The Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs’ Center for Law & Liberty is among those defending an Oklahoma anti-racism law in federal court, arguing the law’s meaning is both easily understood and enforced.

House Bill 1775, which was signed into law in 2021, made it illegal to teach Oklahoma students that “one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex,” that “an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously,” and other concepts broadly associated with Critical Race Theory.

Opponents challenged the law, and a lower district court ruled portions of HB 1775 were unconstitutionally vague. The case is now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Ryan Haynie, an attorney with the OCPA Center for Law & Liberty, has filed an amicus curiae brief defending the law.

The brief notes that “a person of ordinary intelligence can decipher the law’s meaning” and argues that claims of vagueness are based on “verbal calisthenics.”

“Unlike laws successfully challenged in the past, there are no ambiguous terms in the prohibition that, for instance, prohibit a school from requiring or making part of a course the idea that ‘any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex,’” the OCPA brief stated. “… Despite arguments to the contrary, there is scarce room for arbitrary enforcement. Either a school taught students they should feel guilt for their race or sex or it did not.”

The OCPA brief noted opponents of HB 1775 are arguing, in effect, for allowing state law to be negated by a “hecklers’ veto.”

“Their argument is, essentially, that because a few teachers claim not to understand the bill that it must be vague,” the OCPA brief states. “That is not—and cannot be—the standard. If it were the standard, professional educators could have a veto over any new education reform by claiming confusion over the bill’s language.”

Opponents have claimed it is beneficial to teach children the concepts banned by HB 1775, which include the idea that “one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex,” citing academic research.

The OCPA brief notes that argument defies credibility and that the court should defer to the judgment of state lawmakers who weighed the pros and cons of the issue.

“Amici would have this Court believe the evidence is overwhelming that the divisive concepts—or ‘inclusive curricula’ as they refer to them—prohibited in the Act are actually good for students,” the brief states. “No doubt teaching students a complete history and assigning books that discuss sensitive topics create well-rounded students. But there is a clear difference between teaching about racism and teaching students to be racist.”

The brief notes that in 2024, the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) found that subjecting individuals to material from well-known “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) scholars made them more likely to attribute racial bias where none existed rather than improve interracial attitudes.

OCPA’s brief also points out that much academic research is not worth the paper it is written on, noting hoax papers have been accepted and published by academic journals, including a paper that used the writings of Adolph Hitler as a template.

“In short, many academic publications—particularly those in the area of ‘grievance studies,’ will publish anything—including sections of Mein Kampf—if it fits the desired narrative,” the OCPA brief states.

Photo credit: Carol M. Highsmith, Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division