hopkinton Democrat. 

Student demonstrators occupy the pro-Palestinian “Gaza Solidarity Encampment” on the West Lawn of Columbia University on April 24, 2024, in New York City. (Michael M. Santiago | Getty Images)

Unclear applications to pro-Palestinian protests

HB 1305 is designed to require free speech protections on New Hampshire campuses. But amid arrests this week at campus protests at Columbia University in New York, Harvard University, University of Texas at Austin, and others, supporters of the bill say it wouldn’t necessarily prevent those same outcomes in New Hampshire.

Advertisement

While the bill would prohibit New Hampshire public colleges from creating “free speech zones” that would limit protest activity to certain areas, it would still allow for colleges to disband demonstrations if they “materially or substantially disrupt the functioning” of the institution. 

That includes instances where one person or group “significantly hinders” another’s ability to express themselves in the same space, including through violent or unlawful behavior, or the use of threats. The bill also would prevent harassment, defined as “expression that is unwelcome, so severe, pervasive and subjectively and objectively offensive, that a student is effectively denied equal access to educational opportunities or benefits” on campus. 

Sen. Tim Lang, a Sanbornton Republican, said that provision is designed in part to prevent activist groups from shutting down speaking events on campus by shouting down speakers or otherwise creating an unsafe environment. “The idea behind what’s called a heckler’s veto,” he said in an interview.

But the provisions could also be used to justify crackdowns on other forms of protest, too. 

After pro-Palestinian student demonstrators set up encampments at Columbia University, President Minouche Shafik authorized the New York Police Department to enter campus last Thursday and make arrests, arguing that some demonstrators had used antisemitic language and threats against Jewish students, creating a threatening atmosphere.

Advertisement

In Texas, Gov. Greg Abbott directed State Police to make arrests at the University of Texas at Austin Wednesday. Both Shafik and Abbott have been criticized by free speech advocates for the enforcement actions. 

Coward said that theoretically, New Hampshire’s proposed law could allow for similar action, depending on the type of speech and action taken by demonstrators. Addressing the protests outside New Hampshire, FIRE has called on universities to respect peaceful student protests but it has also advised students not to engage in violent behavior. 

But Coward also noted that the New Hampshire bill includes a recourse for students to sue a public college or university if they feel that the statute was violated, and to receive up to $20,000 in damages plus attorney’s fees if successful. 

“This bill just makes it easier (for students ) to get into state court and to vindicate their rights in state court,” he said. “I think that’s important.”

Lang argued that the bill was designed to protect most speech, but not all speech. 

Advertisement

“That protest can’t be calling for the end of the Jewish state,” he said. “Because now you’re stepping into hate speech or discriminatory speech. But they can call for a ceasefire. Pro-Palestinian people can call for Israel to stop. And the same with … the Jewish League could get up and say we want them to stop.” 

In a statement Thursday, UNH said it was “deeply committed to the safety of our campus community” and “similarly committed to its role as a public university in protecting free speech on campus.”

“We are responsible, however, for ensuring an individual’s speech is allowed to occur safely,” the statement read. “The bar for any public institution to restrict, or allow others to interrupt, an individual’s speech is, and should be, very high.”



Source link

Advertisement

New Hampshire

A GOP lawmaker tried to put a Holocaust denier on New Hampshire’s Holocaust education board – Jewish Telegraphic Agency

Published

on

A GOP lawmaker tried to put a Holocaust denier on New Hampshire’s Holocaust education board – Jewish Telegraphic Agency


A Republican state lawmaker in New Hampshire partnered with a notorious German Holocaust denier in an effort to insert Holocaust denial into the state’s public education guidelines.

Rep. Matt Sabourin dit Choinière successfully pushed the New Hampshire Commission on Holocaust and Genocide Education to hear testimony from Germar Rudolf, a German chemist who has previously been deported from the United States and served prison time in his home country for propagating Holocaust denial.

Two other Holocaust deniers also testified before the state House as a result of Sabourin dit Choinière’s efforts, including a man who grew up Jewish who has led protests outside a Michigan synagogue weekly for more than two decades. 

Advertisement

Sabourin dit Choinière’s antics were first reported Wednesday by NPR. But the push actually took place in public view, during a livestreamed meeting of the state House’s Executive Departments and Administration Committee in January.

During the meeting, Sabourin dit Choinière testified that he had visited Dachau and seen a gas chamber, then learned that no one was ever gassed at Dachau. (The Dachau historic site says the chamber’s lack of use “remains unexplained.” More than 40,000 people died at Dachau.)

“This was the first doubt in my mind that over time led towards a revisionist thinking about the Holocaust,” Sabourin dit Choinière said before explaining that he was relieved to have discovered the “Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust,” a group that produced a 54-volume set of books that he offered to the committee.

“Holocaust historical revision revisionism as a science does not deny that Jews were persecuted or deprived of their civil rights or deported or herded into ghettos. It does not deny that many were killed, but it does seek to learn why, how and when they died. And it seeks to separate the truth from the fiction,” he said.

“This is vitally important knowledge for the Holocaust and Genocide Education Commission’s curriculum development,” he continued. “If we are going to have Holocaust and Genocide Education taught in New Hampshire public schools, which I think it should be, it needs to be accurate and reliable.”

Advertisement

The Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust is run by Rudolf, whose publications have claimed that Zyklon B was never used in the Auschwitz gas chambers, defended notorious Holocaust denier David Irving and cast doubt on photographic evidence of concentration camps.

Few people attended the public meeting, which mostly focused on the state retirement system. Among those in attendance were three men who testified: Rudolf and two members of his group. 

“I have under my belt 35 years of research, organizing research, conducting and publishing research, of forensic and archival nature on the Holocaust question,” Rudolf said during his testimony.

The other two men both came in from Michigan: Henry Herskovitz, an Ann Arbor man who for decades has led weekly protests outside a synagogue’s Shabbat services that have incorporated Holocaust denial; and David Skrbina, a former professor at the University of Michigan-Dearborn who has published numerous Holocaust-denial books under a pseudonym. 

“As a historical event of great importance, we must examine all sides of this topic with an open mind,” Skrbina told the committee. “Exaggerations, lies, gross errors, and physical impossibilities must be identified and rooted out if we are to learn from this event and to do justice to its many victims.”

Advertisement

A sheriff with a New Hampshire patch takes part in the March of the Living at Auschwitz on April 24, 2025, in Oswiecim, Poland. (Klaudia Radecka/NurPhoto)

During the meeting, the testimony elicited little pushback. One state lawmaker indicated sympathy to the Holocaust deniers’ testimony. 

“I’ve been there. I’ve seen all of that. I’ve felt it when I walked around. And I think it’s a travesty that we’re trying to hide the truth about what’s happened in the past, and I want to thank you all for bringing this to the committee today, and I think all students everywhere should know what happened,” GOP state Rep. Susan DeRoy told the panel following Rudolf and Herskovitz’s testimony. “So my question would be, why do they want to cover this up?” (The chair shot down the line of questioning, saying, “It’s not an appropriate question.” DeRoy did not immediately reply to a request for comment.)

Sabourin dit Choinière also introduced an amendment that would have added a member of Rudolf’s extremist group to the commission, which oversees Holocaust education that is required in New Hampshire schools and is preparing to update curriculum materials.

The amendment failed. But the fact that it was made and entertained at all was deeply concerning to New Hampshire state representative Loren Selig, a Jewish Democrat and Holocaust commission member.

Advertisement

“Shocked would be an understatement,” Selig told NPR about the moment her colleague introduced it. “I could barely speak.”

Unrelated to his Holocaust denial, Rudolf also has a criminal record, having been convicted in Pennsylvania, where he lives, of indecent exposure after being arrested for public nudity at a playground.

Sabourin dit Choinière’s antics come as the Republican Party grapples with internal tensions over antisemitism, as party leaders have grown divided by figures such as Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens and Nick Fuentes who have minimized the Holocaust or amplified deniers. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz lamented the rise of antisemitism in the party to the Republican Jewish Coalition conference earlier this year, while Vice President JD Vance has said he does not want to draw lines that would exclude such voices from the party.

A Republican candidate for state office rejected Sabourin dit Choinière’s endorsement of him following NPR’s reporting. The conservative group Americans For Prosperity, which has endorsed Sabourin dit Choinière in the past, condemned antisemitism in a statement to NPR.

Prior to NPR’s report, Sabourin dit Choinière’s Holocaust commission moves attracted little public attention. A New Hampshire progressive group in January called on House Speaker Sherman Packard to strip Sabourin dit Choinière of his committee assignments, which according to the House website he has retained.

Advertisement

“Promoting Holocaust denial and antisemitic conspiracy theories is incompatible with public service,” a co-founder of the Kent Street Coalition wrote in an open letter published in a nonprofit news site. “Rep. Sabourin dit Choinière should be removed from his committee assignments as a matter of principle and accountability.”

Holocaust education commissions have been the sites of controversy in other states. The South Carolina equivalent last year faced internal division over its chair’s decision to muzzle a local rabbi’s speech tying the Holocaust to modern U.S. policies. Texas’s own commission recently advised on a controversial proposed statewide required reading list, and Texas’s governor also recently appointed a Christian pro-Israel activist to the commission.

Sabourin dit Choinière isn’t the only member of New Hampshire’s state house to have made antisemitic comments related to the Holocaust this year. Another Republican, state Rep. Travis Corcoran, faced disciplinary hearings this week after tweeting a “final solution” joke aimed at a Jewish Democratic colleague.

Passover may be over, but your chance to support independent Jewish journalism isn’t. Help JTA keep reporting the stories that define our era.

Advertisement


Choose an amount to donate


Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

New Hampshire

New Hampshire Will Ensure Timely Restitution Payments for Crime Victims – The Rochester Post

Published

on

New Hampshire Will Ensure Timely Restitution Payments for Crime Victims – The Rochester Post


The State of New Hampshire will invest in a new system to ensure timely restitution payments for crime victims following approval by the Governor and Executive Council today.

The Governor’s Office and the New Hampshire Department of Corrections (NHDOC) worked to deliver this solution following an issue with the State’s previous payment system that temporarily disrupted restitution payments.

“New Hampshire is the safest state in the nation because we protect victims of crime and hold offenders accountable, and we have an obligation to ensure timely restitution payments for those who have been harmed,” said Governor Ayotte. “Commissioner Hart and his team at the Department of Corrections worked tirelessly to identify a solution that would make the system more efficient, transparent, and accountable. I thank the Executive Council for approving this contract today. Together, we are bringing more justice and peace of mind to victims.”

NHDOC manages approximately 13,000 restitution cases involving more than 21,000 victims, with over $2.6 million in court-ordered payments collected annually.

Advertisement

“The contract the Council approved today provides a much-needed system upgrade to ensure that the more than 21,000 victims receiving restitution payments get the timely service they deserve,” said Executive Councilor Janet Stevens. “I thank Commissioner Hart and his team for the time and effort devoted to resolving this matter. I’m committed to working with Governor Ayotte, my fellow Councilors, leadership at NHDOC, and all our state public safety officials to protect victims.  We must hold those responsible for making restitution payments accountable and ensure we meet our restitution obligations outlined in the law. Presently, 60 percent of those required to make restitution payments have not done so within 60 days. This is unacceptable.”

The agreement has a total value not to exceed $600,000 and is funded at no cost to New Hampshire taxpayers. NHDOC will use revenue from its 15% administrative surcharge for offenders paying restitution to fund the new system.

“Restitution is about more than just a financial obligation; it’s about accountability and justice for victims,” said NHDOC Commissioner William Hart. “We know the delays over the past year have been frustrating and have had a real impact on people’s lives. This new system will help make the process more reliable and transparent. Victims deserve that, and it’s something we are committed to getting right.”



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

New Hampshire

New Hampshire voters urged to verify registration – Monadnock Ledger-Transcript

Published

on

New Hampshire voters urged to verify registration – Monadnock Ledger-Transcript


New Hampshire residents are being encouraged to check their voter registration status ahead of upcoming elections, according to information provided by the League of Women Voters of New Hampshire.

Any U.S. citizen who is at least 18 years old and resides in the state has the constitutional right to vote. However, residents who have moved, changed their name or not voted recently may need to re-register. Even those who believe they are registered are advised to confirm their status, as voters can occasionally be removed from rolls without notice.

Voters can check their registration by visiting their local town or city clerk’s office or by using the New Hampshire Secretary of State’s online voter information lookup tool.

Advertisement

Under updated procedures effective June 2, 2026, residents may register to vote either in advance at their clerk’s office or on Election Day at their polling place. New Hampshire does not offer online voter registration.

To register, voters must provide proof of identity, age, residency and citizenship, such as a driver’s license, passport, utility bill or birth certificate.

When voting in person, a government-issued photo ID is required. Absentee voting remains available for those unable to appear at the polls due to illness, disability, work obligations, travel or religious reasons, though additional identification requirements for absentee ballots have been in place since 2025.

The League of Women Voters encourages residents to verify their registration early to avoid delays or complications on Election Day.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending