
The NAACP filed a lawsuit against State Superintendent of Education Ellen Weaver and Lexington-Richland Five and Lexington Three school districts challenging a recently passed provision that prohibits South Carolina schools from teaching certain aspects of race and history.
The proviso, which has been in effect since 2021, prohibits the teaching of various topics related to race, sex and history including "an individual, by virtue of his race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously; that an individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his race or sex or that one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex."
The lawsuit alleges that the proviso is harsh enough to amount to discriminatory censorship and is “racially motivated.”
“The Budget Proviso denies students opportunities to engage with classroom instruction and materials that center around diverse perspectives and the experiences of Black people, especially on the subject of racial inequalities in the United States,” the suit said.
The lawsuit further alleges that the current proviso violates both the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
“The Budget Proviso violates the First Amendment right to receive information and the right to disseminate ideas. It also violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it was enacted to stifle discussions and efforts to address racial discrimination against Black people,” the suit alleged.
The suit was filed by Columbia City Council member Tyler Bailey and the Legal Defense Fund on behalf of the plaintiffs Mary Woods, who was banned from teaching about Ta-Nehsi Coates at Chapin High School, Ayanna Mayes, the librarian at Chapin High School, author Ibram X. Kendi, and two minor, Black high school students.
“The State’s Budget Proviso 1.79 is a disgraceful touchpoint in a longstanding, storied legacy of South Carolina’s attempts to erase Black history and heritage—and evade its well-documented history of racial discrimination—from public education,” Civil Rights Attorney Tyler Bailey said in a statement.
“Black South Carolinians—who make up a quarter of our state population and have a rich, vibrant history—have the right to exist wholly and freely from censorship and discrimination, and quality public education should be truthful and inclusive of our nation’s diversity of communities.”
Because the proviso is vague, school officials may be overly cautious about what can be taught and what can be allowed in libraries.
“There is no way to deny that our state and school districts have thwarted mine and my colleagues’ efforts to provide the highest quality education to our students without blatantly calling us liars,” Mayes said to the SC Daily Gazette.
Brenda Murphy, president of the South Carolina chapter of the NAACP, said the proviso threatens education in the state.
“This censorship measure poses a significant, chilling threat to comprehensive education for all students at a time where the teaching of cultural understanding and inclusivity in our classrooms is needed more than ever,” Murphy said in a press release.
The state department of education released a statement saying that the lawsuit was “meritless.”
“This meritless lawsuit does not diminish our dedication, nor does it identify any shortcomings or legal defects,” SCDOE Spokesperson Jason Raven said in a statement to the SC Daily Gazette. “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.”
During its last session, the state legislature failed to pass a law that would clarify and clear up the vaguest parts of the proviso and establish a uniform statewide complaint process. The bill died in June 2024 after the House and Senate stalled on negotiations.
The lawsuit asks a federal judge to stop the enforcement of the proviso due to it being discriminatory and violating constitutional rights.
How can we submit friend of the court briefs?