In January 2021 New Hampshire House Bill 544 was introduced as an amendment to an existing budgetary bill (RSA Chapter 10) to prohibit “the dissemination of certain divisive concepts related to sex and race in state contracts, grants, and training programs.” At first glance, the bill appears to protect freedom of speech and freedom from retaliation for holding certain opinions and beliefs on the topics of racism and sexism. In fact, there are very specific protections against stereotyping, scapegoating, and discriminating on the basis of race and/or sex — as long as that race and sex are White Male. HB 544 is an attempt to keep the status quo in New Hampshire, to keep it unapologetically white.
Representative Keith Ammon of New Boston, one of the bill’s co-sponsors, went as far as to say that he “does not believe in systemic racism” and equated individuals who conduct diversity and inclusion training to “snake oil salesmen.” When one considers the demographic makeup of the state and our struggling colleges, does this bill make good economic sense?
Post-secondary student enrollment is decreasing nationwide while populations of Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) are increasing. It is projected that by 2045, the population of the United States will be “minority white.” Economically speaking, HB 544 is a bad economic decision for New Hampshire. Currently, there are twenty-five colleges and universities in New Hampshire, 76% with over 80% of faculty employed are white. New Hampshire is competing for the same population of students as their neighbors in New England and signing a bill like HB 544 into law signals to prospective BIPOC students, faculty, and parents, “you aren’t welcome here.” With a state higher education system that is facing a potential merger due to limited budgetary funds, does this seem like an economically responsible message to send to potential consumers?
With projected numbers of BIPOC students increasing, professional development for the primarily white faculty employed in the New Hampshire higher education system will be needed to support Students of Color if they want to attract and retain their students. HB 544 is a blatant attack on Critical Race Theory (CRT), which is used as a framework to shine a light on the systemic racism that is embedded into every facet of American systems, including higher education. How can a country that was colonized by white men, expanded by the genocide of Indigenous populations, built and supported by enslaved Africans, and upheld by social and racial injustices not have a lot of work to do to dismantle racism? A ban on CRT will result in a lack of fully interrogating systemic racism and the ways in which racism is embedded in curriculum, pedagogy, and instruction.
HB 544 explicitly states that “The state of New Hampshire” is defined as “all agencies and political subdivisions of the state of New Hampshire, including counties, cities, towns, school districts, and the state university system.” The state university system. This means that HB 544 prevents state-funded institutions from using CRT in curriculum design, professional development training, student employment training, human resource policy design, etc. Signing this bill into law could have detrimental effects on higher education in New Hampshire.
In 2019 the New Hampshire Fiscal Policy Institute reported that “New Hampshire is the only state where over 60 percent of degree-seeking students leave, more than double the national average.” Students are already leaving the Granite State in droves to seek higher education elsewhere. Attacking CRT and ignoring a need for racial equity in higher education will encourage future students to seek education in more progressive states. Does New Hampshire higher education want to remain competitive, or does it simply want to live free and die?
