Civil rights attorney Mike Laux (right) is joined by members of the plaintiff’s side to a case challenging a section of the Arkansas LEARNS Act in Little Rock on Oct. 23, 2024. Left to right: Damon Hewitt, Austin Porter Jr., Maya Brodziak, Ruthie Walls, Mike Laux. (Mary Hennigan/Arkansas Advocate)
A federal judge on Wednesday heard arguments but did not rule on a motion to dismiss a lawsuit that challenges a section of the LEARNS Act prohibiting “indoctrination” in schools.
The lawsuit challenging Section 16 of the LEARNS Act, which is titled “Indoctrination” and references Critical Race Theory, is also being heard in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, and U.S. District Judge Lee Rudofsky said Wednesday he would consider the higher court when deciding how to move forward. A preliminary injunction is currently in place partly granting some of the plaintiffs’ demands.
The LEARNS Act is a 2023 Arkansas law that made several changes to the state’s education system, including increasing the minimum teacher salary to $50,000 and creating a school voucher program.
Little Rock parents, students and teachers filed the lawsuit in March, claiming that Section 16 violates the U.S. Constitution.
Attorney Asher Steinburg, the state’s senior solicitor general, argued Wednesday that claims the law violates the First Amendment should be dismissed because school curriculum is government speech that cannot be limited. Steinburg also said the statute does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment and should not be void for vagueness, as he said it provides a definition of necessary terms, such as “prohibited indoctrination.”
He did not provide Rudofsky with a clear definition of Critical Race Theory.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
After Wednesday’s hearing, Ruthie Walls, an Advanced Placement African American Studies teacher at Little Rock Central High and one of the plaintiffs, joined a press conference at which she and others outlined the scope of the lawsuit and talked about the classroom impact of the LEARNS Act.
Last year, state education officials removed the AP course from the state’s approved course list days before the school year began after they expressed concerns about possible conflicts with the LEARNS Act’s “indoctrination” clause. The course was later offered but only for local credit. It did not count toward graduation credits.
Federal judge grants preliminary injunction in Arkansas LEARNS ‘indoctrination’ suit
Walls said Wednesday that while the course is now fully accredited and students are earning AP credit for completion, she said she struggles to provide students with detailed explanations of the “fast and rich” curriculum because she isn’t sure what falls under the state’s definition of Critical Race Theory.
Students are not receiving the course’s full benefit, she said.
“Last year, just the thought of not preparing the kids wholeheartedly for the exam that they will sit for at the end of the course — there was always, ‘Are they getting enough information? Will they be able to take the topics and actually apply critical thinking, be able to write and express themselves?’” Walls said. “It’s always just that thought of, ‘Am I doing enough?’”
Under the preliminary injunction Rudofsky granted in May, Arkansas teachers can discuss Critical Race Theory, but they may be disciplined for “[compelling a] student to adopt, affirm, or profess a belief in a theory, ideology or idea (including Critical Race Theory) that conflicts with the principle of equal protection under the law.”
Civil rights attorney Mike Laux said Wednesday that the state statute was part of a nationwide campaign to “stomp out diversity efforts, efforts at evening playing fields and acknowledging … the present day effects of years and years, hundreds of years, of institutionalized racism.”
Civil rights attorney Mike Laux (front) talks with press outside the federal courthouse in Little Rock on Oct. 23, 2024 about a lawsuit challenging a section of the Arkansas LEARNS Act. (Mary Hennigan/Arkansas Advocate)
In their arguments, Laux and attorney Maya Brodziak asked Rudofsky to continue with the discovery phase of the case. They said Section 16 of the LEARNS Act has had a chilling effect on educators, which has caused them to be overly cautious in their teachings.
Brodziak argued that “curriculum” in schools extends beyond what the state approves in a syllabus and into how teachers problem-solve with struggling students and bring in real life examples to aid in explanation. She also argued that the state’s reasoning behind the statute was important and should be fleshed out in the discovery process.
Laux argued that the state’s “failure” to define Critical Race Theory shifts the burdens to teachers who then have to interpret the statute themselves and face losing their license if they do it incorrectly.
When Rudosfky asked Laux if the statute was generally discriminatory on its face, Laux replied yes and said he thought a lot of teachers in Arkansas could challenge the law — AP African American Studies just suffered the impact the soonest.
At the press conference afterward, Laux said the contested education law was “politically driven legislation” that targeted African American teachers and students.
YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.