Ari Collins
eSomethin staff
Ohio House Bills 327 (HB 327) and 322 (HB 322) should not be passed because they threaten truthful and meaningful education for students.
Both bills were proposed in Ohio’s House in May of 2021 with very similar agendas. The bills intend to prohibit public schools in Ohio from advocating for or teaching about specific concepts except in very limited ways.
HB 322 specifically proposes that public schools in Ohio be prohibited from requiring the discussion and debate of current events and political policy for course credit. It also prohibits teachers and employees in state or public schools from accepting funding for the adjustment of curriculum surrounding racism, sexism and other forms of oppression.
HB 327 is very similar in that it defines which concepts should be prohibited from being taught in Ohio, deeming those subjects as “divisive” in nature. The term divisive, as defined, refers to something that tends to cause disagreement or hostility between people. As classified by the bill’s writers, schools should limit their teaching of divisive concepts.
Bill 327 says that divisive concepts include those that discuss the ideas, and some history, of sexism, racism and oppression. For example, if this bill is passed, Ohio schools would be prohibited from teaching concepts which insinuate that “The United States is fundamentally racist or sexist.”
Although supporters of these bills say that they have positive intentions—like to prevent students from developing harmful oppressive ideology, or to prevent feelings of upset and discomfort—the bills will actually prevent students from learning truthful, valuable lessons.
It is unfortunate that sexism, racism and other forms of discrimination have existed for most of history, but that is the truth. It would be nearly impossible to teach accurate history without covering the history of these concepts.
Additionally, discrimination still exists and it is essential for students to learn about it so they can prevent it. These bills attempt to prevent these kinds of teachings, and they are undeniably problematic because they will cause students to be uninformed and unprepared for their responsibilities as citizens in democracy.
Dr. Sarah Stitzlein, a professor at the University of Cincinnati, testified against both bills. She said that, within her profession of political philosophy, she studies how to “create good citizens that can keep democracy strong.”
Stitzlein said the bills will impact the future of the United States because they would redefine how future generations of decision-makers will be taught about the problems that exist in the world.
“We need citizens who have a robust understanding of our country’s past and present,” Stitzlein said. “Including its struggles with racism, sexism and other forms of inequity.”
The bills, if passed, will do exactly the opposite of what the world needs by prohibiting the teaching of meaningful history—in turn preventing students from getting their accurate and important understanding that will change the future.
“[The bills] also deprive students from opportunities to engage in current events in robust ways, which reduces the applicability and interest of what students may learn in school,” Stitzlein said, noting that if discussions of current events are removed, they will likely be replaced with discussions of events that are far less important.
In her testimony, she said that the world needs “educative spaces where students are exposed to an array of ideas, and where careful and constructive conflict takes place, modeling civility and good civic discourse for students.”
HB 327 states that schools should not “require a student to advocate for or against a specific topic or point of view to receive credit for any coursework.”
Stitzlein says that because of this clause, some debates, like those that involve students advocating for specific positions, would not be permitted.
“Skills of argumentation are key in the ability to understand competing views and deliberate about middle ground and alternative views,” she explained. “If this bill passes and schools can no longer teach students how to engage in debates and deliberations around not just contentious political issues, but also mundane matters, I fear our citizens will become further politically divided and ineffective at finding common ground or proposing new solutions.”
Meg Bennett is also a testifying opponent of the bill. She is an Ohio student and intern for Honesty for Ohio Education, an organization that fights for high-quality, truthful education for all students.
Bennett recalls that, when in high school, one of her favorite things to do in history class was debate. In her testimony, she mentions debating about presidential candidates of the past and the treatment of women in different countries.
“Debates like these developed our empathy, critical thinking, reasoning and social-emotional skills” Bennett said.
Besides the limit on debates, Bennett says that the bills pose many other unnecessary restrictions on schools because “there are ways to talk about difficult topics, including race, with students in developmentally appropriate ways…[the bill] undermines the learning environment by taking away educational opportunities and instilling fear in our educators.”
“I think the classroom should be a space for honest conversations where students feel respected in their identity and are able to learn from new perspectives,” Bennett said, adding that the passing of the two bills will easily prevent this, preventing students from developing key skills and inducing fear in educators.
“As the daughter of a history teacher,” she notes, “I know the threat of educators having their licenses revoked for violating these bills is terrifying.”
Schools should be covering an honest and accurate portrayal of history. But, these bills would pose extreme consequences to educators by threatening the loss of their licenses.
“Teachers striving to teach an honest and accurate portrayal of history should be uplifted, not under threat,” Bennett said.
Students should care about these bills
These bills, if passed, will not only change the way history is taught. They will change the course of history by impacting education for all students in Ohio.
Stitzlein suggests that when something is banned from a school, students should investigate. Students need to understand why it was banned “and who benefits from banning it. Students should be concerned whenever opportunities to learn, explore, and discuss the world around them are curtailed, as they may be with these bills.”
Besides investigating the problem further, students can submit a written testimony and spread awareness of the bills.“Students can also get involved by joining our Youth and Young Adult Coalition,” Bennett said. This program allows students to join the fight for honest education by meeting, writing and sharing.
Check out other posts on eSomethin!
- Opinion: Is High School Baseball A Dying Sport?
- Are phone policies getting stricter?
- Winter is just around the corner: here is what you need to know about Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD)
- Perrysburg’s 2024 operating levy has failed – but what does that really mean?
- Girls Tennis Doubles Team Smashes Their Way Into State Tournament
