BY PRANAV JANI
1984 meets Professor Umbridge. That’s what came to my mind when I heard of two bills currently being debated in the Ohio legislature, HB 322 and 327.
Seeking to define a category of “divisive concepts” that Ohio children and adult students in college need to be protected from, these bills legitimize the policing of thought by the state government. With punishments that can include the firing of staff and withholding of state dollars from classes and institutions that teach “divisive concepts,” these bills will effectively take control away from teachers, administrators, boards of education at the K-12 level and departments and administrators at the university level.
As many have discussed, these bills are Ohio’s versions of a national phenomenon, for which the ground was prepared by the incessant and cartoonish attack on “CRT”—a bogeyman invented by right-wing media and politicians that, apparently, seeks to brainwash the country’s children and rip apart our national fabric.
The current wave of attacks against anti-racist education is not unique to US history, but a regular feature. Every time there is a mass struggle in this country, particularly movements for racial justice led by Black people, there is an inevitable backlash – in all spheres of life.
The demonization of CRT and these “divisive concepts” bills are a reflection, in the realm of education, of the rage of the White Right in the aftermath of that watershed moment, the Summer 2020 Black uprisings. In the wake of the police murders of Breonna Taylor and George Floyd, the movement compelled the country to confront (once again) a legacy of racial violence and inequality. Many began to listen – and that was intolerable to the Right.
And yet, just knowing these important contexts will not stop the bills. We need to know what they say, and—working across the higher ed/K-12 divide—we need to create spaces where educators, parents, administrators, students, school board members and others who support racial, gender, and social justice education can share ideas, work through challenges, and generate pushback to defeat these bills. Just as groups like Honesty for Higher Education and others are doing in Ohio.
Let me take you through the language and politics of one of the bills, HB 327.
HB 327 (the text and various versions are available here) announces its intentions clearly in its short title: “Prohibit teaching, advocating, or promoting divisive concepts.”
Those of us who understand that “divisive concepts” is not a natural category but entirely subjective, might laugh out loud at this point. Until we realize these politicians are dead serious: they understand they need to define the term, but they firmly believe that they have a right to do so. Moreover, they have no problem using the state to enforce their definitions, even while claiming, without an ounce of irony, that they are defenders of free speech and academic freedom.
This is the chilling reality of the times we live in. Politicians can write up such a bill, and then calmly walk over to an anti-mask protest, claiming the state has no right over their individual choices. Or share a laugh over Dolores Umbridge’s draconian restrictions on teachers and academic freedom in Harry Potter.
The part of the bill I’m most interested in here is the definition of “divisive concepts” in Section 3313.6027 of the Revised Code for schools. It begins with innocuous language. A “divisive concept” is any idea that claims, “One nationality, race, color, ethnicity, religion or sex is inherently superior to another nationality, race, color, ethnicity, religion or sex as described in the Civil Rights Act of 1964” (1.a).
At first glance, HB 327 looks like nothing more than a civil-rights-style anti-discrimination bill. I don’t know about you, but I can warm up to the idea of discouraging the promotion of white supremacy, male supremacy, Christian supremacy, or US supremacy in our schools.
But this isn’t what HB 327 is about, is it? Quite the opposite. While such civil-rights legislation is meant to protect a historically oppressed or marginalized groups, HB 327 is about protecting dominant groups and ideologies, portrayed as being under siege.
The second example of a “divisive concept” displays the barely concealed politics of the bill: a “divisive concept” teaches that “The United States is fundamentally racist and sexist” (1.b).
HB 327 offers no specific sources or examples of Ohio teachers and curricula who aim to teach and promote this idea to students. But what it does do is imply that such a project is afoot and raises the general alarm: the nation is under attack. It’s classic dog-whistle politics.
Such scare tactics are meant to fundamentally change the climate of discussion and put racial justice-oriented educators on the defensive. These are the tried-and-true methods of repressive governments.
Language and legislation like this prevents dialogue on serious questions. Should teachers let the fear that they might be seen as “fundamentally” insulting to the United States prevent us from talking about the genocide and land theft that allowed this country to spread from “sea to shining sea?” Is it anti-American to discuss the laws and Supreme Court rulings that stripped away property and citizenship rights from Asians, when not barring immigration outright, until the 1965 Immigration Act, under pressure from the civil rights movement, allowed (limited) Asian immigration again?
It goes on. Parts of Section 3313.6027 of the Revised Code preemptively settle, by legislative fiat, complex questions of history, ethics, and behavior. A “divisive concept” is one in which “An individual, by virtue of the individual’s nationality, race, color, ethnicity, religion, or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same nationality, race, color, ethnicity, religion, or sex.” (1.g)
I would venture to say that topics like reparations for slavery are being quite clearly alluded to. But there’s a deeper issue: the bill seeks to dictates how we – students, teachers and everyone – should think about the relationship between the past and the present.
There are tough questions we should be allowed to discuss without fear of censure. Such as: Why does such racial segregation and disparity in housing education exist long after the end of Jim Crow laws? How do our classroom demographics, our cafeterias, our athletics, etc. reflect both continuities and discontinuities from the past? Why is it that we will swear by gender equality, but ideas and practices based on traditional notions of masculinity and femininity—and male dominance—pervade our schools, workplaces, and families? How do race, gender, nationality and religion impact our interpersonal relationships, and how can we improve our interactions?
All these questions, which presume that there is some connection between past and present, moves us to the kinds of discussions—difficult but necessary—that make history lessons real, that explain the world around us, and that can pave the way for a different society. Isn’t the Ohio legislature interested in that?
In parts of Section 3313.6027 of the Revised Code, the conservative politics of the legislation shines through the veneer of “anti-discrimination” rhetoric. We are told that a “divisive concept” is one in which “Meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist or were created by a particular nationality, race, color, ethnicity, religion, or sex to oppress another nationality, race, color, ethnicity, religion, or sex.” (1.h)
This defense of the US as a meritocracy—a land of opportunity in which all hard work is rewarded—is a classic conservative talking point. It’s the same old “pull yourself up by the bootstraps” rhetoric, whose main aim is to punish people by saying “If you’re not making it in the land of opportunity, you’re not working hard enough.”
The implication, of course, is that if we put “meritocracy” under a microscope and ask how the notion developed historically, we are against hard work. (Have these people even met teachers?!) Whereas the reality is that we teach our students how to do their best and achieve individually, even as they learn about social obstacles that different people and groups have faced—preventing them from moving ahead even when they have never stopped working hard.
Do we live in a meritocracy? Is the US a land of equal opportunity? Have social divisions been overcome? These are questions to be studied in a free and open way, not to be banned and made punishable by law.
The original HB 327 was changed after discussion. Before, it had banned the teaching of “divisive concepts”; the new substitution version bans the promoting of them. “Divisive concepts” can be taught “objectively” as long as the teacher or school does not “take sides.”
I suppose the distinction is important—but how important is it? Who is to determine the difference between teaching something and promoting it? Aren’t there historical events on which educators ought to take sides? Such pedagogical questions, which educators discuss all the time to better serve our students, should be left to educators and not politicians. At the end of the day, both versions of the bill assume the premise that the legislature ought to have the authority to define “divisive concepts.” The difference is insignificant.
HB 327 is unnecessary—and reflects a right-wing politics that seeks to suppress honest discussion of difficult topics in our society and world. HB 322 and 327 would take Ohio students back decades and make them ill-prepared for 21st century life. These bills do not identify and remove harmful concepts but create divisiveness by painting teachers as anti-national, by aiming to legislate thought. They arbitrarily take positions on key social questions and make thinking beyond those boundaries illegal.
Let’s scrap HB 322 and 327, and let our educators teach students in ways that fit the needs of our moment.
Down with the Thought Police!
This blog post is based on my talk at a recent forum of the Save Ohio Higher Ed coalition, an effort initiated by AAUP chapters at Ohio State, Ohio University, and Miami University in Spring 2020. See also my contribution to a community forum in Central Ohio on Critical Race Theory.
Dr. Pranav Jani is President, AAUP-Ohio State; Associate Professor of English & Director of Asian American Studies, Ohio State. Pranav is a public-school parent and longtime social justice activist in Central Ohio. Twitter: @redguju. Blog: https://pranavjani.medium.com/
