Lawsuit filed against South Carolina’s race, gender curriculum restrictions

(NEW YORK) — South Carolina schools are facing a lawsuit over restrictions on what can be taught about racial inequality in K-12 public schools.

The state’s Budget Proviso 1.79 states that no state funding should go toward certain “concepts” touching on race or sex — including unconscious racism, sexism or other form of oppression.

Among the restrictions, the budget prohibits anything that causes “an individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his race or sex” or that “fault, blame, or bias should be assigned to a race or sex, or to members of a race or sex because of their race or sex.”

It also restricts “teaching certain literary or historical concepts” of “historical or past discriminatory policies.”

The language mirrors other “divisive concept” or anti-“critical race theory” legislation seen in more than a dozen states nationwide, which have impacted the lessons, discussions, books, and programs schools and students can engage in.

The Legal Defense Fund and Tyler Bailey of Bailey Law Firm, LLC, filed a federal civil rights lawsuit on behalf of South Carolina educators, students, the local NAACP conference and author Dr. Ibram X. Kendi to challenge these restrictions.

Plaintiffs argue that the restrictions are a form of “censorship” in a state with a deep-rooted racial history including the 1739 Stono slave rebellion, the racially motivated Mother Emanuel AME Church shooting in 2015, and the state’s role in the Confederacy.

Plaintiffs say the vague guidelines violate the free speech of teachers and students, infringing on “accurate, comprehensive education on race-related issues” for South Carolina students.

“We must provide an education that prepares them as citizens to read widely, think critically, and understand that complex issues have multiple, varied perspectives,” said plaintiff Ayanna Mayes, a high school librarian, in a written statement.

She claimed, “The State of South Carolina is muzzling and tying the hands of the brilliant, highly trained educators it has certified and dis-serving its bright, talented students.”

In a statement to the South Carolina Daily Gazette, a spokesperson for the state’s education department defended the restrictions and argued that the state is dedicated to teaching the good and bad of history.

“This meritless lawsuit does not diminish our dedication, nor does it identify any shortcomings or legal defects,” a spokesperson told the outlet in a statement. “The South Carolina Department of Education will continue to seek meaningful opportunities to build bridges across divisions, honor the richness of our shared history, and teach it with integrity, all while ensuring full compliance with state law.”

The state Department of Education, Gov. Henry McMaster, and the Lexington County School District Three, all named in the lawsuit, have not yet responded to ABC News’ requests for comment.

School District Five of Lexington & Richland Counties told ABC News it cannot comment on pending litigation.

A student plaintiff in the case said in a written statement that South Carolina’s decision to eliminate Advanced Placement credit for its African American Studies course among the other restrictions has impacted her educational trajectory.

“Understanding this history is crucial for my future medical career, as it will help me better diagnose, treat, and care for patients of color,” said the student plaintiff in a written statement. “Without this knowledge, healthcare disparities can worsen, leading to inadequate treatment and even death.”

Plaintiff Mary Wood, an AP English teacher, said the budget proviso prevents “citizens armed with truth and empathy, who think critically and challenge oppressive systems which benefit few and harm many.”

In full, the budget proviso states:

        “(1) one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex;

        “(2) an individual, by virtue of his race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously;

        “(3) an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his race or sex;

        “(4) an individual’s moral standing or worth is necessarily determined by his race or sex;

        “(5) an individual, by virtue of his race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex;

        “(6) an individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his race or sex;

        “(7) meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist, or were created by members of a particular race to oppress members of another race; and

        “(8) fault, blame, or bias should be assigned to a race or sex, or to members of a race or sex because of their race or sex.

        “Nothing contained herein shall be construed as prohibiting any professional development training for teachers related to issues of addressing unconscious bias within the context of teaching certain literary or historical concepts or issues related to the impacts of historical or past discriminatory policies.”