Journalist: Jasmine Hornek (ORU)
The Tulsa Race Massacre is one of the most significant events in Oklahoma’s history—yet for decades, it was absent from most history books and classrooms. Now, state legislators and student delegates alike are working to change that.
The Oklahoma Intercollegiate Legislature recently debated and passed a bill known as the Tulsa Race Massacre Education Act, which would require schools to teach students about the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre. The act mandates that the event be taught sometime between sixth and twelfth grade, ensuring students understand both the tragedy itself and its lasting impact on Oklahoma.
Xavier Gonzalez, a House representative from the Oklahoma State University delegation, shed further light on why such a bill is necessary.
“I personally did not learn about it until last year in college,” Gonzalez said. “From what I have heard, it is taught in Oklahoma, but maybe not to the degree that it needs to be.”
During caucus discussions, Gonzalez noted that delegates were primarily in favor of the bill, emphasizing the importance of remembrance and acknowledgment.
“The main thing was that it should be taught in schools and not undermined or forgotten in general,” he said.
The session also saw a hostile amendment proposing to remove subsection 4 of the bill, which stipulates that educators must refer to the event as the Tulsa Race Massacre and not the Tulsa Race Riot.
“The author of the amendment did not disagree that ‘riot’ was the wrong word,” Gonzalez said. “He was saying that because people already use that term historically, it should still be recognized for clarity. He was not against learning both but thought neither term should be exclusive.”
Ultimately, the amendment failed, and the bill retained the term Tulsa Race Massacre, reflecting the growing consensus that “massacre” more accurately describes the scale and nature of the 1921 events.
However, not all delegates believed the amendment should have failed. Greyson Hornek, a representative from the Oral Roberts University delegation, remained vocal about its importance.
“That hostile amendment should have passed,” Hornek said. “I think the body was not quite sure what it was about. It was not saying not to use ‘massacre’—it was just keeping it so both terms could be used in school. I was looking around the room, and not many people were even trying to give the amendment a chance.”