Noblesville reader wonders if Supt. Niedermeyer read SB 167

Letters to the Editor do not reflect the opinions of The Reporter, its publisher or its staff. You can submit your own Letter to the Editor by email to News@ReadTheReporter.com.

---

Editor’s note: On Friday, Senate Bill 167 was removed from consideration by the legislature by Senate Pro Tempore Rodric Bray (R-Martinsville).

Dear Editor,

The legislative session in Indiana opened with several bills intended to address parents’ concerns about objectionable content found in Indiana’s public school classrooms. I’m referring specifically to Senate Bill 167, House Bill 1134, and House Bill 1040.

Noblesville Schools Superintendent Beth Niedermeyer, who recently announced that she would retire at the end of this school year, posted an announcement on Noblesville School’s website listing her concerns about these bills. Unfortunately, Dr. Niedermeyer forgot to provide evidence that would corroborate her concerns. Her absence of due diligence risks leaving parents and the community with nothing more than her opinion about important issues facing our students.

Opinions are fine, but if Superintendent Niedermeyer uses a publicly funded platform, presumably on public time, to opine on legislative matters, she should at least educate herself on the issues she is offering comments.

Dr. Niedermeyer writes in her opinion piece, “As currently written, the legislation would:

• Prohibit teaching accurate historical facts, both in K-12 education and to adults at the college level.
• Prohibit teaching general sociology concepts, both in K-12 education and to adults at the college level.
• Threaten to criminalize teachers, driving educators out of a profession that is already undervalued and in the midst of a desperate shortage.
• Redirect time and money away from student academics to manage increased government bureaucracy.”

There is nothing in these bills that will prohibit teaching accurate history. The Superintendent is either misinformed or intentionally misrepresenting the legislation. It is inappropriate behavior coming from a public school administrator in either case. One can only speculate why Dr. Niedermeyer thinks these bills will prevent teaching accurate historical facts because she failed to explain her reasoning.

With this in mind, one of the arguments made by opponents of these bills is that teachers won’t be able to teach historical facts about slavery in America. However, when you read the actual text of the legislation, that argument falls apart.

Dr. Niedermeyer claims that these bills will prohibit teaching sociology concepts. Which sociology concepts is she afraid will be banned? We don’t know. Perhaps she is concerned academic theories that argue white people are inherently racist will be prohibited?

Superintendent Niedermeyer claims that these bills threaten to criminalize teachers, driving educators out of a profession that is already undervalued and in the midst of a desperate shortage. First of all, I know of no other single sector of public expenditure that receives more state funding than public education. If we measure value in dollars allocated, it is hard to make an intellectually honest argument that public education is undervalued.

It’s worth noting that Dr. Niedermeyer has a compensation plan that features a $200,000 annual salary plus benefits. That’s quite a bit more than the average teacher’s annual salary of approximately $54,000.

Secondly, there is nothing in these bills that will unfairly criminalize teachers. Teachers who don’t break the law aren’t criminals and should not worry. It’s pretty simple.

Furthermore, I’m told on good authority that SB 167 and HB 1134 give teachers a level of immunity, sort of like police officers, and puts the risk on the school district. It provides teachers criminal immunity, but it also gives them civil immunity. If teachers break the law, they can certainly lose their license, but this idea that teachers risk being criminalized is a fabrication. Dr. Niedermeyer’s irresponsible comments have most certainly caused unnecessary fear and loathing which, as a result, will likely do more harm to the profession than any of these bills.

Dr. Niedermeyer claims that these bills will redirect time and money away from student academics to manage increased government bureaucracy. I’m glad that she is concerned about increased government bureaucracy taking time and money away from academics. That is a fascinating statement since test scores have dropped every year since Dr. Niedermeyer became Superintendent of Noblesville Schools. One might argue that all the time and money invested in social-emotional learning and DEI initiatives distract from academics.

Whether Dr. Niedermeyer forgot to read the legislation or intentionally misrepresented the issues is unclear. We know that she failed to present any evidence to support her claims. For this reason, I include the language of SB 167, which is nearly identical to HB 1134 for the public to read.

In accordance with 33 IC 20-33-1-6, a state agency (as defined in IC 4-13-1.4-2), school corporation, or qualified school (as defined in IC 20-30-17-3) or an employee of the state agency, school corporation, or qualified school acting in an official capacity shall not direct or otherwise compel a school employee to affirm, adopt, or adhere to any of the following tenets:

(1) That any sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or political affiliation is inherently superior or inferior to another sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or political affiliation.

(2) That an individual, by virtue of their sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or political affiliation, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.

(3) That an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of the individual’s sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or political affiliation.

(4) That members of any sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or political affiliation should not attempt to treat others without respect to sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or political affiliation.

(5) That an individual’s moral character is necessarily determined by the individual’s sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or political affiliation.

(6) That an individual, by virtue of the individual’s sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or political affiliation, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or political affiliation.

(7) That any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of the individual’s sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or political affiliation.

(8) That meritocracy or traits such as hard work ethic are racist or sexist or were created by members of a particular sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or political affiliations to oppress members of another sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or political affiliation.

(b) A teacher, an administrator, a governing body, or any other employee of any state agency, school corporation, or qualified school may not require an employee of a school corporation or qualified school to engage in training, orientation, or therapy that presents any form of racial or sex-stereotyping or blame on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or political affiliation. (c) A school employee may file a complaint using the complaint process described in IC 20-33-1.5-3 and IC 20-33-1.5-4.

Sources:

• com/2p8y6zjb
• com/yka6xt9k

Elijah Condellone

Noblesville