Legislative Updates: HB1305 Floor Speech - March 29, 2024 Windham Independent

Legislative Updates: HB1305 Floor Speech 

HB1305 passed the house on a 206-169 vote, with 14 Democrats supporting it despite strong opposition from Democratic leadership. The bill is now heading to the Senate Education committee. My floor speech is below - apologies for its length, but a lot of issues had to be addressed. You could also listen to my WFEA radio appearance here:    https://tinyurl.com/WFEA-HB1305

Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Distinguished Colleagues.

I rise today to correct a lot of misinformation about HB1305. I shared a package of documents and videos with all of you ahead of time. I don’t need to keep my cards close to my chest, I’d rather give you the time to consider everything at length. 

I could address the minority report point that we are doing great and we are ranked 3rd by FIRE, but our FIRE score is only 72/100 which is a rather mediocre C minus. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to ask our university to do better.

I could remind you that UC Berkeley went from being the heart of the free speech movement to suffering from repeated cases of violence being used to suppress speech, just like UPenn went from being against free speech to being for free speech and then back again to being against free speech. We have a duty to set standards and make sure that our institutions respect free speech permanently, so this legislation is needed. 

I could spend time to address the puzzling claim that HB1305, and I quote “violates our state’s own non-discrimination laws and federal law”.

But to take that claim seriously, you’d have to believe that nobody noticed it until now, because nobody testified against it in committee. You’d have to believe that the ACLU endorsed this bill two years in a row because they just didn’t notice it was dismantling our anti discrimination laws which the ACLU is defending so staunchly, and you’d have to believe that the Director of the Civil Rights Unit, after a thorough review of this bill also failed to notice that this bill dismantles the statutes that the Civil Rights Unit is designed to protect.

Yeah, right.

So why the opposition to this bill? If you took the ten minutes that I asked you for when I sent you that email yesterday to watch the videos, you already know.

This publicly stated desire to ban student associations whose beliefs one finds repugnant is very understandable, it’s human nature, but acting on such desires is unconstitutional, and a terrible policy. We cannot and should not punish people based on the content of their lawful speech, regardless of how repugnant we may find it. Free speech is the cornerstone of our nation - tampering with it is foolish.

I want to remind you that a lot of commonly accepted beliefs today have been considered repugnant at the beginning. Abolitionism was considered repugnant, and was attacked because of claims of emotional harm against the slave owners. Women’s rights were considered a repugnant idea - how dare they?. Gay rights were so radioactive in the 50’s that the ACLU refused to even represent them. It took another decade until the ACLU was comfortable enough. So many ideas are strong today because someone protected them (the 1st amendment) against the people who wanted to silence them until they grew into the supported ideas they are today.

The freedom of association bans all comers policies, which would require every student association to accept every member. Those policies are discriminatory in intent and in application, because to apply them literally, the way they are written would require every University to remove every safe space, because every safe space is discriminatory , that way you don’t allow everybody in. Nobody intends to do that, and they shouldn’t. All we are asking for is the same treatment, for everybody to have their own safe spaces to meet. Should apply to everyone.

Same thing with the minimal funds that they get from the University. Which, by the way, come from student activity fees. Not from taxpayer money, not tuition funds - student activity fees from the people who attend. There is no requirement for the university to offer any funds to any student associations - the bill simply says that if you do it, you have to give it to everybody equally. You don’t have to, if you find that objectionable.

Equal protection under the law, equal rights for everyone - that is all we are asking for.

The minority report also appears to consistently confuse discrimination, which is legal and good, with illegal discrimination which is based on belonging to a protected class, which is bad and illegal. 

UNH discriminates against every student they reject - should they accept everybody who applies? Does the school discriminate against athletically challenged students by not letting a 5 foot student who is weighing 100 lb play nose tackle, or center on the basketball team? How dare you discriminate!

And please, try to imagine a world in which you would be legally required to date anybody who asks you out… because to deny somebody is discriminatory. Of course, it’s not illegally discriminatory, thank God. Nobody is suggesting those policies are good, but by the same token, all comers policies are terrible, so we should make sure they don’t come in.

But for the record, illegal discrimination is still a red herring.

Every example of undesirable student associations discussed in hearings both in 2023 and 2024 was based on their beliefs, speech and expression, whether is was their purported support for genocide, or their neo nazi membership, white supremacists or anti semitic.

If even members of the Education Committee cannot resist the unconstitutional desire to ban certain student associations in order to suppress speech they find repugnant, what chance does the faculty, staff and student membership have ro resist the same temptations?. 

This is precisely the type of student association ban that victims testified about in 2023, and I am dismayed by the fact that people who watched this are trying to oppose the bill that is trying to prevent further abuses.

And by the way, another one of those situations happened later in 2023, reminding us of the need to pass this bill to make it crystal clear to everyone that we do not tolerate such actions in the state of New Hampshire.

I am asking you all to reject these attempts to enable oppression of minorities based on their lawful beliefs and speech and protect all members of the campus community by supporting the OTP motion for this bipartisan bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will not be taking any questions, and I do also request a roll call vote. Thank you.

I am always happy to engage with Windham residents - you can call or text me at 603-267-4142, or email me at dpm@leg.state.nh.us. 

Daniel Popovici-Muller

Windham Representative

Clerk, Division II