A federal court in South Carolina heard arguments Wednesday over a lawsuit challenging a 2021 state law that limits how race and racism can be taught in public schools, the South Carolina Daily Gazette reports.
South Carolina’s Capitol in Columbia (J Stephen Conn/FLickr Creative Commons)The law, inserted annually into the state budget under the title “partisanship curriculum,” prohibits eight concepts, including the idea that any race is inherently superior or that individuals bear responsibility for past racial injustices. Critics argue that this directive has discouraged schools from offering AP African American Studies as an official course, leaving students without the same opportunities to study Black history in depth as they do in other AP subjects.
The plaintiffs (students, educators, author Ibram X. Kendi, and the NAACP) argue that excluding AP African American Studies from the state’s approved course list is discriminatory, particularly against Black students who disproportionately enroll in the class. They claim that removing the course violates students’ due process and equal protection rights under the 14th Amendment because it deprives them of rigorous academic content, GPA advantages (AP courses provide more GPA points than, for example, honors courses), and access to free college credit opportunities that AP courses typically offer. NAACP attorney Charles McLaurin emphasized that the AP class goes beyond existing honors courses, offering a more interdisciplinary, in-depth study of Black history.
Attorneys for the state, led by Miles Coleman, countered that students do not have a constitutional right to learn specific subjects in public schools. Coleman argued that districts remain free to offer honors-level African American history courses and that students can still take the AP exam independently if they wish to pursue college credit. He also pointed out that not all AP courses are available in every school, and decisions about which courses to approve fall within the discretion of education officials. Judge Sherri Lydon echoed this point, noting that while omitting certain topics, such as Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech, might be “knuckleheaded,” it would not necessarily violate constitutional rights.
The lawsuit also challenges the vagueness of the banned concepts, particularly the clause prohibiting lessons that make students feel “discomfort” or “guilt” based on race or sex. Plaintiffs argue this provision has led to censorship of books and classroom discussions, citing the removal of Ta-Nehisi Coates’ Between the World and Me and Kendi’s Stamped: Racism, Antiracism, and You from curricula and school libraries. They claim teachers face uncertainty and fear of punishment for discussing historically accurate material on slavery, Reconstruction, segregation, and racial oppression. State attorneys maintain that schools are allowed to make decisions about library materials and curricula, and that the removal of certain books does not infringe on free speech or personal rights.
Judge Lydon did not issue a ruling but expressed concern about where to draw the line on students’ ability to challenge curriculum decisions. She questioned whether siding with the plaintiffs could open the door to lawsuits over any omitted course, such as AP pre-calculus. She noted that striking the law might not guarantee that AP African American Studies would be offered statewide. The case highlights ongoing tensions over how race and history are taught in schools, balancing state control over curriculum, teachers’ professional freedoms, and students’ access to diverse and rigorous educational opportunities.
