In a significant decision Tuesday, the Oklahoma Supreme Court unanimously ruled that House Bill 1775’s ban on certain teachings concerning race and sex does not extend to university courses. Instead, the law’s prohibitions apply solely to orientation or training sessions, not academic instruction at public colleges and universities.
This ruling stems from three legal questions certified by U.S. District Judge Charles Goodwin concerning the scope of HB 1775. The court clarified that “requirement” within the statute refers only to mandated training or orientations, not to classroom subjects. The justices explicitly declined to interpret how the law applies inK–12settings,leaving those contentious questions unresolved.
Passedin2021,HB 1775is a statewide 'censorship' law targeting discussions about race and gender in public education. Key provisions prohibit, mandatory training or counseling on gender or sexual diversity at colleges and universities, any orientation or requirement presenting race or sex stereotyping or bias and in K–12 public schools, banning instruction suggesting one race/sex is inherently superior or that individuals are responsible for historical actions committed by others of the same race or sex.
The law has sparked fierce debate. Supporters argue it guards against divisive “critical race theory” in schools; opponents counter it chills academic discourse and marginalizes the teaching of systemic racism and sexism. Attorney General Gentner Drummond praised the decision, noting it aligns with the legislature’s intent and protects higher education’s orientation programs rather than courses.
The ACLU and allied groups welcomed the verdict as a “victory for academic speech,” emphasizing that HB 1775 should not limit open discussion in college classrooms. Legal fellow Adam Hines highlighted that while universities have regained clarity, advocacy will continue as parts of the law still bind K–12 education.
With this decision, the case returns to federal court in the ongoing Black Emergency Response Team v. O’Connor lawsuit. A preliminary injunction still bars enforcement of certain vague provisions in K–12 schools.
Additionally, cross-appeals are expected in the Tenth Circuit. University professors and students can now continue teaching and discussing race and gender topics without fear of violating HB 1775’s restrictions. Legal battles persist over the statute’s impact on public elementary and secondary classrooms, where ambiguity remains.