Connect with us

New Hampshire

Federal judge hears arguments over N.H.’s new restrictions on classroom teaching

Published

on

Federal judge hears arguments over N.H.’s new restrictions on classroom teaching


A lawsuit difficult new restrictions on what New Hampshire lecturers can talk about within the classroom acquired its first vital listening to in federal court docket this week.

If the case strikes ahead, it might be one of many nation’s first checks of Republican-backed efforts to curb colleges’ range, fairness, and inclusion initiatives and reshape curriculum on race and the legacy of American racism.

At situation is a 2021 state legislation that prohibits instructing that an individual of 1 group is inherently racist, superior or oppressive to different individuals, “both consciously or unconsciously.”

A instructor discovered to have violated the legislation might be topic to self-discipline or lose their license. A spokesman for the Division of Justice says just one cost has been filed for the reason that legislation took impact, and that cost “is now going via the [Human Rights] Fee’s course of.”

Advertisement

However even when the legislation isn’t main on to punishment for lecturers, the ACLU, lecturers’ unions and a bunch of public faculty staff are arguing in court docket that it’s having a “chilling impact” on classroom discussions. At a listening to earlier than a federal choose Wednesday, they mentioned the wording of the legislation is just too imprecise, and lecturers are avoiding sure classroom discussions consequently. The plaintiffs additionally allege the brand new legislation violates lecturers’ proper to freedom of speech.

State attorneys, in the meantime, try to dismiss the case. They are saying the legislation itself and subsequent steerage from the Lawyer Basic’s workplace sufficiently clarify what can and may’t be taught. The state’s legal professionals have additionally cited case legislation to argue that lecturers, as public staff, don’t have the identical stage of free speech protections on the job that they do as personal residents.

At Wednesday’s listening to, U.S. District Court docket Choose Paul Barbadoro questioned the plaintiffs’ argument that the legislation itself was stifling free speech and stopping lecturers from doing their job. He famous that many of the complaints from the general public — for instance, criticizing how a instructor is discussing “To Kill a Mockingbird” — wouldn’t go muster in a courtroom or throughout an investigation by the New Hampshire Fee for Human Rights, which is tasked with implementing the legislation.

“I can’t see how anyone may construe ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’ as a violation of this statute,” he mentioned.

However attorneys for the ACLU and different events difficult the legislation mentioned it was necessary for the case to maneuver ahead to the invention course of, by which each events alternate proof and different data. This step, they mentioned, is essential to understanding how the state is investigating complaints and implementing the legislation.

Advertisement

Barbadoro additionally questioned whether or not the state’s present steerage on the legislation gave lecturers a “cheap concern” that they might be punished over classes that even unknowingly hinted at one of many ideas banned beneath the brand new laws.

The state’s lawyer, Sam Garland, mentioned the choose may select to interpret the legislation with a “narrower building” and referred to a state-issued FAQ to clear up any confusion.

Barbadoro mentioned he expects to situation a choice on whether or not to dismiss the case within the subsequent 60 to 90 days. If the case strikes ahead, he mentioned the 2 sides will talk about the scope of a discovery, which he says might be “targeted” and accomplished inside a couple of months.

Editor’s notice: This story was up to date shortly after it was first printed to incorporate extra details about complaints linked to the brand new legislation.

Advertisement





Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

New Hampshire

Trump’s guilty verdict underscores contrast in GOP primary for N.H. governor – The Boston Globe

Published

on

Trump’s guilty verdict underscores contrast in GOP primary for N.H. governor – The Boston Globe


One of the two Republicans running for governor in New Hampshire sought to use the news of former president Donald Trump’s conviction Thursday as an opportunity to differentiate himself from his GOP rival.

Chuck Morse’s campaign promptly released a statement denouncing the guilty verdict as a symptom of corruption. The statement also called Morse the “sole New Hampshire gubernatorial candidate to have endorsed” Trump in the 2024 race.

“This weaponization of justice to target a political opponent is an affront to American values and will only embolden President Trump’s supporters, rallying millions of voters to his side,” he said, claiming President Biden had manipulated the system “for electoral gain.”

Advertisement

Morse, a former New Hampshire Senate president, is up against former US senator Kelly Ayotte in the Republican primary. While Morse has aligned his candidacy with the former president, endorsing Trump at a campaign rally in December, Ayotte has taken a more measured approach, saying she would support whoever wins the GOP presidential nomination.

Ayotte confirmed in March that she’ll support Trump, the party’s presumptive 2024 nominee, despite having withdrawn her 2016 endorsement over the “Access Hollywood” tape. (“I cannot and will not support a candidate for president who brags about degrading and assaulting women,” she said at the time.)

Advertisement
Former US senator Kelly Ayotte spoke at a campaign rally in 2020 at the Laconia Municipal Airport in Gilford, N.H.Robert F. Bukaty/Associated Press

Unlike many other political candidates, Ayotte did not immediately share a statement about Trump’s conviction on social media, nor did spokespeople for her campaign respond to The Boston Globe’s request for comment. But she released a statement Thursday evening to the New Hampshire Journal.

“Today’s verdict is disappointing, and I don’t believe our justice system should be politicized,” she said. “Our country is on the wrong track with Joe Biden in the White House, and that’s why I’m supporting Donald Trump.”

The two leading Democratic gubernatorial candidates singled out Ayotte for criticism. Joyce Craig, the former mayor of Manchester, said Ayotte lacks “the spine” needed to stand up to Trump and “the dangerous extremists in her party.” Cinde Warmington, the lone Democratic executive councilor, said New Hampshire needs a governor “who has the backbone to stand up to the likes of Trump and Ayotte.”


This story first appeared in Globe NH | Morning Report, our free newsletter focused on the news you need to know about New Hampshire, including great coverage from the Boston Globe and links to interesting articles from other places. If you’d like to receive it via e-mail Monday through Friday, you can sign up here.


Advertisement

Steven Porter can be reached at steven.porter@globe.com. Follow him @reporterporter.





Source link

Continue Reading

New Hampshire

Woman, With Priors, Accused Of Selling Fentanyl At Hannaford: Concord Police Log

Published

on

Woman, With Priors, Accused Of Selling Fentanyl At Hannaford: Concord Police Log


Tina L. Anderson, born 1971, of Concord was arrested at 4:41 p.m. on May 18 on simple assault and domestic violence-simple assault charges after an incident or investigation at the Everett Arena at 15 Loudon Road.

Grant Boyd Gentzel, 20, of Concord was arrested at 10:21 a.m. on May 15 on a criminal mischief charge after an incident or investigation at Burger King at 15 Hall St. He has two active felonious sexual assault charges and is due back in superior court for a status conference on July 30 and a jury trial on Jan. 21, 2025, according to court records.

Arthur Robert S. Klaeson III, 55, of Rochester was arrested at 11:51 p.m. on May 1 on a driving under the influence charge after an incident or investigation at the Speedway at 175 N. Main St.

Corey Ronald Cyr, 43, of Manchester was arrested at 10:09 a.m. on April 29 on driving after revocation or suspension and motor vehicle not equipped with interlock alcohol device charges after an incident on Poplar Avenue.

Advertisement

Nancy Ali Taban, 27, of Concord was arrested at 8:38 a.m. on April 29 on a disorderly conduct charge after an incident or investigation on Harrod Street.

Kimberly Lynette Orantes, born 1976, received a summons at 12:13 a.m. on April 24 on a driving after revocation or suspension-subsequent charge and a tail lamp and reflectors violation after an incident or investigation on Merrimack Street.

Sylvia A. Colby-Caron, born 1953, of Concord was arrested at 6:10 p.m. on April 23 on driving under the influence and penalty; committing offense on bail charges after an incident or investigation at 2 South Commercial St.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

New Hampshire

NH House rejects Senate marijuana legalization plan

Published

on

NH House rejects Senate marijuana legalization plan


Lawmakers in the New Hampshire House have rejected Senate changes to a bill that would legalize marijuana in the state. The move means House and Senate negotiators now have a week to find something that has eluded state lawmakers for years: accord on cannabis legalization.

It also dims the chances that New Hampshire will soon join 24 other states – including the rest of New England – in allowing recreational marijuana for adults.

The House has for the past decade repeatedly voted to legalize cannabis, regardless of which party held the majority.

Until last week, the Republican-led Senate never backed a legalization bill.

Advertisement

Thursday’s House vote to reject the Senate plan – but approve a committee of conference over the bill – came after several staunch advocates for legalization took to the House floor to deride the Senate’s proposal as too flawed to support. That plan would have pushed off legalization until 2026 and create a 15-outlet franchise system for selling marijuana.

“This is not the New Hampshire solution,“ Rep. Kevin Verville, a Deerfield Republican, said. ”This is not what we are looking for.”

But the Senate plan is what Gov. Chris Sununu has said he would sign. Sununu had meanwhile promised to reject the version of the bill that cleared the House earlier this session.

The House’s plan would legalize marijuana immediately, allow adults to possess up to 4 ounces and let 15 state-approved but privately owned stores sell it.

The complicated State House politics surrounding cannabis – including the fact that Republican leaders in the Senate oppose legalization – were featured during Thursday’s floor debate.

Advertisement

“That is the number one reason why you must vote today. You must vote yes,” said Rep John Hunt, a Republican from Ringe. “We have got to get marijuana off the block. We’ve got to get it going.”

But too few were persuaded.

“Yes, our constituents want legalization, and so do I,” said Rep. Heath Howard, a Democrat from Strafford. “But as representatives we have an obligation to insist on better policy.”

House and Senate negotiators have until June 6, to reach a deal on cannabis legalization. Any agreement on the policy would need to be voted on by the full House and Senate before June 13.

Advertisement





Source link

Continue Reading

Trending