The Arizona Supreme Court next month is set to determine whether a sweeping new law that severely restricts classroom conversations about race was passed by the legislature in a constitutional manner.
It鈥檚 the first legal challenge that the series of so-called 鈥渃ritical race theory鈥� laws, now passed in 12 states, has faced. Twenty-six other states in the coming months are set to consider passing similar laws, which effectively ban the ways teachers can discuss with students topics such as white supremacy, systemic racism, and sexism, among other things.
Late last month, just two days before Arizona鈥檚 controversial ban was set to go into effect, a county judge ruled that the state鈥檚 Republican-led legislature tucked the law into a broader budgetary bill in a deceptive manner, violating a constitutional rule that requires titles of bills to reflect what the proposed legislation is about.
Along with the critical race theory bill, the court also struck down a statewide ban on districts requiring masks and employees to be vaccinated.
鈥淲e will appeal this ruling,鈥� Arizona Attorney General Mark Bronvich, a Republican, said in a statement. 鈥淚t鈥檚 unfortunate that left-wing groups want to undermine the legislative process and indoctrinate our children with critical race theory 鈥� I will continue to stand for the rule of law and the people of Arizona.鈥�
The Arizona School Board Association, one of the organizations behind the lawsuit, said local officials should determine how teachers talk to students about issues such as systemic racism鈥攏ot state lawmakers.
鈥淚t has a profoundly chilling effect on educators and I believe that that is its intent,鈥� said Chris Kotterman, director of governmental relations for Arizona鈥檚 School Board Association.
Last week, Arizona鈥檚 appeals court rejected the attorney general鈥檚 request for the bill to remain enforceable while the state鈥檚 courts determined its legality.
Arizona鈥檚 supreme court on Oct. 1 agreed to the state鈥檚 request to bypass the appeals court and hear the case next month.
For now, the law remains unenforceable, according to the state鈥檚 department of education.
Arizona鈥檚 law would have banned teachers from teaching that, among other things, an individual by the virtue of their race or sex 鈥渂ears responsibility for actions committed by other members of their race, ethnic group or sex鈥� or that they 鈥渟hould feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or any other form of psychological distress because of their race, ethnicity or sex.鈥�
If a teacher violated the law, they could have their teaching certificate suspended or revoked. The attorney general would have also held the right to sue a school district or charter school that they perceived as violating the law.
鈥淚f you pass a bill that makes educators scared to talk about stuff, because you can potentially go after their license, then they鈥檙e not going to walk up to that line,鈥� Kotterman said. 鈥淎nd that鈥檚 what the proponents of the bill actually want.鈥�
A spokesman for Arizona鈥檚 department of education said in an e-mail that it supports the county court ruling.
鈥淭he Department believes the lower court ruling should stand, and our schools should be allowed to focus on the more critical issues at hand,鈥� said spokesman Morgan Dick.
The law has caused widespread confusion among superintendents and teachers alike.
鈥淚 think there were a bunch of people that were ready to start filing complaints against districts,鈥� Kotterman said. 鈥淭he number of things that actually violated the statute are probably very small but the number of things that people think violate the statute are almost limitless, and so it will bury school districts in complaints and paperwork.鈥�
In order to provide clarity, Arizona鈥檚 state department in June issued a five-page document to district administrators and teachers explaining how the law would impact history and social studies standards. The guidance broke down each banned concept from the law and provided examples of how teachers could legally continue teaching about racism.
鈥淎void activities that focus on issues of privilege like privilege walks and activities that have students examine their explicit and implicit bias,鈥� the document suggested.
Several districts Education Week reached out to said the law鈥檚 ban didn鈥檛 impact their efforts to include more voices of color in their curricula and fight racism within the classroom.
A spokesperson for the Chandler Unified School district, which has had ongoing fights about race and identity this year, said it will keep in place several initiatives to close opportunity gaps between white students and students of color. The district has a director of equity and inclusion, an 鈥渆quity road map,鈥� and provides teachers professional development to build cultural responsiveness.
