Former Oklahoma Attorney General Initiates Legal Challenge Against State Board Over Social Studies Standards

In a dramatic press conference this morning, former Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter announced a lawsuit against the Oklahoma State Board of Education (OSBE) and Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters. This legal action stems from claims that the board improperly adopted new social studies standards, alleged to have been passed without following required due process protocols. Hunter stated that proper due process, which necessitates 'adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard,' was not adhered to during the approval process. According to the lawsuit filed, the Oklahoma Administrative Procedures Act mandates the OSBE to follow established internal rules and procedures in developing, proposing, and adopting social studies standards, which, Hunter argues, they failed to do. Hunter's lawsuit contends that revisions to the standards included approximately 30 references to the Bible and introduced religious content into Oklahoma's public school curriculum, raising significant concerns among parents and educators. It highlights that changes to the standards were not disclosed before a critical board vote on February 27, leading to accusations of misleading conduct from the Superintendent. During the board's meeting, newly appointed members expressed their alarm that they had not been granted sufficient time to study the extensive 179-page document before voting, and cited changes in the standards they had not been informed about prior to the meeting. This situation has garnered attention due to broader challenges against educational policies perceived as politically charged or constitutionally questionable. The plaintiffs—parents, educators, and community members—are seeking a court ruling to deem the standards invalid. Hunter did not seek financial damages but emphasized the importance of legitimacy in educational law, given that these standards will govern the education of over 800,000 students in Oklahoma. Their enactment without proper legislative scrutiny, he argues, undermines democratic processes. Walters, on the defensive, responded to the lawsuit by defending the standards as fundamentally pro-American and in line with public interest. He accused unions of being behind the legal action and suggested that those opposing the standards are against patriotic education. The contrast in narratives between Hunter and Walters underscores a larger debate about educational content—the role of religious perspectives in public education and the integrity of governance processes. As the case progresses, it will undoubtedly spotlight critical issues about governance, accountability, and the politicization of education in Oklahoma. The lawsuit could serve as a litmus test for how such standards can be managed in the future, potentially setting a precedent for how educational policies are shaped and approved moving forward.