A federal judge Wednesday did not make a ruling after hearing arguments in a lawsuit over how race can be taught in Arkansas schools.
The state is trying to dismiss a case challenging Section 16 of the Arkansas LEARNS Act, which prevents educators from teaching “prohibited indoctrination including Critical Race Theory.” Under the law, teachers are also not allowed to teach anything that could “encourage discrimination.”
After the law passed, an AP African American Studies class was briefly removed from the state’s curriculum before being reinstated. A group of lawyers, along with local parents, teachers and students are suing the state. They argue the law has a vague chilling effect that makes teachers' jobs difficult, discriminates against Black people and amounts to “viewpoint discrimination.”
During a May preliminary hearing, attorneys for the plaintiffs testified about Little Rock School District teachers removing copies of "The Color Purple" out of fear it may violate the law.
In August, U.S. District Judge Lee Rudofsky granted a partial injunction against the law. His ruling was narrow, only applying to the plaintiffs who said they were experiencing a chilling effect. Rudofsky didn't think Section 16 actually prohibited discrimination, saying it only prevented teachers from “forcing” beliefs onto students. He said he hoped his limited injunction would “give comfort to teachers across the state.”
Both sides celebrated the injunction as a win. Lawyers with the attorney general's office said it proves the law was not silencing speech, while attorneys for the plaintiffs said the injunction proves speech was silenced.
Now the state wants the case to be thrown out altogether, arguing plaintiffs have “failed to state a claim.”
Attorneys for the plaintiffs want the case to go forward. Maya Brodziak from the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights told Little Rock Public Radio her group is hoping to move the case into the discovery phase.
“Discovery would allow us to get more information from the state,” she said, explaining that the information could help them learn about “the circumstances of how this law was passed.”
Throughout the hearing, attorneys on both sides debated Pratt v. Indian River Central School District, a case over whether students could watch a video adaptation of Shirley Jackson's short story “The Lottery.” The court ruled they were allowed to watch it, since banning it constituted “viewpoint discrimination,” meaning it was only banned for ideological reasons.
Arkansas Senior Assistant Solicitor General Asher Steinberg said Section 16 did not violate Pratt. He said the law itself was consistent and clear.
Rudofsky seemed skeptical. He said it is “theoretically possible” that the legislature could write a “bad statute,” that there could be “tension” in the law.
“The whole point of these AP classes is that we sort of treat you like you are in college,” Rudofsky said. He also pointed out Section 16 could prohibit teachers from talking about the law, since that would entail talking about critical race theory.
Steinberg said the law did not mandate teachers “blind students” to certain events in history.
At one point, Rudofsky cut short Steinberg's arguments to ask for a definition of the term “Critical Race Theory.”
Steinberg first said it wasn't the state's place to weigh in on a definition. Then, he said Critical Race Theory is “work labeled as Critical Race Theory or work that we objectively know is Critical Race Theory.”
The judge called this response “tautological” and said the state had not given him a definition.
Arguing for the plaintiffs, attorney Michael Laux opened by commemorating the recent death of Little Rock Nine member Thelma Mothershed Wair.
Laux said the defense was trying to “cast themselves as crusaders of equal protection,” that they had a “chip on their shoulder,” and were trying to solve a “problem that does not exist.” Eventually, Rudofsky asked Laux to stop treating the proceedings as a “press conference.”
Laux went on to concede that Section 16 does not discriminate against anyone on its face.
“It doesn't say 'Hear ye, hear ye! We're now going to discriminate against black folks,'” Laux said, but argued it could discriminate in practice. He compared it to poll taxes used in the 20th century to keep Black people from voting.
Laux said Section 16 is designed to have a chilling effect, where teachers do not know what they are allowed to talk about.
“I appreciate the opportunity to argue today in defense of the LEARNS Act, which is already benefiting thousands of Arkansas children and families, and I await the Court’s ruling," said Attorney General Tim Griffin, in a statement.
Judge Rudofsky has yet to rule on the state's motion to dismiss the case.
