Laws that aim to restrict or outright prevent class discussions on subjects deemed “divisive” such as racism, gender identity or certain parts of the country’s history have been introduced since the beginning of the year in dozens of US states.
The situation worries at the highest point Jonathan Friedman, of PEN America, who sees in this legislative “blitz” orchestrated by elected Republican officials a serious threat to academic freedom and freedom of expression.
“These laws are already having an inhibiting effect in schools and universities. We are talking about giving the power to states to dictate what can and what cannot be taught and to punish teachers who refuse to comply, ”said the representative of the organization, which brings together many writers and journalists.
In a report released this week, PEN America researchers point out that a total of 54 “gag” bills targeting the world of education were introduced in 24 states between June and September 2021. About ten have already entered into force. force.
Some texts are specific and aim to prohibit the use of very specific material, for example for the podcast series 1619 of New York Times, which explores the importance of slavery in the development of the United States.
Others use much looser language to prevent discussions on topics deemed sensitive by lawmakers. They appear likely, according to PEN America, to “disproportionately” affect the right to free speech of women, members of visible minorities and LGTBQ + people working in education or vocational training.
Laws generating uncertainty
According to the report, most of the bills identified are largely based on a decree signed in September 2020 by former US President Donald Trump, which officially aimed to “combat racial and gender stereotypes” in matters of training in the civil service and in the army.
The text specified several “divisive concepts” to be prohibited, for example the idea that “the United States is fundamentally racist or sexist” or that an individual is responsible, because of “his race or his sex”, “Past actions” of other members of the same group.
The controversial decree was partially blocked by a federal judge at the end of 2020 and formally overturned by President Joe Biden when he took office earlier this year.
As it should also apply to institutions dealing with government, educational institutions such as the University of Iowa have withdrawn training on diversity for fear of seeing their budgets cut.
Mr. Friedman noted that the laws listed in the report go further than the ex-president’s initiative by directly targeting educational institutions, both primary and secondary and university.
In many cases, he says, the mechanisms for ensuring their ideological conformity and sanctioning them if necessary are ill-defined, leaving administrators in limbo.
Although they appear to violate fundamental provisions of the US Constitution, Friedman believes that it cannot be ruled out that some of the laws will stand up to the scrutiny of the courts.
The question arises in particular at the primary and secondary levels, since the States have for a long time “a certain power to establish the curriculum”, which is currently poorly defined by case law, notes the spokesperson.
“Fundamental right” in danger
The introduction of these laws by the Republican camp comes as the debate over free speech and academic freedom in American schools and campuses escalates. The pressure comes both from groups claiming to fight discrimination and from opposing groups wanting to curb what they describe as the overwhelming stigmatization of the white majority in the country.
Mr. Friedman notes that PEN America has already devoted several reports to these tensions and tries to point out to the two opposing camps that there is “way to disagree”.
Freedom of expression is a fundamental right. You can’t have companies trying to bulldoze it while believing it won’t happen at their own peril.
Jonathan Friedman from PEN America
The firing of a teacher due to restrictive laws and one resulting from student complaints are both “concerns” for free speech, but the former seems more dangerous, he said.
“Cultural battles in which people try to get others to conform to their point of view still pose a lesser threat than the danger associated with giving the state the power to decide,” concludes Mr. Friedman.