1. United States
2. N.H.
3. Letter

I urge you to oppose HB 1792, the CHARLIE Act, when it comes before the Senate. This legislation threatens the free exchange of ideas that is fundamental to quality education in New Hampshire. The bill passed the House 184-164, with even four Republicans joining Democrats in opposition because they recognized its harm to academic freedom. Rep. Matthew Coker, a Republican from Meredith, stated clearly that this bill harms the free exchange of ideas and represents a departure from defeating bad ideas through open debate. He is right. Education should equip students to think critically, not dictate what conclusions they must reach. This approach has already failed in New Hampshire. A federal judge ruled in 2024 that the state's earlier anti-CRT law was unconstitutionally vague and violated educators' constitutional rights. That ruling is currently under appeal, yet the legislature is pursuing the same flawed strategy with HB 1792. Passing this bill invites another costly legal battle that diverts resources from actual classroom needs. The provision allowing parents to file civil lawsuits against schools and individual educators is particularly troubling. This creates a chilling effect where teachers must constantly fear litigation for discussing historical facts or current events. Educators will avoid legitimate academic discussions about race, gender, and American history not because the content is inappropriate, but because they fear personal legal liability. This is not accountability; it is intimidation. Rep. Loren Selig from Durham captured the core issue: students deserve classrooms where they learn to think rather than what to think. HB 1792 does the opposite by restricting the topics and perspectives teachers can present. It substitutes legislative mandates for professional judgment and transforms education into indoctrination by government decree. I ask you to vote against HB 1792 and protect the intellectual freedom that makes New Hampshire schools strong. Our students deserve better than politically motivated restrictions on learning.