In 2021, the Oklahoma Legislature passed, and Gov. Kevin Stitt signed, House Bill 1775, which made it illegal to teach Oklahoma students that “one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex” and seven other similar concepts broadly associated with Critical Race Theory.

You might think a law that prohibits teachers from endorsing racism and sexism in the classroom would be non-controversial. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

Instead, a range of activist groups—and two Oklahoma teachers—sued, arguing that Oklahoma educators cannot provide instruction on a wide range of subjects without violating the law’s anti-racism and anti-sexism provisions. The plaintiffs claimed the law’s provisions are vague and therefore difficult to follow.

Really? How hard is it to not tell students that one race is superior to another race? That might be difficult at a Klan meeting, but one expects more from public-school teachers.

It didn’t take much to punch holes in the arguments made by HB 1775 critics.

Opponents argued the law’s language was confusing, citing as an example the prohibition on teaching children that an “individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex.”

But in a Dec. 17, 2025, brief, the Office of the Oklahoma Attorney General responded that “the State has merely exercised its right to ensure that public schoolchildren will not be taught that people should be discriminated against based on their race.”

“Again, this provision only prohibits teaching that an individual should be racially discriminated against,” the state’s brief declared. “It does not prohibit teaching that such discrimination occurs or has occurred in the past.”

OCPA filed an amicus brief defending HB 1775, noting the law’s provisions are easy to follow without eliminating all lessons on history.

“No doubt teaching students a complete history and assigning books that discuss sensitive topics create well-rounded students,” our brief stated. “But there is a clear difference between teaching about racism and teaching students to be racist.”

In Black Emergency Response Team v. Drummond, the Tenth Circuit rejected the claim that HB 1775’s anti-racism provisions are vague and difficult to follow.

The Tenth Circuit majority noted that HB 1775 simply “prohibits teachers from proselytizing students to accept certain racist or sexist creeds as truth. Apart from any prohibited racist or sexist editorializing, teachers remain free to instruct about historical or popular issues, and students remain free to draw their own conclusions.”

There are only two potential explanations for critics’ opposition to HB 1775. Either opponents truly struggle to understand simple English, or opponents genuinely embrace horrific racism and sexism. Sadly, neither explanation provides reason for confidence in some members of Oklahoma’s public-school workforce.