What the Fight Against Classroom Censorship is Really About
The ACLU is leading the fight to end classroom censorship and protect our right to learn. We filed the first case in the country to challenge a law that censored instruction about systemic sexism and racism in Oklahoma, survived a motion to dismiss in New Hampshire, and obtained an injunction to block the State of Florida from enforcing the higher education provisions of the Stop W.O.K.E. Act.
As a former high school history teacher and a lawyer on the ACLU team litigating these challenges, the threat these laws pose to society is truly terrifying. Conservative politicians pushing these bills are advocating for nothing less than a re-whitewashing of history. If these revisionist efforts are successful, the next generation will be compelled to believe a version of history manufactured to fit the so-called patriotic views of a vocal, discriminatory minority. Students will not be taught, and may never learn, to trace the deliberate impact of historic oppression on institutions today. This will reinforce the salience of racism, sexism, homophobia, and transphobia as unavoidable, and prevent the next generation from achieving justice.
Efforts to silence discussions about race also invalidate the lived experiences of BIPOC students. Instruction about racism and sexism belongs in schools because it equips students to process the world around them and to live in a multicultural society.
Two years into this fight, a few lessons stand out:
1. The Classroom Censorship Movement is Growing.
The push for classroom censorship ignited as backlash to progress towards racial justice following the unprecedented protests in 2020 sparked by the murder of George Floyd. To curtail efforts to expand instruction and materials about racial justice and our discriminatory history, introduced bills to limit instruction about racism and sexism. These bills, essentially education gag orders, passed in 17 states. By January 2022, 35 percent of all primary and secondary (K-12) students, or 17.7 million students, attended school in districts that experienced some form of a . To date, almost 700 efforts to exclude "critical race theory" have been identified at the local, state, and federal levels. Last year, nearly 40 percent of classroom censorship bills targeted higher education.
2. The Classroom Censorship Campaign is Driven by a Vocal Minority.
Parents that “lessons about the history of racism prepare children to build a better future for everyone” and that students should “learn about the ongoing effects of slavery and racism as part of their education.” In a 2022 study, agreed that “lessons about the history of racism prepare children to build a better future for everyone as opposed to feeling that lessons about racism are harmful to children.” Another study from 2021 found that more than that high schools should teach the impacts of slavery (78 percent) and racism (73 percent).
3. Critical Race Theory is Not All That’s Under Attack.
Initially, conservatives called for the exclusion of “critical race theory,” but actually excluded so much more. All forms of race-conscious instruction have been erased from classrooms, despite their . This includes instruction about racism and discrimination (distinct from critical race theory) and culturally-relevant teaching techniques designed to build upon students’ lived experiences. Additionally, conservatives banned books — like "All Boys Aren’t Blue" and “And Tango Makes Three” — and classroom instruction that highlight the experiences of LGBTQ+ people or the impact of sexism.
Educators report that they have restricted classroom discussions, curriculum, or content as a result of the laws, despite a . They described a and intimidation in schools, marked by constant surveillance, scrutiny and second-guessing.
4. Unprecedented Efforts to Control and Ultimately Rewrite History are Underway.
In accordance with Florida’s Stop W.O.K.E. Act, which prohibits instruction on systemic racism and sexism, the Florida State Board of Education introduced outrageous that rewrite and whitewash history. These standards require teachers to instruct students that enslaved people developed skills that could be used for their personal benefit, blame enslaved people for violence during massacres, and misrepresent the role of the Founding Fathers in .
Judge Mark Walker, who heard the case in the Northern District of Florida, accurately the Stop W.O.K.E. Act as “positively dystopian” because it limits instruction to the viewpoints approved by the State, regardless of truth.
5. We Must Continue to Fight.
The conservative activist Christopher Rufo manufactured the frenzy around critical race theory in the government and schools. He described the fight against critical theory as “the most successful counterattack against B[lack] L[ives] M[atter] as a political movement.’” It was never driven by concerns about the best interests of students.
The fight to regain or protect the status quo has obscured meaningful discussions about what was missing from education all along: the narratives and experiences of BIPOC and LGBTQ+ people and women.
Over the past two years, I’ve watched attacks on education morph from demands to exclude critical race theory from classrooms to even more dangerous demands to erase entire concepts from American history. Book bans, so-called transparency laws designed to intimidate educators into compliance and attacks on individual expression have left our education system at the mercy of a hostile and discriminatory minority. Students can’t learn in that type of environment.
Our future depends on educational institutions that value instruction about systemic racism and sexism. We need to expand culturally relevant instruction and increase funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion in schools, not attack it for its role in uplifting the systematically oppressed. We can’t afford to lose our education system as we know it. We must fight back.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.