When advocates warned months ago that a piece of anti-“DEI” legislation in New Hampshire could be interpreted in ways that would undermine accessibility and inclusion for people with disabilities, Republican state lawmakers dismissed such concerns as unfounded.
Those in the House who supported adding the proposed language to the state’s two-year budget said it would combat race-conscious hiring practices, not curtail accessibility initiatives for people of varying ability.
But when the Senate finalized its version of the budget this month, the language was even clearer: In their push to bar the government from promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion, state senators signed off on a proposal that would prohibit public entities from supporting any program designed to improve the lives of people with disabilities.
Advertisement
“As written, it’s pretty daunting,” said Karen Rosenberg, policy director for the Disability Rights Center in New Hampshire.
Rosenberg, a trained attorney, said the proposed DEI ban would seem to contradict existing state laws, such as those that offer targeted property tax exemptions to help people with disabilities maintain their housing and home ownership.
It’s clear the proposal “wasn’t properly vetted,” she said.
While the House and Senate adopted slightly different anti-DEI proposals, either version would be bad for New Hampshire, Rosenberg said.
“They’re mostly the same, and they’re both terrible,” she added.
The two proposals define “DEI” in similar fashion — both refer to programs, policies, training, or initiatives that classify individuals “for the purpose of achieving demographic outcomes, rather than treating individuals equally under the law” — but they differ in describing which types of classifications would be impermissible.
Advertisement
While the House said DEI involves classifying people “based on race, sex, ethnicity, or other group characteristics,” the Senate said it involves classifying people based on any of the characteristics listed in an existing anti-discrimination law. That existing law lists “physical or mental disability” alongside race, sex, and other protected traits; therefore, the Senate’s anti-DEI provisions would prohibit state and local government entities from supporting any program related to efforts to improve “demographic outcomes” for people with physical or mental disabilities.
Louis Esposito, executive director of ABLE NH, an advocacy group for people impacted by disability, said there have been so many additional pressing concerns — including a disagreement between the House and Senate over a proposed cut to Medicaid provider rates — that the implications of the anti-DEI provisions in the state budget legislation haven’t garnered as much attention as they warrant.
Esposito said the proposals could have far-reaching ramifications in education. If a school offers a training session on neurodiversity, for example, would that be deemed a DEI violation? School leaders who are unsure might avoid such topics, at the expense of equity and inclusion for students with disabilities, he said, especially since the proposals would direct the state’s education commissioner to withhold all public funding from schools deemed non-compliant.
In some ways, the education-related implications of this anti-DEI push in New Hampshire echo the state’s 2021 “banned concepts” law, which lawmakers similarly incorporated into the state budget legislation, making it harder to kill. That law, which prohibited teaching that anyone is “inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive,” was deemed unconstitutionally vague by a federal judge in 2024, though an appeal is pending.
Advertisement
While lawmakers formed a committee of conference last week to reconcile differences between the House and Senate versions of the state budget, the bulk of their work has revolved around detailed revenue estimates and debates over exactly how much to allocate to each line item, not refining the DEI ban.
When asked about the implications for disability-related programming, Senate President Sharon M. Carson, a Republican from Londonderry who sits on the committee of conference for the two pieces of legislation that comprise the budget, said in a statement Friday there is a long way to go before the legislation is finalized.
“It is still too early to tell which provisions and programs will be accounted for as we negotiate with the House,” she said. “Rest assured that we will ensure the final budget package is one that is suitable for all Granite Staters.”
After the committee completes its work this week, the full legislative chambers are expected to take final votes next week on the new budget, which would take effect July 1.
Steven Porter can be reached at [email protected]. Follow him @reporterporter.