censorship in schools essay

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

America's Censored Classrooms

Key findings.

Educational gag orders are state legislative efforts to restrict teaching about topics such as race, gender, American history, and LGBTQ+ identities in K–12 and higher education. PEN America tracks these bills in our Index of Educational Gag Orders , updated weekly.

In this report, we analyze the landscape of educational gag orders as of August 2022—a natural point for reflecting on the year’s legislation. Most state legislatures meet during the first half of the year; additional educational gag orders could become law before the end of 2022 via special sessions or in the few legislatures that meet year-round. However, the work of the vast majority of state legislatures has concluded until 2023.

Introduction

There is a legislative war on education in America. At the heart of this war are educational gag orders—state legislative attempts to restrict teaching, training, and learning in K–12 schools and higher education. These bills, which generally target discussions of race, gender, sexuality, and US history, began to appear during the 2021 legislative session and quickly spread to statehouses throughout the country. By the year’s end, 54 bills had been filed in 22 states, of which 12 became law.

In 2022, these battles have intensified.

Since the start of this year, lawmakers in 36 different states have introduced a total of 137 educational gag order bills, an increase of 250 percent over 2021. Only seven new gag order bills have become law so far this year, but these include some of the most censorious laws to date. And the dramatic increase in the number of bills introduced is itself a cause for alarm, reflecting a heightened inclination toward censorship. Bills introduced in 2022 have tended to be more punitive, to target a greater number of educational institutions, and to restrict a wider array of speech. The entire year can be summarized in a single word: escalation.

This report offers a deep dive into what these bills say and how they operate. It builds on PEN America’s 2021 report on educational gag orders, as well as the PEN America Index of Educational Gag Orders, a comprehensive dataset, updated weekly, of every gag order bill introduced since January 2021. 1 PEN America, Educational Gag Orders: Legislative Restrictions on the Freedom to Read, Learn, and Teach, November 2021, https://pen.org/report/educational-gag-orders/ ; PEN America Index of Educational Gag Orders, https://airtable.com/appg59iDuPhlLPPFp/shrtwubfBUo2tuHyO .  Taken as a whole, this report represents the most detailed legislative analysis available of educational gag order bills and laws at a national level, including the specific content being targeted by legislators, new strategies in gag order design, and the emerging dangers that these bills pose to freedom of speech, thought, and access to information. Bills that have become law in 2022, as well as executive orders enacted this year, are singled out for special analysis in Section I. 2 Note: To avoid confusion regarding bills introduced in 2022 and those introduced in 2021 but considered in both years of a legislative session, we have omitted dates from the bills referenced in footnotes. Except where otherwise noted, each bill referenced was considered in 2022.

A note on the scope of this report: PEN America recognizes that public education is a public good, subject to public debate, deliberation, and oversight; that a wide range of stakeholders should have a say in our educational system; and that views will vary regarding which materials and courses are of legitimate educational value. Our aim is not to take a position on the pedagogical benefits or drawbacks of specific curricular materials, educational approaches, intellectual frameworks, or professional trainings. Our serious concerns are about gag orders, and constitute neither an endorsement of specific wholesale curricula nor a rejection of the concerns of parents, teachers, and others with a stake in public education. 

As a literary and human rights organization, our chief concern is with state censorship of the free flow of ideas, and with government restrictions on the freedom to read, to learn, and to teach. Proponents of educational gag orders often claim that they are necessary to avoid “indoctrination” of students. We disagree. As discussed below, the vagueness and overbreadth of these laws pose significant constitutional issues; they are hardly an effective tool. Instead, the restrictions and chilling effects of gag order laws threaten to destroy the climate of open inquiry required in free and democratic educational institutions.  

While state governments and school boards do have leeway to set curricular standards, it has also been recognized by the Supreme Court that in doing so they should reflect democratic principles and retain space for dissent. In the words of Justice William J. Brennan, writing for the majority in Keyishian v. Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York (1967) , schools must not “cast a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom.” 3 Keyishian v. Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York , 385 US 589 (1967), https://www.thefire.org/first-amendment-library/decision/keyishian-et-al-v-board-of-regents-of-the-university-of-the-state-of-new-york-et-al/ .  Writing for the plurality in Board of Education, Island Trees Union School District No. 26 v. Pico (1982) , Brennan further elaborated that public schools must operate “in a manner that comports with the transcendent imperatives of the First Amendment.” 4 Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico , 457 US 853 (1982), https://www.thefire.org/first-amendment-library/decision/board-of-education-island-trees-union-free-school-district-no-26-et-al-v-pico-by-his-next-friend-pico-et-al/ .

We stand resolute that educational gag orders violate these precepts and ought to be opposed and reversed. As we stated in 2021, 

The teaching of history, civics, and American identity has never been neutral or uncontested, and reasonable people can disagree over how and when educators should teach children about racism, sexism, and other facets of American history and society. But in a democracy, the response to these disagreements can never be to ban discussion of ideas or facts simply because they are contested or cause discomfort. As American society reckons with the persistence of racial discrimination and inequity, and the complexities of historical memory, attempts to use the power of the state to constrain discussion of these issues must be rejected. 5 PEN America, Educational Gag Orders: Legislative Restrictions on the Freedom to Read, Learn, and Teach , November 2021, https://pen.org/report/educational-gag-orders/

Finally, this report analyzes patterns among not only educational gag orders that have become law, but also those that were introduced in 2022 and failed, or that remain pending in state legislatures at the time of publication. Many such bills are close relatives of others that passed or nearly passed; others are messaging bills introduced in blue states where they were unlikely to advance. A few died thanks to effective politicking by their opponents; this list includes multiple gag order bills in Indiana, which were defeated in 2022 amid political gaffes, citizen pressure, and disagreements among Republican legislators over whether the bills went too far or not far enough. 6 Stephanie Wang and Aleksandra Appleton, “How Indiana’s Anti-CRT Bill Failed Even with a GOP Supermajority,” Chalkbeat Indiana, March 10, 2022, https://in.chalkbeat.org/2022/3/10/22971488/indiana-divisive-concepts-anticrt-bill-failed-gop-supermajority/ . A few more failed because of the vagaries of chance. These include West Virginia’s SB 498, where lawmakers failed by just minutes to meet the end-of-session deadline, and Arizona’s SB 1412, where one state senator’s absence on the last day of the session prevented the bill from becoming law. 7 Liz McCormick and Suzanne Higgins, “‘Anti-Racism Act’ Fails in Final Moments of 2022 Legislative Session,” West Virginia Public Broadcasting, March 13, 2022, https://www.wvpublic.org/government/2022-03-13/anti-racism-act-fails-in-final-moments-of-2022-session ;  “Arizona Legislature Updates: Lawmakers Adjourn for Final Time after Passing Water, School Voucher Bills,” Arizona Republic , June 25, 2022, https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/legislature/2022/06/22/arizona-budget-updates-lawmakers-turn-attention-deal/7707801001/ .

While successful legislation is the greatest threat to classroom free expression, the avalanche of proposed bills that did not pass are also worthy of both attention and concern. Such bills evince a desire among lawmakers to censor educators in more places and using more extreme measures than they have done already, and they contain provisions that stand a good chance of being reintroduced in 2023. They also create a broad chilling effect among teachers and professors both by their pervasiveness and by the censorious discourse they inspire—part of a nationwide campaign of classroom censorship that shows no signs of abating.

The 2022 State Legislative Sessions in Review

Educational gag orders passed in 2022.

*HB 7 regulates speech by private employers, including “subjecting any individual, as a condition of…certification,…credentialing, or passing an examination,” to “instruction” that promotes ideas from a list of “divisive concepts.” Depending on further state guidance, this language could be construed to regulate classroom speech within nonpublic educational institutions.

The most striking development to date in 2022 has been the sheer volume of bills introduced. In the month of January alone, 18 different educational gag order bills were filed in Missouri, 8 in Indiana, and 6 in Arizona (including 1 amendment to the state constitution). By the time most legislative sessions wound down in June, virtually every state where Republicans control at least one legislative chamber had considered an educational gag order in 2022. The only exceptions were Arkansas, which had already passed a gag order the previous year, and states whose legislatures do not meet in 2022. 8 Arkansas SB 627, https://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/Acts/FTPDocument?path=%2FACTS%2F2021R%2FPublic%2F&file=1100.pdf&ddBienniumSession=2021%2F2021R .

Consistent with last year’s trends, Republican legislators have been the driving force behind educational gag order bills. Only one bill introduced from January-August 2022 has had a Democratic sponsor: Arizona’s HB 2634, which would have prohibited public K–12 schools from using any instructional materials “reflecting adversely” on certain groups of people—a standard so broad that it could have legitimated all manner of censorship. 9 PEN America, “Failed Bill Brought by Arizona Democrats Would Have Restricted What Teachers Can Teach,” July 5, 2022, https://pen.org/press-release/failed-bill-brought-by-arizona-democrats-would-have-restricted-what-teachers-can-teach/ . But this bill was filed only two days before the end of the Arizona legislative session and never had any chance of passage. Every other gag order bill introduced in 2022 across the country has been written and sponsored exclusively by Republican legislators. 

Compared to last year’s crop, the gag order bills introduced thus far in 2022 have tended to be more expansive and to target a wider array of educational speech than those filed last year. Instruction related to race has been the most common category of speech to draw lawmakers’ attention, which was true in 2021 as well. But this year has also seen a sharp increase in the number of bills targeting LGBTQ+ issues and identities; 23 such bills have been introduced since the beginning of the year, and one, Florida’s HB 1557, became law. Overall, there has also been an increase in the complexity and scale of legislation, as lawmakers have sought to assert political control over everything from classroom speech to library content, from teachers’ professional training to field trips and extracurricular activities.

Another notable development to date in 2022 has been the growing number of bills targeting higher education. Of the 137 educational gag order bills introduced, 39 percent have targeted colleges and universities, compared to 30 percent of those filed in 2021. Of the bills that have become law thus far in 2022, 57 percent target higher education, compared with just 25 percent of the new laws last year. There has also been a significant increase in the number of bills designed to regulate non-public educational institutions, including private universities.

Finally, the bills introduced this year have been much more punitive. Thus far in 2022, 55 percent of bills have contained some kind of explicit punishment for violations, compared to 44 percent in 2021. Moreover, those punishments have tended to be more extreme, including private rights of action, large monetary fines, faculty termination, and loss of institutional accreditation. Some unsuccessful bills have even proposed criminal penalties.

In our 2021 report, we stated that educational gag orders demonstrate “ a disregard for academic freedom, liberal education, and the values of free speech and open inquiry that are enshrined in the First Amendment and that anchor a democratic society.” We also argued that they “are likely to disproportionately affect the free speech rights of students, educators, and trainers who are women, people of color, and LGBTQ+.” 10 PEN America, Educational Gag Orders: Legislative Restrictions on the Freedom to Read, Learn, and Teach , November 2021, https://pen.org/report/educational-gag-orders/ .  These trends continue in 2022 .

This report consists of six sections. In Section I, we survey the seven educational gag order laws and two executive orders enacted in 2022. In Section II, we discuss the types of educational institutions targeted by gag order bills this year. In Section III, we delve into the design of these bills, focusing on overall structure and the ways legislators have sought to regulate educational content. In Section IV, we analyze the content of the bills themselves, exploring the shifting priorities and objectives of their advocates and supporters. Section V discusses penalties and punishments, an area where there has been considerable evolution since 2021.

Finally, in Section VI, we discuss trends we are likely to see going forward, including: 

a. another wave of educational gag order bills, especially in Republican-controlled legislatures;

b. a greater focus in educational gag order bills on restricting higher education, nonpublic educational institutions, and LGBTQ+ content;

c. litigation by both opponents and supporters of educational gag orders; and

d. a broader spectrum of educational censorship, including so-called “curriculum transparency” bills, reporting hotlines, legislation facilitating book bans and undermining tenure and academic freedom, and lawsuits designed to force maximal interpretations of existing gag order laws.

SECTION I: Laws and Executive Orders Enacted in 2022

Of the 137 legislative gag order bills introduced in 2022, seven have become law. Additionally, two executive orders that achieve similar ends have gone into effect. These laws and executive orders are summarized below.

Florida HB 1557 11 Florida HB 1557 , https://legiscan.com/FL/bill/H1557/2022 .

• Targets: public K–12 schools
• Type of prohibition: inclusion
• Type of punishment: private right of action
• Legal challenges: Equality Florida v. DeSantis [pending]; Cousins v. the School Board of Orange County [pending] 12 Equality Florida v. DeSantis , 4:22cv134 (2022), https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21564702-equality-florida-et-al-v-desantis-et-al-complaint ; Cousins v. the School Board of Orange County , 6:22cv1312 (2022), https://www.lambdalegal.org/sites/default/files/legal-docs/downloads/cousins_fl_20220726_complaint.pdf .

This law prohibits public schools from offering any classroom instruction related to sexual orientation or gender identity prior to grade 3, or in grades thereafter in a manner “that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.” Additional requirements related to “curriculum transparency” are also included. Parents who believe that a school has violated the law may file a complaint with the commissioner of education or sue the school in civil court.

Florida HB 7 13 Florida HB 7, https://legiscan.com/FL/bill/H0007/2022 .

• Targets: employers, public K–12 schools, public colleges and universities
• Type of prohibition: inclusion, promotion, compulsion
• Type of punishment: monetary fine, loss of state financial support
• Legal challenges: Falls v. DeSantis [ pending ], Honeyfund.com v. DeSantis [pending] 14 Falls v. DeSantis , 4:22cv166 (2022), https://aboutblaw.com/2G4 ; Honeyfund.com v. DeSantis , 4:22cv227 (2022), https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22065949-1-complaint-honeyfund-v-desantis .

This law includes three principal provisions. The first prohibits all employers, including both public and nonpublic educational institutions, from requiring an individual to attend, as a condition of “ certification, licensing, credentialing, or passing an examination,” any training or instruction where ideas from a list of “divisive concepts” about race, sex, color, or national origin are espoused, promoted, advanced, inculcated, or imposed. 15 Most of these bills include some or all of the “divisive concepts” listed in President Trump’s September 2020 executive order on “Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping.” The list is common across most bills, with some adaptation. See Executive Order 13950, “Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping,” September 22, 2020, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/09/28/2020-21534/combating-race-and-sex-stereotyping . Employers who do so may be fined up to $10,000 per violation under Florida’s Civil Rights Act. The second provision extends this same prohibition to classroom instruction in public K–12 schools, colleges, and universities. In the case of public K–12 schools, no punishment is specified. However, under a separate law passed shortly after HB 7, public colleges and universities found to have violated this prohibition may lose access to state financial support. 16 Florida SB 2524, https://legiscan.com/FL/text/S2524/id/2548804 . The third provision requires that all instruction and supporting materials in public K–12 schools be “consistent” with a list of principles related to race, color, national origin, religion, disability, or sex—principles that essentially contradict the prohibited ideas enumerated elsewhere in the law. Teachers may not “indoctrinate or persuade” students to adopt any belief inconsistent with these principles. No punishment is specified.

Georgia HB 1084 17 Georgia HB 1084, https://legiscan.com/GA/bill/HB1084/2021 .

• Type of prohibition: promotion
• Type of punishment: loss of institutional autonomy, professional discipline
• Legal challenges: none

This law prohibits public K–12 schools from adopting or engaging in any curriculum, classroom instruction, or mandatory training program that promotes ideas from a list of “divisive concepts” related to race. School districts found to have violated this law may be subject to additional state control, and superintendents of such school districts may be suspended.

Kentucky SB 1 18 Kentucky SB 1, https://legiscan.com/KY/text/SB1/id/2569767 .

• Type of prohibition: inclusion, promotion
• Type of punishment: none specified

This law requires public K–12 schools to provide instruction that is “consistent” with ideas related to race, sex, US history and society, and human nature, including the idea that “defining racial disparities solely on the legacy of [slavery] is destructive to the unification of our nation.” Any instruction about “current, controversial topics related to public policy or social affairs” must be “relevant, objective, nondiscriminatory, and respectful to the differing perspectives of students.” No punishment is specified.

Mississippi SB 2113 19 Mississippi SB 2113 , https://legiscan.com/MS/bill/SB2113/2022 .

• Targets: public K–12 schools, public colleges and universities
• Type of prohibition: compulsion

This law prohibits public K–12 schools, colleges, and universities from “direct[ing] or otherwise compel[ling]” students to “adopt, affirm, or adhere to” ideas from a list of “divisive concepts” related to sex, race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin. These educational institutions are also forbidden from making any “distinction or classification of students” on the basis of race. No public funds may be spent for any purpose that would violate this law.

South Dakota HB 1012 20 South Dakota HB 1012 , https://legiscan.com/SD/bill/HB1012/2022 .

• Targets: public colleges and universities

This law prohibits public colleges and universities in South Dakota from compelling students to adopt or affirm certain ideas from a list of “divisive concepts” related to race, color, religion, sex, ethnicity, or national origin. It also bars these institutions from requiring students or employees to attend any training or orientation where these ideas are taught or promoted. No public funds may be spent for any purpose that would violate this law.

Tennessee HB 2670 21 Tennessee HB 2670 , https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/Billinfo/default.aspx?BillNumber=HB2670&ga=112 .

• Type of prohibition: inclusion, compulsion

This law prohibits public colleges and universities from conducting any mandatory student or employee training that includes ideas from a list of “divisive concepts” related to race, sex, religion, creed, nonviolent political affiliation, social class, or any other “class of people,” or that “promotes resentment” of any such group. For the purposes of this law, “training” includes “seminars, workshops, trainings, and orientations,” which under some interpretations could include classroom instruction. Public colleges and universities may not compel students or employees to adopt these ideas, or condition hiring, tenure, promotion, or graduation on whether a student or employee endorses a “specific ideology or political viewpoint.” Individuals who believe this provision has been violated may pursue legal remedy in an appropriate court. The law contains a likely unenforceable savings clause stating that it is not to be interpreted to infringe on an individual’s academic freedom or First Amendment rights.

Executive Orders

South dakota executive order 2022-2 22 south dakota executive order 2022-2 , https://governor.sd.gov/doc/govnoem-k12crt-eo.pdf ..

• Type of prohibition: promotion, compulsion

This executive order prohibits public K–12 schools from promoting any ideas “in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” including ideas from a list of “divisive concepts” related to r ace, color, religion, sex, ethnicity, or national origin. No punishment is specified.

Virginia Executive Order 1 23 Virginia Executive Order 1 , https://www.governor.virginia.gov/media/governorvirginiagov/governor-of-virginia/pdf/74—eo/74—eo/EO-1—ENDING-THE-USE-OF-INHERENTLY-DIVISIVE-CONCEPTS,-INCLUDING-CRITICAL-RACE-THEORY,-AND-RESTORING-EXCELLEN.pdf .

This executive order prohibits public K–12 schools from directing or otherwise compelling students to adopt or affirm any ideas “in violation of Title IV and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” including a list of “divisive concepts” related to race, skin color, ethnicity, sex, or religion. No punishment is specified. Separate from the executive order, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin created an email tip line for members of the public to report violations.

SECTION II: Types of Institutions Targeted

As in 2021, the vast majority of educational gag order bills introduced this year have targeted K–12 schools. Of those bills introduced, 132, or 96 percent, have trained their sights on primary and secondary education, including classroom instruction, faculty and staff trainings, invited speakers, school libraries, field trips, and extracurricular activities.

Beyond K–12 schools, a growing number of bills have targeted public colleges and universities. Last year, 30 percent of educational gag order bills targeted public higher education. In 2022, that number has increased to 39 percent, several of which, like South Dakota’s HB 1012, focus exclusively on higher education. 24 South Dakota’s HB 1012 became law in 2022. South Dakota HB 1012, https://legiscan.com/SD/bill/HB1012/2022 .  

This trend represents something of an about-face for many Republican lawmakers, who just four or five years ago were enthusiastically touting so-called Campus Free Speech Acts purportedly designed to protect intellectual diversity and free expression. 25 Such campus free speech laws have continued to pass in 2022—for instance Georgia’s HB 1, the “Forming Open and Robust University Minds Act.” See PEN America, “Chasm in the Classroom: Campus Free Speech in a Divided America,” 2019, https://pen.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/2019-PEN-Chasm-in-the-Classroom-04.25.pdf , and Georgia HB 1, https://legiscan.com/GA/text/HB1/2021 .   Now many are targeting higher education with some of the most censorious language to date.

One of the most prominent examples in 2022 of a law that restricts higher education is Florida’s HB 7. Officially titled the Individual Freedom Act, the law prohibits public K–12 schools, colleges, and universities from “subject[ing] any student or employee to training or instruction that espouses, promotes, advances, inculcates, or compels such student or employee to believe” a list of concepts related to race, color, national origin, or sex.

This provision poses a threat to college and university faculty members’ First Amendment rights. “To impose any strait jacket upon the intellectual leaders in our colleges and universities,” Supreme Court chief justice Earl Warren declared in Sweezy v. New Hampshire (1957), “would imperil the future of our Nation.” The constitutional freedom of public university faculty to “espouse,” “promote,” and “advance” whatever ideas they view as relevant to their scholarship or course content is integral to the academy’s mission; “otherwise,” wrote the court, “our civilization will stagnate and die.” 26 Sweezy v. New Hampshire , 354 US 234 (1957), https://www.thefire.org/first-amendment-library/decision/sweezy-v-new-hampshire-by-wyman-attorney-general/ .

HB 7 also deals a significant blow to academic freedom. For example, one of the concepts that HB 7 prohibits faculty from espousing is that “an individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment to achieve diversity, equity, or inclusion.” By any reasonable interpretation, HB 7 makes it illegal in the state of Florida for a law professor to articulate arguments in favor of affirmative action in the classroom—even though affirmative action exists and is currently held by the Supreme Court to be constitutional in some forms. 27 Regents of University of California v. Bakke , 438 U.S. 265 (1978), https://www.oyez.org/cases/1979/76-811 .   Recent guidance issued by the Florida Board of Governors and various state universities has not allayed these concerns. 28 Florida Board of Governors, 10.005 Prohibition of Discrimination in University Training or Instruction, https://www.flbog.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/10.005-Prohibition-of-Discrimination-in-University-Training-or-Instruction.pdf ; University of Florida, “Understanding House Bill 7,” https://media.coip.aa.ufl.edu/public_live/hb7/presentation_html5.html ;  Northwest Florida State College, “HB7,” https://cdn.muckrock.com/foia_files/2022/06/20/HB_7_Circle_5.3.22.pdf ; University of North Florida, “House Bill 7 (2022) Restrictions on Training/Instruction—Requirements & Action Plan,” https://www.muckrock.com/foi/jacksonville-326/hb7-impact-university-of-north-florida-129928/?#file-1023523 .

Tennessee’s HB 2670, which also became law this year, goes further. It forbids public colleges and universities from including certain “divisive concepts” in a seminar, workshop, training, or orientation. 29 Tennessee HB 2670, https://legiscan.com/TN/text/HB2670/id/2502636/Tennessee-2021-HB2670-Draft.pdf . Educational gag orders that contain prohibitions on inclusion of certain concepts (analyzed at length in Section III) are typically the most censorious, forbidding even neutral and objective discussions of particular ideas. For example, under the law, public universities in Tennessee may no longer discuss in a seminar or assign for an orientation any material that “promotes division between, or resentment of, a race, sex, religion, creed, nonviolent political affiliation, social class, or class of people.” This provision could be construed to mean that a historian of the US civil rights era or of the Holocaust cannot include in a course historical sources that might inspire “resentment” of the Ku Klux Klan or the Nazis, each of whom might be considered a “class of people,” a term that is not defined.  

These concerns are not far-fetched. In a lawsuit challenging HB 7, a University of Central Florida professor explained that he no longer felt free under the law to discuss with his students Michelle Alexander’s 2010 book, The New Jim Crow : Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness , which argues that the American justice system perpetuates a racial caste system. 30 Falls v. DeSantis , 4:22cv166 (2022), https://aboutblaw.com/2G4 .  According to the professor, Alexander’s argument violates HB 7’s rule against promoting the view that “[a] person’s . . . status as either privileged or oppressed is necessarily determined by his or her race.” In their response, lawyers for the state of Florida acknowledged this example but argued that the professor could still discuss The New Jim Crow so long as he did so objectively and without endorsement. “Is that really all the First Amendment offers,” wrote the judge hearing the case in his decision denying the government’s motion to dismiss, “that you can speak all you want as long as you toe the government line?” 31 Judge Mark E. Walker, “Order Granting in Part and Denying In Part Motion to Dismiss,” Falls v. DeSantis , 4:22cv166 (2022),  https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flnd.430092/gov.uscourts.flnd.430092.68.0.pdf .

This year has also brought a sharp increase in the number of bills targeting nonpublic educational institutions. In all of 2021, only one bill (Louisiana’s HB 564) sought to regulate speech in such institutions. By contrast, 13 bills have done so in 2022, though most have been unsuccessful. 32 The full list of such bills includes: Alaska HB 391, https://legiscan.com/AK/text/HB391/id/2525369/Alaska-2021-HB391-Introduced.pdf ; Florida HB 7, https://legiscan.com/FL/bill/H0007/2022 ; Georgia SB 613, https://legiscan.com/GA/text/SB613/id/2542860/Georgia-2021-SB613-Introduced.pdf ; Indiana HB 1134, https://legiscan.com/IN/text/HB1134/id/2464216/Indiana-2022-HB1134-Introduced.pdf ; Indiana HB 1231, https://legiscan.com/IN/text/HB1231/id/2465267/Indiana-2022-HB1231-Introduced.pdf ; Iowa SF 2043, https://legiscan.com/IA/text/SF2043/id/2478845/Iowa-2021-SF2043-Introduced.html ; Kentucky HB 487, https://legiscan.com/KY/text/HB487/id/2513646/Kentucky-2022-HB487-Introduced.pdf ; Maryland HB 1256, https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2022RS/bills/hb/hb1256F.pdf ; Mississippi HB 1492, https://legiscan.com/MS/text/HB1492/id/2493751/Mississippi-2022-HB1492-Introduced.html ; Mississippi HB 437, https://legiscan.com/MS/text/HB437/id/2465352/Mississippi-2022-HB437-Introduced.html ; Ohio HB 616, https://legiscan.com/OH/text/HB616/id/2562626/Ohio-2021-HB616-Introduced.pdf ; South Carolina H 4605, https://legiscan.com/SC/text/H4605/id/2450490/South_Carolina-2021-H4605-Introduced.html ; and Tennessee HB 2313, https://legiscan.com/TN/text/HB2313/id/2500053/Tennessee-2021-HB2313-Draft.pdf . These bills have adopted new and creative enforcement mechanisms designed to overcome the fact that nonpublic schools and universities are better shielded constitutionally against government curricular dictates. These mechanisms, as well as the bills more generally, are discussed at length in Section IV.

Finally, lawmakers in 2022 seem to have lost their appetite for regulating speech and conduct in nonschool settings. The original model for most educational gag orders, President Trump’s September 2020 Executive Order 13950 on “Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping,” focused primarily on trainings in federal agencies and military academies, but not in other K–12 or higher education institutions. 33 Executive Order 13950, “Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping,” September 22, 2020, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/09/28/2020-21534/combating-race-and-sex-stereotyping .

Whereas last year it was quite common for gag order bills to target state agencies, political subdivisions, and state contractors, reference to these institutions has been more or less absent in bills introduced this year. Thanks in part to a perception that Glenn Youngkin won the Virginia governor’s race in November 2021 by campaigning against critical race theory in schools, most 2022 educational gag order bills have focused on educational settings—that is to say, they have aimed to restrict students’ education. 34  Amanda Becker, “Republicans See Schools as 2022 Political Battleground,” 19th (website), March 23, 2022, https://19thnews.org/2022/03/republicans-schools-2022-political-battleground-election/ .

SECTION III: Types of Prohibitions

In broad terms, the educational gag order bills introduced since 2021 contain three distinct types of prohibitions: on compulsion, on promotion, and on inclusion of so-called “divisive concepts.” Many bills contain more than one of these prohibitions.

Prohibitions on Compulsion

These gag order bills would prohibit schools or universities from compelling individuals to adopt, affirm, or espouse a specific idea. For example, Idaho’s HB 377, which became law in 2021, states that no public university or school shall “direct or otherwise compel students to personally affirm, adopt, or adhere to” certain concepts related to sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin. 42 Idaho HB 377, https://legislature.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/sessioninfo/2021/legislation/H0377.pdf . Missouri’s HB 1995 would have forbidden public schools from “compel[ling] a teacher or student to adopt, affirm, adhere to, or profess ideas in violation of Title IV or Title VI of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964.” 43 Missouri HB 1995, https://legiscan.com/MO/text/HB1995/id/2519671/Missouri-2022-HB1995-Comm_Sub.pdf . During 2022, bills with this type of prohibition became law in Mississippi and South Dakota. 44 Mississippi SB 2113, https://legiscan.com/MS/text/SB2113/id/2546132/Mississippi-2022-SB2113-Enrolled.html ; South Dakota HB 1012, https://legiscan.com/SD/text/HB1012/id/2543182/South_Dakota-2022-HB1012-Enrolled.pdf .  

Prohibitions on compulsion have increased significantly in 2022, appearing in 24 percent of bills compared to just 10 percent in 2021.

Prohibitions on Promotion

The second type of gag order bills would prohibit the promotion, endorsement, or inculcation of particular ideas or concepts. Florida’s HB 7 is a good example. It prohibits public universities and K–12 schools from “subject[ing] any student or employee to training or instruction that espouses, promotes, advances, [or] inculcates . . . such student or employee to believe” certain concepts about race, color, national origin, or sex. 45 Florida HB 7, https://legiscan.com/FL/bill/H0007/2022 . Similarly, South Carolina’s H 4605 would have forbidden state-funded entities from “subject[ing] individuals to . . . instruction, presentations, discussions, or counseling that affirms or promotes” what the bill describes as “discriminatory concepts.” 46 South Carolina H 4605, https://legiscan.com/SC/text/H4605/id/2450490/South_Carolina-2021-H4605-Introduced.html .

A related set of bills would require that all instruction on controversial topics be “balanced” or “objective.” Many such provisions are adapted from the “Partisanship Out of Civics Act” model legislation developed by Stanley Kurtz, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. 47 Stanley Kurtz, “The Partisanship Out of Civics Act,” National Association of Scholars, February 15, 2021, https://www.nas.org/blogs/article/the-partisanship-out-of-civics-act . For instance, Texas’s SB 3, which became law in 2021, states that whenever public K–12 school teachers broach a “current event or widely debated and currently controversial issue of public policy or social affairs,” they must “strive to explore the topic from diverse and contending perspectives without giving deference to any one perspective.” 48 Texas SB 3, https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/872/billtext/pdf/SB00003E.pdf#navpanes=0 . Missouri’s SB 694 would have required teachers to teach controversial topics “from both sides and without showing preference or deference to one perspective.” 49 Missouri SB 694, https://legiscan.com/MO/text/SB694/id/2453615/Missouri-2022-SB694-Introduced.pdf . And under Kentucky’s SB 1, which became law in April 2022, instruction must be “relevant, objective, non-discriminatory, and respectful to the differing perspectives of students.” 50 Kentucky SB 1, https://legiscan.com/KY/text/SB1/id/2569767 .

The frequency of prohibitions on promotion this year has been virtually unchanged from 2021: 40 percent of bills have contained a ban on promoting certain types of ideas in 2022, compared to 39 percent in 2021.

Prohibitions on Inclusion

The final type of prohibition found in gag order bills would prohibit educators from “including,” “discussing,” or “making part of a course” certain topics or ideas in the curriculum, regardless of how objective or balanced the discussion is. For example, under Mississippi’s HB 437, public K–12 schools would have been unable to “include . . . divisive concepts as part of a course of instruction or in a curriculum or instructional material.” 51 Mississippi HB 437, https://legiscan.com/MS/text/HB437/id/2465352/Mississippi-2022-HB437-Introduced.html . A similar provision appears in Indiana’s SB 167, Indiana’s SB 415, and other proposed gag order bills. 52 Indiana SB 167, https://legiscan.com/IN/text/SB0167/id/2462721/Indiana-2022-SB0167-Introduced.pdf ; Indiana SB 415, https://legiscan.com/IN/text/SB0415/id/2471417/Indiana-2022-SB0415-Introduced.pdf .  

Other bills would achieve a similar effect via a different route. Instead of prohibiting the inclusion of certain concepts, they would require that instruction be “consistent” with those concepts’ ideological opposites. For instance, Kentucky’s SB 1, which became law in 2022, contains an Orwellian passage requiring that all “instruction and instructional materials” in public K–12 schools be “consistent with” the following “understanding”: “that the institution of slavery and post-Civil War laws enforcing racial segregation and discrimination were contrary to the fundamental American promise of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, but that defining racial disparities solely on the legacy of this institution is destructive to the unification of our nation.” 53 Kentucky SB 1, https://legiscan.com/KY/text/SB1/id/2569767/Kentucky-2022-SB1-Chaptered.pdf . Similar “consistency” language can be found in Florida’s HB 7 and Rhode Island’s H 7539. 54 Florida HB 7, https://legiscan.com/FL/bill/H0007/2022 ; Rhode Island H 7539, https://legiscan.com/RI/text/H7539/id/2522893/Rhode_Island-2022-H7539-Introduced.pdf .

Inclusion bans have become less commonplace in bills introduced in 2022. Whereas half of all gag order bills contained a prohibition on inclusion in 2021, this year only 35 percent have contained such a prohibition.

Of these three types of prohibitions—compulsion, promotion, and inclusion—those bills that prohibit inclusion are the most censorious. Where the bills have been implemented, it makes no difference how objectively a teacher discusses a given idea, or even whether they forcefully critique it. The mere fact of including that idea in the curriculum risks violating legislation in this category. 

Yet there are many occasions in which a teacher would be justified in discussing a controversial topic or idea, even those that are racist or sexist. For instance, a history teacher might wish to assign, as part of a unit on the US Civil War, Alexander Stephens’s 1861 “Cornerstone Speech,” in which the Confederate vice president mounts a defense of slavery. Or a civics teacher might wish to discuss racism in the United States, citing by way of example the ideas of contemporary white supremacists. If these teachers work in a state with an inclusion ban, presenting such ideas in the classroom would put them at risk of violating the law. 

The prohibitions on promotion are problematic as well. Such requirements may seem harmless, but in practical terms their vague, nonspecific language offers limitless opportunities for activists or administrators to claim teachers are in violation of such provisions. 55 PEN America, “For Educational Gag Orders, the Vagueness Is the Point,” April 28, 2022, https://pen.org/for-educational-gag-orders-the-vagueness-is-the-point/ .  As PEN America has previously explained, it is impossible to draw a clear line between teaching about a point of view and “promoting” that point of view. It is in the nature of education that some students will embrace and believe in at least some of the concepts taught. These prohibitions on promotion are in effect prohibitions on inclusion, albeit differently worded. 56 PEN America, Educational Gag Orders: Legislative Restrictions on the Freedom to Read, Learn, and Teach , November 2021, https://pen.org/report/educational-gag-orders/ .

Similarly, no universally accepted distinction exists between a “balanced” presentation of material and a biased one; implementation of such requirements is essentially subjective, dependent on the interpretations of individual parents, administrators, or enforcement agencies. Heterodox Academy, an organization “deeply concerned about . . . an absence of viewpoint diversity” at the college level, has nevertheless opposed laws mandating balance in college classrooms; “legislation that takes this judgment away from intellectual communities,” they wrote in 2019, “threatens the ability of those communities to maintain order and advance pedagogical aims.” 57 Heterodox Academy, “On South Dakota’s HB 1087 and Legislating Viewpoint Diversity,” June 17, 2019, https://heterodoxacademy.org/blog/south-dakota-hb-1087-legislating-viewpoint-diversity/ .

The damage these prohibitions may cause is especially clear for bills that target public colleges and universities, where the First Amendment protects the right of faculty members to teach in the classroom whatever idea they wish, provided it is germane to the overall subject matter of the course and delivered in a manner that complies with university policies. That right is also protected under the principles of academic freedom, both in public universities and in the vast majority of private colleges that have voluntarily undertaken to uphold academic protections. Without these freedoms, university educators would be unable to engage in rigorous scholarship or effective teaching, intervene critically in public debates, invite speakers representing a range of views to campus, or distinguish forcefully between truth and falsehood.

While governments have greater leeway to determine what is taught in K–12 schools, that does not mean that prohibitions on promotion are wise. For instance, how does one determine whether a teacher has illegally “promoted” an idea in the classroom? What one student views as a ringing endorsement might appear to another to be a straightforward description of facts. Faced with such ambiguity, the prudent teacher will be apt to self-censor.

Perhaps most ambiguous are the prohibitions on compulsion. On their face, by prohibiting compelled speech, these gag order bills appear to adhere to existing First Amendment doctrine. In West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), the Supreme Court struck down a state law requiring that public school students recite the Pledge of Allegiance. As Justice Robert H. Jackson declared in his majority opinion, “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in matters of politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word their faith therein.” 58 West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette , 319 US 624 (1943), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/319/624/#tab-opinion-1937809

According to some observers, these compulsion bills are relatively harmless, simply reinforcing the notion that speech cannot be compelled in schools. This seems to be the position of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), which has actively steered multiple state legislatures toward this formulation. 59 Greg Gonzalez, “FIRE Continues to Oppose Curricular Bans in Race and Sex Stereotyping Bills,” Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression , July 11, 2022, https://www.thefire.org/fire-continues-to-oppose-curricular-bans-in-race-and-sex-stereotyping-bills/ . But as FIRE itself acknowledges, “we have seen instances when universities misapply these laws,” and elected officials have done the same—either mistaking the definition of compulsion as constituting an outright ban on certain speech, or purposely misreading these laws in an effort to expand their prohibitions. 

South Dakota’s HB 1012, which became law in 2022, is a good example of this phenomenon, and one mentioned specifically in a recent FIRE analysis. Though HB 1012 contains only compulsion language, Governor Kristi Noem commented after the law’s passage that it had “banned [critical race theory] in our universities.” 60 Dillon Burroughs, “Governor Kristi Noem Announces Executive Order Banning Critical Race Theory in Schools: ‘No Place in Our South Dakota Public Education,’” Daily Wire, April 5, 2022, https://www.dailywire.com/news/governor-kristi-noem-announces-executive-order-banning-critical-race-theory-in-schools-no-place-in-our-south-dakota-public-education . Such statements create a broad chilling effect on educators’ pedagogical choices by telegraphing that a ban of any type may be enforced as expansively as a particular official sees fit. 61 In a similar vein, whereas the text of Nebraska’s LB 1077 would have imposed restrictions only on “mandatory training,” its Republican sponsor explained that he intended “training” to include classroom instruction. Similar examples are common throughout discourse on gag orders and illustrate the expansive ways supporters would seek to enforce them. Sara Gentzler, “Bill Would Restrict How Nebraska Schools, Government Discuss Race and Sex,” Omaha World-Herald , January 18, 2022, https://omaha.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/bill-would-restrict-how-nebraska-schools-government-treat-race-and-sex/article_d0bee4fe-7894-11ec-9b51-a71b3bf5e0e1.html . Educators might well conclude that a ban on compulsion will in practice be interpreted to mean something far more censorious than the plain language suggests. 

In other proposed 2022 bills, the legislative text itself has conflated compulsion with persuasion or confusion. For instance, Illinois’s HB 5505 appears at first glance to have been a straightforward ban on compulsion. It states that no public school or university may “direct, require, or otherwise compel a student to personally affirm, adopt, or adhere to” certain ideas related to sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin. It also offers a list of remedies that a school may adopt when a teacher has been found guilty of compelling speech. Among them is that the teacher may “provide additional balance or factual basis, or correct any factual bases found to be incorrect or biased.” 62 Illinois HB 5505, https://legiscan.com/IL/text/HB5505/id/2495465/Illinois-2021-HB5505-Introduced.html .

Note that these two remedies (providing balance and correcting false claims) do not address a situation where a teacher is compelling student speech or belief. Rather, they address an entirely different situation, where a teacher is offering biased or factually incorrect instruction. Providing additional facts can no more remedy compelled speech than reading the Gettysburg Address can undo a mandatory recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. 

On the surface, educational gag orders that prohibit compelled speech may seem on relatively sound constitutional footing. But the potential for abuse is both obvious and inevitable. As PEN America explained in our 2021 report on educational gag orders, by identifying a specific set of beliefs disfavored by the state, these prohibitions on compulsion function as viewp oint-based prohibitions while masquerading as defenses of intellectual freedom. 63 PEN America, Educational Gag Orders: Legislative Restrictions on the Freedom to Read, Learn, and Teach , November 2021, https://pen.org/report/educational-gag-orders/ .  

In the current political climate, lawmakers and activists are primed to interpret many pedagogical practices, from “biased” instruction to true/false exams, as forms of compulsion. For that matter, compulsion laws could easily be used to block educators from asking their students to play devil’s advocate, engage in formal debate, or defend controversial viewpoints as part of a pedagogical exercise. In a less politically charged environment, these concerns might not be so salient. But for an educator in today’s climate, to be accused of compulsion even if such charges are spurious could lead to public uproar, an investigation, stigmatization, and other career-disrupting consequences.  Accordingly, out of an abundance of caution, educators may reasonably act on the assumption that topics that are the subject of compulsion bans are best not even touched in the classroom. 

SECTION IV: Types of Educational Content Targeted

As mentioned above, the first wave of educational gag order bills in 2021 were modeled on the Trump administration’s Executive Order 13950 on “Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping,” which the Biden administration revoked in January 2021. 64 Executive Order 13950, “Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping,” September 22, 2020, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/09/28/2020-21534/combating-race-and-sex-stereotyping ; “President Biden Revokes Executive Order 13950,” Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, 2021, https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/executive-order-13950 . As its name suggests, this executive order regulated how federal agencies and contractors could discuss issues surrounding race and sex. Most state-level educational gag order bills in 2021 targeted similar topics, with a secondary focus on patriotism and US history.

For the most part, these trends have continued into 2022. The majority of this year’s bills have sought to regulate how educators discuss racism and sexism, though many have targeted systemic discrimination and issues of identity more generally. Many have also targeted instruction related to US history and contemporary American society. However, the greatest change this year has been a heightened focus on LGBTQ+ issues and identities—a development that resulted in the most highly-publicized educational gag order of the year, Florida’s HB 1557. 

Race, Sex, and Gender

Ideas related to race, sex, and gender have continued to be the most common target of educational gag order bills. Many still contain elements from the executive order on “Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping,” but often with significant elaboration. For example, Rhode Island’s H 7539 would have prohibited teachers from using any “instructional material” that suggests an individual is “inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously, solely by virtue of his or her race or sex,” or that “an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, [bears] responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex.” All of this is copied more or less verbatim from Trump’s executive order.

But H 7539 then goes on to prohibit teachers from using terms such as “supremacy,” “racial guilt,” and “racial fragility.” Indeed, it includes a more general attack on “identity politics,” stating that “no exclusive focus or centering of curricula on the history, literature, current events, or cultural contributions of individual identity groups shall be permitted.” It also forbids teachers from making use of any “ideological materials, worksheets, homework, texts or assigned reading, and/or mentored discussions that depict identity groups as oppressors and/or victims.” 65 Rhode Island H 7539, https://legiscan.com/RI/text/H7539/id/2522893/Rhode_Island-2022-H7539-Introduced.pdf .

We see here how an earlier focused attack on instruction related to racism and sexism has transformed in 2022 into a more general assault on discussions of systemic inequality. Minnesota’s HB 3301, for instance, contains a similar provision, proposing to forbid teachers from requiring that students examine “the role of race and racism in society, the social construction of race and institutionalized racism, and how race intersects with identity, systems, and policies.” 66 Minnesota HF 3301, https://legiscan.com/MN/text/HF3301/id/2512231 .

While none of these bills passed in 2022, similar bills could easily become law in the future. In 2021, the North Dakota legislature passed HB 1508 after just five days of debate. Consequently, it is now illegal in that state for public K–12 teachers to include any instruction suggesting that “racism is systemically embedded in American society and the American legal system to facilitate racial inequality.” 67 North Dakota HB 1508, https://www.ndlegis.gov/assembly/67-2021/special-session/documents/21-1078-03000.pdf . Language of this type, which has spread widely in 2022, would shut down important conversations in the classroom and would particularly imperil cultural and ethnic studies courses. 

US History and Contemporary American Society

Another set of ideas targeted frequently by lawmakers in 2022 is speech deemed unduly critical of American history and of the United States today. 68 Many of the bills discussed here are explored in greater detail by PEN America in “Educational Gag Orders Seek to Enforce Compulsory Patriotism,” March 30, 2022, https://pen.org/update-educational-gag-orders-seek-to-enforce-compulsory-patriotism/ . For instance, lawmakers have introduced 14 bills that explicitly limit use of the New York Times ’s 1619 Project on the grounds that it identifies slavery as part of the nation’s “true founding.” Other bills have targeted similar historical perspectives that emphasize the deep roots of slavery in American history and society. South Carolina’s H 4392, for example, would have forbidden educators from making use of any instructional material that could lead students to believe that “slavery and racism are anything other than deviations from, betrayals of, or failures to live up to the authentic founding principles of the United States, which include liberty and equality.” 69 South Carolina H 4392, https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess124_2021-2022/bills/4392.htm .  

Such bills may reflect an understandable desire to repudiate slavery as inimical to the ideals of equality and freedom extolled by the nation’s founders. In practice, however, they would outlaw historical perspectives that explore how racial discrimination and slavery were entrenched in the lives of the Constitution’s framers and the country they birthed. Similarly, when it comes to contemporary society, public schools do play an important role in fostering a healthy civic culture, imputing national ideals, and instilling an understanding and appreciation of students’ community and society. But legislation restricting what concepts and perspectives may be covered constricts classroom teaching and learning unreasonably.  Education in a liberal society must include the examination of critical perspectives and alternative viewpoints, material that these bills would too often rule out of bounds.

Nevertheless, shielding American history and society from negative moral judgments has been a major priority for lawmakers in 2022. Rhode Island’s H 7539 states baldly that “history shall be taught using the standards, customs, and traditions in use at the time of the historical event.” 70 Rhode Island H 7539, https://legiscan.com/RI/text/H7539/id/2522893/Rhode_Island-2022-H7539-Introduced.pdf . New Hampshire’s HB 1255 sought to forbid teachers from promoting “any doctrine or theory promoting a negative account or representation of the founding and history of the United States of America in New Hampshire public schools which does not include the worldwide context of now outdated and discouraged practices.” 71 New Hampshire HB 1255, https://legiscan.com/NH/text/HB1255/id/2461346 .  And Oklahoma’s HB 2988 would have prohibited teaching that “America has more culpability, in general, than other nations for the institution of slavery”; that “America, in general, had slavery more extensively and for a later period of time than other nations”; or that one race “is the unique oppressor in the institution of slavery” while another is its “unique victim.” 72 Oklahoma HB 2988, https://legiscan.com/OK/text/HB2988/id/2452914 .

Other educational gag order bills in this category have focused less on US history than on the current state of American society. Many bills in this category are notable for their brevity. A pair of Missouri bills ( HB 2189 and SB 645 ) state simply that K–12 schools and colleges must offer courses that “promote an overall positive . . . understanding of the United States.” 73 Missouri HB 2189, https://legiscan.com/MO/text/HB2189/id/2464797 ; Missouri SB 645, https://legiscan.com/MO/text/SB645/2022 . Two in Oklahoma ( SB 588 and SB 614 ) would have prohibited “anti-American bias.” 74 Oklahoma SB 588, https://legiscan.com/OK/text/SB588/id/2442064/Oklahoma-2022-SB588-Introduced.pdf ; Oklahoma SB 614, https://legiscan.com/OK/text/SB614/id/2447707/Oklahoma-2022-SB614-Amended.pdf . The bans in these bills are both pithy and absolute, with no elaboration on how these standards would be judged.

By contrast, other bills are much more labyrinthine. One Indiana bill states that students must be taught that

socialism, Marxism, communism, totalitarianism, or similar political systems are incompatible with and in conflict with the principles of freedom upon which the United States was founded. In addition, students must be instructed that if any of these political systems were to replace the current form of government, the government of the United States would be overthrown and existing freedoms under the Constitution of the United States would no longer exist. As such, socialism, Marxism, communism, totalitarianism, or similar political systems are detrimental to the people of the United States. 75 Indiana HB 1040, https://legiscan.com/IN/text/HB1040/id/2462805/Indiana-2022-HB1040-Introduced.pdf .

And West Virginia’s HB 4016, which targets public K–12 schools, would have prohibited

the presentation or promotion of any political, economic, or political-economic system that is based on ideological concepts rooted in or inspired by Marxism, Marxist-Leninism, Maoism, socialism, communism, or so-called critical political theory or critical economic theory, of any form or intellectual tradition whatsoever without:

(A) The inclusion of the historically documented occurrences, scope and scale of state sponsored terror and murder, absence of legal process and protection of civil and political rights, forced labor, economic inefficiency, and starvations which have transpired under such forms of political economy; and  (B) the provision of equal pedagogical instruction time and student curricula material content dedicated to political-economic systems based in the western tradition of constitutional representative democracy;  (C) the preservation in law of civil, political rights, private property rights, intellectual property rights in constitutional representative democracies;  (D) the historically documented greater efficiency and productivity of free enterprise, and free market capitalism in constitutional representative democracies;  (E) the impact of monetary policy on pricing and inflation; and  (F) presentation of political spectrums as measured by the factors of state control versus individual liberty, regardless of economic model. 76 West Virginia HB 4016, https://legiscan.com/WV/text/HB4016/id/2500304/West_Virginia-2022-HB4016-Introduced.html .

Bills this elaborate remain uncommon, but they have appeared with much greater frequency in 2022 than in 2021.

LGBTQ+ Issues and Identities

Finally, lawmakers have increasingly attempted to regulate whether and in what ways educators may expose students to LGBTQ+ issues and identities. 77 For more on this category of educational gag order bills, see PEN America’s analysis in “Educational Gag Orders Target Speech about LGBTQ+ Identities with New Prohibitions and Punishments,” February 15, 2022, https://pen.org/educational-gag-orders-target-speech-about-lgbtq-identities-with-new-prohibitions-and-punishments/ Twenty-three anti-LGBTQ+ bills that would censor classroom speech have been proposed in 2022, compared with just five in 2021. (Note that PEN America tracks only those anti-LGBTQ+ bills that censor speech in educational institutions; this is only a small fraction of the hundreds of anti-LGBTQ+ bills filed across the country in 2022. A comprehensive legislative tracker for those bills can be found at the ACLU’s website. 78 American Civil Liberties Union, “Legislation Affecting LGBTQ Rights across the Country,” July 1, 2022, https://www.aclu.org/legislation-affecting-lgbtq-rights-across-country . )

The most well-known example of an anti-LGBTQ+ educational gag order from this year is Florida’s HB 1557, referred to by its critics as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill. This law states that classroom instruction “on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.” The law also creates a private right of action, permitting a parent to sue a school it believes violated HB 1557 and recover damages in court. 79 Florida HB 1557, https://legiscan.com/FL/bill/H1557/2022 .

HB 1557 was introduced in the Florida House of Representatives on January 11, 2022. Since then, copycat bills have been filed in many other states. For example, under Louisiana’s HB 837, public school teachers would have been unable to “cover the topics of sexual orientation or gender identity in any classroom discussion or instruction in kindergarten through grade eight” or to “discuss [their] own sexual orientation or gender identity with students” in any grade. 80 Louisiana HB 837, https://legiscan.com/LA/text/HB837/id/2550972/Louisiana-2022-HB837-Introduced.pdf . Ohio’s HB 616 would forbid them from teaching, using, or providing “any curriculum or instructional materials on sexual orientation or gender identity.” 81 Ohio HB 616, https://legiscan.com/OH/text/HB616/id/2562626/Ohio-2021-HB616-Introduced.pdf . Georgia’s SB 613 states that teachers in private schools would not be allowed to “promote, compel, or encourage classroom discussion” of sexual orientation or gender identity at any primary grade level. 82 Georgia SB 613, https://legiscan.com/GA/text/SB613/id/2542860/Georgia-2021-SB613-Introduced.pdf . And a pair of North Carolina bills, HB 755 and HB 1067, would have banned instruction on these topics until the fourth and seventh grades, respectively. 83 North Carolina HB 755, https://legiscan.com/NC/text/H755/id/2592056/North_Carolina-2021-H755-Amended.pdf ; North Carolina HB 1067, https://legiscan.com/NC/text/H1067/id/2590617/North_Carolina-2021-H1067-Amended.pdf . Such bills would likely have ruled out a host of curricular content, including books with LGBTQ+ characters, history about LGBTQ+ rights movements, and more.

While none of these copycat bills have become law as of August 2022, several have come close, and more seem likely to be introduced in 2023. One bill with substantially similar language, Alabama HB 322, did become law, though it does not contain an explicit age or grade-based prohibition on speech. 84 Alabama’s HB 322, https://legiscan.com/AL/drafts/HB322/2022 , states that any “classroom instruction regarding sexual orientation or gender identity” to students in grades K-5 must be provided “in a manner that is . . . age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.” This provision owes a clear debt to Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” law, but in so far as it does not prohibit a category of speech—at least until the state standards change—we do not consider it an educational gag order.

The Don’t Say Gay bills are only the most visible aspect of a broader campaign by legislators in 2022 against discussion of LGBTQ+ issues in educational settings. South Carolina’s H 4605 would have forbidden public K–12 teachers from “subject[ing]” students to “controversial and age-inappropriate topics” such as “gender identity or lifestyles.” 85 South Carolina H 4605, https://legiscan.com/SC/text/H4605/id/2450490/South_Carolina-2021-H4605-Introduced.html . Indiana’s HB 1040 would have prohibited them from discussing “sexual orientation,” “transgenderism,” or “gender identity” without parental consent. 86 Indiana HB 1040, https://legiscan.com/IN/text/HB1040/id/2462805/Indiana-2022-HB1040-Introduced.pdf . (Note: the word “transgenderism” is generally considered offensive by the transgender community.) 87 “Glossary of Terms: Transgender,” GLAAD Media Reference Guide, 11th Edition, https://www.glaad.org/reference/trans-terms . As originally introduced, Kansas’s HB 2662 would have redefined the state’s obscenity law to make it a class B misdemeanor for a teacher to present in the classroom any depiction of homosexuality. 88 Kansas HB 2662, https://legiscan.com/KS/text/HB2662/id/2551295/Kansas-2021-HB2662-Amended.pdf . A similar provision was included in the original draft of Arizona’s HB 2495, https://legiscan.com/AZ/text/HB2495/id/2504467/Arizona-2022-HB2495-Engrossed.html , which prohibited public schools from using any “sexually explicit material” in the classroom. For the purposes of the bill, “homosexuality” was considered to be sexually explicit. And a slew of bills introduced this year in Oklahoma would have regulated whether public school libraries could stock books about LGBTQ+ issues; university professors could discuss “gender, sexual, or racial diversity, equality, or inclusion”; or teachers or professors could promote a position that contradicts a student’s sincerely held religious belief. 89 Respectively, Oklahoma SB 1142, https://legiscan.com/OK/text/SB1142/id/2533307/Oklahoma-2022-SB1142-Amended.pdf ,  and Oklahoma SB 1654, https://legiscan.com/OK/text/SB1654/id/2486020/Oklahoma-2022-SB1654-Introduced.pdf ; Oklahoma SB 1141, https://legiscan.com/OK/text/SB1141/id/2460101/Oklahoma-2022-SB1141-Introduced.pdf ; and Oklahoma SB 1470, https://legiscan.com/OK/text/SB1470/id/2484266/Oklahoma-2022-SB1470-Introduced.pdf , and Oklahoma HB 614, https://legiscan.com/OK/text/SB614/id/2447707/Oklahoma-2022-SB614-Amended.pdf .

This surge in anti-LGBTQ+ speech legislation reflects a growing alignment between different political efforts. Social conservatives, who object to LGBTQ+ identities on cultural or religious grounds, have long sought to regulate how educators discuss these matters but have had only limited success at the state legislative level. Their efforts have been boosted, however, by the loosely knit and much more recent “anti–critical race theory” campaign, whose advocates argue that much of what passes for instruction on LGBTQ+ topics in public schools constitutes a kind of left-wing indoctrination. Some have even gone so far as to liken such lessons to “grooming,” the action by a pedophile to prepare a child for sexual exploitation. 90  Colby Itkowitz, “GOP Turns to False Insinuations of LGBTQ Grooming against Democrats,” Washington Post , April 20, 2022, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/20/republicans-grooming-democrats/ . Over the past two years, the anti–critical race theory campaign has displayed remarkable energy and success in targeting classroom discussions of race and sex, as the 19 educational gag order laws passed in 15 states demonstrate. Now this campaign appears to have turned its attention to gender identity and sexual orientation as well.

The alignment of these efforts has in some instances breathed new life into efforts to enact bills restricting classroom expression about LGBTQ+ identities. Legislation of this type is not new; in Tennessee, for example, such bills have been introduced multiple times since 2013, without success. 91 “GLSEN Condemns Reintroduction of Tennessee’s ‘Don’t Say Gay,’” February 1, 2013, https://www.glsen.org/news/glsen-condemns-reintroduction-tennessees-dont-say-gay . But the energy of the newer anti-critical race theory campaign has helped such bills gain new momentum, becoming law in Florida and proliferating to other states.

SECTION V: Punishments

Of the educational gag order bills introduced in 2022, 55 percent have included some form of explicit punishment. This represents a significant increase over 2021, when only 44 percent explicitly referenced a punishment. Similarly, 57 percent of laws passed in 2022 have included such punishments, compared with 42 percent in 2021. 92 Oklahoma’s HB 1775 (2021) is not counted on this list; the law itself includes no punishments, but punishments were added later in a guidance document from the state board of education. See “HB 1775 Emergency Rules,” Oklahoma State Board of Education (2022), https://sde.ok.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/HB%201775%20Emergency%20Rules.pdf .  

The vast majority of the punishments proposed in 2022 have fallen into three different categories: a civil suit, monetary penalty or loss of state funding, and professional discipline. A smaller percentage of bills have contained other forms of punishment, such as loss of institutional accreditation and criminal penalties. And in many instances, a bill has featured multiple types of punishment, offering parents, state officials, and members of the public different ways to address a violation.

The most common type of punishment proposed in 2022 has been a civil suit, which has appeared in 35 percent of all educational gag order bills. This represents a significant increase compared to 2021, when only 19 percent had this particular penalty. The vast majority of the 2022 civil suit bills would create a private right of action that would permit students, parents, or even unrelated members of the public to sue an educational institution and recover damages in civil court. A smaller number of bills would confer this right on the state attorney general, the county attorney, or some other public official.

The second most common type of punishment this year has been a monetary penalty or loss of state funding, which has appeared in 26 percent of all gag order bills—the same percentage as in 2021. Common forms of this punishment have included a direct monetary fine for the school or institution, a reduction in state funding, and loss of eligibility for a state grant or award.

The third most common form of punishment in 2022 has been professional discipline for the teacher or professional committing the violation. This punishment has appeared in 22 percent of bills introduced this year, up from 15 percent the year before. Punishments in this category have included everything from temporary suspension to dismissal, and even in some cases loss of teaching license.

Finally, a smaller but still significant number of gag order bills have included some other form of punishment, such as loss of institutional accreditation, loss of tax-exempt status, or criminal penalties. Nine percent of bills have included one or more punishments of this type, the same percentage as in 2021.

Taken as a whole, the overwhelming trend in 2022 has been toward punitiveness. Educational gag order bills have been more likely to feature an explicit punishment for violators, in some cases proposing multiple punishments for the same alleged violation. Compared to 2021, penalties have also tended to be more extreme, with higher monetary fines and more severe forms of professional discipline. Some bills have widened the scope of individuals who would have standing to file civil suits, and have experimented with new ways of targeting nonpublic educational institutions.

Virginia’s HB 781 is a good example of these trends. The bill would have prohibited public K–12 schools from including in their curricula certain ideas related to race, religion, ethnicity, sex, and US history. The bill goes on to state,

Any individual, including any school board member, who knowingly and intentionally violates any provision of this section is guilty of a Class 4 misdemeanor and, in the case of a school board employee, may be terminated or, as applicable, have his license revoked or suspended in accordance with all relevant policies, regulations, and laws.

In the event that a local school board finds that a school board employee has persistently, knowingly, and intentionally violated any provision of this act, the parent of any student affected by such violations may request and the local school board shall provide a voucher in an amount equal to all sums from any source that the local school board received for the education of such student, and the parent shall use such voucher to provide for the education of his child. 93 Virginia HB 781, https://legiscan.com/VA/text/HB781/id/2472185/Virginia-2022-HB781-Prefiled.html .

HB 781 is one of the more extreme bills from 2022, but there have been several others like it, including those that would have carried severe monetary fines. For instance , Kentucky’s HB 18 would have prohibited public K–12 schools from offering “any classroom instruction or discussion, formal or informal, or distribut[ing] any printed or digital material, including but not limited to textbooks and instructional materials, that promotes” the standard list of “divisive concepts.” 94 Kentucky HB 18, https://legiscan.com/KY/text/HB18/id/2464451/Kentucky-2022-HB18-Introduced.pdf . This vague and sweeping language would have been backed up with financial penalties of up to $100,000 per violation. 95 Kentucky Statute 164.348, https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=49294 .

Another notable development has been the spread of private rights of action, an enforcement mechanism popularized by the 2021 Texas abortion ban, which allowed private citizens to sue abortion providers as a novel mechanism for curtailing abortion rights. 96 Alice Miranda Ollstein and Josh Gerstein, “Texas Abortion Ban Spawns Look-Alike Laws but Could Be Short-Lived,” Politico, September 2, 2021, https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/02/texas-abortion-law-private-right-to-sue-509244 . Private rights of action have appeared in 37 educational gag order bills introduced in 2022. Compared to 2021, the bills introduced this year would permit a far wider array of people to file suit. No longer has standing been limited to students or their parents. Instead, many of the bills introduced this year would allow unrelated parties who have no direct connection to a school to file suit as well. This includes individuals who happen to live in the school district, elsewhere in the county, or who simply pay taxes somewhere in the state. 97 Indiana HB 1040, https://legiscan.com/IN/text/HB1040/id/2462805/Indiana-2022-HB1040-Introduced.pdf , Illinois HB 5494, https://legiscan.com/IL/text/HB5494/id/2495484/Illinois-2021-HB5494-Introduced.html ; Missouri HB 2189, https://legiscan.com/MO/text/HB2189/id/2541737/Missouri-2022-HB2189-Comm_Sub.pdf ; Missouri SB 645, https://legiscan.com/MO/text/SB645/id/2453210/Missouri-2022-SB645-Introduced.pdf ; Idaho HB 488, https://legiscan.com/ID/text/H0488/id/2495093/Idaho-2022-H0488-Introduced.pdf . Kentucky’s HB 706, the most extreme private right of action bill, would have given any resident of the state a right to sue, including a “domestic business entity residing in the [state]” or a “foreign business entity that is registered and in good standing with the Secretary of State.” 98 Kentucky HB 706, https://legiscan.com/KY/text/HB706/id/2532276/Kentucky-2022-HB706-Introduced.pdf .  Such a measure would allow any ideological actor within the state to hold school districts hostage to their political views regarding what schools should and should not teach.

Finally, lawmakers have begun to experiment with new approaches for targeting nonpublic (private and parochial) schools and universities. The key innovation here involves enforceability. Civil suits and professional discipline, two of the most common types of gag order punishments in 2022, are difficult to wield against private institutions, which generally enjoy wide discretion over what they teach and whom they hire. Nevertheless, 13 bills filed in 2022 have targeted nonpublic schools and universities, and Florida HB 7, which targets private employers and could be interpreted to include schools and universities, became law.

Many 2022 bills aimed at nonpublic educational institutions have embraced three alternative levers of enforcement: loss of state accreditation, loss of tax-exempt status, and loss of access to state funding. Each of these mechanisms could be used to punish a nonpublic school or university.

For instance, Indiana’s HB 1231 would have stripped state accreditation from any nonpublic K–12 school that discussed race, sex, or US history in an unacceptable way. 99 Indiana HB 1231, https://legiscan.com/IN/text/HB1231/id/2465267/Indiana-2022-HB1231-Introduced.pdf . Kentucky’s HB 487 would have punished private universities in a similar fashion. 100 Kentucky HB 487, https://legiscan.com/KY/text/HB487/id/2513646/Kentucky-2022-HB487-Introduced.pdf . Under South Carolina’s H 4605, nonpublic schools, universities, and any other “place of learning” would have lost their state funding, tax-exempt status, and “any other state-provided accommodation or privilege” for even a single violation. 101 South Carolina H 4605, https://legiscan.com/SC/text/H4605/id/2450490/South_Carolina-2021-H4605-Introduced.html . Mississippi’s HB 437 would have denied state funds (e.g. tuition vouchers) to private K–12 schools. 102 Mississippi HB 437, https://legiscan.com/MS/text/HB437/id/2465352/Mississippi-2022-HB437-Introduced.html . And in Georgia, a nonpublic school found to have discussed sexual orientation or gender identity in a primary grade level would, under SB 613, have been unable to participate in either the state’s Special Needs Scholarship Program or any athletics tournament in which a public school is a member. 103 Georgia SB 613, https://legiscan.com/GA/text/SB613/id/2542860/Georgia-2021-SB613-Introduced.pdf .

Other bills have taken a different approach to targeting private institutions: they have folded their gag order language into state civil rights statutes, thereby exposing private institutions to civil suits. The most important example of this trend is Florida’s HB 7. The new law prohibits public and private employers alike from subjecting any individual to training or instruction that promotes, espouses, or in any way advances certain ideas related to race, sex, color, or national origin. 104 Florida HB 7, https://legiscan.com/FL/text/H0007/id/2544468/Florida-2022-H0007-Enrolled.pdf . Violators may be sued by the state attorney general under Florida’s civil rights statute. 105 Florida Statute 760.021, http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0760/Sections/0760.021.html . Similarly designed bills were introduced in Kentucky and Indiana in 2022. 106 Kentucky HB 706, https://legiscan.com/KY/text/HB706/id/2532276/Kentucky-2022-HB706-Introduced.pdf ; Indiana HB 1134, https://legiscan.com/IN/text/HB1134/id/2464216/Indiana-2022-HB1134-Introduced.pdf .

The combination in 2022 educational gag order bills of extreme vagueness and extreme penalties would virtually guarantee a significant chilling effect on teachers and schools were these bills to become law. In their 2021 report The Conflict Campaign , education scholars Mica Pollock and John Rogers documented numerous instances of school district administrators withdrawing commitments to support teacher initiatives in the face of policies restricting classroom speech. 107 Mica Pollock and John Rogers, The Conflict Campaign: Exploring Local Experiences of the Campaign to Ban “Critical Race Theory” in Public K–12 Education in the US, 2021-2022, UCLA/IDEA Publications, January 2022, https://idea.gseis.ucla.edu/publications/the-conflict-campaign/publications/files/the-conflict-campaign-report .  Advocates who believe that educational gag orders are narrowly focused instruments to fight “indoctrination” of students should recognize that these laws, in practice, create broad and unspecific new government restrictions on speech that are difficult to interpret and easy to overenforce. The likely result is that teachers will hew only to the safest areas of instruction and avoid even touching on topics that might spark protest from any corner.

SECTION VI: Future Trends

Given the enthusiasm among many conservatives for educational gag orders, it is almost certain that more will be introduced next year. State lawmakers will begin pre-filing their bills in the run-up to the November 2022 midterm elections, especially in states where Republicans failed to pass an educational gag order despite controlling both legislative chambers and the governor’s mansion—states such as Alabama, Arizona, Indiana, West Virginia, and Wyoming, all of which came close to passing gag order bills during their 2022 legislative sessions but ultimately failed to do so. In these states and others, a new wave of educational gag order bills seems probable. 

It is also likely that future gag order bills will continue to target instruction related to LGBTQ+ issues and identities. Bills of this type have drawn increased interest from lawmakers through the spring and summer, largely because of media attention surrounding Florida’s HB 1557, which has spawned similar bills in several other states, some of which have added further provisions. More bills will likely also be introduced that target private K–12 schools and higher education. 

It is also likely that we will continue to see the adoption of district-level educational gag orders that are not enshrined in state legislation. Some of these policies have borrowed language from state bills and have proposed prohibitions on teachers related to instruction about race and sex. Others have restricted LGBTQ+ identities in new and troubling ways. Districts have enacted policies such as barring LGBTQ+ pride flags or other political flags and symbols in schools, forbidding teachers from including pronouns in their email signatures, or even banning them from wearing rainbow-colored clothing. 116 PEN America, “Open Letter to the School Board of the Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified School District,” January 11, 2022, https://pen.org/open-letter-school-board-placentia-yorba-linda-unified-school-district/ . Similarly, the CRT Forward Tracking Project at UCLA Law School has documented hundreds of district-level educational gag order measures on instruction related to race. 117 The UCLA CRT Forward Tracking Project has documented hundreds of critical race theory bans at the district level. CRT Forward Tracking Project, https://crtforward.law.ucla.edu/ .

New litigation challenges to educational gag orders also seem inevitable. Two lawsuits challenging Florida’s HB 7 have already been filed: Falls v. DeSantis (discussed in Section II) and Honeyfund.com v. DeSantis . 118 Falls v. DeSantis , 4:22cv166 (2022), https://aboutblaw.com/2G4 ; Honeyfund.com v. DeSantis , 4:22cv227 (2022), https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22065949-1-complaint-honeyfund-v-desantis . Another pair of suits, Equality Florida v. DeSantis and Cousins v. the School Board of Orange County , have been brought against Florida’s HB 1557. 119 Equality Florida vs. DeSantis , 4:22cv134 (2022), https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21564702-equality-florida-et-al-v-desantis-et-al-complaint ; Cousins v. the School Board of Orange County , 6:22cv1312 (2022), https://www.lambdalegal.org/sites/default/files/legal-docs/downloads/cousins_fl_20220726_complaint.pdf . They join lawsuits already underway in New Hampshire and Oklahoma against last year’s laws. 120 BERT v. O’Connor, 5:21cv1022-G (2021), https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/bert-v-o-connor-complaint ; Mejia v. Edelblut , 1:21cv1077 (2021), https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/complaint-challenging-nh-divisive-concepts-bill-hb2 . Finally, a group of parents have sued the Forest Hills School District in Ohio to block a district-level educational gag order. 121 Madeline Mitchell, “Forest Hills Parents, Students, Teachers Sue District over Resolution That ‘Promotes Racism,’” Cincinnati Enquirer , June 29, 2022, https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2022/06/29/forest-hills-school-board-sued-over-culture-kindness-resolution/7769714001/ .  More lawsuits opposing gag orders are likely.

Meanwhile, supporters of educational gag orders have filed complaints of their own in a bid to persuade courts and regulatory bodies to stake out a maximal interpretation of what these laws prohibit—and more such actions will likely appear in the coming months. One complaint, filed by the conservative America First Policy Institute on behalf of an Iowa student, claims that a planned elective class on social justice in literature would violate that state’s ban on “race or sex stereotyping” in education. Importantly, the complaint does not accuse the teacher of promoting race or sex stereotypes or even of assigning texts containing them. Rather, it argues that since students themselves might, on their own initiative, select books to read that contain race or sex stereotypes, the teacher will violate the law if she fails to stop them. 122 Craig W. Trainor to Mickolyn Clapper, June 14, 2022, https://americafirstpolicy.com/assets/uploads/files/AFPI_Demand_Letter_to_Baxter_Community_School_District_r e_HF_802.pdf ; Jeremy C. Young, “Educational Gag Orders Hit Iowa Schools,” Gazette , July 27, 2022, https://www.thegazette.com/guest-columnists/education-gag-orders-hit-iowa-schools/ .

Similarly, a lawsuit by Parents’ Choice Tennessee, citing one of Tennessee’s two educational gag order laws, seeks to ban Wit & Wisdom—an English language arts curriculum—from Williamson County schools. 123 Anika Exum, “Why Williamson County Parents Are Suing School District, State Education Commissioner,” Tennessean , July 12, 2022, https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/local/williamson/2022/07/12/williamson-county-parents-wit-wisdom-teaches-critical-race-theory/10029032002/ . And in a case of a regulatory body offering its own maximal interpretation of a gag order without the need of litigation, the Oklahoma Board of Education disciplined two school districts for supposed violations of the state’s law, in both cases handing down harsher penalties than called for by the law. 124 Wayne Stafford, “Two Oklahoma School Districts Punished for Violating CRT Ban,” KOKH, July 28, 2022, https://okcfox.com/news/local/2-ok-school-district-punished-for-violating-crt-ban-tulsa-public-schools-and-mustang-public-schools-accreditation-with-warning-house-bill-1775-accreditation-with-warning-accreditation-with-deficiencies . “This instance,” said a spokesman for the Oklahoma State Department of Education, which had recommended lesser penalties, “underscores how the vague language of HB 1775 invites imprecise judgement calls, which in turn can have a chilling effect on classroom instruction.” 125 Lenzy Krehbiel-Burton, “Audio from TPS Implicit Bias Training Was a Voice Reading Presentation Slides Verbatim,” Tulsa World , August 6, 2022, https://tulsaworld.com/news/local/education/audio-from-tps-implicit-bias-training-was-a-voice-reading-presentation-slides-verbatim/article_140cabde-1524-11ed-b809-1f6eb7ac6c64.html .

Finally, the future of educational gag orders will likely unfold as part of a broader legislative campaign of educational censorship. At the K–12 level, this includes so-called “curriculum transparency” bills and tip-line-style reporting mechanisms, which have become more common in legislative proposals, as well as bills that make it easier for parents to file challenges for the removal of books from school libraries (see inserts above). In higher education, educational gag orders are just one of the ways lawmakers are increasingly seeking to undermine academic freedom, shared governance, and faculty tenure. In 2022, bills and policies weakening tenure have been adopted in Mississippi and Florida, with similar efforts underway in Texas and Louisiana. 126 Molly Minta, “College Presidents Now Have Final Say on Tenure after IHL Quietly Revises Policy,” Mississippi Today, April 21, 2022, https://mississippitoday.org/2022/04/21/tenure-ihl-revises-policy/ ; Divya Kumar, “Florida Legislature Passes Bill Allowing More Scrutiny of Tenured Faculty,” Tampa Bay Times , March 10, 2022, https://www.tampabay.com/news/education/2022/03/10/florida-legislature-passes-bill-allowing-more-scrutiny-of-tenured-faculty/ ; Dan Patrick, “Statement on Plans for Higher Education and Tenure,” Office of the Lieutenant Governor, February 18, 2022, https://www.ltgov.texas.gov/2022/02/18/lt-gov-dan-patrick-statement-on-plans-for-higher-education-and-tenure/ ; Piper Hutchinson, “Louisiana Legislature Approves Task Force to Study Tenure,” Reveille , May 23, 2022, https://www.lsureveille.com/news/louisiana-legislature-approves-task-force-to-study-tenure/article_5383fe44-daea-11ec-8d83-33854e609d64.html . The Wyoming State Senate attempted to defund the gender studies program at the University of Wyoming. 127 Rebecca Kelliher, “Wyoming Senate Votes to Stop Funding University of Wyoming’s Gender Studies Program,” Diverse: Issues in Higher Education, March 1, 2022, https://www.diverseeducation.com/news-roundup/article/15289113/wyoming-senate-votes-to-stop-funding-university-of-wyomings-gender-studies-program . And Florida adopted SB 7044, a law that undermines the system of higher education accreditation and makes it more difficult for colleges and universities to retain access to federal student financial aid. 128 PEN America, “These 4 Florida Bills Censor Classroom Subjects and Ideas,” March 17, 2022, https://pen.org/these-4-florida-bills-censor-classroom-subjects-and-ideas/ .

Such legislation seems likely to have a pronounced chilling effect on teachers and to exacerbate tensions between educators and the communities they serve. In April, a group of students at Iowa’s Johnston High School reported that there was “a different atmosphere at the school” after the state’s gag order became law; that one teacher, explaining the history of redlining, felt compelled to deny in class that they were trying to make students feel guilty; and that another teacher felt unable to explain the motivations behind the Three-Fifths Compromise in the Constitution without violating the state’s educational gag order law. 129 Nikoel Hytrek, “Why More Students Are Walking Out at Iowa Schools,” Iowa Starting Line, April 17, 2022, https://iowastartingline.com/2022/04/17/why-more-students-are-walking-out-at-iowa-schools/ . According to a new survey by the RAND Corporation, a quarter of teachers nationwide have been directed by school administrators “to limit discussions about political and social issues in class.” 130 Ashley Woo et al., Walking a Fine Line—Educators’ Views on Politicized Topics in Schooling , RAND Corporation, August 10, 2022, https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RRA1100/RRA1108-5/RAND_RRA1108-5.pdf .

Such strained conditions also seem likely to add to the nation’s worsening teacher shortage. As Hannah Natanson writes in the Washington Post , a key contributing factor to the shortage is “some educators’ sense that politicians and parents…have little respect for their profession amid an escalating educational culture war that has seen many districts and states pass policies and laws restricting what teachers can say about U.S. history, race, racism, gender and sexual orientation, as well as LGBTQ issues.” 131 Hannah Natanson, “‘Never Seen It This Bad’: America Faces Catastrophic Teacher Shortage,” Washington Post , August 3, 2022, https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2022/08/03/school-teacher-shortage/ .

Whatever the 2023 legislative session brings, it is clear that legislative attacks on the freedom to learn and teach have not only continued in 2022 but have by some measures increased in harshness, breadth, and censoriousness. These trends should alarm advocates of free expression and public education alike. 

Acknowledgments

This report was written by Jeremy C. Young, Senior Manager, Free Expression and Education; research consultant Jeffrey Sachs; and Jonathan Friedman, Director, Free Expression and Education Programs. Summer Lopez, Chief Program Officer, Free Expression Programs; James Tager, Director of Research; Nadine Farid Johnson, Managing Director, PEN America Washington and Free Expression Programs; and PEN America CEO Suzanne Nossel reviewed and edited the report. Melissa Joskow, Coordinator, Graphic Design and Communications, designed the graphs that accompany the report. Erica Galluscio, Website Administrator, laid out the report for publication. Geraldine Baum, Chief Communications Officer, oversaw production and release of the report, with assistance from Debi Goldberg, Senior Communications Consultant. PEN America would like to thank Rita Carlberg for editing; Isaac Engelberg for support with legislative tracking; and Nick DeSantis, Jonny Levenfeld, Jessica Sarstedt, and Manisha Sunil of West End Communication Strategies for public relations assistance.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 05 October 2023

Demobilizing knowledge in American schools: censoring critical perspectives

• Dustin Hornbeck   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2108-1220 1 &
• Joel R. Malin   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6642-3434 2  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  10 , Article number:  642 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

2889 Accesses

1 Citations

2 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Cultural and media studies

A Correction to this article was published on 23 October 2023

This article has been updated

Controversies have erupted in recent years over the teaching of critical perspectives in United States K-12 schools, particularly related to issues of diversity, race, gender, and sexuality. These tensions have resulted in attacks on critical curriculum, with nearly one-third of states banning curriculum that offers critical views of the racial past of the U.S. and over 200 bills introduced in 40 states that would restrict curriculum related to diverse topics. In this study, we apply a knowledge mobilization framework to examine what and whose knowledge is being restricted in U.S. K-12 schools, and how and why this is happening. Our findings indicate that in 16 Republican-dominated states, policies have been enacted to restrict the teaching of critical perspectives on race, sexuality, and other controversial subjects and to perpetuate a positive view of U.S. history. The study sheds light on the prevalence, underlying nature, and consequences of these educational policies.

Similar content being viewed by others

Transforming the educational experiences of marginalized students in Ghana through dialogic literary gatherings

Compartmentalizing indigenous knowledge(s): binary framing and cognitive imperialism in social studies curriculum, diversity and pluralism in arab media education curricula: an analytical study in light of unesco standards, introduction.

Controversies have erupted in recent years over how to teach about the United States’ past, and often these controversies now also incorporate how issues of diversity, race, gender, and/or sexuality are to be taught or approached in public schools (Morgan 2022 ). Opinions on these matters also appear to have hardened and polarized, with conspicuous emotion-laden duelling narratives (Malin and Hornbeck 2022 ) available to support either position. With respect to the teaching of history, for example, on one side there are strong arguments for teaching history in a way that would evoke an image of the U.S. as a work in progress, requiring continued efforts to perfect the union. Conversely, there are those strongly arguing for exceptionalistic, patriotic accounts of US history, which would appear to align more so with traditionalistic approaches to public policy. These tensions appear to reflect agreement at least among politicians and other elites that the past and how we think about it matters, helping us also to interpret and navigate the present (Malin and Hornbeck 2022 ).

These disputes are having major effects. One important manifestation has been a vague but strong attack on Critical Race Theory Footnote 1 (CRT) in schools: Since 2021, nearly one-third of states have banned K-12 school curricula that offer critical views of the racial past of the U.S., with some of these laws explicitly mentioning CRT or specific materials like the 1619 Project (Waxman 2023 ). Legislatures in 40 states have introduced over 200 bills that would restrict curricula, and some of these laws would penalize teachers (Morgan 2022 ) for teaching certain ‘divisive concepts’ (e.g., topics related to race, gender, diversity, oppression, and/or sexuality). At local levels, too, recent school board races have often hinged on these same topics, with many candidates campaigning on platforms that sought to ban critical perspectives in schools (Payne 2021 ). Overall, disputes about how history, inclusive of issues of diversity and identity, is being taught in schools have been strong enough to fuel an ongoing political/policy firestorm across much of the U.S.

Against this evolving backdrop, the present study applies a process-oriented knowledge mobilization framework (Ward 2019 ) to surface and examine what and whose knowledge is being restricted (demobilized) in U.S. K-12 schools vis-à-vis these policies, and how and why this is happening. In so doing, we achieve insights into the underpinnings, nature, and consequences of these new, far-reaching educational policies. It should be noted that some other states are engaging in the reverse (see Blume and Gomez 2022 ) by expanding offerings that include critical perspectives. Our study, however, focuses solely on those that are restricting and demobilizing such perspectives. Our findings indicate that in 16 Republican-dominated states, lawmakers and executives have used legislation, state school board resolutions, and executive orders to restrict the teaching of critical perspectives surrounding race, sexuality, and other controversial subjects, and simultaneously have sought to perpetuate exceptionalism/triumphalist historical master narratives that aim to mythologize a singular, positive view of U.S. history.

Relevant literature

This section reviews literature related to controversial curricula in states, both broadly and in relation to contemporary attacks on CRT, “gender ideology,” and “wokeness,” and on particular materials like the 1619 Project . It also reviews scholarship showing how social studies curricula that omit critical perspectives serve to disproportionately harm students from marginalized backgrounds.

Curricular controversies in the US: a concise review

Since the early twentieth century, when high schools nationwide grew exponentially, school curricula have been a subject of contention and political debate (Hartman 2013 ). Fundamentalist Christianity and political ideology have been primary drivers of disputes over curriculum. A signifcant example of such conflicts is the 1925 The Scopes Monkey Trial. John Scopes, a Tennessee science teacher, was charged and convicted of violating a state law that forbade the teaching of evolution (see Laats 2010 ), a scientific theory that conflicted with Fundamentalist Christian teachings.

The 1960s were turbulent and dynamic, bringing about immense social changes and featuring the new left political movement on college campuses (Rossinow 1998 ). Critical theories from the European Frankfurt School became prominent among some university faculty; from this perspective, academics sought to explore history and society through the lens of power relations as found in social conflict theories (Rossinow 1998 ; Hartman 2013 ). Critical theories tend to directly challenge master/dominant narratives that perpetuate triumphalist or exceptionalist views of U.S. history (Malin and Hornbeck 2022 ). Critical ideologies, along with civil rights, antiwar, feminist, and queer liberation movements, brought about cultural conflicts between conservatives and liberals or leftists that remain today (Hartman 2013 ).

In the 1980s, the presidential administration of Ronald Reagan ushered in a conservative ideological and political wave—and with it, a distrust of government, including increased skepticism toward public schooling and school curricula (Hartman 2013 ). While in office, Reagan’s Secretary of Education William Bennett sought to diminish federal authority over public education and to return power to states. In the 1990s, the Clinton Administration pushed an outcomes-based national standards movement where the U.S. Department of Education would provide consistent standards across the board for schools, including a push for national history standards (Ravitch, 1995 ). Bennett and other conservatives like Lynn Cheney (former chair of the National Endowment for the Humanities) and Chester Finn (education reformer) attacked the national standards movement as being driven by left-wing ideology. Bennett ( 1994 ) wrote that the U.S. was in a culture war with elites who promoted antipathy toward American history, and Cheney declared in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that the national standards would be the “end of history” (1994, p. 1). She argued the standards focused too much on multiculturalism and social justice movements rather than the political heroes of the past, even lamenting that the content standards left out important confederate historical characters like Robert E. Lee while focusing more on those we admire today like Harriet Tubman. Finn argued the social studies had been deteriorating for decades, with “no respect for western civilization” and that they “pooh-pooh history’s chronological and factual skeleton as somehow privileging elites and white males over the poor and oppressed” (Leming et al. 2003 , p. 7). Given these conflicts and controversies, national-level history/social studies standards never came to fruition, leaving key decisions to the states regarding history and social studies standards and curricula.

By contrast, since the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001, the federal government has tied substantial money to the requirement that states implement standards focused on reading and math, requiring testing to measure how students performed in these areas while also attaching specific performance-related consequences at school and district levels (Ravitch 2017 ). In the U.S., states have historically been largely left to craft their own programs of schooling because the Constitution mentions nothing about education, leaving little power directly to the federal government (Hornbeck 2017 ). Nevertheless, the federal government provides significant funding for special education and other programs, motivating states to accept their demands—and, in the case of state standards and annual assessments, states obliged.

Academic content standards vary from state to state, with some states explicitly outlining what will be taught in schools and others including broad, sometimes vague, statements that leave discretion to individual teachers (Hornbeck 2018 ). In the past, local school districts might simply purchase textbooks from a popular company and use those books or the materials provided by the company as their curriculum, but state standards have refined what schools in states are required to teach, making the role of the state more influential in providing curriculum guidance and displacing some of the role of local school boards (Ravitch 1995 ).

Backlash to the national history standards was certainly related to the fact that academic historians were explicitly pushing back against exceptionalistic master narratives manifesting in textbooks and classrooms. Esteemed historians such as Howard Zinn ( 1980 ) used social history to show how the traditional master narrative of American exceptionalism had another side, such that policies too often worked to benefit those with power and dispossess those on the margins of society. In A People’s History of the United States , for example, Zinn ( 1980 ) centers another story, one in which the traditional heroes made decisions to perpetuate their own power and grandeur in posterity. Sociologist James Loewen ( 1995 ), in his work Lies My Teacher Told Me , critically examined twelve widely used U.S. history textbooks, showing how textbooks tell stories about history and attempting to shed light upon and rectify the stories being told. For example, he found textbooks commonly made it seem as though Native People in the United States were welcoming of European colonists, when in fact European colonists displaced natives and brought disease that killed many (Loewen 1995 ). Zinn and Loewen provide important examples of pushback against mythologized versions of US history, and such examples and approaches began to gain traction in some state textbooks and standards (Swalwell and Sinclair 2021 ). For example, in California, non-traditional families, including those in LGBTQ relationships, are intentionally included in academic content standards and in social studies (Camica and Zhu 2019 ).

In response (at least in part) to pushback against exceptionalist narratives and the adoption of academic content standards, controversies regarding history and social studies standards spread to state legislatures and state boards of education in recent years (Hornbeck 2018 ; Anderson 2013 ; Hillburn et al. 2016 ; Journell 2010 ). Texas, in particular, has long been at the center of debates related to controversial history curricula (Erekson 2012 ; Noboa 2011 ). In 2010, its state board passed an updated version of their social studies academic standards; these updated standards drew international attention for their naked promotion of American exceptionalism and triumphalist narratives. For instance, the new standards directed teachers to replace the word “imperialism” with “expansionism,” and to replace “slave trade” with “Atlantic triangular trade” (Noboa 2011 , p.44). One controversial textbook referred to enslaved African people as “immigrant workers” (Collier, 2015 , p.1). Moreover, few minorities were included in the new standards, and broader narratives were apparent that sought to cover up or minimize negative aspects of U.S. history (Noboa 2011 ).

Influence of Trump/Trumpism

Accordingly, we see a long history of curricular controversies, and frequently (but not always) these controversies have centered around how to teach history. More recently, though, they have expanded, evolved, and taken more of a front-and-center position in American politics, which is traceable at least in part to Donald Trump and Trumpism. Indeed, even Trump’s 2016 campaign slogan—“Make America Great Again”— made a historical claim, suggesting the US had been better sometime in the past. Trump also frequently made controversial or inaccurate historical claims while in office, including alleging that his adversaries sought to “wipe out our history”, “erase our values,” “defame our heroes,” and “indoctrinate our children” (see Wheeler, 2020 ). He further directly attacked historical teaching in US schools as “left-wing indoctrination” (Balingit and Meckler 2020 , p. 1) Trump also established a 1776 Commission, supported by a federal grant, which he said would promote a “pro-American curriculum” in schools, and he proclaimed that CRT should be banned from schools (Morgan 2022 ).

Although Trump played a key role in these debates and took several influential actions, he was not a lone actor, and one could even argue he was simply intuiting this as a political expedient area of focus. Indeed, our view is that several social forces and key precipitating events converged to increase tensions about historical and contemporary social (in)justice (see Malin and Hornbeck 2022 ). In 2019, for example, the 1619 Project was published by New York Times ; provocatively, its writers sought to recenter the historical founding of the United States from 1776—when the Declaration of Independence was signed—to 1619, which is when the first enslaved people from Africa were brought to North America (Hannah-Jones 2019 ). The 1619 Project drew huge amounts of attention, including by then-President Trump, who claimed: “This project rewrites American history to teach our children that we were founded on the principle of oppression, not freedom” (see Watson and Segers 2020 , p. 1). Also, in the wake of police killings, massive protests and national debates ensued around systemic racism and police brutality, and intermixed were controversial efforts to remove perceived racist and discriminatory statuary (Malin and Hornbeck 2022 ). And more broadly, large inequities, including across racial and ethnic lines, were particularly glaring during the pandemic. For some, these disparities and injustices have been a source of focus and motivation to push for progressive change, and for others the very focus on change has been highly threatening.

In this recent populist political moment, we have seen historians, adjacent scholars and journalists increasingly and openly sparring with conservative claims about history (Malin and Hornbeck 2022 ). They have been active participants through media and/or in person during key events, such as when historians were present and made key contributions during Trump’s two impeachment trials. Such disputes did not cease after Trump’s defeat in his 2020 reelection bid; instead, after Joseph Biden assumed the presidency in 2021, Republicans wasted little time introducing and/or furthering legal schemes at national and state levels to prohibit schools and teachers from teaching history or other courses from a critical perspective. One significant example was when Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida banned Advanced Placement African American Studies from being taught in the state (Heyward 2023 ).

The importance of inclusive curriculum

Substantial research exists highlighting benefits of inclusive curriculum, and particularly for students with marginalized identities (Hornbeck 2018 ; Yosso 2002 ; Ledesma and Calderon 2015 ; Snapp et al. 2015 ; Emdin 2016 ). Inclusive curricula are those that incorporate marginalized voices and encourages respect for all, not just the dominant group. Broadly, studies find that students of color and LGBTQ students perform better in school and have better mental health when schools and teachers incorporate inclusive curriculum (see Hornbeck and Duncheon 2022 ). As previously noted, however, scholars examining history textbooks and content standards have found that master narratives in favor of exceptionalism and triumphalism more often dominate the curriculum in U.S. schools. They argue teaching from a critical perspective is a better approach, serving as a corrective act that seeks to tell a more accurate and inclusive story (Anderson 2013 ; Hornbeck 2018 ; Loewen 1995 ; Hillburn et al. 2016 ; Journell 2010 ; Zinn 1980 ).

Social justice pedagogy offers one way to approach the complicated reality of dealing with dominant master narrative (Applebaum 2010 ). Using a social justice pedagogical approach entails asking educators to use pedagogy to question dominant ways of being and to work toward justice in the classroom. Social justice pedagogy recognizes that identity groups exist and that some such groups are in the minority, facing repression, and asserts that students have a right to use knowledge to deconstruct these narratives, bringing about a narrative of justice. Belle ( 2019 ) further argues that seeing students who are often forgotten “requires teachers to recognize them as valuable contributors to the classroom space, as opposed to social, cultural, and academic burdens on the so-called master in the room — the teacher” (p. 1). In this vein, an authentic ethic of care is one way to support LGBTQ students and resist heterodominance and repression in schools, and especially in states that have banned or sharply restricted the teaching of LGBTQ topics and history (Hornbeck and Duncheon 2022 ).

Method and framework

Data for this study come from primary and secondary sources including documents from government and news websites from August 2019 to November 2022 Footnote 2 . We employed textual analysis (TA) (Allen 2017 ) as a method to answer the questions posed within Ward’s (2017) knowledge mobilization framework; adapted to our study, this meant seeking to answer questions regarding what and whose knowledge is being restricted and how and why this is occurring. We considered this framework to be appropriate and useful for support the task at hand, insofar as:

teaching fundamentally concerns the construction, dissemination, and mobilization of knowledge;

schools are key sites of contestation wherein some knowledge is privileged and other knowledge is marginalized, and new policy can have effects;

seeking to address broad questions (i.e., what, whose, why, how) supports the exploration of an emerging and evolving process/phenomenon.

TA is a method centered on “understanding language, symbols, and/or pictures present in texts to gain information“ (Allen 2017 , p.2.). TA is a qualitative method, with an implication being that the researcher is the research instrument and subjectivity plays a role in interpreting data. TA is useful for qualitative work because it allows researchers to closely examine and interpret the meanings and messages within a text (Smith 2017 ). Accordingly, it can provide valuable insights into the beliefs, values, and perspectives of the people who created the text, as well as the cultural and social context in which it was produced. TA can also be used to identify patterns and themes within a text, which can be useful for understanding complex social phenomena. Additionally, because TA is a relatively flexible method, it can be applied to a wide range of texts, including written documents, speeches, and even visual media, making it a versatile tool for researchers (Belsey 2013 ).

We initiated our research process with a multi-step approach to ensure a thorough and comprehensive review of the topic. Our process was as follows: (1) We began by scouring for stories that referenced terms such as “critical race theory,” “The 1619 Project,” “anti-CRT legislation,” “woke educators,” and “gender ideology” across various national news outlets. Our search spanned from August 2019 – which marked the publication of the first 1619 Project story in the New York Times -- to November 2023. We specifically focused on instances involving state government actors and actions with legal implications such as legislation, state school board resolutions, and executive orders by governors. We also encountered several opinions penned by State Attorneys’ General, but opted not to include these in our analyses because they do not carry the weight of law unless subsequently interpreted as such by a court. Similarly, we identified many instances of local school districts and school boards implementing resolutions to restrict critical curricula, but we determined that these were beyond the scope of our state -focused study. (2) We then meticulously organized the data by state. This step allowed us to recognize patterns and trends on a state-by-state basis and provided a clearer picture of the nationwide landscape. Here, we were also attentive to the political environment within the identified states and the extent to which one political party was dominant (e.g., by controlling the legislature and/or the governorship). (3) After determining which states had enacted measures, we sought news reports and press releases from each respective state regarding the actions taken. We prioritized the identification of quotations from the primary political actor(s) involved (e.g., governor, sponsor of legislation), reasoning that these statements could illuminate their specific intentions and framings of the issue; (4) Concurrently, we sought to source the original text of the actions undertaken by the states (e.g., statute, board resolution, etc.). These primary documents allowed us to understand and analyze the precise language and legal mechanisms being employed. (5) Lastly, after compiling quotes and the text of state actions aimed at censoring certain curricula, we conducted a line-by-line review of the texts. We used an inductive coding scheme (Glaser and Strauss 1967 ) to identify emergent themes across the texts, and to understand how meanings were constructed, produced, and represented (Lockyer 2008 , p. 865). The goal was not merely to document what was overtly stated, but to discover and expose any underlying, implicit meanings (Bhattacharya 2017 , p. 70). We organized the themes around our research question, seeking to understand whose/what knowledge was being demobilized. Concurrently, we referred to evolving theory and literature to support, contest, and refine our growing comprehension of why and how critical perspectives are being silenced.

This methodology was developed and utilized because it provided a systematic and robust approach to analyze the actions taken by state governments regarding critical perspectives in school curricula. It allowed us to distill complex narratives into identifiable themes and extract implicit meanings from seemingly straightforward statements, thereby offering a richer understanding of the motivations and impacts of these policies.

Limitations

This study contained certain limitations. First, the time constrains we placed on the study (August 2019 to November 2022) could have resulted in potential gaps in the data collected and analyzed. This is an ongoing and evolving issue, but our research is limited to the data collected in the time constrains we chose. Our analysis was also restricted to state-level actions involving state government actors with immediate legal implications. While this was by design, focusing solely on these higher-level interventions certainly excluded other significant influences and decisions at local levels, such as school boards and districts, and meant excluding some state-level activities as well (e.g., opinions written by state Attorney Generals). As such, the findings do not fully capture the entire landscape of knowledge restriction and censorship in school curricula.

Another limitation revolves around our use textual analysis and the formats of data we analyzed. TA’s flexibility allows it to be applied to a wide range of texts, however it does not permit an assessment of non-verbal cues, tone, or context beyond what is present in the text itself. Consequently, some subtle nuances and implications could have been missed.

Our research process was systematic and rigorous, and while the limitations presented here may affect the extent to which our findings can be generalized, they do not detract from the importance or trustworthiness of our study. Nevertheless, recognizing these limitations provides avenues for future research to build upon this work, perhaps by including local level data and/or by using different data sources and methods to gain an more comprehensive understanding of this issue and its ongoing effects.

Findings for this project are organized around our efforts to identify whose, what, why, and how knowledge is being (de)mobilized, using Ward’s ( 2019 ) framework. Regarding what and whose knowledge, we found that 16 states – in which Republican politicians control the government – are using their formal authority to demobilize critical perspectives in schools. Related, these states are actively seeking to prevent or dissuade schools from engaging in critical and sociological thought, in large part by encouraging or requiring them to steer clear of content that might be sensitive or controversial. Curricula that are being targeted include the 1619 Project , those mentioning critical race theory, those alleged to “[inflict] shame and guilt on students,” those framing race or racism as a systemic problem in the US, and those discussing issues related to gender identity and/or sexual equality. Our findings also disclose that all students in these states, and especially marginalized/minority students, are likely to lose or miss key social studies perspectives as a result of these policies. Regarding why this is happening, data reveal that key actors frame targeted curricula as being “divisive,” “racist,” “ideologically motivated,” and as promoting feelings of “guilt” and “shame” among students. These actors are often politically motivated and supported by organizations that try to influence elections often without having to report their donations. Finally, regarding how this is occurring, we identified three means through which Republicans have sought to ban or censor certain topics from being taught in schools: state legislation, executive actions by governors, and actions by state boards of education. We also show how a network of elite-funded actors and intermediaries are supporting these actions and attempting to frame these curricular disputes. We explore each of these next.

What knowledge is being demobilized?

16 states are recently and actively restricting critical perspectives in schools using official government actions in overlapping ways to ban or restrict curriculum. In some cases, the legal language clearly bans specific topics or concepts, and in others broad, subjective, and unclear language leaves interpretation and discretion to teachers and schools. Even in the latter instances, though, we and others (Malin and Harnish 2023 ; Morgan 2022 ; Rogers et al. 2022 ) expect there will be a substantial chilling effect, with teachers and administrators making conservative curricular and pedagogical decisions out of fear of consequence. One high-profile example is the way that The College Board, the parent organization of Advanced Placement courses, changed their African American Studies curriculum because the conservative governor of Florida attacked it as being “woke” (Hartocollis and Fawcett 2023 ). In this instance, moreover, students across all U.S. states (i.e., those who are enrolled in this particular course, which is offered in many high schools nation-wide) will be affected by the change.

Four major linguistic patterns were identified (See Table 1 ): (1) language that bans CRT and the 1619 Project specifically by name; (2) language that bans or restricts teaching about the existence of systemic racism or language that causes guilt/shame based on race (in our interpretation, the aim here is to protect White students); (3) language that bans stereotyping based on gender or sex or that aims to reduce guilt/shame based on sex (in our interpretation, the aim here is to protect heterosexual students); (4) Provisions that ban controversial topics specifically or that require teachers to “teach both sides” of a particular issue. We explore these patterns further below.

The first pattern included explicitly referencing and banning “critical race theory” and/or the “ 1619 Project.” Four states—Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Virginia—mentioned CRT in their statewide actions by name, and one state (Texas) mentioned the 1619 Project . House Bill 377 in Idaho provides an example:

The Idaho legislature finds that tenets outlined in subsection 23 (3)(a) of this section, often found in “critical race theory,” undermine the objectives outlined in subsection (1) of this section and exacerbate and inflame divisions on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or other criteria in ways contrary to the unity of the nation and the well-being of the state of Idaho and its citizens.

Here, the Idaho Legislature has specifically referred to CRT as knowledge to be restricted in schools, effectively preventing students from having access to such knowledge. The knowledge to which they refer is vague and subjective, offering little clarification as to what they mean by CRT; rather they imply its use in schools is divisive on several bases.

The second pattern included language restricting or banning curriculum content regarding the existence of systemic racism, or that allegedly would cause guilt or shame. Much of the language related to this pattern was vague, including words like “fault,” “blame,” “anguish,” the “promotion of racism,” and “race scapegoating.” The curricular mandates related to this pattern are usually subjective, leaving interpretation to the school, parent, teacher, administrator or even the student. In South Dakota, for example, the legislation bans any curricula that might make a student “feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex.” This statement, like those found in 16 other states, leaves unclear how such “discomfort” criteria might be objectively applied or evaluated. Indeed, we expect such language will frequently lead teachers and administrators to take a conservative approach to teaching, for fear of potentially causing a student to feel discomfort or anguish. What this means is that such “discomfort” provisions will frequently serve to demobilize particular types of knowledge (i.e., perspectives and histories that are critical—or, worse yet, that might be perceived by some as being inappropriately critical—in nature).

Other language aiming to restrict whether/how teachers could talk about systemic racism was more specific. Tennessee’s legislation, for example, forbids teachers or curriculum from acknowledging that a “race is inherently privileged, racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or subconsciously.” While Tennessee also includes some vague phrases (e.g., controversial topics) they also include specific phrases that they ban from curricula, as in a provision that states teachers cannot teach that “This state or the United States is fundamentally or irredeemably racist or sexist.” Such provisions, in our view, also will have the effect of demobilizing particular (critical) knowledge by leading teachers and schools to omit realities about social studies subjects surrounding race, sex, and gender.

The third pattern identified in state actions included language restricting curricular content that might make students feel guilt or shame for their views about sex, gender, or sexuality. Most of the language in the state laws and actions are similar, often listing race and sex together. It is clear, though, that sexuality and sex are a key part of the calculus in these government actions. For example, in Alabama a new law asserts schools cannot teach “concepts that impute fault, blame, a tendency to oppress others, or the need to feel guilt or anguish” because of their “sex.” As with race in the previous paragraph, the language regarding sex/sexuality is vague and subjective and thus left to interpretation. Iowa’s law is different, as it doesn’t mention race or sex; instead it states that schools cannot “teach, advocate, encourage, promote, or act upon specific stereotyping and scapegoating toward others on the basis of demographic group membership or identity.” The legislation fails to explain what is meant by certain words, such as scapegoating. Additionally, in relation to sexuality, one state (Florida) changed the word “gender” to “sex” in their existing law, making it clear that protections for gender did not include transgender or other queer students.

The final pattern included requirements to refrain from teaching “divisive concepts.” A representative example came from an executive order from South Dakota’s Governor, which stated that employees, students, or teachers cannot be compelled “to personally affirm, adopt, or adhere to inherently divisive concepts.” Similar to language from other states, the executive order defines these concepts as those that go against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 , which include provisions stating that individuals cannot be discriminated against on the basis of race, sex, age, or religion. However, the order also states that it is “not limited” to the provisions of the Civil Rights Act , making it very challenging for schools and teachers to determine what may or may not be considered divisive. Another example from Texas’ legislation included language that no teacher could be required to teach controversial current topics, but if they chose to do so that they “shall, to the best of the teacher’s ability, strive to explore the topic from diverse and contending perspectives without giving deference to any one perspective.” This language is complicated, leaving teachers and schools with discretion to decide what is and is not controversial and what should be included or omitted in their instruction. It also directs teachers to explore topics from diverse angles, again leaving important questions about which angles to include.

Whose knowledge is being demobilized?

Sixteen states have enacted laws and/or issued state school board resolutions or executive orders that result in the demobilization of critical perspectives in schools (See Table 2 ). As a result of these knowledge restrictions, all students who attend public K-12 institutions in these states will potentially have less access to critical perspectives in their classes.

In our view, these curricular restrictions are harmful to all students whose learning experiences are affected; we believe students are best served by learning to take a variety of perspectives and to more fully comprehend US history and other subjects (see also Malin and Harnish 2023 ). We also conclude that marginalized communities, including non-White and LGBTQ students, will be particularly harmed by the lack of or limited access to perspectives that are critical of master narratives provided in coursework. For example, The 1619 Project is the target of many of these laws, and the premise of this work is to present an alternate way to think about the founding of the United States where slavery was a central motivation. This idea and perspective would be banned in these states. Additionally, the concept of CRT, which for these state actions often means that the concept of systemic racism cannot be taught, will be left out of curricula. As such, these actions effectively limit the ways that teachers can approach curricula that deals with issues of race, racism, sexuality, and how they play a role in U.S. and global history, which in turn limit the ways that students may contextualize relevant history and have access to knowledge. We concur with Richeson ( 2020 , p. 10), however, who claims “unless people understand the systemic forces that create and sustain racial inequality, we will never successfully address it.”

Why is knowledge being demobilized?

To answer ‘why’ knowledge is being demobilized, first we draw on statements made by government officials in states that implemented actions to restrict critical perspectives. Governors and other Republican politicians made statements through press releases, press conferences, news interviews, executive orders, and social media posts. These statements reveal their stated intentions, which were to prevent division in schools, protect students from racism/sexism, and teach what they framed as being more accurate history. After examining their stated explanations through text, we then also examine the ‘why’ question through the lens of outside motivations behind these government actions and statements, including populist forces and organized political influencers.

In the statements examined by politicians who enacted bans on ctitical perspectives in school curricula, like the 1619 Project , words like “divisive,” “racist,” “sexist,” and suggestions that these materials would or did “inflame division” and make students feel “guilt” and “shame” dominated the stated reasons as to why they were being banned. Statements by politicians implied that students (and it appeared they were generally focused on White and heterosexual students) would be negatively affected by such content. As noted, the curricula that are in question include critical perspectives that question master narratives about race and sexuality in U.S. History and society, offering more perspectives from the margins, and the public officials appeared to be focused on preventing such ideas from offending White and heterosexual students (and parents). An example of this came from a state representative in Texas, where he said, “You can’t teach that one gender is better than the other. You can’t discriminate either… and say that one race or one gender is responsible for the ills of the past.”

Officials in the identified states made claims that they were protecting students from division and racism. For example, the Governor of Alabama posted a statement on the social media platform Twitter: “We have permanently BANNED Critical Race Theory in Alabama. We’re focused on teaching our children how to read and write, not HATE.” Here, the governor attempts to connect the word “hate” to CRT. However, we note that the resolution passed by the Alabama State School Board does not define or mention CRT; rather, it contains vague statements about banning curricula that make students feel guilt or shame about their race/sex. This is inconsistent with the governor’s multiple statements in which she claims to have banned CRT. Nevertheless, this was her attempt at explaining why it was wise or necessary to ban this content in the state she governed. Similarly, Tennessee’s Governor released the following statement: “Critical race theory is un-American…It fundamentally puts groups of people above the sanctity of the individual which is a founding principle of this nation. It’s appropriate that we would not teach critical race theory in this state.” Here as well, the governor claims that CRT should not be taught in the state, yet the legislation passed by the Tennessee Legislature does not mention or define CRT. Thus, discourse surrounding CRT, a legal theory, and the term’s usage by politicians does not reflect what the actual theory states; rather they appear to be using the term rhetorically for political purposes (see also Malin and Hornbeck 2022 ). Again, in this instance, the governor explains that they are banning CRT because it teaches hate, citing this as the ‘why.’ The governor of Alabama stated publicly that CRT was not actually taught in schools, but asserted that, by enacting a rule, the state would ensure schools would never teach CRT (Moseley 2021 ). We also noted some statements in which officials claimed history should be taught more accurately, often while simultaneously asserting that critical perspectives are inaccurate and dangerous. In North Dakota, State Senator Janne Myrdal stated that “we need to teach true history” while also warning that critical perspectives found in CRT would “have a political consequence on our children later.” No evidence, however, is provided to support such assertions. Again, the answer to why these restrictuions were necessary is that critical perspectives are detrimental to children. The Governor of Tennessee also stated, “We need to make sure that our kids recognize that this country is moving toward a more perfect union, that we should teach the exceptionalism of our nation.” The Governor implied that “exceptionalism” was the accurate and productive way in which to teach history in schools. State Representative Ron Naate of Idaho said that “CRT, rooted in Marxist thought, is a pernicious way of viewing the world. It demands that everything in society be viewed through the lens of racism, sexism, and power.” This statement again implies that critical perspectives about history are dangerous and inaccurate.

This question, surrounding the “why” behind bans/restrictions of critical perspectives in schools, warrants an exploration that extends beyond just the words and explanations of the politicians who are banning them. The contemporary U.S. is characterized by uniquely high levels of political polarization and hyperpartisanship, and some of the largest and most emotion-laden issues of late have centered on education. Education is now a central battleground in ongoing “culture wars” (Hornbeck 2023 ). The years of pandemic schooling brought major conflicts around education – e.g., vis-à-vis school closures, instructional mandates, vaccines, and masks – and it appears that these conflicts opened opportunities for conservative actors to ratchet up their attention toward and challenges to public schools (Malin and Harnish 2023 ). Such actors have worked concertedly to introduce content aimed to distract and divide U.S. citizens and to foster identity-based sensibilities of us versus them (Hacker and Pierson 2020 ; Malin and Lubienski 2022 ).

Recent research by Knight-Abowitz and Sellers ( 2023 ) also suggests that populism is playing a significant role, as evidenced by a powerful racial reckoning among the right. These populist tendencies are harnessed by the aforementioned network, which not only introduces concepts like “CRT” and “gender ideology” into the political landscape but also actively frame and polarize them, leveraging them as powerful ideological instruments. Indeed, emergent evidence suggests a broader influence architecture, constituted by non-profit groups, media outlets, think tanks, foundations, and law firms, that is systematically injecting challenges to educators, professional decision-making, and school curriculum into political discourse, helping to fuel the political and legal movement we are observing (Kumashiro 2021 ; Legum and Zekeria 2021 ; Hornbeck 2023 ). One important example regarding how individuals and outside organizations are playing an increased role can be seen through the actions of Christopher Rufo, a conservative activist, who is connected to conservative and difficult-to-trace political (dark money) groups (Carter 2023 ). Rufo substantially contributed to igniting and sustaining the conflict over CRT (Wallace-Wells 2021 ). Despite little to no significant pre-existing controversy, Rufo managed to frame CRT as a threat to American values, creating an uproar within the Trump populist base. This in turn led to further demands for this issue to become a rallying cry among conservative politicians, establishing a firm stand against CRT as a requisite display of alignment with their base’s concerns. In such a politically charged atmosphere, such attacks—as largely manufactured through elites—are more than ideological alignment. They form part of a broader populist wave (see Knight-Abowitz and Sellers 2023 ), a reckoning with racial and social issues that resonates with certain segments of society. Consequently, the political expediency of these efforts to restrict or ban critical perspectives becomes significantly influenced by this socio-political climate, where populism and the rhetoric of influential figures like Rufo become powerful drivers. Depending on the context, these efforts to demobilize critical content and perspectives may be substantially well-received.

How is knowledge being demobilized?

Finally, as to the question of ‘how is knowledge being demobilized?’ three approaches dominated the Republican strategy to ban or censor critical topics from being taught in schools (See Table 2 ): state legislation, executive actions by governors, and actions by state boards of education. Of the 16 states that have enacted such restrictions, two states (South Dakota and Virginia) used executive orders by their governors. Two states (Alabama and Utah) used state school board resolutions to implement their bans on restrictive curricula. Of the remaining 12 states, legislatures passed laws that were subsequently enacted. It should be noted that in Kentucky, the Democratic Governor vetoed the bill, but the Republican-dominated state legislature successfully overrode the veto, making the measure the law of the state.

Findings indicated that all 16 states that used official power to demobilize critical perspectives were dominated by Republican majorities. They used party cohesion to achieve their aims in these states, considering that their state government actors who passed these measures are all of the Republican party. In the one state where the governor vetoed the measure, the governor was a Democrat, and the legislature was Republican. In Virginia, where the Republican Governor used an executive order to implement knowledge demobilization measures, the legislature was Democratic, which meant the order could only apply during his tenure in office. In the two states (Alabama and Utah) where state school boards made changes, the states were controlled by Republicans in both their legislature and governors’ offices.

As with the why question, the how question may also be partially answerable on a different level—e.g., with attention toward more behind-the-scenes efforts to secure support for such changes, model legislation, webinars/trainings to support politicians and activists who are leading these charges, etc. To fully analyze this influence architecture is beyond the scope of the article, but again we can point to emergent evidence that this is a substantial, well-funded, organized effort (Malin and Lubienski 2022 ; Legum and Zekeria 2021 ; Lopez et al. 2021 ; Kingkade et al. 2021 ).

This study examined knowledge (de)mobilization in school curriculum across states. We find that in 16 states, government officials have enacted laws and resolutions that seek to prevent the teaching of critical perspectives in K-12 schools. This section reconnects with the literature and considers implications. Broadly, we conclude that demobilizing critical knowledge will serve to perpetuate a tradition of using dominant master narratives to teach history and social studies topics in schools. We also return to the prevalent issue of vague legal language, considering implications and describing early effects in schools. Additionaly, we further examine how these actions appear to be reacting to a largely manufactured crisis, and we consider the coded language within actions that seeks to protect White racial dominance and heteronormativity.

Perpetuating dominant historical narratives and division

Our study reveals that state actions limiting the inclusion of critical historical perspectives in schools are partly driven by politicians’ professed belief that there is a single accurate or correct interpretation of history. For instance, the state senator in North Dakota (refer Table 3 ) who argued that “we need to teach true history” implies that only one version of history holds truth. Similarly, the governor of Tennessee suggested that schools should uphold a singular historical narrative, extolling the exceptionalism of the United States. Such dominant narratives have long been ingrained in school curricula (Loewen 1995 ); however, the recent drive by states to legislate restrictive rules on teaching content that may cause discomfort or offense poses an unusual, elevated threat. These state actions not only impinge on teachers’ professional freedom and discretion to deliver a more balanced, accurate perspective of history, but they may also jeopardize the breadth of knowledge produced and shared by scholars and experts who are often consulted for their expertise when creating K12 curricula, thus stunting students’ ability to develop critical thinking skills.

From our perspectives, it is not necessary to deliver a curriculum steeped solely in critical perspectives; rather, what is needed is a balanced approach that includes critical viewpoints as an essential component. A singularly positive, uncritical, or exceptionalist historical version restricts and distorts our understanding of history. Traditionally, debates at the state level about textbooks and standards have revolved around what should be included. In a striking departure, recent actions actively work to suppress certain knowledge, excluding certain curricula and content, instead of focusing on how to foster critical thinking and accurate understandings in schools.

Officials often assert that critical perspectives breed division, which they argue has no place in schools. However, this viewpoint fails to recognize that maintaining a dominant historical narrative could equally generate or exacerbate division. They don’t take into account that engaging with diverse perspectives might induce discomfort but also might lead to richer, more nuanced understandings of history. Adopting a balanced approach that includes critical perspectives could foster dialogue and encourage a more complete historical understanding.

Insisting schools perpetuate the narrative of exceptionalism while ignoring the abundant evidence of existing societal inequalities glosses over reality. It could potentially deepen societal divisions when students, parents, and other citizens as they recogize certain knowledge is being inappropriately withheld or distorted. Such policies might be interpreted as attempts at indoctrination, compelling students to absorb a potentially historically inaccurate version of events. A balanced approach that incorporates critical perspectives could provide students with a more holistic view of history, acknowledging the complexities and contradictions inherent in our shared past.

Vague language in demobilizing actions

Vague language is pervasive within state actions that limit critical perspectives, leaving interpretation to schools, teachers, parents, and students. Consider again the law in Alabama that restricts “concepts that impute fault, blame, a tendency to oppress others, or the need to feel guilt or anguish to persons solely because of their race or sex.” How will a teacher know how to teach the concept of slavery or Jim Crow, and how will they teach about voter suppression? How will they teach about the Civil Rights Movement? Teachers may avoid teaching such important topics in depth out of fear for their jobs or of inadvertently creating strife within their classes and workplace. The potential chilling effect related to teaching critical topics in schools because of the vague details found in these laws is quite large, in our estimation, potentially leading to the exclusion of important perspectives. The language and rhetoric would appear to forestall teachers from exploring approaches to learning found in social theory, which have developed for over one hundred years within the academy. The legislator from Idaho claimed that CRT was dominated in “Marxist thought,” insinuating it is problematic to recognize class and cultural inequality within U.S. history and society.

Manufactured problem

Ward’s ( 2019 ) knowledge mobilization framework reveals how some motivations for mobilizing knowledge may be to solve a problem, change policy, or create new programs. While politicians who support efforts to limit critical knowledge may claim that they are seeking to solve a problem, the reality is that leading opponents have only provided specious examples of rare occurrences in schools while they erroneously claim these are pervasive issues. In some cases, leading officials have been unable to back up their assertions when directly challenged, yet they have continued their pursuits. The Governor of Alabama, for example, was asked if CRT was being taught in schools and she replied that it was not; subsequently, she continued to push for official state action (Moseley 2021 ). In another case (See Table 3 ), the Virginia Secretary of Education claimed that their executive order is designed to stop “inappropriate things like privilege walks, privilege bingo, putting children into situations where they’re playing as the victim.” In this instance as well, they provide no data that support that these instances are occurring, in isolation or broadly, in schools. The lack of evidence to support that CRT or other critical perspectives are pervasive in schools or that they are problematic, suggests that politicians and associated advocates have largely manufactured a political problem to garner support with their base, uphold the status quo, or scare parents for political gain (see also Malin and Harnish 2023 ).

Protections for white and heterosexual students

Language used by politicians for the justification of limiting critical perspectives has largely revolved around protecting students from feeling guilt and shame, or asserted that critical perspectives would cause division in schools around topics related to race and sexuality. However, as we have interpreted, the students that these acts are intending to protect are White and heterosexual, two dominant groups within society. These groups are not mentioned overtly within legislation, school board resolutions, or executive orders. Revisiting one example that illustrates this comes from the language of the Governor of Alabama, where they stated that they were “focused on teaching our children how to read and write, not HATE.” This governor, who also denied that CRT was being taught in schools in Alabama, insinuated that teaching critical historical perspectives in schools leads to hate. Based on the language of the school board resolution in Alabama, the students to which CRT and other critical historical perspectives would harm White and heterosexual students; however, little to no evidence was put forth to show how these students were being harmed.

Student exclusion

In the 16 states that have formally restricted critical perspectives in schools, students of color and LGBTQ students stand to lose valuable perspectives in school that demonstrate the reality of the historical struggle of marginalized citizens and the barriers they faced. The dominant narrative that lawmakers suggest should be taught tells a naïve story and shares an incomplete picture of the past that excludes LGBTQ students and the story of racism. Leaving out critical perspectives in school curriculum can be dangerous because it can lead to a lack of understanding and knowledge about certain groups of people, their histories, and their experiences (Hornbeck 2018 ; Yosso 2002 ; Snapp et al. 2015 ; Emdin 2016 ). This can result in a lack of empathy and understanding and can even contribute to harmful stereotypes and biases. Omitting critical perspectives can also deprive students of the opportunity to learn about different ways of thinking and understanding the world (Hornbeck 2018 ). It can limit their ability to think critically and make informed decisions and can even lead to a narrow and one-sided view of the world. Leaving out critical perspectives can also contribute to a lack of representation and inclusivity in education (Ledesma and Calderon 2015 .) This can exclude certain groups of students from feeling seen, heard, and valued, and can create a sense of isolation and marginalization.

International context

While this study primarily focused on policy debates and implementation in the U.S., there are echoes in similar discussions happening worldwide. The parallel events across different countries are not merely coincidental but are indicative of a larger global trend. This includes the rise of conservative movements in Europe—most notably in Poland, France, and Italy—that advocate for a return to more traditional societal norms, including those propagated in schools.

In Hungary, under the leadership of right-wing Prime Minister Viktor Orban, the education system has seen significant changes. Patriotism and nationalism now take center stage in the curriculum, attempting to instill a sense of national pride in students (Schlagwein 2020 ). Moreover, there has been a deliberate attempt to recast controversial historical figures, such as Miklos Horthy, a known Hitler sympathizer, in a more favorable light, demonstrating how the control of historical narratives can shape current societal attitudes.

Similar currents can be seen beyond Europe. In Brazil, political activists have increasingly campaigned for the monitoring of school curriculum to ensure the promotion of traditional values (Alves et al. 2021 ). These actions mirror in some ways what is happening in the U.S. and further highlight the international nature of this trend. Japan, a democratic country with a long history of internationalism in education, is experiencing a surge in right-wing discourse linked to nationalism. This shift is pressuring the school curriculum to become less internationalist and more focused on Japanese nationalism (Yoon and Asahina 2021 ).

It’s important to note that the movements to censor critical information and promote nationalistic perspectives have far-reaching international implications. By fostering a single national narrative, these trends risk creating an environment conducive to misunderstanding and conflict. History has shown repeatedly that when diverse perspectives are silenced in favor of a singular national narrative, it can lead to strained international relations and, in extreme cases, conflicts between nations. This global context underscores the importance of our study, as the consequences of such actions are not confined within national borders but can impact the global community as a whole.

In conclusion, this study demonstrates the ways that states that are controlled by conservative actors are using their official power to demobilize historical knowledge that questions or critiques dominant narratives in school curriculum. While school curriculum is not the be-all and end-all when it comes to access to knowledge for young people, it is a pervasive and important way for students to learn and understand historical knowledge and may be the only way that some students encounter such knowledge. These data show ways that states are censoring information that might help students outside of the dominant identity feel included as part of the larger historical story. Additionally, critical historical perspectives can help all students see a more holistic interpretation of the past, an important reality in a democracy. Historical knowledge demobilization, as we call it, is only one part of the ongoing story related to the culture wars and the control of historical master narratives. The clear example of the Governor of Florida influencing the white-washing of AP African American studies curriculum shows the potential ramifications of such policies and warrants continued study as these types of demobilizing policies proliferate. Our study provides insight into strategies being used by political actors to advance their power and narrative in schools, leaving new questions but furthering our collective understanding of their aims.

Data availability

All data for this study are summarized in tables and are accessible by using this study’s reference list, which provides paths to data available at public websites.

Change history

23 october 2023.

A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02245-1

CRT, which has origins in critical legal studies showing how racism has been foundational in law and public policy, has developed into a broadly adjustable attempt at explaining the production and maintenance of racism (Crenshaw, 2010 ; Ray, 2023 ). As a theory, it draws attention toward understanding structural racism.

Also, as we moved forward we reviewed, reconciled, and incorporated recent scholarly and gray literature that included pertinent analysis for addressing ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions.

Abbott, Gov. Greg. (2021) Governor Abbott signs HB 3979 into law. State of Texas. Retrieved from https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-signshb-3979-intolaw#:~:text=House%20Bill%203979%20is%20a,to%20a%20special%20session%20agenda.&text=View%20the%20Governor%E2%80%99s%20Filing%20Statement

ABC 4 Utah (2021) What you need to know about Idaho’s critical race theory law. ABC 4 News. Retrieved from https://www.abc4.com/news/local-news/what-you-need-to-know-about-idahos-critical-race-theory-law/

Allen M (Ed.) (2017) The SAGE Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods. SAGE publications

Alves MA, Segatto CI, Pineda AM (2021) Changes in Brazilian education policy and the rise of right‐wing populism. Br Educ Res J 47(2):332–354

Article   Google Scholar  

Anderson CB (2013) The trouble with unifying narratives: African Americans and the Civil Rights Movement in US history content standards. J Soc Stud Res 37(2):111–120

AP News (2021) Tennessee governor signs bill against teaching ‘divisive’ concepts. Associated Press. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/article/tennessee-racial-injustice-race-and-ethnicity-religion-education-9366bceabf309557811eab645c8dad13

Applebaum B (2010) Being white, being good: White complicity, white moral responsibility, and social justice pedagogy. Lexington Books

Balingit M, Meckler L (2020) Trump alleges ‘left-wing indoctrination’ in schools, says he will create national commission to push more ‘pro-American’ history. Washington Post. Retrieved from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/schools-close-over-coronavirus-threat-raising-concerns-about-disruption/2020/03/09/ea74e528-622b-11ea-acca-80c22bbee96f_story.html

Belle C (2019) What is social justice education anyway. Educ Week 38(19):18–19

Google Scholar  

Belsey C (2013) Textual analysis as a research method. Res Methods Engl Stud 2:160–178

Bennett WJ (1994) The de-valuing of America: The fight for our culture and our children. Simon and Schuster

Bhattacharya K (2017) Fundamentals of qualitative research: a practical guide. Routledge

Blume H, Gomez M (2022) California takes opposite path of Florida, Texas on inclusive education. Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-05-11/california-takes-opposite-path-of-florida-texas-on-inclusive-education

Bojorquez A (2021) Critical race theory not taught in SC schools, budget bill says. Greenville News. Retrieved from https://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/local/south-carolina/2021/07/01/critical-race-theory-sc-schools-not-taught-what-is-budget/5303357001/

Camicia S, Zhu J (2019) LGBTQ inclusion and exclusion in state social studies standards. Curriculum & teaching dialogue 21(1 & 2):7–21

Carter C (2023) New College of Florida trustee saw an influx of cash to his foundation, according to a new report. WUSF Public Media - WUSF 89.7. https://wusfnews.wusf.usf.edu/politics-issues/2023-06-21/new-college-of-florida-trustee-influx-of-cash-foundation

Collier K (2015) Texas’ controversial social studies textbooks under fire again. Texas Tribune. https://www.texastribune.org/2015/10/05/controversial-social-studies-textbooks-under-fire-/

Crenshaw, KW (2010) Twenty years of critical race theory: Looking back to move forward. Conn. L. Rev. 43:1253

Desantis R (2022) Governor Ron DeSantis signs legislation to protect Floridians from discrimination and woke indoctrination. State of Florida. Retrieved from https://www.flgov.com/2022/04/22/governor-ron-desantis-signs-legislation-to-protect-floridians-from-discrimination-and-woke-indoctrination/

Emdin C (2016) For White folks who teach in the hood… and the rest of y’all too: Reality pedagogy and urban education. Beacon Press

Erekson K (Ed.) (2012) Politics and the history curriculum: The struggle over standards in Texas and the nation. Springer

Fox 11 (2021) Report finds critical race theory embedded in South Dakota schools, governor pledges action. Fox 11 News. Retrieved from https://fox11online.com/news/nation-world/report-finds-critical-race-theory-embedded-in-south-dakota-schools-governor-pledges-action

Frosch D (2021) We can and should teach this history: New bills limit how teachers talk about race. NPR. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2021/05/25/1000273981/we-can-and-should-teach-this-history-new-bills-limit-how-teachers-talk-about-rac

Glaser BG, Strauss A (1967) The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine, Chicago

Hacker JS, Pierson P (2020) Let them eat tweets: How the right rules in an age of extreme inequality. Norton

Hannah-Jones N (2019) The 1619 Project. The New York Times

Hartman A (2013) “A Trojan Horse for Social Engineering”: the curriculum wars in recent American History. J Policy Hist 25(1):114–136

Hartocollis A, Fawcett E (2023) The College Board Strips Down Its A.P. Curriculum for African American Studies. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/01/us/college-board-advanced-placement-african-american-studies.html

Heyward G (2023) Florida Advanced Placement African American studies backlash. NPR. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2023/01/27/1151725129/florida-advanced-placement-african-american-studies-backlash

Hilburn J, Journell W, Buchanan LB (2016) A content analysis of immigration in traditional, new, and non-gateway state standards for US history and civics. High School J 99(3):234–251

Hornbeck D (2017) Seeking civic virtue: two views of the philosophy and history of federalism in U.S. education. J Thought 51(3/4):52–68

Hornbeck D (2018) Democratic representation in state content standards: voting rights, gerrymandering, and voter suppression. High School J 101(4):251–274

Hornbeck D (2023) Navigating parental rights: a study of Virginia’s model policies on transgender student treatment. Educ Policy Anal Arch. In Press

Hornbeck D, Duncheon JC (2022) “From an ethic of care to queer resistance”: Texas Administrator and Teacher Perspectives on Supporting LGBTQ students in Secondary Schools. Int J Qual Stud Educ

Ivey K (2022) Tweet [@governorkayivey]. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/governorkayivey?lang=en

Journell W (2010) Standardizing citizenship: the potential influence of state curriculum standards on the civic development of adolescents. PS: Polit Sci Politics 43(2):351–358

Kemp B (2022) Georgia governor Brian Kemp calls critical race theory a dangerous ideology. National Review. Retrieved from https://www.nationalreview.com/news/georgia-governor-brian-kemp-calls-critical-race-theory-a-dangerous-ideology/

Kingkade T, Zadrozny B, Collins GB (2021) Critical race theory battle invades school boards– with help from conservative groups. NBCNews.com. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/critical-race-theory-invades-school-boards-help-conservative-groupsn1270794

Knight-Abowitz K, Sellers K (2023) Pragmatist thinking for a populist moment: Democratic contingency and racial re-valuing in education governance

Kumashiro K (2021) Understanding the attacks on teaching: a background brief for educators and leaders. https://www.kevinkumashiro.com/attacksonteaching

Laats A (2010) Fundamentalism and education in the Scopes era: God, Darwin, and the roots of America’s culture wars. Springer

Ledesma MC, Calderón D (2015) Critical race theory in education: a review of past literature and a look to the future. Qual Inquiry 21(3):206–222

Legum J, Zekeria T (2021) The obscure foundation funding “critical race theory” hysteria. Popular Information

Leming J, Ellington L, Porter K (2003) Where did social studies go wrong?

Leys C (2021) Governor Kim Reynolds signs law targeting critical race theory in Iowa schools, diversity training. Des Moines Register. Retrieved from https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2021/06/08/governor-kim-reynolds-signs-law-targeting-critical-race-theory-iowa-schools-diversity-training/7489896002/

Lockyer S (2008) Textual analysis. The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods, 865–867

Loewen JW (1995) Lies My Teacher Told Me (New York). Touchstone, 922–32

López F, Molnar A, Johnson R, Patterson A, Ward L, Kumashiro K (2021) Understanding the attacks on critical race theory. National Education Policy Center

Malin JR, Lubienski C (2022) Information pollution in an age of populist politics. Educ Policy Anal Arch 30(94):1–23

Malin JR, Hornbeck D (2022) Historical knowledge mobilisation in a post-factual era in the United States. Evid Policy 18(3):502–523

Malin JR, Harnish JA (2023) The contestation of history in schools in the United States. Nuova Secondaria 8(aprile 2023):1–7

Morgan H (2022) Resisting the movement to ban critical race theory from schools. Clgh J Educ Strateg Issues Ideas 95(1):35–41

Moseley B (2021) Alabama State School Board Passes Resolution Banning Critical Race Theory. The Alabama Reporter. Retrieved from https://www.alreporter.com/2021/08/16/alabama-state-school-board-passes-resolution-banning-critical-race-theory/

Noboa J (2011) From the Battlefront of the Texas History Wars: Contending with” American Exceptionalism”. Multicult Educ 19(1):44–45

Payne D (2021) Critical rce theory turning school boards into GOP proving grounds. Politico

Ravitch D, Stoehr LA (2017) The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education. In Early Learning (pp. 125–128). Routledge

Ravitch D, Vinovskis MA (Eds.) (1995) Learning from the past: What history teaches us about school reform. JHU Press

Ray V (2023) On critical race theory: why it matters & why you should care. Random House Trade Paperbacks

Richeson JA (2020) The mythology of racial progress. Atlantic 326(2):9–12

Rogers J, Kahne J, Ishimoto M, Kwako A, Stern SC, Bingener C, Raphael L, Alkam S, Conde Y (2022) Educating for a diverse democracy: The chilling role of political conflict in blue, purple, and red communities. UCLA’s Institute for Democracy, Education, and Access, Los Angeles, CA

Rossinow DC (1998) The politics of authenticity: Liberalism, Christianity, and the New Left in America. Columbia University Press

Schlagwein (2020) New school curriculum raises eyebrows in Orban’s Hungary. DW News. https://www.dw.com/en/new-school-curriculum-raises-eyebrows-in-orbans-hungary/a-52964617

Smith JA (2017) Textual analysis. Int Encycl Commun Res Methods 1:7

Snapp SD, McGuire JK, Sinclair KO, Gabrion K, Russell ST (2015) LGBTQ-inclusive curricula: why supportive curricula matter. Sex Educ 15(6):580–596

Swalwell K, Sinclair K (2021) The appeal of a controversial text: who uses a people’s history of the United States in the US history classroom and why. J Soc Stud Res 45(2):84–100

The Tennessee Star (2021) How Utah Parents are rallying against Critical Race Theory in Public Schools. The Tennessee Star. Retrieved from https://tennesseestar.com/2021/07/13/how-utah-parents-are-rallying-against-critical-race-theory-in-public-schools/

U.S. News & World Report (2022) Youngkin looks to root out Critical Race Theory in Virginia. U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved from https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2022-02-15/youngkin-looks-to-root-out-critical-race-theory-in-virginia

Wallace-Wells B (2021) How a conservative activist invented the conflict over critical race theory. The New Yorker. Retrieved from https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-inquiry/how-a-conservative-activist-invented-the-conflict-over-critical-race-theory

Ward V (2019) Using frameworks and models to support knowledge mobilization. In The Role of Knowledge Brokers in Education (pp. 168–181). Routledge

Watson K, Segers G (2020) Trump blasts 1619 project on role of Black Americans and proposes his own “1776 commission”. CBS News 9:18

Waxman OB (2023) Exclusive: New data shows the anti-critical race theory movement is ‘far from over’. Time. https://time.com/6266865/critical-race-theory-data-exclusive/

Wheeler T (2020) Donald Trump fakes history in order to divide us. Brookings Institution. https://policycommons.net/artifacts/413900/donald-trump-fakes-history-in-order-to-divide-us/4947608/

Yoon SJ, Asahina Y (2021) The rise and fall of Japan’s new far right: how anti-Korean discourses went mainstream. Politics Soc 49(3):363–402

Yosso TJ (2002) Toward a critical race curriculum. Equity Excell Educ 35(2):93–107

Zinn H (1980) A People’s History of the United States 1492-present. Harper Collins, NY

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, The University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, USA

Dustin Hornbeck

Educational Leadership, Miami University, Oxford, OH, USA

Joel R. Malin

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dustin Hornbeck .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Additional information.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Hornbeck, D., Malin, J.R. Demobilizing knowledge in American schools: censoring critical perspectives. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 10 , 642 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02161-4

Download citation

Received : 10 February 2023

Accepted : 22 September 2023

Published : 05 October 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02161-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Student Opinion

Should Schools Be Allowed to Censor Student Newspapers?

By Natalie Proulx

• May 9, 2019

Does your school have a student newspaper? If so, do you read it or write for it? What purpose do you think it serves in your school? If not, do you wish your school had one? Why or why not?

Do students have free rein to write what they want in your school newspaper? Should they?

Recently, student journalists found themselves at odds with their school district after writing an article about an 18-year-old student who makes her own pornographic videos. The Times reports :

The Bear Creek High School newspaper has profiled notable students — athletes, budding entrepreneurs, academic whizzes — without incident for decades. But an article that appeared Friday in The Bruin Voice caused an uproar over free speech, feminism and student journalism, all before it was even published. The 18-year-old subject is a senior at the school in Stockton, Calif., one of more than 2,100 students. She also makes her own pornographic videos. The story about the story follows a pattern similar to other clashes between student journalists and school boards. The Lodi Unified School District, after learning about the planned profile, demanded last month that it be turned over for review before appearing online and in print. The attempted oversight drew far more attention than the article probably would have. The district said the piece might violate a state rule that it said prevented publications at public schools from featuring “obscenity, defamation and incitement,” and it threatened to fire Katherine Duffel, the paper’s longtime faculty adviser. In articles, columns, television programs and social media posts, the standoff over an unpublished story became either a symbol of censorship and women’s rights, or the loss of traditional values and a school district’s responsibility to protect young students from harmful content.

In a July 1, 2018 article “ Hard News. Angry Administration. Teenage Journalists Know What It’s Like ,” Jaclyn Peiser writes about more conflicts like the one at Bear Creek High School:

High schools across the country have pushed back this year against student journalists who have reported on sensitive subjects, like the reaction to school shootings and adolescent sexuality. In Orange County, Calif., a principal condemned a school publication for a special issue that focused on teenage relationships, calling it “disrespectful and sensationalistic.” In a town roughly 20 miles southwest of Salt Lake City, the administration deactivated a school’s news website after student journalists posted an investigative article examining the mysterious dismissal of a history teacher. And in a suburb of Dallas, a principal forbade the publication of an opinion piece critical of the administration for scheduling events during the National School Walkout protest. Since 1988, when the Supreme Court ruled that a Missouri school district had acted lawfully in removing a two-page spread on divorce and teenage pregnancy from a student newspaper, administrators have been able to censor work in school publications that they consider poorly written or “inconsistent with the shared values of a civilized social order.” Fourteen states have laws in place meant to safeguard school publications from interference. The killing of the opinion piece on the National School Walkout protest was the third instance of conflict between John Burdett, the principal of Prosper High School in Prosper, Tex., and the school’s news publication, Eagle Nation Online. The first skirmish concerned an article about the cancellation of “movie day,” a school tradition allowing the class that had raised the most money for a cancer charity to see a movie during school hours. Mr. Burdett disputed the article’s take on the cancellation and ordered the faculty adviser, Lori Oglesbee-Petter, to scrub it from the site.

The article goes on to detail several more incidents:

In Herriman, Utah, an enterprising school publication ran into trouble after digging into a subject that administrators at Herriman High School had tried to keep secret: the reason for the dismissal of a popular history teacher. Conor Spahr, 18, spent more than a month looking into why the teacher had stopped showing up for his classes last fall. After reviewing public records and interviewing students and teachers, Mr. Spahr reported in The Herriman Telegraph that the teacher “was sending highly inappropriate messages to a female student,” according to an unnamed person described in the article as a “source.” The morning after the article went live, it was gone. “At first I thought it was a glitch or something,” Mr. Spahr said. “But once we saw the entire website was down, we knew something was happening.” Mr. Spahr and Max Gordon, The Telegraph’s 18-year-old former editor in chief, created a new website — The Herriman Telegram — and republished the article. In January, news outlets in Utah reported that the teacher was under police investigation on allegations that he had sent inappropriate text messages to a minor. In a statement, the Jordan School District, which includes Herriman High School, said it “encourages thought-provoking, informative and accurate reporting of all stories in our school newspapers.” It isn’t only investigative reporting or stories on protests that have pitted student journalists against educators in recent months. Editors and reporters at San Juan Hills High School in San Juan Capistrano, Calif., caused a furor in March with a special issue of The Express called “Relationships & Sex.” “We had five anonymous stories featuring personal experiences of students from diverse backgrounds and diverse relationships and sexual experiences,” said Olivia Fu, 18, formerly a co-editor in chief of The Express. “They opened up about what it was like for them in relationships in high school.” In “Long-Term,” a girl describes ending up in an “emotionally abusive” relationship with a boy. In “Waiting Until Marriage,” a heterosexual couple explains why they have decided to abstain from sex. In “Gay,” a male student tells of ending up at a motel room for a sexual encounter with two partners. “Pregnancy Scare” goes into the fears of a sexually active female student, and “Bisexual” presents a male student who says, “I used to hate myself for my sexuality.” The stories were written by Express staff members, who gave aliases to the students they interviewed. In an email to parents, the school’s principal, Jennifer Smalley, apologized for the “shock and dismay you felt when you opened up the paper.” The publication’s faculty adviser, Bill Kaiser, was put on paid leave. Out of concern for him, the students briefly took down the articles.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Submissions

• Other Journals

A History of Censorship in the United States

Author _ Jennifer Elaine Steele ( [email protected] ), Assistant Professor, School of Library and Information Science, The University of Southern Mississippi

Censorship is a centuries-old issue for the United States. The importance of intellectual freedom and the freedom of speech is particularly evident in libraries, organizations dedicated to the access and spread of information. Issues regarding censorship and intellectual freedom have even reached the US Supreme Court. The following essay serves as a history of censorship in the United States, particularly in its libraries, and how the same issues of censorship have now transitioned into the digital age.

T hroughout the history of the United States, there are many examples of censorship and censorship attempts. Censorship is often viewed as a violation of the First Amendment and the right to free speech. Freedom of speech is particularly pertinent to libraries, as it “encompasses not only a right to express oneself, but also a right to access information” (Oltmann 2016a, 153). The First Amendment is a common argument made by advocates against the act of censorship (Lambe 2002). As Pinnell-Stephens (2012) writes, “The basis of intellectual freedom in libraries lies in the First Amendment” (xi). However, interpretation of the First Amendment is not concrete, and throughout US history, courts have attempted to decide what freedoms are actually protected under the First Amendment. At the highest level, the US Supreme Court has heard many cases dealing with the First Amendment and the freedom of speech, which can also be relevant to libraries since they attempt to provide an environment of free expression and accessibility.

Many definitions of censorship have been proposed over the years. The American Library Association (ALA) defines censorship as a “change in the access status of material, based on the content of the work and made by a governing authority or its representatives. Such changes include exclusion, restriction, removal, or age/grade level changes” (ALA 2016). According to Prebor and Gordon (2015), censorship is “an action utilized in order to prohibit access to books or information items because their content is considered dangerous or harmful to their readers” (28). Knox (2014) describes censorship as “an amalgamation of practices, including the redaction of text in a document, cutting pages out of a book, or denying access to materials” (741). While many definitions of censorship have been used, according to Oppenheim and Smith (2004), “the general sentiment behind most definitions is that something is withheld from access by another” (160).

Nineteenth-Century Beginnings: Obscenity and the Censorship of the US Postal Service

One of the oldest, and most commonly cited, reasons behind many book challenges and censorship attempts in the United States is that the book or other material contains obscenity. As Wachsberger (2006) writes, “The history of books censored for depicting sexual acts—whether the chosen word was ‘pornography,’ ‘erotica,’ or ‘obscenity’—is a fascinating ride through our country’s court system” (vii). An early case dealing with the issue of obscenity is Rosen v. United States (1896), in which the defendant allegedly used the US Postal Service to send material that was deemed “obscene, lewd, and lascivious” ( Rosen v. United States 1896, at 43). In their ruling, the Supreme Court adopted the same obscenity standard as had been articulated in the notable British case Regina v. Hicklin (1868). The Hicklin test defined material as obscene if it tended “‘to deprave or corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences, and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fall’” ( Rosen v. United States 1896, at 43). The Supreme Court upheld the conviction.

In 1873, the US Congress passed the Comstock Act (1873), which made it a crime to knowingly mail obscene materials or advertisements and information about obscene materials, abortion, or contraception (de Grazia 1992). It is notable that while it has roots dating back to 1775 and an original intention of supporting the concept of intellectual freedom, the Comstock Act (1873) is just one of many examples of the Postal Service enacting laws and acting as a censor throughout its history (Darling 1979; Paul and Schwartz 1961). 1

One seminal example of censorship on the grounds of obscenity involves James Joyce’s most famous work, Ulysses (1922). Prior to the novel’s US publication, the work was serialized in the literary magazine The Little Review . Following this first publication of Ulysses , three issues of The Little Review were seized and burned by the US Postal Service on the grounds that its content was deemed “obscene.” A complaint was made regarding a particular chapter that was published in the magazine, and after a trial the publishers were convicted and fined (Baggett 1995). Publication of Ulysses in the United States stopped for more than a decade (Gillers 2007). It was not until the federal district court case United States v. One Book Called Ulysses in 1933 that the novel could legally be published in the United States (Gillers 2007). In the ruling for the case, Judge John M. Woolsey established the important notion that an entire work, rather than just a portion of it, should be considered for the work to be declared obscene ( United States v. One Book Called Ulysses 1933).

The Supreme Court ruled in the case Roth v. United States (1957) that obscenity was not protected under the First Amendment. It also developed what came to be known as the Roth test for obscenity, which was “whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest” ( Roth v. United States 1957, at 489). However, the Roth test definition of obscenity proved difficult to apply. In the Supreme Court case Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964), which addressed whether states had the right to ban films they deemed obscene, Justice Potter Stewart famously stated that while he could not precisely define pornography, “I know it when I see it” ( Jacobellis v. Ohio 1964, at 197).

The Roth test was eventually expanded with the case Miller v. California (1973). Under the Miller test, a work is obscene if

“(a) . . . ‘the average person, applying contemporary community standards’ would find the work, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest . . . (b) . . . the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c) . . . the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” ( Miller v. California 1973, at 39)

Many people confuse obscenity, which is not protected under the First Amendment, with pornography, which is protected under the First Amendment (Pinnell-Stephens 1999). The exception to this would be child pornography. The First Amendment is a common argument for those against censorship, and many challenges and censorship attempts involve materials targeted toward children and young adults. However, the First Amendment argument is not as strong when the censorship pertains to young children (Magnuson 2011), as many laws are in place for the purpose of protecting children. The Supreme Court ruled in the cases New York v. Ferber (1982) and Osborne v. Ohio (1990) that child pornography is not subject to the Miller test and that the government’s interest in protecting children from abuse was crucial.

Censorship in the United States began with both the Postal Service and public libraries, gaining traction throughout the nineteenth century.

Censorship in Public Libraries

In the history of public libraries, censorship is “as old as the public library movement itself” (Thompson 1975, 1). As Wiegand (2015) put it, “Censorship was never far from public library practices” (36). In his 1973 article “The Purpose of the American Public Library: A Revisionist Interpretation of History,” Michael Harris gives a history of the American public library, with the Boston Public Library beginning the public library movement in the 1850s. Since their inception, American public libraries have faced censorship issues (Wiegand 2015).

Censorship and Race

Race and ethnic background have been factors in censorship since the beginning of the public library movement. For the earliest public libraries in the 1850s, librarians and library trustees were often white, upper class, educated males, who were often the public library’s target demographic (Harris 1973). However, the 1890s saw a huge influx of immigrants into the United States (Harris 1973). Between 1893 and 1917, 7 million immigrants arrived from southern and eastern Europe (Wiegand 2015). This caused people to fear for the “American way of life.” In response, public libraries began to offer programs and classes for immigrants with the purpose of “Americanizing” them (Harris 1973).

During the Carnegie era (1889–1917), Scottish-American businessman Andrew Carnegie gave $41 million to construct 1,679 public library buildings in 1,412 US communities (Bobinski 1968; Wiegand 2015). However, some communities rejected Carnegie grants, with varying justifications. Sometimes it was pride, sometimes it was class, and sometimes it was race (Wiegand 2015). This was particularly at issue in the segregated, Jim Crow-era South, where many Carnegie grants were rejected because community leaders believed a Carnegie Free Library would have to admit Black people (Wiegand 2015). 2

One southern public library that did accept a Carnegie grant was the Colored Branches of the Louisville Public Library in Louisville, Kentucky, which opened its first branch for Black patrons in 1905 (Wiegand 2015). The branch then moved into a new Carnegie building in 1908, followed by a second Black neighborhood receiving a Carnegie library in 1914 (Wiegand 2015). Largely because they were among the few places in segregated Louisville that welcomed and allowed Black people to gather, the public library at this time took on the role of the neighborhood social center (Wiegand 2015).

Another example of censorship in public libraries with racial influences came in 1901, when the H. W. Wilson Company began publishing its Readers’ Guide to Periodical Literature . The Readers’ Guide was an index of periodicals public libraries would often use as suggestions for their collections. However, periodicals issued by marginalized groups such as African or Hispanic Americans could not be indexed in the Readers’ Guide . This put them at a distinct disadvantage, as then public libraries tended to not subscribe to them (Wiegand 2015).

An important point in the history of public libraries is their integration. After World War II, efforts began to integrate public libraries in the American South (Wiegand 2015). In response to these efforts to integrate, “librarians across the country were mostly silent, and largely absent” (Wiegand 2015, 172). In 1954, the Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education that “separate but equal” was no longer legal. During this time, public libraries in the South were frequent sites of racial protests. Examples include a 1960 sit-in at the Greenville Public Library in South Carolina led by a teenage Jesse Jackson, and, in 1961, a peaceful protest led by members of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) at the public library in Jackson, Mississippi (Wiegand 2015). While these protests were predominant in the South, they occurred at public libraries all across the country, including the North (Wiegand 2015), making desegregation a pivotal point in the history of American public libraries.

Racial and ethnic background continues to be an influencer on censorship in libraries, with multiple researchers exploring public views regarding the inclusion of racially charged materials in a library’s collection. From 1976 to 2006, the General Social Survey asked randomly selected national samples of US adults age eighteen and older whether they would support removing a book spouting racist beliefs targeted at African Americans from the public library, with multiple researchers using statistical tests to analyze the data collected from the survey (Burke 2011; Bussert 2012).

In their analysis of the survey results, researchers found an overwhelming majority of the survey’s participants did not support removing the racist book from the library (Burke 2011), and the most influential predictors of support for book removal from the public library were found to be education level, religious affiliation, and race (Bussert 2012). Regarding education level, Bussert (2012) found that “the lower one’s education level, the higher their support for removal of the racist book from the public library” (117). Regarding religious affiliation, Protestants showed the highest level of support for removal, followed by Catholics, Jews, and respondents unaffiliated with religion (Bussert 2012). Regarding race, Bussert (2012) found that “while half of African American respondents supported removing a racist book, only one-third of white respondents did” (117).

Throughout the history of public libraries, censorship stemming from racial or ethnic background has been present. This censorship has come in various forms, including segregated library branches in the first part of the twentieth century, or the suppression of books or other materials spouting racist beliefs that occurs even to this day. When faced with a censorship challenge of this nature, it is important for librarians to remember the Library Bill of Rights and other ethical codes that guide them as a profession and encourage them to refrain from censoring such materials and ideas from their library.

Censorship and Religion

Censorship can also stem from religious beliefs (Wiegand 2015). According to Prebor and Gordon (2015), “Religiously motivated censorship is one of the most prevalent forms of censorship and has existed since antiquity” (28). Religious texts such as the Bible, the Talmud, and the Quran have all been censored at some time (Prebor and Gordon 2015). Even popular releases such as J. K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series have been censored on religious grounds due to the books’ portrayal of witchcraft (Bald 2011).

In the history of public libraries, censorship due to religious reasons can be predominantly seen at the turn of the twentieth century with the tension between public libraries and the Roman Catholic Church. In 1895, Catholics in Portland, Oregon, complained that their public library subscribed to no Catholic magazines (Wiegand 2015). In addition, of the 1,400 books at that time that the Dewey Decimal System classified as religion, none were by a Catholic author. This eventually led to a priest in Fort Wayne, Indiana, to say that because Catholics paid taxes to support the library, they should be represented on the library board and that any books attacking the church should be removed (Wiegand 2015).

In 1938, a Catholic organization known as the National Organization for Decent Literature (NODL) was established to combat the publication and sale of lewd magazines and brochure literature (Wiegand 2015). In fact, the Roman Catholic Church has a long history with censorship. In 1559 the first index of forbidden books was published by Pope Paul IV. The index was used for hundreds of years, with the final edition being published in 1948 and officially being abolished in 1966 (Prebor and Gordon 2015).

Another example of censorship challenges grounded in religious beliefs involves the book The Last Temptation of Christ by Nikos Kazantzakis, a novel many people consider to be sacrilegious. The book was first published in English in 1960 and regularly appears on banned book lists (Bald 2006). In Santa Ana, California, a patron checked out the book and then renewed it. As soon as the book was returned, it was promptly checked out and then renewed by a friend of the original patron. The librarian soon discovered they were members of a group determined to keep the book out of circulation (Wiegand 2015). Protests of the book also occurred in Long Beach, Pasadena, Fullerton, and Newport Beach. In San Diego, several citizens claimed that the book was pornographic, defamed Christ, and was part of a Communist conspiracy (Wiegand 2015).

Libraries will often serve a patron base with differing religious views. This is something for librarians to be mindful of when making selection decisions. While the ALA’s values would support having materials in the collection from a variety of differing religious viewpoints, it is important to note that there are Christian libraries and other faith-based library institutions with unique user needs that the collection development policy should address (Gehring 2016; Hippenhammer 1993; Hippenhammer 1994). It is important for the collection development policy of any library to support the representation of differing religious viewpoints as well as the needs of the community it serves.

Censorship of Fiction

Public libraries began with the purpose of serving an aristocratic class as elitist centers for scholarly research (Harris 1973). However, this changed toward the end of the nineteenth century, when public libraries began to cater to the “common man.” Libraries began to strive to assist the poor with educating themselves and pulling themselves up to a higher socioeconomic class (Harries 1973). While public libraries have historically encouraged “self-improvement reading” (Wiegand 2015, 38), this did not always align with the desires of the public. Since the beginning of the public library movement, trends have shown the public’s taste for the current, popular fiction of the time (Wiegand 2015).

One example of fiction dominating a library’s circulation happened at the Boston Public Library. In 1859, the Boston Public Library found out firsthand that if the library did not provide the popular stories the public valued, whether or not they were deemed valuable by librarians or other cultural authorities, then circulation would decrease (Wiegand 2015). In 1875, The Literary World reported on the circulation of the different Boston Public Library branches. According to The World , fiction accounted for 79% of the East Boston branch circulation, 78% for South Boston, and 81% for Roxbury (Wiegand 2015).

While late-nineteenth-century American public libraries carried popular fiction in their collections to keep people coming back, this did not stop censorship attacks against it (Wiegand 2015). One tactic used by librarians around the turn of the century to limit access to fiction was through the use of closed versus open stacks. In the beginning of the public library movement, library stacks were closed and a patron would have to go to the desk to ask the librarian or other staff member to retrieve the book for which they were looking. After 1893, libraries began to open their stacks to the public. However, librarians would regularly put nonfiction out in the open stacks but keep fiction in the closed stacks as a way to get the public to read more nonfiction and less fiction (Wiegand 2015).

Another tactic libraries used to encourage the reading of nonfiction as opposed to fiction was moving from a one-book-per-visit rule to a two-book-per-visit rule that allowed patrons to check out only one fiction book as one of their two books (Wiegand 2015). This tactic continued even after World War I. Prior to the war, the Los Angeles Public Library permitted patrons to check out three books at a time, and all could be fiction. After the war, the library extended the limit to five books, but only two of the books could be fiction (Wiegand 2015). However, this rule had little effect. While nonfiction circulation did increase by 7%, fiction still accounted for 74% of the library’s total circulation (Wiegand 2015).

While some libraries used tactics such as placing fiction in closed stacks or enforcing limits on the number of fiction books a patron could borrow at a time, other public libraries would outright ban fiction from their collections (Wiegand 2015). The public library in Germantown, Pennsylvania, refused to stock any fiction (Wiegand 2015). The Groton (Connecticut) Public Library moved into new quarters in 1867, and the librarian declared “there would be no fiction at all in the Library” (Wiegand 2015, 41). Whether libraries utilized closed versus open stacks to limit the public’s access to fiction, placed limits on how many fiction books a patron could borrow from the library at one time, or outright banned fiction from their collections altogether, the war against fiction is a pivotal example of censorship in the history of public libraries.

Censorship of Paperbacks

After World War II, to maximize sales, book publishers began to issue more paperbacks with alluring covers (Wiegand 2015). Merchants would then place these paperbacks on newsstands with their often suggestive covers out to attract customers (Wiegand 2015). Some people at this time claimed that the suggestive covers affected the moral standards of the country and led to increased juvenile delinquency. Some even argued it was a Communist conspiracy to take over the country (Wiegand 2015).

Several groups got involved in the issue, including the NODL. In the early 1950s, the NODL targeted paperbacks and comic books, even publishing lists it disapproved of in its monthly publication, The Priest (Wiegand 2015). NODL committees would even monitor newsstands and pressure the owners to stop selling these popular paperbacks (Wiegand 2015). Many librarians at the time either agreed with or were intimidated by the NODL and often refused to carry paperbacks in their collections (Wiegand 2015).

Wiegand (2015) says of this refusal by libraries in the 1950s to carry paperback books, which were significantly cheaper than hardbacks, “The library profession identified with that part of the publishing industry that favored hardbounds over the softcovers that newsstands and drugstores sold largely to working-class readers” (169). This period marks an important point in the history of public libraries and the profession of librarianship in regards to censorship, particularly as it is an example of a large portion of the librarianship profession acting as censors themselves.

Censorship of Communist Materials

Public libraries in the 1950s faced pressure to censor materials believed to be spreading Communist ideas and beliefs (Wiegand 2015). Wisconsin senator Joseph McCarthy capitalized on America’s Cold War fears about the Soviet Union and the Communist movement. He accused multiple civic agencies and institutions, including libraries, of spreading Communist ideas. He specifically targeted libraries that the recently established US Information Agency had opened at US embassies abroad. He claimed that these libraries had 30,000 Communist books, and the effects of his claims were felt throughout the American library community (Wiegand 2015).

Many librarians at this time proceeded to withdraw controversial materials from their libraries whether it was because they believed in McCarthy’s message, or they simply wanted to save their jobs. However, some librarians did resist McCarthy and his message (Wiegand 2015). When the Boston Herald attacked the Boston Public Library for stocking books it claimed promoted Communism, a local Catholic newspaper in Boston as well as numerous citizens joined the librarians in a successful protest (Wiegand 2015). While some librarians adhered to the principles set forth in the Library Bill of Rights and some succumbed to pressure, the fear of Communism in America in the 1950s greatly impacted the entire American library community.

While censorship has always been a part of the history of American public libraries, it also has a long history of being present within the schools educating the nation’s children.

Censorship in Schools

The Supreme Court has heard many cases regarding the First Amendment rights of students. In West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), two students whose religion, Jehovah’s Witnesses, forbade them from saluting or pledging to symbols, were expelled from school for refusing to salute the American flag and say the Pledge of Allegiance. In a 6-3 vote, the Court ruled in favor of the students ( West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette 1943).

In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), three students, including siblings John F. Tinker and Mary Beth Tinker, as well as their friend Christopher Eckhardt, were expelled after they wore black armbands to school as a symbolic protest of the Vietnam War (ALA 2006). The Supreme Court held that students “do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate” ( Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District 1969, at 506) and that “the First Amendment protects public school students’ rights to express political and social views” (ALA 2006, para. 25).

A pivotal Supreme Court ruling regarding First Amendment rights and censorship in school libraries was Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School Dsitrict No. 26 v. Pico (1982). In 1975, members of the school board from the Island Trees School District ordered that certain books be removed from high school and junior high school libraries on the grounds that the books were “anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, and just plain filthy” ( Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico 1982, at 857). Some of the books to be removed were Slaughterhouse Five , Best Short Stories of Negro Writers , Go Ask Alice , and Down These Mean Streets (Molz 1990). A high school student named Steven Pico led a group of students who sued the board, claiming a denial of their First Amendment rights. The case made its way to the Supreme Court, where a closely divided Court ruled 5–4 in favor of the students (ALA 2006).

In the ruling for the case, Justice William Brennan cited both Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969) as well as West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) and stated that “local school boards may not remove books from school library shelves simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books and seek by their removal to ‘prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion’” ( Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico 1982, at 872).

In the case Counts v. Cedarville School District (2003), the school board of the Cedarville, Arkansas, school district voted to restrict students’ access to the popular Harry Potter book series on the grounds that the books promoted “disobedience and disrespect for authority” ( Counts v. Cedarville School District 2003, at 1002) and dealt with “witchcraft” (at 1002) and “the occult” (at 1002). After the vote, students in the Cedarville school district were required to obtain a signed permission slip from a parent or guardian before they would be allowed to borrow any of the Harry Potter books from school libraries (ALA 2006). The district court overturned the board’s decision and ordered the books returned to unrestricted circulation on the grounds that “the restrictions violated students’ First Amendment right to read and receive information” (ALA 2006, para. 23).

Twentieth-Century Changes: Movies, Music, and More

Throughout the twentieth century, technological advances changed the way Americans enjoyed their entertainment, whether through films, music recordings, or even the rise of new literary genres such as comic books. As each new form of entertainment rose in popularity, the censorship attempts became more prevalent.

Censorship of the Motion Picture Industry

Censorship of the motion picture industry became prevalent with the Motion Picture Production Code in the 1930s. The Motion Picture Production Code was the set of moral guidelines for the industry that was applied to most motion pictures released by major studios in the United States from 1930 to 1968. It was also known as the Hays Code, after Will H. Hays, who was the president of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America (MPPDA) from 1922 to 1945 (Miller, 1994). Hays was the Chairman of the Republican National Committee from 1918 to 1921, and served as the US Postmaster General from 1921 to 1922, under President Warren G. Harding (Allen 1959). Several studios in Hollywood recruited Hays in 1922 to help rehabilitate Hollywood’s image after several risqué films and a series of off-camera scandals involving Hollywood stars tarnished the motion picture industry image (Miller 1994). Hays resigned as Postmaster General on January 14, 1922, to become president of the newly formed MPPDA (AP 1922).

The MPPDA, which later became known as the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), adopted the Production Code in 1930 and began strictly enforcing it in 1934 (Miller 1994). The Production Code clearly spelled out what content was acceptable and what content was not acceptable for motion pictures produced in the United States. Content restricted by the Production Code included “scenes of passion” unless essential to a film’s plot, “sex perversion,” adultery, “indecent” dancing, and white slavery (AP 1930, 3). The Production Code was adhered to well into the 1950s, and then with the emergence of television, influence of foreign films, and directors who would push the envelope, 3 the Code began to weaken. In 1968, the Production Code was replaced with the MPAA film rating system (Miller 1994).

Censorship of the Comic Book Industry

Controversy regarding comic books and their content surfaced shortly after their debut in the 1930s. The first group to object to comics was educators, who saw comics as a “bad influence on students’ reading abilities and literary tastes” (Nyberg n.d., para. 3). Church and civic groups objected to “immoral” content such as scantily clad women and the glorification of villains. The NODL added comics to the materials it evaluated (Nyberg n.d., para. 4).

After World War II, there was a rise in the popularity of horror comics, bringing a third group into the comic book debate: mental health experts. With a focus on juvenile delinquency, noted New York City psychiatrist Dr. Fredric Wertham campaigned to ban the sales of comics to children, arguing that “children imitated the actions of comic book characters” and that “the content desensitized children to violence” (Nyberg n.d., para. 5).

In September 1954, the Comics Magazine Association of America (CMAA) was formed in response to a widespread public concern over the gory and horrific content that was common in comic books of the time (“Horror” 1954). This led to the Comics Code Authority (CCA) and regulations on content published in comic books. Comic book publishers that were members would submit their comics to the CCA, which would screen them for adherence to its Code. If the book was found to be in compliance, then they would authorize the use of their seal on the book’s cover (Hajdu 2008). Pressure from the CCA and the use of its seal led to the censorship of comic books across the country.

Even before the adoption of the CCA, some cities had organized public burnings and bans on comic books (Costello 2009). The city councils of both Oklahoma City and Houston passed city ordinances banning crime and horror comics (“Horror” 1954). The movement against comics even infiltrated public libraries, with the Charlotte (North Carolina) Public Library system refusing to carry them in its collections in 1951 (Wiegand 2015).

These regulations were devastating for the comic book industry. According to Hajdu (2008), work for comic book cartoonists dried up, with more than 800 creators losing their jobs. The number of comic book titles published dropped from 650 titles in 1954 to 250 in 1956 (Hajdu 2008). Over time, the industry was able to recover as publishers left the CCA one by one. In January 2011, Archie Comics, the last remaining publisher still participating, announced they were leaving the CCA, rendering the CCA and its Code defunct (Rogers 2011).

Censorship of the Recording Industry

The music recording industry has faced censorship stemming from the use of Parental Advisory labels. The labels are placed on music and other audio recordings if the recording uses excessive profanities or inappropriate references. The intention of the labels is to alert parents of material that is potentially unsuitable for younger children (Cole 2010).

The idea for the labels was first outlined by Tipper Gore, wife of Al Gore and eventual Second Lady of the United States, and her advocacy group the Parents Music Resource Center (PMRC) in a 1984 letter to the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and sixty-two record labels (Schonfeld 2015). The PMRC initially proposed a rating code: “Violent lyrics would be marked with a ‘V,’ Satanic or anti-Christian occult content with an ‘O,’ and lyrics referencing drugs or alcohol with a ‘D/A’” (Schonfeld 2015). With little response, the PMRC then proposed a generic label warning of lyric content. The RIAA eventually gave in and agreed to put warning stickers on albums, with early versions of Parental Advisory labels first used in 1985 (Schonfeld 2015). In 1990, “Banned in the USA” by the rap group 2 Live Crew became the first album to bear the “black and white” Parental Advisory label (Schonfeld 2015, para. 10).

Parental Advisory labels were originally affixed on physical cassettes and then compact discs. Now, with the rise of digital music through online music stores and music streaming, the label is usually embedded in the digital artwork of albums that are purchased online (Cole 2010). While the evolution of digital music has reduced the Parental Advisory label system’s efficacy, use of the labels has nevertheless impacted the recording industry, in some cases leading to censorship of the recordings. Many major retailers that distribute music, including Walmart, have enacted policies that do not allow the selling of any recordings containing the label in their stores (Cole 2010).

Censorship of LGBTQ Materials

Censorship of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and/or questioning (LGBTQ) materials has occurred throughout the twentieth century and continues to face censorship today. The American Library Association has seen an increase in organized, coordinated challenges to LGBTQ materials and services in libraries (ALA 2020), and homosexuality was cited as a reason for censorship in many analyses of censorship trends over the last several decades (Woods 1979; Harer and Harris 1994; Sova 1998; Doyle 2000; Foerstel 2002; Karolides, Bald, and Sova 2005). In addition, some state legislatures even limit state funding for libraries that do not agree to restrictions on certain controversial LGBTQ materials (Barack 2005; Oder 2006).

Censorship of LGBTQ materials in libraries has been a common area of research, both for school libraries (Coley 2002; Garry 2015; Hughes-Hassell, Overberg, and Harris 2013; Maycock 2011; Oltmann 2016b; Sanelli and Perreault 2001) and public libraries (Burke 2008; Cook 2004; Curry 2005; Stringer-Stanback 2011). Research has shown that while gay-themed materials are often the subject of censorship, the country as a whole is becoming less conservative and is more open to finding such materials in their libraries (Burke 2008). Furthermore, a supportive community and administration is of utmost importance when building a quality, inclusive library collection (Garry 2015).

Despite these findings, LGBTQ individuals do often face harassment, discrimination, and even violence in society as a whole. Many LGBTQ young adults have learned to be secretive about their sexual identity for fear of rejection from their peers or even their families (Rauch 2011). This is particularly true for young adults who attend schools in small, less diverse, rural communities and communities with limited financial resources (Kosciw, Greytak, and Diaz 2009). Those limited resources can be a particular drawback for public libraries, as they prevent them from circulating relevant, up-to-date materials (Van Buskirk 2005) that might increase awareness and tolerance of LGBTQ individuals and issues. While “partisan or doctrinal disapproval” (ALA 2010, 49) plays a large role in these materials not being available where they are most needed, the fact remains that many librarians and information professionals in these areas simply do not have the funds to provide these materials, either to LGBTQ students or to those who surround them.

Much of the controversy over LGBTQ-themed literature and materials deals with their dissemination to children (Naidoo 2012). Kidd (2009) writes how the “censorship of children’s books has accelerated in the twentieth century, as the censorship of adult materials became less acceptable and as childhood was imagined more and more as a time of great innocence and vulnerability” (199). DePalma and Atkinson (2006) write that oftentimes children are considered to be innocent asexual beings, and therefore many believe they must be “protected from the dangerous knowledge of homosexuality” (DePalma and Atkinson 2006, 339). Parents frequently challenge books with LGBTQ themes, claiming they are not suitable for the child’s age group. This makes it difficult for families with LGBTQ members to access these materials. According to Wolf (1989), “Homophobia . . . still keeps most gay families hidden and accounts for the absence of information about them. It also keeps what information there is out of the library, especially the children’s room, and makes it difficult to locate through conventional research strategies,” (52).

One example of this occurred in Wichita Falls, Texas, and led to the federal case Sund v. City of Wichita Falls, Texas (2000). Residents of Wichita Falls, Texas, who were members of a church sought removal of the two books Heather Has Two Mommies and Daddy’s Roommate . The residents sought removal of the books because they disapproved of the books’ depictions of homosexuality. The City of Wichita Falls City Council then passed a resolution to restrict access to the books if a petition was able to get three hundred signatures asking for the restriction. A different group of citizens then filed suit after copies of the two books were removed from the children’s section of the library and placed on a locked shelf in the adult area ( Sund v. City of Wichita Falls, Texas 2000). The District Court ruled that the city’s resolution permitting the removal of the two books improperly delegated governmental authority regarding selection decisions of books carried in the library and prohibited the city from enforcing the resolution (ALA 2006; Steele 2017; Steele 2019b).

As school libraries are often not safe spaces for LGBTQ teens, they will often seek out public libraries for resources related to their issues and identity questions (Curry 2005). However, as Curry’s study showed, not all reference librarians were even aware of relevant terminology—for example, “gay-straight alliance”—and were therefore unable to address the questions posed to them by the researchers regarding their LGBTQ collections. Some also seemed nervous or uncomfortable with the questions being posed to them (Curry 2005, 70). This not only hindered the search, but also raised the question of whether the librarians were maintaining objectivity about the nature of the materials (Curry 2005, 72).

Alvin M. Schrader’s 2009 article, “Challenging Silence, Challenging Censorship, Building Resilience: LGBTQ Services and Collections in Public, School and Post-Secondary Libraries,” discusses the importance of including LGBTQ materials in libraries so that young people can turn to these materials for support. Schrader explains that librarians are avoiding building these collections and are claiming that their libraries do not serve people who need, or want, LGBTQ materials or that the library cannot afford to purchase those materials (107). Schrader challenges librarians to “foster diversity and resilience. They can create safe places. They can turn pain into opportunity, tolerance into celebration, despair into hope” (109). This message should empower librarians to resist the pressure to censor these materials in their libraries.

While some adults may feel that censoring certain materials from young people is a way of protecting them, it is in direct opposition of the ALA’s Freedom to Read Statement . Section 4 of the Freedom to Read Statement states, “There is no place in our society for efforts to coerce the taste of others, to confine adults to the reading matter deemed suitable for adolescents, or to inhibit the efforts of writers to achieve artistic expression” (ALA 2010, 203). Parents, teachers, and librarians all have a responsibility to prepare young people for the diversity of experiences that they will be exposed to in life. Through both the Library Bill of Rights and the Freedom to Read Statement , the ALA places the professional responsibility on librarians to provide the population with information that meets their needs, including the LGBTQ community.

The Internet and Twenty-First-Century Censorship

The question of what forms of communication are or are not protected under the First Amendment becomes even more complicated with the move into the digital age. The arrival of the internet brought a wave of new concerns, particularly about the safety of children. The Communications Decency Act (CDA) was passed by Congress on February 1, 1996, and signed by President Bill Clinton on February 8, 1996. The CDA imposed criminal sanctions on anyone who knowingly

(A) uses an interactive computer service to send to a specific person or persons under 18 years of age, or (B) uses any interactive computer service to display in a manner available to a person under 18 years of age, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs. (CDA 1996)

The CDA marked Congress’s first attempt to regulate pornography on the internet. Parts of the law were eventually struck down by the landmark case Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997). In the case, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed suit against Janet Reno in her capacity as attorney general of the United States, claiming that parts of the CDA were unconstitutional. In the ruling on the case, a unanimous Supreme Court specifically extended the First Amendment to written, visual, and spoken expression posted on the internet ( Reno v. ACLU 1997). This case was significant as it was the first to bring the First Amendment into the digital age.

Another prominent case dealing with censorship and the internet was Mainstream Loudoun v. Board of Trustees of the Loudoun County Library (1998). In this case, a group of adult library patrons and individuals in Loudoun County, Virginia, brought a suit against library trustees, board members, and the director of the county’s public library, claiming that the library’s use of internet blocking software to block child pornography and obscene material was an infringement on their First Amendment rights ( Mainstream Loudoun v. Board of Trustees of the Loudoun County Library 1998). The library’s internet policy was highly restrictive in that it treated adults the same as children. The court ruled that, because the library decided to provide internet access, the First Amendment limited the library board’s discretion in placing content-based restrictions on access to the internet, therefore declaring the Loudoun County internet policy invalid (ALA 2006; Steele 2017; Steele 2019a).

In 1998, Congress passed its second attempt to regulate internet pornography, the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), which restricted access by minors to any material defined as harmful to such minors on the internet (COPA 1998). On June 29, 2004, in Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union , the Supreme Court ruled that the law was likely to be unconstitutional. The Court wrote, “filtering software may well be more effective than COPA is confirmed by the findings of the Commission on Child Online Protection, a blue-ribbon commission created by Congress in COPA itself. Congress directed the Commission to evaluate the relative merits of different means of restricting minors’ ability to gain access to harmful materials on the Internet” ( Ashcroft v. ACLU 2004, at 668).

On December 21, 2000, Congress passed into law the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA). The law requires K-12 schools and libraries in the United States to use internet filters to be eligible to receive e-rate federal funding (CIPA 2000). The law was later challenged by the ALA as unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court ruled that public libraries’ use of internet filtering software does not violate their patrons’ First Amendment free speech rights and that CIPA is constitutional ( United States v. ALA 2003).

Also related to censorship and the internet is the censorship of social media content. Companies like Facebook and Twitter rely on a growing team of employees to remove offensive material—a practice known as “content moderation”—from their sites (Chen 2014). While the content being removed, such as pornography and gore, can be disturbing, it is censorship nonetheless. In addition, with the public becoming increasingly reliant on social media for their access to news, some social media sites have come under fire for censoring their trending news stories. Facebook has been accused of censoring its trending news sidebar and purposely omitting stories from conservative news sites, though research contradicts these claims (Bowles and Thielman 2016). With the rise of social media, the censoring of social media content is an issue that is becoming increasingly relevant to today’s world.

As stated in the eighth edition of ALA’s Intellectual Freedom Manual (2010), “Freedom to express oneself through a chosen mode of communication, including the Internet, becomes virtually meaningless if access to that information is not protected” (xvii). For some librarians, it made them question the very ideals and core values that the profession stands for. Bosseller and Budd (2015) write, “The Internet’s entrance into the library changed (and challenged) many librarians’ commitment to intellectual freedom” (34). Regardless, the internet and its ability to more quickly and easily provide access to information like never before has ushered in a new era for librarianship.

Whether dealing with the issue of obscenity, the evolution of technology and the internet, or other free speech controversies, the question of what is protected under an individual’s First Amendment rights is an issue that is highly debated. First Amendment rights and the right to free speech is also of particular concern for libraries when dealing with issues of censorship.

Foucault writes in The History of Sexuality (1978) how “instances of muteness which, by dint of saying nothing, imposed silence. Censorship” (17). Censorship has been, is, and will continue to be one of the single most important issues for librarians. This silencing has kept society from talking about many issues, particularly issues that some find controversial or uncomfortable to discuss. While some people may find it hard to allow these controversial materials to continue to take up residency in their libraries, it is not up to them to decide how people should live their lives or what they should read.

Many librarians are not always in a position to take a proactive stance in enacting the Library Bill of Rights . This is sometimes caused by an inability to affect change, whether because of legislation, political and social norms, or financial shortcomings. However, in some cases, this is due to a lack of awareness of the extent, exact nature, and possible solutions to problems. By upholding professional guidelines set in the ALA’s Library Bill of Rights , Code of Ethics , and Freedom to Read Statement , librarians and information professionals can refrain from censorship and assist library users with their information needs to the best of their abilities.

Allen, Frederick Lewis. 1959. Only Yesterday: An Informal History of the 1920’s . New York: Harper & Row.

American Library Association (ALA). 2006. “Notable First Amendment Court Cases.” http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/censorshipfirstamendmentissues/courtcases .

———. 2010. Intellectual Freedom Manual (8th ed.). Chicago: ALA.

———. 2016. “Challenge Support.” http://www.ala.org/tools/challengesupport .

———. 2020. “State of America’s Libraries 2020: Issues and Trends.” http://www.ala.org/news/state-americas-libraries-report-2020/issues-trends .

Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union , 542 U.S. 656, 124 S. Ct. 2783, 159 L. Ed. 2d 690 (2004). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5352124576782659763&q=Ashcroft+v.+American+Civil+Liberties+Union&hl=en&as_sdt=206 .

Associated Press (AP). 1922. “Hays to be Mogul in Silver Screen Realm.” San Antonio Express , January 15, p. 4.

———. 1930. “Producers Adopt Code of Conduct for Screen Shows.” Calgary Daily Herald , April 1, p. 3. https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=WyRkAAAAIBAJ&sjid=WHsNAAAAIBAJ&dq=motion%20picture%20producers%20and%20distributors%20of%20america&pg=3606%2C4315324 .

Baggett, Holly. 1995. “The Trials of Margaret Anderson and Jane Heap.” In Susan Albertine, ed., A Living of Words: American Women in Print Culture (pp. 169-88). Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.

Bald, Margaret. 2006. Banned Books: Literature Suppressed on Religious Grounds , rev. ed. New York: Facts on File.

———. 2011. Banned Books: Literature Suppressed on Religious Grounds , 3rd ed. New York: Facts on File.

Barack, Lauren. 2005. “AL Lawmaker to Ban Pro-Gay Books.” School Library Journal 51(1): 24.

Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico , 457 U.S. 853, 102 S. Ct. 2799, 73 L. Ed. 2d 435 (1982). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11432514393725128521&q=Board+of+Education,+Island+Trees+Union+Free+School+District+No.+26+v.+Pico&hl=en&as_sdt=206 .

Bobinski, George S. 1968. “Carnegie Libraries: Their History and Impact on American Public Library Development.” ALA Bulletin 62(11): 1361-67.

Bossaller, Jenny S., and John M. Budd. 2015. “What We Talk About When We Talk About Free Speech.” Library Quarterly 85(1): 26-44. https://doi.org/10.1086/679024 .

Bowles, Nellie, and Sam Thielman. 2016. “Facebook Accused of Censoring Conservatives, Report Says.” Guardian , May 9. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/09/facebook-newsfeed-censor-conservative-news .

Brown v. Board of Education , 347 U.S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. 873 (1954). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12120372216939101759&q=Brown+v.+Board+of+Education&hl=en&as_sdt=6,25 .

Burke, Susan K. 2008. “Removal of Gay-Themed Materials from Public Libraries: Public Opinion Trends, 1973–2006.” Public Library Quarterly 27(3): 247-64. https://doi.org/10.1080/01616840802229552 .

Burke, Susan K. 2011. “Social Tolerance and Racist Materials in Public Libraries.” Reference & User Services Quarterly 49(4): 369-79. https://doi.org/10.5860/rusq.49n4.369 .

Bussert, Leslie. 2012. “Americans’ Tolerance of Racist Materials in Public Libraries Remained Steady Between 1976-2006.” Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 7(1): 116-19. https://doi.org/10.18438/B83313 .

Chen, Adrian. 2014. “The Laborers Who Keep Dick Pics and Beheadings Out of Your Facebook Feed.” Wired , October 23. https://www.wired.com/2014/10/content-moderation/ .

Child Online Protection Act, Pub. L. 105-277, Div. C, Title XIV, 112 Stat. 2736 (1998). https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ104/pdf/PLAW-104publ104.pdf .

Children’s Internet Protection Act, Pub. L. 106-554, Div. B, Title XVII, 114 Stat. 2763A-335 (2000). https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-106publ554/pdf/PLAW-106publ554.pdf .

Cole, Tom. 2010. “You Ask, We Answer: ‘Parental Advisory’ Labels-The Criteria and the History.” NPR , October 29. http://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2010/10/29/130905176/you-ask-we-answer-parental-advisory---why-when-how .

Coley, Ken P. 2002. “Moving Toward a Method to Test for Self-Censorship by School Library Media Specialists.” School Library Media Research 5.

Communication Decency Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-104, Title V, 110 Stat. 133 (1996). https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ104/html/PLAW-104publ104.htm .

Comstock Act, Ch. 258, § 2, 17 Stat. 599 (1873), repealed with amended provisions at 18 U.S.C. § 1461. https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=017/llsl017.db&recNum=640 .

Cook, Jennifer Chance. 2004. “GLBTQ Teen Literature: Is it Out There in Indiana?” Indiana Libraries 23(2): 25-28.

Costello, Matthew J. 2009. Secret Identity Crisis: Comic Books and the Unmasking of Cold War America . New York: Continuum.

Counts v. Cedarville School District , 295 F. Supp. 2d 996 (W.D. Ark. 2003). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4899935302137642081&q=counts+v+cedarville+school+district&hl=en&as_sdt=206 .

Curry, Ann. 2005. “If I Ask, Will They Answer? Evaluating Public Library Reference Service to Gay and Lesbian Youth.” Reference & User Services Quarterly (1): 65-75.

Darling, Richard L. 1979. “Access, Intellectual Freedom and Libraries.” Library Trends 27: 315-26.

de Grazia, Edward. 1992. Girls Lean Back Everywhere: The Law of Obscenity and the Assault on Genius . New York: Random House.

DePalma, Renée, and Elizabeth Atkinson. 2006. “The Sound of Silence: Talking About Sexual Orientation and Schooling.” Sex Education 6(4): 333–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681810600981848 .

Doyle, Robert P. 2000. Banned Books: 2000 Resource Book . Chicago: ALA.

Foerstel, Herbert N. 2002. Banned in the U.S.A.: A Reference Guide to Book Censorship in Schools and Public Libraries . Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Foucault, Michel. 1978. The History of Sexuality. An Introduction . New York: Random House.

Garry, Candi Pierce. 2015. “Selection or Censorship? School Librarians and LGBTQ Resources.” School Libraries Worldwide 21(1): 73-90.

Gehring, Denise Rachel. 2016. “Faith-Informed Intellectual Freedom: An Annotated Bibliography.” Collection Building 35(2): 48-53. https://doi.org/10.1108/CB-12-2015-0020 .

Gillers, Stephen. 2007. “A Tendency to Deprave and Corrupt: The Transformation of American Obscenity Law from Hicklin to Ulysses .” Washington University Law Review 85(2): 215-96.

Gorman, Michael. 2000. Our Enduring Values . Chicago: ALA.

Hajdu, David. 2008. The Ten-Cent Plague: The Great Comic-Book Scare and How It Changed America. New York: Picador.

Harer, John B., and Steven R. Harris. 1994. Censorship of Expression in the 1980s: A Statistical Survey . Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Harris, Michael. 1973. “The Purpose of the American Public Library: A Revisionist Interpretation of History.” Library Journal (1876) 98: 2509-14.

Hippenhammer, Craighton. 1993. “Patron Objections to Library Materials: A Survey of Christian College Libraries, Part I.” Christian Librarian 37(1): 12-17.

———. 1994. “Patron Objections to Library Materials: A Survey of Christian College Libraries, Part II.” Christian Librarian 37(2), 40-47.

“Horror on the Newsstands.” 1954. Time , September 27, 64(13): 79.

Hughes-Hassell, Sandra, Elizabeth Overberg, and Shannon Harris. 2013. “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Questioning (LGBTQ)-Themed Literature for Teens: Are School Libraries Providing Adequate Collections?” School Library Research 16: 1-18.

Jacobellis v. Ohio , 378 U.S. 184, 84 S. Ct. 1676, 12 L. Ed. 2d 793 (1964). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15356452945994377133&q=Jacobellis+v.+Ohio&hl=en&as_sdt=206 .

Joyce, James. 1922. Ulysses . Paris, France: Sylvia Beach.

Karolides, Nicholas J., Margaret Bald, and Dawn B. Sova. 2005. 120 Banned Books: Censorship Histories of World Literature . New York: Checkmark Books.

Kidd, Kenneth. 2009. “Not Censorship but Selection: Censorship and/as Prizing.” Children’s Literature in Education 40(3): 197-216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10583-008-9078-4 .

Knox, Emily. 2014. “‘The Books Will Still Be in the Library’: Narrow Definitions of Censorship in the Discourse of Challengers.” Library Trends 62(4): 740–49. https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2014.0020 .

Kosciw, Joseph G., Emily A. Greytak, and Elizabeth M. Diaz. 2009. “Who, What, Where, When, and Why: Demographic and Ecological Factors Contributing to Hostile School Climate for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Youth.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 38(7): 976-88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-009-9412-1 .

Lambe, Jennifer L. 2002. “Dimensions of Censorship: Reconceptualizing Public Willingness to Censor.” Communication Law & Policy 7(2): 187–235. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326926CLP0702_05 .

Magnuson, Marta L. 2011. “Perceptions of Self and the ‘Other’: An Analysis of Challenges to And Tango Makes Three .” School Library Media Research 14: 1-9.

Mainstream Loudoun v. Board of Trustees of Loudoun , 24 F. Supp. 2d 552 (E.D. Va. 1998). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13796536557265673818&q=mainstream+loudoun&hl=en&as_sdt=206 .

Maycock, Angela. 2011. “Issues and Trends in Intellectual Freedom for Teacher Librarians: Where We’ve Come from and Where We’re Heading.” Teacher Librarian 39(1): 8-12.

McGilligan, Patrick. 2004. Alfred Hitchcock: A Life in Darkness and Light . New York: Harper Perennial.

Miller, Frank. 1994. Censored Hollywood: Sex, Sin, and Violence on Screen . Atlanta, GA: Turner Publishing.

Miller v. California , 413 U.S. 15, 93 S. Ct. 2607, 37 L. Ed. 2d 419 (1973). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=287180442152313659&q=miller+v+california&hl=en&as_sdt=206 .

Molz, R. Kathleen. 1990. “Censorship: Current Issues in American Libraries.” Library Trends 39(1/2): 18-35.

Naidoo, Jamie Campbell. 2012. Rainbow Family Collections: Selecting and Using Children’s Books with Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Content . Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.

New York v. Ferber , 458 U.S. 747, 102 S. Ct. 3348, 73 L. Ed. 2d 1113 (1982). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1226851723986989726&q=new+york+v+ferber&hl=en&as_sdt=206 .

Nyberg, Amy Kiste. n.d. Comics Code History: The Seal of Approval . http://cbldf.org/comics-code-history-the-seal-of-approval/ .

Oder, Norman. 2006. “Oklahoma Targets Gay Books.” Library Journal (1976) 131(7): 20.

Oltmann, Shannon M. 2016a. “Intellectual Freedom and Freedom of Speech: Three Theoretical Perspectives.” Library Quarterly 86(2): 153-71. https://doi.org/10.1086/685402 .

———. 2016b. “‘They Kind of Rely on the Library’: School Librarians Serving LGBT Students.” Journal of Research on Libraries and Young Adults 7(1): 1-21.

Oppenheim, Charles, and Victoria Smith. 2004. “Censorship in Libraries.” Information Services & Use 24(4): 159-70. https://doi.org/10.3233/ISU-2004-24401 .

Osborne v. Ohio , 495 U.S. 103, 110 S. Ct. 1691, 109 L. Ed. 2d 98 (1990). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4775063558409617777&q=Osborne+v.+Ohio&hl=en&as_sdt=206 .

Paul, James C. N., and Murray L. Schwartz. 1961. Federal Censorship: Obscenity in the Mail . New York: Free Press of Glencoe.

Pinnell-Stephens, June. 1999. “Libraries: A Misunderstood American Value.” American Libraries 30(6): 76-81.

Pinnell-Stephens, June. 2012. Protecting Intellectual Freedom in Your Public Library: Scenarios from the Front Lines . Chicago: ALA.

Prebor, Gila, and David Gordon. 2015. “Collection Development and Censorship in Torah Studies Libraries in Israel.” Collection Management 40(1): 27–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/01462679.2014.965862 .

Rauch, Elisabeth W. 2011. “GLBTQ Collections are for Every Library Serving Teens!” Teacher Librarian 39(1): 13–16.

Regina v. Hicklin , L.R. 3 Q.B. 360 (1868).

Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union . 521 U.S. 844, 117 S. Ct. 2329, 138 L. Ed. 2d 874 (1997). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1557224836887427725&q=Reno+v.+American+Civil+Liberties+Union&hl=en&as_sdt=206 .

Rogers, Vaneta. 2011. “Archie Dropping Comics Code Authority Seal in February.” Newsarama , January 21. http://www.newsarama.com/6892-archie-dropping-comics-code-authority-seal-in-february.html .

Rosen v. United States , 161 U.S. 29, 16 S. Ct. 434, 40 L. Ed. 606 (1896). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=835112669579863938&q=Rosen+v.+United+States&hl=en&as_sdt=206 .

Roth v. United States , 354 U.S. 476, 77 S. Ct. 1304, 1 L. Ed. 2d 1498 (1957). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14778925784015245625&q=Regina+v.+Hicklin&hl=en&as_sdt=206 .

Sanelli, Maria, and George Perreault. 2001. “‘I Could Be Anybody’: Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Students in US Schools.” NASSP Bulletin 85(622): 69-78. https://doi.org/10.1177/019263650108562209 .

Schonfeld, Zach. 2015. “Does the Parental Advisory Label Still Matter?” Newsweek , November 10. http://www.newsweek.com/does-parental-advisory-label-still-matter-tipper-gore-375607 .

Schrader, Alvin M. 2009. “Challenging Silence, Challenging Censorship, Building Resilience: LGBTQ Services and Collections in Public, School and Post-Secondary Libraries.” Feliciter 55(3): 107–9.

Sova, Dawn B. 1998. Banned Books: Literature Suppressed on Social Grounds . New York: Facts On File.

Steele, Jennifer E. 2017. “Censorship in Public Libraries: An Analysis Using Gatekeeping Theory.” PhD diss., University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

Steele, Jennifer E. 2019a. “Cases of Censorship in Public Libraries: Loudoun County, VA.” Public Library Quarterly . https://doi.org/10.1080/01616846.2019.1660755 .

———. 2019b. “Cases of Censorship in Public Libraries: Wichita Falls, TX.” Public Library Quarterly . https://doi.org/10.1080/01616846.2019.1692324 .

Stringer-Stanback, Kynita. 2011. “Young Adult Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Questioning (LGBTQ) Non-Fiction Collections and Countywide Anti-Discrimination Policies.” Urban Library Journal 17(1): 1-27.

Sund v. City of Wichita Falls, Texas , 121 F. Supp. 2d 530 (N.D. Texas 2000). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5196691822154706461&q=sund+v+city+of+wichita+falls+tex&hl=en&as_sdt=206 .

Thompson, Anthony Hugh. 1975. Censorship in Public Libraries in the United Kingdom During the Twentieth Century . Epping, England: Bowker.

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District , 393 U.S. 503, 89 S. Ct. 733, 21 L. Ed. 2d 731 (1969). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15235797139493194004&q=Tinker+v.+Des+Moines+Independent+Community+School+District&hl=en&as_sdt=206 .

United States v. American Library Association, Inc. , 539 U.S. 194, 123 S. Ct. 2297, 156 L. Ed. 2d 221 (2003). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7891716025089102487&q=United+States+v.+American+Library+Association,+Inc&hl=en&as_sdt=206 .

United States v. One Book Called “Ulysses,” 5 F. Supp. 182 (S.D.N.Y. 1933). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5544515174778878625&q=United+States+v.+One+Book+Called+%E2%80%9CUlysses%E2%80%9D&hl=en&as_sdt=206 .

Van Buskirk, Jim. 2005. “Out of the Closet?” Library Journal 130(6): 62-65.

Wachsberger, Ken. 2006. Preface to Dawn B. Sova, Banned Books: Literature Suppressed on Sexual Grounds , rev. ed. (pp. vii–viii). New York: Facts on File.

Walker v. Popenoe , 149 F.2d 511 (D.C. Cir. 1945). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1236221801164736269&q=Walker+v.+Popenoe&hl=en&as_sdt=206 .

West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette , 319 U.S. 624, 63 S. Ct. 1178, 87 L. Ed. 1628 (1943). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8030119134463419441&q=West+Virginia+Board+of+Education+v.+Barnette&hl=en&as_sdt=206 .

Wiegand, Wayne A. 2015. Part of Our Lives: A People’s History of the American Public Library . New York: Oxford University Press.

Wolf, Virginia L. 1989. “The Gay Family in Literature for Young People.” Children’s Literature in Education 20(1): 51-58. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01128040 .

Woods, L. B. 1979. A Decade of Censorship in America: The Threat to Classrooms and Libraries, 1966–1975 . Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press.

1 . In 1945, the Postmaster General of the United States, Frank Comerford Walker, filed suit against the author and publisher of a pamphlet, called “Preparing for Marriage” ( Walker v. Popenoe 1945), which he withheld from the mail on the grounds of the Comstock Act (1873). The pamphlet contained “detailed information and advice regarding the physical and emotional aspects of marriage” ( Walker v. Popenoe 1945, at 512). However, the Court ruled that the order barring the pamphlet from the mail without a hearing was “a violation of due process” ( Walker v. Popenoe 1945, at 513).

2 . While the segregation of libraries might not be considered censorship by all definitions, it does involve the exclusion of information from people of particular races. Under the American Library Association’s definition of censorship (ALA 2016), exclusion is considered to be a form of censorship.

3 . An example of a director pushing the envelope and working around Production Code guidelines was Alfred Hitchcock with his 1946 film Notorious . In the film, he worked around a three-second-kissing-only rule by having the actors break off every three seconds, while the entire sequence actually lasts two and a half minutes (McGilligan 2004, 376).

Figure 1. The Comics Code Seal. Courtesy of the Comic Code Authority.

Figure 2. Parental Advisory Label. Courtesy of Recording Industry Association of America, Inc.

• There are currently no refbacks.

ALA Privacy Policy

The role of censorship in school.

Citation metadata, document controls, main content.

School authorities face great complexities and inevitable challenges when deciding to make or not to make censorship decisions in schools. Matters of educational content, age level, acceptability by parents and communities, and appropriateness in the school setting are among the decisions having to be made. When school official decisions result in disagreements, the courts eventually are called upon to render final disposition of such matters. This article offers select examples of representative censorship decisions and final dispositions are discussed.

The United States has required its young people to be educated since the early days of the nation. Since children are required to attend school until they reach a certain age or have achieved a stated level of education, (1) they become captive audiences. Divergent laws, policies, rules and practices through the years and across the numerous school districts and college/university governing boards have imposed or allowed various forms of censorship involving textbook content, teacher classroom presentation style and content, assigned readings, and extra-curricular school activities. Through the years, public debate and protests over the amount of and type of censorship in the schools have taken place; discussions and disagreements over what forms censorship should be practiced in public education have unfolded; and debates over who ought be charged with supervising such allowed censorship have been held in both formal and informal forums? (2) This essay examines many of the issues that exist relevant to deciding whether and when censorship is permissible and/or advisable and who ought be empowered to make such decisions. Censorship is an extremely sensitive, value-laden, and little understood phenomenon that needs better exposure for the public, students, teachers, parents, school boards, and school administrators.

It is argued here that censorship is only valid, ethical, and required when it appears to be the only way to avoid or to mitigate provable physical, social, emotional, or intellectual harmful outcomes for students, teachers, or the school itself. When schools censor ideas, students become increasingly interested in such subjects and typically discover some clandestine means to gain access to these taboo ideas. When such means are thus acquired by students, there is lost any chance that teachers, librarians, or parents can become personally aware of and involved in contextualizing, prioritizing, or explaining what the student has secured. When teachers, librarians, and parents are involved with what is encountered by children, there is less chance that harm from such material will visit that individual.

Censorship, as discussed here, is defined as the forbidding, blocking, limiting, or obstructing access to information for whatever reason. Censorship has taken on a negative, even demonized, loading in our US culture: however, using the above definition, parental and teacher gate-keeping qualify as typically positive and generally acceptable examples of censorship. Parents and teachers--and many others--are obliged by their legitimate positions to censor specific words and images from student access. This article focuses on these teacher, school administrator, and school board endeavors that forbid, block, limit, or obstruct student access to information.

School censors believe, in most cases, that censorship is the most expedient, safe, and familiar way to keep salacious, frightening, inciting, titillating, overwhelming, or seditious words or images out of reach of students that might likely inhibit, prohibit, obfuscate, sidetrack, or contradict what is intended to be taught in the school. Such beliefs are not always grounded in fact: and some that are factually grounded do not justify censorship as a remedy.

Racial issue understanding and protection against racial slurs are one issue that frequently suggest some level of censorship in order to not offend anyone negatively focused upon and to ward off potential parental lawsuits. School official safeguards against possible racial insensitivity are not always favored by non-school groups. One such example follows.

The Yellow Medicine East School District [Minnesota] pulled the book: Little House on the Prairie on the complaint from a single parent that the book "contains racially offensive material about Native Americans." (3) The MCLU argued to the board that

The board refused to ban the book but did issue a suggestion to the school that another book choice might be wise. Such action was interpreted diversely: pro-ban advocates saw it as vindication of the MCLU's position minus formal action while the anti-ban proponents viewed the decision as siding with their views.

The fact that this long-running and highly rated TV show that followed the book seemed, in some people's minds not to mitigate accusations of intended racism. School officials faced age level implications as well as content factors here.

The Boulder Valley School District Board [Colorado] supported a local school in barring a third grader's science project closely resembling renown psychologist Kenneth Clark's 1954 racial experiment using dolls. The young girl, properly used the scientific method and titled her presentation: "Does skin color make a difference?" School authorities declined to allow her project to be displayed in the fair even though it had been approved by her teacher. Authorities claimed that this project would be offensive to some minority students [and parents] and therefore was inappropriate. (5) No lawsuit resulted, but a school board review of criteria for school presentations was promised. (6)

Even though appropriate topic selection for the assignment and the grade level was made and inoffensive and proper experiment preparation and presentation methods were planned, school officials worried about how some audience members might react to this science presentation. A major objection to this concern revolved around the question of how children would react to the concept of asking good questions and seeking in appropriate ways answers being censored due to others' hurt feelings. Questions of blunting inquiry were raised here.

At times, some individuals or groups seem threatened by specific or general book content or by rumors concerning such content and they attempt to influence others with authority to refuse to secure such books from school libraries or to remove such books themselves from school bookshelves. There have been various means and rationales employed to these ends which the courts have found to violate students' constitutional rights. An example follows below.

In 1971, an autobiographical book about a Puerto Rican Harlem resident was removed from three junior high school libraries by Community School Board No. 25 of Queens County, New York due to "objections to four-letter words [and] detailed descriptions of sexual activity ... and drug addiction." (7) "In Presidents Council, District 25 v. Community School Board No. 25 (1971)" the question was raised "whether a school board has the authority to remove a book from a school library" (8) Council's lawyers conceded a Board's right to select books; however, once selected, the claim was made, they could not be removed due to content objections. (9) In 1972, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that the school board had the right to remove as well as select books. (10) One major objection to having courts decided such issues is their distance from the local issue and courts' inability to keep abreast of the issue described in the following paragraph.

One significant sub issue here lies with schools' administration, library, and teacher turnover as well as changing students and parents over the years. One group approve a book and then later another group disapproves the same book. Authorities thus have a moving target they are constantly expected to evaluate and please. Censorship is not forever; it is transitory.

Sometimes censorship issues are determined in great part by "experts" and decisions about who qualifies as an expert. Issues of reading level also come to play in many censorship decisions. Following is a case involving both these issues. In 1972, a suit challenging the Strongville Board of Education [Ohio] which had refused to Approve Cat's Cradle, God Bless You, Rosewater, and Catch-22 citing these books as being "adult oriented" (11) and "less suitable for use as [a] curriculum text for grades 10-12 and ordered these books removed from library shelves. (12) Five families sued school officials" claiming school officials did not possess absolute authority over their students. Families argued school action constituted censorship and was unconstitutional in that decisions were not vetted by "experts." (13) On August 9, 1974, Judge Robert Krupansky of the US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio ruled in Minacini v. Strongville City School District (1) "that the school board did have the authority to select textbooks for the district" (2) that the board made its decisions in a proper way; and (3) that there were no constitutional issues at stake in this case. The judge argued that public hearings and the professional standing of those deciding on books were proper and sufficient expertise in decision making. (14) The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit amended the lower court's ruling by stating "Ohio law gave the board authority to approve or purchase textbooks; but the board did not have the authority to remove books from the school library. (15) This ruling required removed books be placed back on library shelves. This last decision harkens back to the problem of changing school personnel over time and adds to the complexity and confusion that administrators and school librarians have in making selection decisions.

A major philosophical matter arises here as to who ought be making educational content issues: school teachers and librarians, school administrators, school boards, parents, or some combination. Only rarely do courts refuse to make such decisions when parties object to decisions, so these decisions are made by the most distant to the school. judges. Inadvertently, children learn in such cases, that adult decisions are not final until a judge affirms them.

Often it is school, administrator, or teacher censorship rights and decisions that are argued in court; but sometimes, student individual censorship rights get litigated. In Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969). the US Supreme Court ruled that "Students have a First Amendment right to express their own ideas, at least if they do so in a way that does not fundamentally interfere with their school's functions." (16) The Tinker case revolved around two fifteen year old boys and one thirteen year old girl wearing black armbands to school in protest of the Vietnam war and in support of Senator Robert F. Kennedy's promise to extend a truce in the war. (17) When peers at school joined in their protest, school administrators "moved to stop the protest and isolate and punish the students who wore the armbands." (18) Justice Fortas' stated in his majority opinion:

School officials banned and sought to punish petitioners for a silent, passive expression of opinion, unaccompanied by any disorder or disturbances on the part of petitioners. There is here no evidence whatever of petitioner's interference, actual or nascent, with the school's work or of collision with the rights of other students to be secure and to be left alone (19)

Justice Fortas' opinion implicitly put forth reasons when school officials might be allowed to ban protests and or to punish students for disrupting school activity or lessening other students' security or safety. Not all Supreme Court opinions are so formed. Fortas' opinion went on to state:

Censorship, here, came down to a question of degree rather than kind. School officials must be able to prove serious harm will result, not mere embarrassment or inconvenience before censorship will be sustained in the courts.

Taste and appropriateness, sometimes judged in terms of obscenity are the benchmark employed to determine if censorship is warranted. In Bethel High School in Pierce County, Washington, a student "gave a nominating speech for a fellow student running for a student government position." (21) The theme of the speech was replete with sexual metaphor and double entendres; this was more suggestive than school authorities could allow. The student was suspended from school; a ruling that spawned Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986). The lower court and a federal appeals court upheld the student's fight to free political discourse; the US Supreme Court accepted the case on appeal and ruled against the student. Chief Justice Warren Burger, writing for the majority stated:

This ruling allows for better classroom management and places obligations on school authorities to assure that alternative means of protecting other students exist before censoring speech.

For school censorship to be valid, some inevitable, unavoidable, and egregious damage to students, teachers, or school property (physical, social, or emotional) must be clearly shown to exist. Censorship to avoid discomfort, embarrassment, extra teacher work, or parental objection is grossly insufficient. If students make ugly, discomforting, silly, mean spirited, erroneous, inaccurate, illogical, or in other ways flawed speeches, writings, or depictions, these need not be nor should be censored but rather used in a compassionate, wise, and purposeful way the subject of a lesson in effective message-making. Discussions of flawed message content, intent, motive, and likely or actual consequences are what make excellent classroom units.

Question of censorship have been shown to be varied and subject to objection from diverse sources. Obviously, it would be best for those making censorship or non-censorship decisions to be wise, prudent, careful, and sensitive to others' views and wishes. Unfortunately, in many instances, objecting parties who lose in their quest to secure decisions they deem correct often resort to judges' decisions. School officials thus frequently render defensive decisions or opt out of activities or choices in order to avoid the costs and inconvenience of endless hearings, appeals, and courtroom battles. Often useful educational experiences are sacrificed to avoid these battles and children lose out. The loss of confidence in teachers making classroom decisions has grown to large quarter and school administrators and school boards have reacted accordingly.

(1) National Center for Educational Statistics. (2001). State Compulsory School Attendance Laws. Washington, DC: Department of Education. Students are required in the various states to attend school until ages 16-18 or to have completed grade 10 in other states.

(2) This essay limits its discussion to censorship of oral and written forms and deals only with matters relevant to occurrences in grades K-12. It is acknowledged that many of the issues discussed in this essay occur at the higher education level: however, these are beyond the scope of this article.

(3) Minnesota ACU Fights School Censorship Of "Little House on the Prairie." (1998, December 11). Press release http://archive.aclu.org/news/ n121198c.html found on December 20, found on 2003 at p. 1.

(4) Minnesota ACU Fights School Censorship Of "Little House on the Prairie," p. 1.

(5) ACLU of Colorado Challenges School Censorship of 8-year-old's Science Project on Racism. (2001, February 28. Press release archive.aclu.org/news/2001/n022801c.html found on December 20, 2003 at p. 1.

(6) ACLU of Colorado Challenges, p. 3.

(7) Rogers, Donald J. (1988). Banned! Book Censorship in the Schools. New York: Julian Messner, p. 11.

(8) Rogers, p. 12.

(9) Rogers, pp. 12-13.

(10) Rogers, p. 13.

(11) Rogers, p. 31.

(12) Rogers, p. 32.

(13) Rogers, p. 32.

(14) Rogers, p. 32.

(15) Rogers, p. 34.

(16) Raskin, Jamin B. (2000). We Students: Supreme Court Cases for and About Students. Washington, DC Congressional Quarterly Press, p. 23.

(17) Raskin, p. 23.

(18) Raskin, p. 24.

(19) Raskin, p. 26.

(20) Raskin, pp. 25-26.

(21) Raskin, p. 42.

(22) Raskin, p. 46.

Dr. Ken Petress, Faculty, University of Maine.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. Petress, University of Maine@Presque Isle, Presque Isle, Maine 04769-2888.

Source Citation

Gale Document Number: GALE|A137791005

Related Subjects

•   Google Drive™
•  OneDrive™

Email Document

Required fields marked with *

Separate each e-mail address with a semicolon

• Subject Line:

Report an Issue

Submitted diagnostic report.

Timestamp: August 7, 2024 at 10:57:36 AM EDT

Ticket Number:

Reporter's Email:

Reporter's Name:

High School Students Explain Why We Can’t Let Classroom Censorship Win

In U.S. classrooms and libraries, a coordinated attack on students’ right to learn is underway.

Since January 2021, 44 states have introduced bills or taken other steps to restrict how teachers can teach about racism and sexism in the classroom. These unlawful efforts impact students as young as five or six, and exist throughout the education system, reaching high school students and those at higher education institutions. In addition to censoring classroom conversations, lawmakers and school boards have also enacted sweeping book bans that further restrict access to diverse viewpoints.

Defend Your Right to Learn: Join In The Fight Against Classroom Censorship

Source: American Civil Liberties Union

The ACLU has challenged classroom censorship laws and book bans nationwide as part of its broader efforts to defend education equity. To better understand who these censorship attempts harm and how young people are being impacted, this back-to-school season, we spoke to high school students from across the country at the ACLU’s annual National Advocacy Institute about how classroom censorship has impacted their right to learn.

Ana Sofia, Florida

I am not able to take AP Psychology or AP African American History. I am also unable to find a lot of the books that I like because they are being banned and removed from my local libraries. I have to work harder to find information and, because it is harder, I sometimes just decide not to look for it.

Ayesha, California

As a woman of color, I haven’t fully felt that I identify with much of the history taught in my classrooms. I think book banning, and taking away certain avenues of education for students to learn about their background and where they came from … is really harmful to students, especially youth who are trying to find their sense of community and where to belong.

Sasha, California

If I'm in the classroom and I can't get an array of perspectives from an array of different authors, I feel that I'm not getting an education representative of our America. If I can't read authors who look like me, who look like my black and brown friends, [who look like] my friends of AAPI descent, then what am I really learning? I'm learning America from the perspective of only one kind of person, and that's not the education that I want, nor is it the education that any student should receive.

Shane, New Jersey

Students learn from being able to read books, voice our opinions, and hear the opinions of others. As someone who's Jewish and has had family murdered in the Holocaust, I understand firsthand that when you start to ban books and label books as forbidden the people in those books soon find themselves also labeled forbidden… Information, the right to knowledge, and the right to converse freely are what protect all of our other rights that we care about so deeply.

Sophia, New York

History isn’t as pretty and simple as some people want to make it seem. It’s very complicated. You really need to have access to all of the information you can get and hear a lot of different opinions …Having access to all viewpoints allows me to expand my knowledge and makes learning a lot more interesting.

Olivia, Florida

Banning books is one of the ways that we are actively stunting educational growth for young students. I think that, for kids, the library is often a haven for where they can go and just garner so many new perspectives and gain an idea of what change can possibly be.

As a kid, I got into advocacy from reading The Hunger Games and seeing the rise of Katniss Everdeen and the revolution. And so, if books like that, like Fahrenheit 451 , like The Hunger Games , or Of Mice and Men are banned, these narratives are being erased. Kids can’t get that sort of education and perspective that can encourage them to make change later on as leaders of the future.

Anjali, Pennsylvania

My school district has dealt with book bans and curriculum censorship…I really saw a burden come on our educators and our students where we didn't feel like we were being adequately represented in the curriculum, and we didn't feel that we were able to grow in our knowledge in a very truthful and real way. We need to have the opportunity to explore our knowledge at a deeper level and not be restricted by adults that think that we're not smart enough to understand.

Keaton, California

If my teachers weren’t allowed to talk about issues I cared about, I would honestly feel a little bit belittled, especially because teachers are very looked up to. They’re the people that we learn from, who educate us since we're little. And if our role models can't speak to something that we're passionate about, what does that say about our passions? Are those belittled as well? Are our feelings belittled? Are we invalidated? I think that it instills in us from a young age that we can only say certain things and can't speak our mind.

Learn More About the Issues on This Page

• Free Speech
• Free Expression and Censorship
• LGBTQ Youth
• LGBTQ Rights

Related Content

Young America's Foundation v. Sitman

“Know Your Enemy” Podcast Hosts and Dissent Magazine Ask Court to Dismiss Baseless Trademark Infringement Lawsuit

ACLU Slams Senate Passage of Kids Online Safety Act, Urges House to Protect Free Speech

ACLU and Students from Across the Country Urge Congress to Vote No on Kids Online Safety Act

The First Amendment in Schools: How Big a Problem is Censorship

Home » Resources » The First Amendment in Schools: How Big a Problem is Censorship

Introduction | The First Amendment and Public Schools | Censorship | How Big a Problem is Censorship? | Roles and Responsibilities | Censorship Policies | Resource Guide

A. The Numbers: Censorship occurs every day in this country. Sometimes it’s obvious even if no one uses the “C” word. Sometimes it’s invisible–when a teacher decides not to use a particular story or book or when a librarian decides not to order a particular magazine because of fears about possible complaints. No one can quantify this kind of “chilling effect” and its consequences for education.

The American Library Association (ALA), which tracks and reports censorship incidents, records a problem of significant magnitude, and they estimate that for each incident reported, there are four or five that go unreported. ALA states that between 1990 and 1998, 5,246 challenges were reported to or recorded by its Office for Intellectual Freedom. During the 1995-1996 school year alone, there were 475 challenges to educational materials, according to People for the American Way (PFAW). Both PFAW and ALA report challenges from all regions of the country and most states.

B. What Kind of Material Is Attacked? Almost 70 percent of the demands for censorship are directed at material in school classrooms or libraries. Most of the remainder are aimed at material in public libraries. Parents lodge 60 percent of the challenges. The American Library Association offers an instructive analysis of the motivation behind most censorship incidents: The term censor often evokes the mental picture of an irrational, belligerent individual. Such a picture, however, is misleading. In most cases, the one to bring a complaint to the library is a concerned parent or a citizen sincerely interested in the future well being of the community. Although complainants may not have a broad knowledge of literature or of the principles of freedom of expression, their motives in questioning a book or other library material are seldom unusual. Any number of reasons are given for recommending that certain material be removed from the library. Complainants may believe that the materials will corrupt children and adolescents, offend the sensitive or unwary reader, or undermine basic values and beliefs. Sometimes, because of these reasons, they may argue that the materials are of no interest or value to the community.

Of more than 5,000 challenges recorded by the ALA over the past eight years, 1,299 challenges alleged the materials’ content was “sexually explicit;” 1,134 objections concerned “offensive language” in the material; 1,062 alleged the material was “unsuited to age group;” 744 complained about an “occult theme or promoting the occult or Satanism;” and 474 concerned objections about homosexual issues or “promoting homosexuality.” Other reasons for objecting to materials included nudity (276), racism (219), sex education content (190), or anti family sentiments (186).

While demands for censorship can come from almost anyone and involve any topic or form of expression, most incidents involve concerns about sexual content, religion, profanity, or racial language. Many incidents involve only one complaint, but nonetheless trigger a review process that can become contentious. Often, the parents who support free expression do not step forward to participate in public discussions to the same extent as those seeking to remove materials, leaving school officials and teachers relatively isolated. It is then their task to assess the pedagogical value of the materials carefully to avoid simply giving in to angry demands that could undermine educational objectives, send students and colleagues the wrong message, and invite additional challenges in the future.

C. What Does “Age Appropriate” Mean? One of the most common demands for censorship involves the claim that certain school materials are not “age appropriate.” The term is often used to mean that students of a particular age shouldn’t be exposed to the material, not that they are too young to understand it. The objection usually comes up when the material concerns sexuality and usually reflects a fear that exposure to this subject matter undermines moral or religious values. Since many non-objecting parents support informing even young children about sexual matters, it is clear that the content of the material as much as the age of the child lies at the heart of the objection. Acceding to pressure to censor in this situation can be tantamount to endorsing one moral or religious view or morality over another.

Educators generally use the term “age appropriate” when they mean the point at which children have sufficient life experience and cognitive skills to comprehend certain material. Education proceeds in stages, with increasingly complex material presented as students gain the intellectual ability and knowledge to understand and process it. For this reason, young children usually do not learn physics or read Shakespeare. Similarly, educators may decide that detailed scientific information about human reproduction might not be age-appropriate for six-year-olds, but would be appropriate for 12-year-olds who have been introduced to basic biology.

According to high school teacher Vicky Greenbaum, writing in The English Journal (vol. 86, #2, Feb.1997, pp. 16 – 20), the term comes from psychological concepts defining age-appropriate behaviors . She observes, however, that the rationale for psychological descriptions of the age at which certain behaviors generally occur has limited relevance to the selection of educational materials and literature in the classroom. If students understand the sexual allusions in Hamlet , she believes the discussion of it is “age-appropriate.” In contrast, [a]dults who cling to this vision of youth as innocent have a corresponding vision of what’s appropriate, hoping perhaps that if youth are unexposed to certain elements in the world, they will remain pure, and the world will be a better place. Indeed, for such adults a pristine vision of youth often forms a wall between themselves and any adolescents they happen to know. Youth are people already possessing knowledge and vulnerabilities in ways akin to adults, and their greatest need may be for thoughtful consideration or guidance, while making sense of a vast, difficult, not always appropriate world.

Responding to questions about age appropriateness, the National Council of Teachers of English noted that “materials should be suited to maturity level of the students,” and that it is important to “weigh the value of the material as a whole, particularly its relevance to educational objectives, against the likelihood of a negative impact on the students….That likelihood is lessened by the exposure the typical student has had to the controversial subject….”

D. Who Gets Censored? In 1998, ALA and PFAW found the most frequently challenged authors were Robert Cormier, Lois Lowry, John Steinbeck, R. L. Stine, Maya Angelou, Judy Blume, Robie Harris, James Lincoln Collier and Christopher Collier, and Katherine Paterson. In the 14-year period between 1982 and 1996, the most frequently challenged authors were Judy Blume, Alvin Schwartz, Stephen King, John Steinbeck, Robert Cormier, J.D. Salinger, Roald Dahl, Maya Angelou, Mark Twain, and Katherine Paterson.

The books targeted by censors included both popular and classic titles, affecting choices made by almost every age group. PFAW’s list of most challenged books from 1982-1996 includes:

• John Steinbeck, Of Mice and Men
• J.D. Salinger, The Catcher in the Rye
• Robert Cormier, The Chocolate War
• Maya Angelou, I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings
• Alvin Schwartz, Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark
• Mark Twain, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
• Alvin Schwartz, More Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark
• Anonymous, Go Ask Alice
• Katherine Paterson, Bridge to Terabithia
• Roald Dahl, The Witches

Two years later, many of these works were still prime targets of censorship demands. According to the ALA, the most frequently challenged books in 1998 included:

• R. L. Stine, Goosebumps Series and Fear Street Series
• Lois Lowry, The Giver
• Luis Rodriguez, Always Running
• Jane Leslie Conly, Crazy Lady
• Judy Blume, Blubber

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Bullying — The Reason Judy Blume’s “Blubber” was Banned

The Reason Judy Blume's "Blubber" Was Banned

• Categories: Bullying

About this sample

Words: 559 |

Published: Aug 1, 2024

Words: 559 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof Ernest (PhD)

Verified writer

• Expert in: Social Issues

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 913 words

1 pages / 616 words

1 pages / 643 words

3 pages / 1235 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Bullying

Bullying is a pervasive issue that continues to plague schools, workplaces, and online platforms, causing significant harm to individuals of all ages. As we delve into the complexities of this phenomenon, it becomes crucial to [...]

Bullying is a pervasive issue that affects individuals of all ages, backgrounds, and social settings. From playground taunts to cyberbullying, the harmful effects of this behavior can have lasting consequences on both the victim [...]

Bullying is a serious issue that affects individuals of all ages, backgrounds, and walks of life. It can have long-lasting negative effects on the mental and emotional well-being of those who experience it. In this essay, we [...]

Bullying is a complex social issue that requires comprehensive and multifaceted strategies for effective prevention. This essay will analyze the efficacy of different prevention programs and interventions, explore the crucial [...]

Many parents and people in general think bullying is a normal act of adolescence,and it is just matter of time and age. What they might not know is that Bullying is becoming a big deal and a worldwide problem in today's society, [...]

Do you know how many innocent souls are shattered in the hands of ruthless bullies? Even in the most civilized countries, bullying causes grief to many young teens. A 2004 study published in the medical Journal of Pediatrics [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Speech Nirvanas on the Internet: A n Analysis of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Moody v. NetChoice Decision

Santa Clara Univ. Legal Studies Research Paper

24 Pages Posted: 25 Jul 2024

Eric Goldman

Santa Clara University - School of Law

Date Written: July 24, 2024

In 2021, Florida and Texas passed "social media censorship" laws regulating the editorial practices of social media platforms. The resulting First Amendment challenges produced the U.S. Supreme Court Moody v. NetChoice decision in July 2024.  The Court held that the lower court opinions did not properly analyze the requirements for a facial First Amendment challenge, so it sent the cases back to the lower courts to redo their work.  Despite that anticlimactic holding, the majority opinion is an important precedent for the Internet age. In particular, it confirms that the First Amendment protects content moderation online. Legislatures around the country are trying to override platforms' decisions about what content is appropriate for their audiences, and the majority opinion reaffirms that those efforts are unconstitutional.

Keywords: supreme court, free speech, first amendment, moody, netchoice, social media, censorship, social media censorship, internet, ugc, big tech, paxton, common carrier, common carriage, must-carry, media bias, commercial speech, compelled commercial speech, zauderer, pruneyard, turner, tornillo

JEL Classification: D18, K2, K23, K24, K42, L82, L86, L87, L96

Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation

Eric Goldman (Contact Author)

Santa clara university - school of law ( email ).

500 El Camino Real Santa Clara, CA 95053 United States 408-554-4369 (Phone)

HOME PAGE: http://www.ericgoldman.org

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics, related ejournals, santa clara university school of law legal studies research paper series.

Subscribe to this free journal for more curated articles on this topic

U.S. Constitutional Law: Rights & Liberties eJournal

Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic

Cyberspace Law eJournal

Information systems legislation & regulations ejournal, telecommunications & regulated industries ejournal, information privacy law ejournal, consumer law ejournal, social media studies ejournal.