{"id":115892,"date":"2026-03-30T14:23:17","date_gmt":"2026-03-30T18:23:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.historians.org\/?p=115892"},"modified":"2026-03-30T14:32:36","modified_gmt":"2026-03-30T18:32:36","slug":"action-alert-oppose-hb-216-sb-99-in-alabama","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.historians.org\/news\/action-alert-oppose-hb-216-sb-99-in-alabama\/","title":{"rendered":"Action Alert: Oppose HB 216 \/ SB 99 in Alabama"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The American Historical Association calls on its members, and all Alabamians who believe in teaching honest history, to contact their state legislators and oppose <a href=\"https:\/\/alison.legislature.state.al.us\/files\/pdf\/SearchableInstruments\/2026RS\/HB216-int.pdf\">House Bill 216<\/a> and its companion <a href=\"https:\/\/alison.legislature.state.al.us\/files\/pdf\/SearchableInstruments\/2026RS\/SB99-int.pdf\">Senate Bill 99<\/a>. These proposals would require the display of the Ten Commandments in public school history classrooms and promote a misleading account of American religious history.<\/p>\n<p>If you write or call your legislators, consider drawing on the following evidence and examples:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>The courts have already addressed this issue.<\/strong> In <a href=\"https:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/449\/39\/\"><em>Stone v. Graham<\/em><\/a> (1980), the Supreme Court struck down a nearly identical law, ruling that posting the Ten Commandments in classrooms serves no educational purpose. Recent efforts in <a href=\"https:\/\/apnews.com\/article\/ten-commandments-law-blocked-public-schools-louisiana-87b3dde94e583fdbb9ecb26db42b0206\">Louisiana have also been blocked<\/a>, triggering costly litigation that Alabama taxpayers would likely bear.<\/li>\n<li><strong>The Constitution does not support the bill\u2019s claims.<\/strong> The founding document contains no reference to Christianity or the Bible and explicitly prohibits religious tests (Article VI). The First Amendment bars both establishment of religion and interference with free exercise.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Founding-era evidence underscores religious neutrality.<\/strong> The 1796 Treaty of Tripoli states that the US government is \u201cnot in any sense founded on the Christian religion,\u201d and in 1802, Thomas Jefferson described the First Amendment as building a \u201cwall between church and State.\u201d<\/li>\n<li><strong>The bill misrepresents historical scholarship.<\/strong> The idea of a unified \u201cJudeo-Christian tradition\u201d is a 20th-century concept, not a framework used by the founding generation, who lived in a religiously diverse and often divided society.<\/li>\n<li><strong>It imposes ideology, not history.<\/strong> Labeling contested claims as \u201cHistorical Truths\u201d substitutes political assertions for the consensus of historians and undermines students\u2019 ability to engage in inquiry-based learning about the past.<\/li>\n<li><strong>It disrespects educators and wastes resources.<\/strong> AHA <a href=\"https:\/\/www.historians.org\/teaching-learning\/k-12-education\/american-lesson-plan\/\">research<\/a> (2022\u201324) found no evidence that Alabama teachers are distorting history or constitutional principles. Instead of inviting expensive legal challenges, state resources would be better spent supporting high-quality instruction and professional development.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>Take action today:<\/strong> <a href=\"https:\/\/pluralpolicy.com\/find-your-legislator\/\">Contact your state representative and senator<\/a> and urge them to vote no on HB 216 \/ SB 99.<\/p>\n<p>The AHA has sent a letter to members of the Alabama State Legislature opposing HB 216 and SB 99. The full letter is reproduced below.<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<p>March 30, 2026<\/p>\n<p>Alabama House of Representatives<br \/>\nAlabama State House<br \/>\nMontgomery, AL 36130<\/p>\n<p>Dear Representative:<\/p>\n<p>The American Historical Association strongly opposes <a href=\"https:\/\/alison.legislature.state.al.us\/files\/pdf\/SearchableInstruments\/2026RS\/HB216-int.pdf\">House Bill 216<\/a> and its companion, <a href=\"https:\/\/alison.legislature.state.al.us\/files\/pdf\/SearchableInstruments\/2026RS\/SB99-int.pdf\">Senate Bill 99<\/a>. Like a similar bill introduced last session\u2013which the AHA also <a href=\"https:\/\/www.historians.org\/news\/american-historical-association-opposes-alabama-sb-166-hb-178\/\">opposed<\/a>\u2013HB 216 would require public schools across Alabama to display the Ten Commandments in history classrooms serving grades five through twelve, while promoting an oversimplified account of the American founding that does a disservice to the nation\u2019s rich and compelling religious history.<\/p>\n<p>The constitutional issues are clear. In <a href=\"https:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/449\/39\/\"><em>Stone v. Graham<\/em><\/a> (1980), the Supreme Court struck down a nearly identical Kentucky law, holding that posting the Ten Commandments in classrooms serves no educational purpose. More recent efforts in Louisiana have likewise <a href=\"https:\/\/apnews.com\/article\/ten-commandments-law-blocked-public-schools-louisiana-87b3dde94e583fdbb9ecb26db42b0206\">been blocked in federal court<\/a> setting off a series of <a href=\"https:\/\/lailluminator.com\/2026\/02\/20\/louisiana-ten-commandments-4\/\">procedural challenges<\/a>. Section 5 of HB 216 insinuates that the decision in <em>Kennedy v. Bremerton<\/em> (2022), which focused on personal religious expression, might open room to overturn <em>Stone v. Graham<\/em>, but this is a matter for the courts. Passage of HB 216 would almost certainly invite costly litigation challenging long-settled constitutional precedent\u2014at the expense of Alabama taxpayers.<\/p>\n<p>The bill\u2019s added language does not resolve these flaws. While it invokes Alabama\u2019s excellent 2024 Course of Study: Social Studies, it incorrectly claims that displaying the Ten Commandments is \u201cessential\u201d to fulfilling those standards. It is not. Nor does the mandated display advance sound history instruction. This is as true today as when it was articulated in the majority opinion in <em>Stone v. Graham<\/em> more than four decades ago.<\/p>\n<p>More troubling, HB 216 requires schools to present a distorted version of US religious history under the label \u201cHistorical Truths.\u201d Its claims about the Ten Commandments and \u201cJudeo-Christian tradition\u201d do not reflect the consensus of historians, legal scholars, or the judiciary. The concept of a unified \u201cJudeo-Christian tradition\u201d is itself a 20th-century construction, not a guiding framework for the nation\u2019s founding. Presenting it as such is misleading and ahistorical. Alabama students deserve history education that is accurate and consistent with professional standards.<\/p>\n<p>The founding generation lived in a religiously diverse society shaped by denominational pluralism and deep theological differences. The Constitution reflects this reality, notably in Article VI\u2019s prohibition on religious tests for public office. HB 216 imposes a rigid and ideologically driven interpretation of religion\u2019s role in American history\u2014one that risks infringing on students\u2019 rights and misrepresenting the past.<\/p>\n<p>The bill also unfairly impugns Alabama\u2019s educators. AHA <a href=\"https:\/\/www.historians.org\/teaching-learning\/k-12-education\/american-lesson-plan\/\">research<\/a> conducted between 2022 and 2024 found no evidence to support claims that teachers routinely distort constitutional principles or prioritize personal views. On the contrary, history educators rely on professional training and peer-reviewed scholarship. Mandating the claims advanced in HB 216 undermines that expertise rather than supporting it.<\/p>\n<p>HB 216 limits, rather than enriches, opportunities for meaningful study of the role of religion in American history. Students benefit from studying the history of the full diversity of American religious life\u2014not from reducing it to a single text or tradition.<\/p>\n<p>Founded in 1884, the American Historical Association is the largest membership organization of professional historians in the world, chartered by Congress to advance historical scholarship and promote the value of historical thinking in public life.<\/p>\n<p>We urge you to reject HB 216. The costs of defending this legislation in court would be better invested in instructional materials and professional development that strengthen history education across Alabama.<\/p>\n<p>Sincerely,<\/p>\n<p>Sarah Weicksel<br \/>\nExecutive Director<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The American Historical Association calls on its members, and all Alabamians who believe in teaching honest history, to contact their&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":18,"featured_media":22296,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"none","_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","footnotes":""},"aha-topic":[],"month":[],"geographic-taxonomy":[],"post-type":[777,10,613],"thematic-taxonomy":[],"year":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-115892","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","6":"hentry","7":"post-type-action-alerts","8":"post-type-advocacy","9":"post-type-history-education","13":"has-featured-image"},"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.historians.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/115892","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.historians.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.historians.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.historians.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/18"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.historians.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=115892"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/www.historians.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/115892\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":115939,"href":"https:\/\/www.historians.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/115892\/revisions\/115939"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.historians.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/22296"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.historians.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=115892"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"aha-topic","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.historians.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/aha-topic?post=115892"},{"taxonomy":"month","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.historians.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/month?post=115892"},{"taxonomy":"geographic-taxonomy","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.historians.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/geographic-taxonomy?post=115892"},{"taxonomy":"post-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.historians.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/post-type?post=115892"},{"taxonomy":"thematic-taxonomy","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.historians.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/thematic-taxonomy?post=115892"},{"taxonomy":"year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.historians.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/year?post=115892"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}