Latest news with #Bill227
Yahoo
13-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
NC Senate passes bill banning ‘divisive topics' from classrooms; Democrat leader calls bill ‘cheap stunt'
RALEIGH, N.C. (WGHP) — A Republican-led bill banning the teaching of certain 'divisive topics' in North Carolina public schools has passed one chamber of the General Assembly, drawing criticism from the state Senate Democrats' newly appointed leader. Senate Bill 227, titled ',' passed the state Senate 28-18, along party lines, on Tuesday. The bill forbids educators from teaching 'divisive topics' in public schools and the existence of any offices called 'Diversity, Equity and Inclusion.' The bill defines divisive topics as: One race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex. An individual, solely by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive. An individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex. An individual's moral character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex. An individual, solely by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex. Any individual, solely by virtue of his or her race or sex, should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress. A meritocracy is inherently racist or sexist. The United States was created by members of a particular race or sex for the purpose of oppressing members of another race or sex. Particular character traits, values, moral or ethical codes, privileges, or beliefs should be ascribed to a race or sex or to an individual because of the individual's race or sex. The rule of law does not exist but instead is a series of power relationships and struggles among racial or other groups. All Americans are not created equal and are not endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Governments should deny to any person within the government's jurisdiction the equal protection of the law According to the bill, an 'impartial' instruction on these topics must be 'in accordance with the standard course of study in contexts that make clear the public school unit does not sponsor, approve, or endorse any divisive concepts.' Bill to raise North Carolina minimum wage filed by House Democrats Upon the bill's passage, North Carolina Senate Republican leadership responded, stating that the 'bill would not prevent schools from teaching history, so long as the instruction is impartial.' 'Our schools should not be in the business of teaching inaccurate history or creating a learning environment that doesn't allow for free thought or expression,' Senate Leader Phil Berger (R-Rockingham) said in a statement. 'So-called 'DEI' initiatives were pitched as a tool to help our children better understand our history, when in reality they're merely a façade used by Democrats to alter curriculum to fit their agenda.' The state Senate Democrats' newly appointed leader, Sen. Sydney Batch (D-Wake), fired back at the bill, providing the following statement: Right now, North Carolina's classrooms are dealing with crumbling buildings, lead pipes, permanent substitutes instead of qualified teachers, and chronic underfunding that shortchanges our kids. But instead of fixing any of that, Republicans are focused on banning diversity, equity, and inclusion because they don't like how it makes them feel. Their bill won't repair a single school, won't put a single qualified teacher in a classroom, and won't make life better for a single North Carolinian. It's a distraction—another cheap stunt to score political points instead of solving real problems. The bill must pass the House before it heads to the governor's desk. It is unlikely to be signed into law by Democratic Gov. Josh Stein and would return to the General Assembly for a potential override. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
12-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Senate panel advances two bills defining ‘public meeting' in Arkansas Freedom of Information Act
Little Rock Democratic Sen. Clarke Tucker (left) considers a question from Sen. Kim Hammer, R-Benton, at a Senate State Agencies Committee meeting on Tuesday, March 11, 2025. (Photo by Sonny Albarado/Arkansas Advocate) An Arkansas Senate committee approved two bills hours apart Tuesday seeking to define a public meeting, an issue that has plagued local elected officials and government transparency advocates for decades. Sen. Clarke Tucker, a Little Rock Democrat and sponsor of Senate Bill 227, told the State Agencies and Governmental Affairs Committee Tuesday morning his proposal would, 'after 50 years, bring clarity to the law' by setting parameters for what members of city councils, quorum courts or school boards can discuss outside of a public meeting. The bill also would amend the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to add cybersecurity breach as a reason to meet in executive session, introduce and regulate remote meeting attendance, and allow a court to nullify official actions taken as a result of violations of open meetings law. Senate Bill 276, sponsored by Sen. Alan Clark, R-Lonsdale, defines a public meeting as any gathering of more than two members of a public body. Rep. Mary Bentley, R-Perryville, is co-sponsor of Clark's bill, but also has her own version, House Bill 1667, which hasn't been heard in committee yet. Both bills brought before Tuesday's committee would apparently accomplish the same goal — give members of local governments a clearer understanding of what they can discuss outside of a formal meeting — but opponents of Clark's bill said it would encourage 'daisy chain'-style discussion of public business by sequential groups of two officials. The FOIA allows residents access to public records, including communication between state officials. Members of the press and curious citizens often rely on the law to get additional information about contentious subjects, or to do routine checks into financial documents. The tool was used to uncover the $19,029 lectern Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders bought in 2023, and provided answers to opponents of the state's prison plan when officials remained tight-lipped. The law also sets standards for public meetings, though vagueness in this category for the last half-century has led to frequent litigation. Tucker said his bill would establish a distinct line for what type of discussion is permissible outside of a public meeting. Though not defined in current law, a meeting has generally been considered public when at least two members of a governing body meet. On Tuesday, Clark asked several questions of Tucker's bill, introduced hypothetical situations and asked about the level of involvement of school board members. Tucker maintained that under his bill, any number of members of a governing body could meet to chat, so long as they were not 'deliberating' or discussing items they would take action on in the foreseeable future. While members of a school board cheering on the high school football team together would pose no issue, Tucker said the situation changes once the substance of the conversation becomes actionable. 'If the substance is, 'We're deciding public business,' it doesn't matter if there's 10 people there or two, that needs to happen at a public meeting,' Tucker said. 'That's the distinction.' Tucker's bill received nearly unanimous support from the committee, of which he is the only Democratic member. A result of two years of work, Tucker said he collaborated with a bipartisan group of public meetings advocates, attorneys, members of governing bodies and state-level task forces. He said he worked to make the bill 'pro-transparency' and 'pro-fairness' for members of the public and those serving on committees and councils. Committee members applauded the effort Tucker put into the 10-page proposal, but they still questioned elements of the bill and how it might hold up if challenged in court. Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Jonesboro, asked specifically about the use of the words 'foreseeably' and 'reasonably' in Tucker's proposal, referencing concerns that a federal court recently decided to declare portions of Act 372 of 2023, which Sullivan sponsored, unconstitutional. Tucker said his proposal did not restrict free speech, a foundational difference with the Act 372 lawsuit. He said he felt confident in the language as strict scrutiny would not be applied should the bill be challenged in court; the verbiage is typical in courts. In response to members' questions, Tucker admitted that he didn't think SB 227 was perfect, but said it 'goes a long way toward helping clarify what the law is.' Jimmie Cavin, an FOIA advocate, spoke in support of Tucker's bill Tuesday. He said he assisted with town hall meetings across the state during the last two years and encouraged members of governing bodies — like school board members — to get involved. 'It's such a positive step in transparency, and the greatest thing is [that] it's fair for everybody,' Cavin said. 'It's fair for Jimmie, and it's fair for Linda Hargis, my school board member.' Joey McCutchen, a Fort Smith attorney who has argued FOIA cases before the Arkansas Supreme Court, also testified in support of Tucker's bill. While McCutchen said he appreciated the definitions the bill introduces, he also said he appreciated the intent to ensure members of the public are also privy to officials' decision-making process. 'The citizens are entitled to see the sausage making,' McCutchen said. 'And if we don't see the 'Why?' and we don't see the sausage making, then we're going to be critical of the very board members that I know you're supporting, Sen. [Alan] Clark.' Clark presented his bill after 4:30 p.m., when the committee reconvened following the day's Senate session, and told fellow panelists his bill 'better defines Sen. Tucker's bill.' Tucker noted that two school board or city council members could subvert the intent of the public meetings law by having one-to-one discussions until all members, or at least a majority, agreed on which way to vote on an issue. 'That's possible,' Clark said, 'but that's not the spirit' of the bill. Little Rock law professor and FOIA expert Robert Steinbuch testified that Clark's bill needs language to address concerns about serial meetings. 'I don't want to pick a number for you,' regarding how many officials should require a public meeting, he told lawmakers. Andrew Bagley, Arkansas Press Association president and a newspaper publisher, was the only other member of the public to speak against Clark's bill. He began his remarks by noting that Tucker's bill was 'a very good piece of legislation that brought all the parties together at the table.' 'It was one of those moments where you almost felt like the lightning was about to flash and the thunder was about to roll because God was moving in our midst. Now we have a bill that would undo all the good we had this morning' because it would allow all the discussion to happen behind closed doors, Bagley said. Clark asked Tucker if he would support SB 376 if it was amended to prohibit polling or serial discussions between successive pairs of officials. Tucker said he would work with Clark to craft such language but could not support the bill as written. Clark promised he would work on such an amendment but asked that the bill be advanced Tuesday night. Tucker was the sole no in the following voice vote. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
05-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
State Senate committee approves measure to ban DEI in K-12 schools
Image: Adobe Stock A North Carolina Senate committee advanced a controversial bill Wednesday to remove diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives in public schools. The Republican-controlled Senate Committee on Education and Higher Education voted to approve Senate Bill 227, the 'Eliminating 'DEI' in Public Schools' act, sending the bill on to the Rules Committee. The bill, filed this week by Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger (R-Rockingham) and Sens. Michael Lee (R-New Hanover) and Brad Overcash (R-Gaston), would prohibit public school units from promoting or endorsing certain concepts related to diversity, which sponsors argue are divisive. The bill's primary focus is to prevent schools from promoting what it refers to as 'discriminatory practices' and 'divisive concepts.' These 'divisive concepts' as defined by the bill, include ideas such as claiming that one race or sex is inherently superior, that individuals are inherently racist or oppressive because of their race or sex, or bear responsibility for past actions of their race or sex. Another prohibited idea would be that 'A meritocracy is inherently racist or sexist.' The bill would also prohibit schools from maintaining diversity, equity and inclusion offices and employees charged with promoting DEI concepts. At the committee hearing on Wednesday, Sen. Lee defended the legislation, arguing that it was not a ban on teaching history or discussing past injustices. 'It's really to prevent instruction, whether to students or teachers, on divisive concepts or discriminatory practices,' Lee said, adding that many of these practices violate federal law. Sen. Woodson Bradley (D-Mecklenburg County) raised concerns about the bill's scope and implementation, specifically questioning who would determine if curricula met the requirements, and warning that it could politicize public education. 'People are going to perceive that we are going straight down the path to politicizing public education,' Bradley said. During public comment, Liz Barber of the ACLU of North Carolina raised constitutional concerns, citing a similar New Hampshire law struck down as unconstitutionally vague. Meanwhile, Joseph Backholm from the NC Values Coalition supported the bill, arguing that many corporations and universities are already moving away from diversity, equity and inclusion programs. In a press release earlier this week, Berger said, 'We cannot teach our nation's history without acknowledging our past. But we can teach history without forcing our educators and students to embrace and adopt ideologies inconsistent with equality.' Each public school unit would need to report by Sept. 1, 2025, on how it is implementing the law, including any changes to staffing and spending. 'There is just so much misinformation associated with the impact of diversity, equity and inclusion in educational settings, and it just continues to be used as a tool to stoke fear with parents, educators and voters,' said Dr. Deanna Townsend-Smith, senior director of the Dudley Flood Center for Educational Equity and Opportunity, which advocates for all children to have access to a quality education. 'I think that all this just creates hostile, unsafe and limited learning environments for students,' Townsend-Smith told NC Newsline in a phone interview. The push against diversity, equity, and inclusion in schools is part of broad-based attack on the concepts by Republican lawmakers. Last month, North Carolina House Majority Leader Brenden Jones (R-Columbus and Robeson Counties) filed legislation to purge all diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives from state and local government. House Bill 171, which is entitled 'Equality in State Agencies/Prohibition on DEI,' would strip state and local governments of any diversity equity and inclusion related programs or policies or initiatives, including those in hiring practices, staff positions, or training programs. The introduction of both Senate Bill 227 and House Bill 171 follows a January executive order by President Trump bearing the title 'Ending Radical And Wasteful Government DEI Programs And Preferencing.' The state's Legislative Black Caucus, in a statement last week, criticized efforts to 'dismantle' federal DEI initiatives. Members of the group also criticized House Bill 171 last week at a Legislative Building press conference, calling it 'blatantly unconstitutional' and a threat to the state's economic competitiveness. 'The programs that these measures seek to destroy include programs that uplift students and workers in Appalachia and other rural parts of North Carolina, along with other marginalized groups,' the Black Caucus statement said. 'Embracing a broad spectrum of voices— from urban centers to the farthest reaches of our rural communities—is not just a moral imperative. It is a strategic necessity in order to lift every North Carolinian.' Read the bill here: Senate-K-12-DEI-bill
