Blog

A legal battle is underway in South Carolina over restrictions on teaching race and history in public schools. The Legal Defense Fund and Tyler Bailey of Bailey Law Firm, L.L.C., have filed a federal civil rights lawsuit challenging Budget Proviso 1.79. The lawsuit, backed by educators, students, the local NAACP, and author Dr. Ibram X. Kendi, argues that the law censors discussions on racial inequality and violates free speech rights.

The Law in Question

Budget Proviso 1.79 prohibits state funding for teaching certain “concepts” about race and gender, including unconscious bias and systemic discrimination. While state officials claim it ensures a balanced education, critics argue it limits students’ ability to learn about historical and social injustices.

The Legal Challenge

Plaintiffs argue the law is overly vague, creating confusion for educators and preventing open discussions. High school librarian Ayanna Mayes stressed the need for students to engage with diverse perspectives, while other educators say the law hinders critical thinking and historical accuracy.

Impact on Education

Students and teachers report real-world consequences. The removal of AP credit for African American Studies has affected students’ academic trajectories, while educators fear repercussions for discussing historical events. Critics warn that ignoring history does not erase its impact.

The State’s Response

The South Carolina Department of Education defends the law, insisting it promotes fairness in education. However, opponents believe the restrictions stifle academic freedom and diminish students’ ability to understand their state’s complex racial history.

The Broader Implications

As this case unfolds, it could set a precedent for education nationwide. The debate centers on whether schools should provide a complete, unfiltered history or limit discussions to avoid discomfort. Regardless of the outcome, the lawsuit highlights the ongoing struggle over academic freedom and racial justice in education.