The 31-year-old activist, who was shot dead last week while debating before an audience of 3,000 at a Utah college campus, had built a reputation as a provocateur. In campus debates and to millions of online followers, Kirk’s populist crusade to on hotbed issues like immigration, transgender rights and gun control made him a brash, pull-no-punches icon for many young conservatives and a villain to who sought to shut him up. 

Kirk’s killing has reignited debates around another divisive issue — one that was central to his political identity — and that experts say could now face major upheaval: campus free speech. 

First Amendment experts told ����Ӱ�� Kirk being gunned down — a gruesome moment that was videotaped and — was “the ultimate form of cancel culture.” It then resulted in swift, widespread censorship and promised retribution. 

President Donald Trump, who counted Kirk as both a close friend and key political ally, said he intends to go after left-wing groups, labeling them as . Under threat by the Federal Communications Commission, indefinitely after the late night host claimed the Trump administration was “desperately trying” to characterize Kirk’s alleged killer “as anything other than one of them.” 

It was teachers who were among the first to be singled out for their comments on Kirk’s death. 

In Virginia, an educator was reportedly post that said “I hope he suffered through all of it.” In Texas, for suggesting Kirk’s death was the “consequences of his actions.” In Iowa, a teacher was for posting online “1 Nazi down.” South Carolina GOP Rep. Nancy Mace called on the Education Department from any school district that refuses to fire educators who “glorify or justify political violence.” 

At the same time, students face a heightened risk of backlash for engaging in fraught, hyperpartisan discourse, including for constitutionally protected free speech, said First Amendment attorney Adam Goldstein. 

“Somebody silenced Charlie Kirk and that person probably wanted less speech,” said Goldstein, the vice president of strategic initiatives at the , a nonprofit that advocates for student speech rights. “So if our reaction to that is to start silencing each other, then we’re doing the work of assassins for them.” 

Authorities have Kirk for his “political expression.” Prosecutors released a series of text messages Tuesday between Robinson and his roommate and romantic partner in which the suspected killer said he had enough of Kirk’s “hatred,” and that “some hate can’t be negotiated out.” 

Goldstein said censoring political dialogue — even if it’s lewd or offensive — is the wrong approach to Kirk’s slaying, which is part of a broader rise in political violence in the U.S. Such a climate, roughly two-thirds of Americans , is the result of harsh political rhetoric. In an act of political violence in June, a man impersonating a police officer her husband and their golden retriever Gilbert.

Though a complete picture of the factors that led to Kirk’s killing remains unknown, research by Goldstein’s group, known as FIRE, points to a — and an embrace of violence to cancel those they disagree with. a teenager, who was and held neo-Nazi views, shot two students at a suburban Denver high school before dying of a self-inflicted gunshot wound. 

A third of college students support violence to stop someone from speaking on campus “at least in rare cases,” according to a new FIRE survey released just a day before Kirk’s death. A quarter said they often self-censor around their peers to avoid potential backlash. 

The results showed a growing acceptance among students — including those who identify as Republicans — to shout at speakers in a bid to shut them up, to block their classmates from attending public speeches and to resort to censorship-driven violence. 

But it’s often left-wing activists who have been a key motivator for Kirk, who founded his youth-driven group in 2012. Through countless visits to college campuses, he forcefully made room for opposing viewpoints, many of them considered racist, anti-LGBTQ and misogynist. 

At the high school level, shows overwhelming support among students for free speech rights — but the situation becomes complicated with subjects they deem “offensive” or “threatening.”

While students generally have First Amendment rights at school, those freedoms end when their speech to the educational environment. Educators are held to a similar standard. First Amendment scholar Clay Calvert said endorsements of violence could cross that line. 

“People have a right to criticize his views, but that’s different than celebrating his death,” said Calvert, a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. “If you’re criticizing his views, as a student you’re more likely to be protected because it’s political speech. 

“If you’re celebrating his death,” Calvert said, “that’s less likely to be protected.” 

Students reject ‘threatening’ speech

Kirk was perhaps best known as an online personality whose hard-right political commentary routinely drew hecklers and calls for colleges to rescind his planned visits. It’s a campus climate  

He questioned the , claimed that “Islam is,” and stated that immigrants crossing into the U.S. from the southern border were part of a to eliminate white rural Americans.

While promoting those views, and married father of two was a staunch supporter of free speech. 

“When people stop talking, that’s when you get violence,” Kirk said in uploaded to social media. “That’s when civil war happens, because you start to think the other side is so evil, and they lose their humanity.”

As Kirk tested the free speech boundaries on campuses, data suggest college students have grown increasingly hostile to their peers with opposing viewpoints, according to that’s gauged students’ support for the First Amendment since 2004. 

In 2024, 27% of survey respondents said their campuses should “protect students by prohibiting speech they may find offensive or biased,” up from 22% in 2021. Three-fifths, or 60%, of students reported a campus culture where people were prevented from sharing their beliefs because others might find their opinions offensive. That’s an increase from 54% in 2016. 

At the high school level, the Knight Foundation survey data show, the campus speech rights of people with unpopular opinions. The data have remained relatively consistent between 2004 and 2022, the most recent year in which the survey was conducted. In 2022, 89% of surveyed high schoolers said people “should be allowed to express unpopular opinions,” up from a low of 76% in 2007.

Support among high school students  fell drastically, however, for speech they deemed “offensive” or “threatening.” Among the high school respondents in 2022, 40% said people should be able to say whatever they want even if it’s offensive and 28% said threatening speech should be allowed.

Another survey of college students, , found an overwhelming majority of young people feel heard on campus. 

About three-quarters of those seeking their bachelor’s degree reported “excellent” or “good” efforts by their institutions to promote free speech, results that held consistent across the political spectrum. Students who identify as Republicans were just 1 percentage point more likely than their Democratic counterparts to report “poor” speech rights on campus. 

‘Witch hunt’

Following Kirk’s death, the Trump administration to search out, identify and harass his social media critics. Attorney General Pam Bondi vowed to “absolutely target” people who engage in “hate speech.” Such expressions are and Bondi walked back her comments after she faced criticism from observers across the political spectrum. 

In Texas, the state education department announced this week it was reviewing at least over online comments about Kirk’s assasination.  The reviews came after Texas Education Commissioner Mike Morath said the agency would and encouraged the public to file complaints. 

“While the exercise of free speech is a fundamental right we are all blessed to share, it does not give carte blanche authority to celebrate or sow violence against those that share differing beliefs and perspectives,” Morath wrote in the letter last week. 

The Texas American Federation of Teachers has condemned the investigations, which the group called a “political witch hunt.” Union President Zeph Capo said the letter amounted to “a statewide directive to hunt down and fire educators for opinions shared on their personal social media accounts.” 

“It’s no surprise that, here in Texas, the purge of civil servants starts with teachers,” Capo said in a statement. “If you value your freedom, now is the time to speak up and defend the rights of all Texans to exercise their constitutional right to have an opinion on matters of civil discourse.” 

Colleges have faced similar scrutiny. The American Association of University Professors, a nonprofit trade association for college educators, said it was alarmed by “the rash of recent administrative actions to discipline faculty, staff and student speech.” In Trump’s second term, higher education —  and — has been among the president’s top targets. 

“At a moment when higher education is threatened by forces that seek to destroy it and its role in a democratic society,” the group said in a statement, “the anticipatory obedience shown by this rush to judgment must be avoided.” 

In , Calvert of the University of Florida notes that the First Amendment protects educators against censorship by their public school employers — “but those rights are not absolute.” At play is an educator’s interest in speaking as a private citizen versus school leaders’ “interest in an efficient, disruption-free workplace.” 

If a teacher revels in Kirk’s death on social media, he told ����Ӱ��, “that’s clearly going to disrupt that educational environment and interfere with it.” 

“In this case, it’s a public school trying to teach students effectively and you can imagine if you were a Kirk supporter, you’d say, ‘I can’t take this class from this professor or this teacher, he or she has posted online celebrating Charlie Kirk’s death,’” Calvert said.  

Goldstein of FIRE challenged Bondi’s early assertions that hate speech was criminal, noting the concept is “something we made up to describe a bunch of words we don’t like,” but lacks a legal definition. While he’s seen gleeful online commentary about Kirk’s killing, he said he hasn’t come across any that breach the free-speech threshold of being or  

“Much of what I’ve seen I would characterize as unkind, mocking, maybe uncharitable in the moment,” he said, but not calls for violence “that are likely to be received by an audience willing to do it.” In fact, he said the First Amendment was specifically designed to protect the rights of citizens to hold unpopular beliefs. 

“As far as I know, no one in history has ever tried to stop you from talking about how much you like puppies because everybody likes puppies and there’s no reason to censor that,” Goldstein said. “Speech that we hate is precisely the kind of thing the First Amendment is concerned with protecting.” 

Yet, with the government’s endorsement of censorship in the wake of Kirk’s death comes a tinge of irony. Prior to being killed reportedly for his beliefs, Kirk held an absolutist position on the First Amendment. 

“Hate speech does not exist legally in America,” “There’s ugly speech. There’s gross speech. There’s evil speech.

And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment.

Keep America free.” 

The Iowa law prohibiting school libraries from having books containing sexually explicit material can go into effect, federal appeals court judges ruled Friday.

The three-person panel moved to lift the injunction blocking the law from enforcement Friday. Portions of the were previously blocked in January by U.S. District Court Judge Stephen Locher. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled that Locher’s decision was based on a “flawed analysis of the law.”

The law prohibits school libraries from including books with written and visual depictions of sex acts from, in addition to banning instruction and materials involving issues of “gender identity” and “sexual orientation” for students in kindergarten through sixth grade. These regulations will now be allowed to take effect as legal challenges continue.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for ����Ӱ�� Newsletter

The law is being challenged by multiple parties, including the, Iowa Safe Schools, as well as the publisher Penguin Random House and due to the law.

Iowa State Education Association President Joshua Brown said in a statement that the organization was “disappointed” by the appeals court decision.

“Banning essential books in our schools is a burden for our educators, who will face punishment for not guessing which book fits into a supposed offensive category, and for our students, who are deprived of reading from great authors with valuable stories,” Brown said in a statement. “If Iowa’s elected leaders truly valued education professionals, they would leave important classroom decisions to the local school districts and the experts who work in them – not make what we teach our students a game of political football.”

Critics of the measure say that the law will keep classic literature — like the books “Brave New World” and “Ulysses” — from being available in school libraries, but that a majority of the books removed from school shelves are those focused on stories about race and LGBTQ+ issues, like “Gender Queer,” “All Boys Aren’t Blue,” and “The Color Purple.”

Educators have criticized the state for not clarifying the rules surrounding the law, as the Iowa Department of Education to provide more information on what materials are considered “age-appropriate” under the law. The state department has said they plan to address allegations of noncompliance on a case-by-case basis.

But Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird said the appeals court decision was a win for Iowa parents.

Gov. Kim Reynolds also released a statement supporting the court opinion.

“Today, the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit confirmed what we already knew – it should be parents who decide when and if sexually-explicit books are appropriate for their children,” Reynolds said. “Here in Iowa, we will continue to focus on excellence in education and partnerships with parents and educators.”

The lawsuit found that the district court decision did not properly evaluate the law under existing precedent — referring specially to the 2024 U.S. Supreme Court decision in , a lawsuit involving speech on social media platforms. However, the judges also rejected the state’s argument that school library materials constitute “government speech.” They also found that a transgender student whose school district banned gender-sexuality alliance clubs due to concerns about the law has standing to sue.

The ACLU of Iowa, alongside Lambda Legal and the Jenner & Block law firm, plaintiffs in the lawsuit, issued a join statement saying that Iowa families and LGBTQ+ students were “deeply frustrated and disappointed” by the court’s decision, especially as the 2024-2025 school year approaches.

“Denying LGBTQ+ youth the chance to see themselves represented in classrooms and books sends a harmful message of shame and stigma that should not exist in schools,” the legal organizations said in the statement. “We are, however, encouraged by the Eighth Circuit’s complete rejection of the State’s most dangerous arguments, and we look forward to renewing our request for relief from this law’s damaging and unconstitutional effects on LGBTQ+ students. … We will ask the district court to block the law again at the earliest opportunity.”

The decision returns the case to district court for further action.

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Iowa Capital Dispatch maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Kathie Obradovich for questions: info@iowacapitaldispatch.com. Follow Iowa Capital Dispatch on and .

Taken together, the trio would create sweeping restrictions on children’s access to social media, impose new requirements on social media companies to ensure their products aren’t harmful to youth mental health and bolster educators’ digital surveillance obligations to ensure kids aren’t swiping through their favorite feeds in class. 

The three separate digital safety bills have bipartisan support and lawmakers could greenlight them as part of the FAA reauthorization legislation, which faces a Friday deadline. If passed, the legislative package could potentially end years of debate on these thorny questions and would mark the most consequential effort to regulate tech companies and children’s online safety in decades.

“Parents know there’s no good reason for a child to be doom-scrolling or binge-watching reels that glorify unhealthy lifestyles,” Sen. Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican who is co-sponsoring The Kids Off Social Media Act, said in . “Young students should have their eyes on the board, not their phones.” 

The move comes as lawmakers across the political spectrum sound an alarm over concerns that teens’ addiction to their social media feeds — complete with algorithms designed to keep them hooked and coming back for more — have exacerbated mental health issues in young people. It follows congressional testimony by of knowing that apps like Instagram inflamed body image issues and other negative triggers among youth but failed to act to mitigate the harm while upholding a “see no evil, hear no evil” culture.

The controversial and heavily debated bills saw new life in January after social media executives were grilled during a contentious congressional hearing and Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg apologized to parents who said their children were damaged, and in some cases died, after the company’s algorithms fed them a barrage of pernicious content. 

But critics contend the provisions amount to heavy-handed and unconstitutional censorship that fails to confront the root cause of young people’s anguish — and in some cases could hurt them by limiting their access to educational materials, blocking information designed to help them deal with mental health issues or by subjecting them to greater online surveillance.

The three amendments are:

• The Kids Online Safety Act would require tech companies to “exercise reasonable care” to ensure their services don’t surface in children’s feeds material deemed harmful, including posts that promote suicide, eating disorders and sexual exploitation.
  
  First introduced in 2022, the legislation would also require tools that would give parents greater ability to monitor their children’s’ online activities and mandate tech companies enable their most restrictive privacy settings for their youngest users by default. 

• The Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act, also known as COPPA 2.0, amends a 1998 law that requires tech companies receive parental consent before collecting data about children under 13 years old. COPPA 2.0 would extend existing requirements to children under 16, ban targeted advertising for children and require tech companies to delete data collected about children upon parental request. 

• The Kids Off Social Media Act, introduced last week by Cruz and Hawaii Democratic Sen. Brian Schatz, would prohibit children under 13 years old from creating social media accounts and restrict tech companies from using algorithms to serve content to children under 17. It would also require schools that receive federal internet connectivity funding to block students’ access to social media sites on campus networks. 

The bill’s provisions have faced widespread pushback from digital rights and privacy advocates, including the nonprofit Electronic Frontier Foundation, which called it an unconstitutional infringement that “replaces parents’ choices about what their children can do online with a government-mandated prohibition.” 

On Tuesday, TikTok and its Chinese parent company that bans the popular social media app in the U.S. unless it sells the platform to an approved buyer, accusing the government of stifling free speech and unfairly singling it out based on unfounded accusations it poses a national security threat.

In March, — including Louisiana, Arkansas, Texas and Utah — to impose new parental consent requirements for children to create social media accounts. The Georgia law also bans social media use on school devices and creates age verification requirements for porn websites.

Aliya Bhatia, a policy analyst at the nonprofit Center for Democracy and Technology, said that each bill now included in the FAA reauthorization act has been the subject of debate and opposition. Including them in unrelated, must-pass legislation with a short deadline, she said, “undermines the active conversations that are happening” about the bills, which she said are “just not ready for prime time.”

The Kids Online Safety Act, which has the bipartisan , is endorsed by a host of , including the American Psychological Association, Common Sense Media and the American Academy of Pediatrics, who argue the rules could protect youth from the corrosive effects of social media. 

At the same time, the legislation, which has differing House and Senate versions, has also received and those representing LGBTQ+ students. The groups argue the bill amounts to government censorship with a likely disparate impact on LGBTQ+ youth and students of color. The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, has endorsed the legislation as a way to restrict youth access to LGBTQ+ content, that “keeping trans content away from children is protecting kids.” 

Privacy advocates have warned the legislation could result in age-verification requirements across the internet that could require online users of all ages to provide identifying information to web platforms. 

Meanwhile, social media’s effects on youth mental well-being remain the subject of research and debate. In last year, the American Psychological Association noted that while social media use “is not inherently beneficial or harmful to young people,” the platforms should not surface to their young users content that encourages them to engage in risky behaviors or is discriminatory. 

In , Surgeon General Vivek Murthy noted that social media use is nearly universal among young people, with more than a third of teens saying they use the apps “almost constantly.” While its impact on youth mental health isn’t fully understood, Murphy said, emerging research suggests that its use can be harmful — perpetuating a national youth mental health crisis “that we must urgently address.” 

The Kids off Social Media Act, which would prohibit youth access to sites like Instagram, is that requires schools and libraries to monitor and filter youth internet use as a condition of receiving federal E-Rate internet connectivity funding. In response, schools nationwide have adopted digital surveillance tools that use algorithms to sift through billions of student communications to identify problematic online behaviors.

Meanwhile, a recent found that web filters regularly used in schools do more than keep kids from goofing off in class. They also routinely limit students’ access to homework materials, educationally appropriate information about sexual and reproductive health and resources designed to prevent youth suicides. 

For years, privacy advocates have called on the Federal Communications Commission to clarify how the rules apply to the modern internet and have argued that schools’ tech-driven monitoring efforts go far beyond their original intent. 

When the law went into effect in 2001, monitoring “quite literally meant looking over a kid’s shoulder as they used the computer,” said Kristin Woelfel, a policy counsel of the Center for Democracy and Technology, but in 2024 student monitoring has become “a very specific term that now means really pervasive and technical surveillance.” 

of students, parents and teachers last year, the nonprofit found a majority supported digital activity monitoring in schools yet nearly three-quarters of youth said that filtering and blocking technology made it more difficult to complete some homework, a challenge reported more often among LGBTQ+ students, and that the tools routinely led to disciplinary actions and police involvement. 

“They don’t work as people think they do,” she said. “That, coupled with data that shows it’s actually detrimental to students, indicates even more that this is not the right path forward.” 

In a letter to lawmakers last week, a coalition of education nonprofits including the American Library Association and the Consortium for School Networking expressed concern about attaching social media limitations to E-Rate funding, which schools rely on to facilitate learning. 

“Schools and libraries will face delays or denials of E-rate funding due to allegations of non-compliance,” the groups wrote, arguing that it would give federal authorities control over social media policies that should be left to local officials. “The bill’s provisions seem to suggest that technology-driven learning models are always harmful, even when carefully crafted to promote educational purposes. In fact, there are several social media uses that can be beneficial for education and learning.”

In a announcing the legislation, Schatz offered the opposite perspective.

“There is no good reason for a nine-year-old to be on Instagram or TikTok,” he said. “There just isn’t. The growing evidence is clear: social media is making kids more depressed, more anxious, and more suicidal.”

In justifying the legislation, Schatz cites reporting by the psychologist and author Jonathan Haidt, who argues in his new book that young people — and girls, in particular — face a “tidal wave” of anguish that can be traced back to the rise of smartphones. 

Haidt’s characterization of tech’s role in youth well-being has , including by developmental psychologist Candice Odgers, who argued in that claims “that digital technologies are rewiring our children’s brains and causing an epidemic of mental illness is not supported by science.” 

Among the evidence is on the well-being of nearly 1 million people ages 13 to 34 and 35 and over as it was being adopted in 72 countries and found “no evidence suggesting that the global penetration of social media is associated with widespread psychological harm.”

A bill that would have — or display — in their classrooms has hit a dead end.

The Utah House on Monday narrowly voted down , a bill that would have banned teachers from “endorsing, promoting or disparaging” certain beliefs or viewpoints, including religious or political beliefs and sexual orientation or gender identity.

The bill sponsored by Rep. Jeff Stenquist, R-Draper, faltered on a vote, with several Republicans joining Democrats in opposition.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for ����Ӱ�� Newsletter

It’s the end of the line for the legislation — at least this year. Stenquist told Utah News Dispatch in a text message Monday that he likely won’t seek to resurrect it during the remaining four days of the 2024 legislative session that’s set to end before midnight Friday.

However, Stenquist said he’ll continue to work on it perhaps for 2025.

The vote came after the bill was altered on the House floor earlier Monday morning, when Rep. Neil Walter, R-St. George, successfully changed the bill to strip out language that also would have regulated teachers’ “social beliefs” — one of the bill’s terms that teacher advocates worried was too broad and vague.

“I’m concerned ‘social belief’ could (mean) anything they might believe,” Walter said.

He argued regulating “social beliefs” could create a chilling effect in classrooms, worried it could make teachers fear “inadvertently running afoul” of the law and therefore cause them to be “very careful, too careful” in some contexts.

“For example, I think we would all acknowledge and agree … that (Adolf) Hitler was an evil man,” Walter said, “but there could be people who were taught or feel that they have a social belief that he is not. We wouldn’t want to put a teacher … in a classroom in jeopardy for saying something that might persuade (a student) to reconsider their views.”

The bill would have would required teachers to tread carefully as to not sway a student to change their beliefs.

Walter’s version also would have allowed teachers to display “personal photographs” in general rather than only photographs of their family members.

Stenquist asked the House not to adopt Walter’s version, arguing that it would open a “big loophole” in the intent of the bill with regard to displaying photographs. He also worried removing “social beliefs” from the bill would allow scenarios where teachers could talk about “certain ideologies and world views that maybe don’t fit neatly in a political bucket or religious bucket.”

Stenquist started working on the legislation about a year ago, after some parents and gender identity with young students outside of curriculum. However, Stenquist has said his bill isn’t meant to regulate certain viewpoints, but rather ensure teachers remain politically and socially “neutral” in the classroom.

“Parents want to know” teachers aren’t pushing “other types of worldviews or ideologies” onto students that some parents “may not be comfortable with,” Stenquist said. “And that applies to all parents, regardless of what end of the political spectrum you may fall.”

Stenquist acknowledged concerns swirling around the bill over regulating what teachers can and can’t say, but he argued his bill would address a “perception out there that our students are being pushed toward particular ideologies.”

“This really is about giving our students a space to focus on curriculum and focus on learning without the classroom becoming a forum in the other social discussions and divisiveness that’s happening in society at large,” Stenquist said. “Let’s just allow the classroom to be free of political social ideologies and activism.”

Democrats including Rep. Joel Briscoe, D-Salt Lake City, a former high school teacher, argued against the bill, questioning how teachers should navigate its restrictions while also trying to encourage students to think critically.

“I’m telling you, this bill will scare teachers,” Briscoe said.

He pointed to a , a nonprofit research organization, that found two-thirds of U.S. K-12 public school teachers are limiting their own instruction about political and social issues in the classroom.

“It doesn’t matter whether their state has passed a law saying they can’t do it. They’re just afraid. They’re scared as teachers,” Briscoe said, raising his voice on the House floor.

He added he doesn’t think Stenquist or the bill’s supporters are trying to scare teachers. “I think they’re good people who have good intentions,” Briscoe said, but he argued the bill will have that effect. “I don’t think that’s what’s best for our children in our classrooms.”

Walter said he’s also concerned about “unintentionally sterilizing a classroom,” but given the Utah State Board of Education already has a rule about political statements, he said removing “social beliefs” from the bill would address his concerns.

After Walter changed the bill, the House put the legislaton on hold until later Monday afternoon, when Stenquist unsuccessfully tried to pass it out to the Senate.

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Utah News Dispatch maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor McKenzie Romero for questions: info@utahnewsdispatch.com. Follow Utah News Dispatch on and .

That means twice as many teachers as are legally barred from discussing what critics call “divisive concepts” have chosen to curtail their own classroom speech.

The finding marked the first time that researchers have quantified what the report describes as a “spillover effect” that causes educators to censor themselves even in communities that have typically supported such discussions, says Ashley Woo, one of the authors. 

A key reason why educators engage in self-censorship, RAND found, is a concern that their instruction — legal or not — could trigger a parental backlash.

“Oftentimes, it’s a really mobilized, very vocal minority of parents in a community,” says Woo. “Not only can parents come up to you and have a verbal altercation, but there’s also this idea that they can threaten your reputation through social media, or that they might be able to go to your leaders and threaten your job. … Even the specter of that can create a lot of anxiety for teachers.”

More than a third of America’s 3 million teachers reside in one of the 18 states that adopted laws restricting educator speech regarding race, gender and LGBTQ people between April 2021 and January 2023. But because some are subject to local policies or edicts prohibiting instruction about certain topics, half teach under some type of restriction. 

Teachers in states that don’t have the laws are just as likely as those that do to say that they are subject to school- or district-level restrictions, the survey found. Some have stopped discussing controversial topics not covered by statutes or policies, such as abortion rights or climate change. Unsure what exactly has been outlawed, others report deciding not to discuss historical figures of color or civil rights. 

Fifty-five percent of teachers who aren’t governed by any state or local limits on speech decided to change their instruction anyhow. Educators who don’t face formal speech constraints but live in conservative communities were more likely to choose not to address social and political topics. About 40% of educators in politically liberal places where no restriction exists reported curtailing their instruction.

“Those are the kinds of communities where probably parents actually want and support those kinds of conversations in the classroom,” says Woo. “These are not voters who voted for the leaders who are putting these kinds of policies in place. These are not communities that want these restrictions in place.”

The survey’s findings jibe with recent research from the free speech organization PEN America estimating that laws the organization deems “educational gag orders” affect 1.3 million K-12 teachers and millions of students. The “spillover effect,” RAND notes, means the number impacted is actually much higher. 

The data is drawn from RAND’s 2023 State of the American Teacher Survey, administered to a nationally representative sample of 1,439 K-12 teachers in January and February 2023. Communities’ political leanings were gauged by voting patterns in the counties where respondents live. 

Regardless of why individual teachers choose to alter their curriculum or other features of their instruction, top factors cited include fear of angering parents, a lack of guidance or perceived support from school administrators and concerns they might lose their jobs or licenses. Some of those surveyed mentioned hearing that educators elsewhere had been disciplined for engaging in controversial discussions. 

Local guidance to teachers sometimes comes in the form of a policy, but often it’s an admonition from a principal: “More implicit than maybe like a formal policy, but it’s still a message that teachers are receiving from their local leaders,” says Woo. “Teachers may take that and be, like, ‘Okay, well, I guess I shouldn’t be talking about that, then.’ ” 

Across the board, 49% named concern that higher-ups would not support them if parents complained as one of their top three reasons for deciding to self-censor. Some teachers said school or district leaders had told them to avoid certain topics because of community pressure, while others said they had received little or no guidance. 

Proponents of restrictive laws say parents need more control over what their children are exposed to in school and that discussion of “divisive concepts” pressures students to adhere to an ideology and tramples free-speech rights of those who disagree. Polling has consistently for limiting instruction about race but disagreement about whether and at what age students should learn about LGBTQ history. 

In many communities in states where there is little political support for curtailing instruction, protesters have brought school board meetings to a halt and threatened to root out educators and curricula aimed at “indoctrination.” Record numbers of board members and other district leaders have quit as a result of harassment.

PEN estimates 1.3 million K-12 teachers and 100,000 public college and university professors are now affected, as are millions of students. 

The analysis traces how proponents of what PEN calls educational gag orders have adjusted their tactics over the last three years. The authors say this reveals both rising public opposition to the laws and efforts by the restrictions’ right-wing backers to steer around political flashpoints. As a result, they say, they expect more — and more draconian — bills in 2024.

“What we have seen this year is that the people who are advocating for these laws are not going to stop because the poll numbers are bad, they’re not going to stop because some parts of the laws have been struck down by the courts, they’re going to continue,” says Jeremy Young, program director of PEN’s Freedom to Learn initiative. “They’re going to continue to evolve these laws in more and more insidious ways.” 

“This is an ongoing crisis,” he adds. “And it will continue until these laws are defeated in the courts or at the ballot box or in the legislature consistently.”

Backers of the measures argue that parents of K-12 students need more control over what their children are exposed to in school and that colleges should not foster discussion of “divisive concepts.” Teaching about race, history, gender and sexual minorities and other topics, they say, pressures students to adhere to an ideology and tramples the free speech rights of those who disagree.

“If we do not act now, I fear we will continue down the path of servitude to a woke agenda from which there may be no return,” Republican state Sen. Jerry Cirino of a 2023 Ohio bill, still under consideration, that would ban speech on a number of topics. “This bill isn’t even law yet, but it’s already served as an agent of change.”

How much of the broader public agrees and is comfortable imposing restrictions on educators varies greatly depending on the topics at issue, the age of the students in question and how the measures are framed, PEN’s analysis found.

The report traces the genesis of the movement to curtail instruction to former President Donald Trump’s September 2020 denunciation of “toxic propaganda,” including classroom materials based on “The 1619 Project,” The New York Times’s and journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones’s history of race in America. Three months later, the first state bill to curtail what teachers could say about race was introduced in Mississippi.

The vast majority of the speech-restricting measures introduced in 2021 and 2022 focused on stopping instruction involving race and history and “divisive concepts” in K-12 schools and colleges — often targeting both in the same piece of legislation. By contrast, in 2023, no bills simultaneously focused on the K-12 and university levels.

Thirty-nine of this year’s measures were aimed solely at shutting down discussion of LGBTQ people and topics in elementary and high schools. Most are modeled after the Florida law that critics refer to as the “Don’t Say Gay” act. The laws have been cited by people demanding book bans and in the elimination of anti-bullying efforts. 

More bills are expected in 2024, and PEN believes some will go much further. This year, for the first time, some of the proposed measures took aim at individuals’ speech, the report notes, with to prohibit students from disclosing their LGBTQ identity and that would mete out “disciplinary sanctions” or faculty who violate the “intellectual diversity rights” of others by discussing topics such as “allyship, diversity, social justice, sustainability, systemic racism, gender identity, equity or inclusion.”

“So a dean who sends out an email cheering for the new sustainable roof on the environmental sciences building [would be] violating the law because he’s expressing an institutional position on sustainability,” says Young. 

There are practical reasons why the legislation proposed in 2023 and predicted for next year — which in many cases use identical language, suggesting increased coordination across states

— will be harder to fight than the laws previously enacted, he says. Courts are likely to uphold college faculty free speech rights, but so far advocacy groups trying to overturn bans on LGBTQ topics have had a hard time meeting the legal threshold for proving plaintiffs have been harmed.

PEN’s researchers suggest public opinion may be one reason why backers of the bills have changed tactics and appear poised to do so again next year. Polls consistently show that Americans support teaching older students about race and oppose banning books about the topic. A by the American Public Media Research Lab and Pennsylvania State University found just 13 % of respondents believe state lawmakers should have a “great deal of influence” over classroom discussions of race or slavery. 

Some of the same surveys, however, have found much lower support for exposing K-12 students to LGBTQ topics, a much higher partisan divide and disagreement over at what age, if any, such discussions are appropriate. A University of Southern California poll last year found that 80% of Democrats say high schoolers should learn about gay rights, sexual orientation, gender identity and trans rights, while fewer than 40% of Republicans agree. Only about 30% of Americans believe such instruction is appropriate for elementary pupils. 

One of the researchers behind the USC survey, Morgan Polikoff, agrees that public opinion probably played a role in the change of tactics among proponents of limiting educator speech. “I would be surprised if that were not true,” he says. “The pivot is very apparent if you are paying attention.”

Republicans, he adds, are starting to make inroads with Black and Latino voters and as a result may be reluctant to continue to describe race as a divisive concept. 

Polikff also agrees with PEN’s assertion that the bills’ authors changed the way they targeted because public opinion data showed that attempts to curtail what professors may say — a centerpiece of many 2021 and 2022 bills — are wildly unpopular. 

Recent bills propose dismantling faculty unions, senates and other internal groups that protect academic freedom — systems most people have never heard of. For example, a Florida law passed this year weakens faculty hiring and tenure rights and, by decreeing that course content “may not distort significant historical events or include a curriculum that teaches identity politics,” for some classes and majors to be taught, critics say.

“This new breed of legislation is designed to kick the legs out from underneath university governance and autonomy,” the PEN report explains, “so that the next time the state moves to censor faculty, no one is in position to push back.”

Elena Chin, a former school counselor at a Department of Education elementary school in Queens for 23 years, founded the group after feeling increasingly alarmed by COVID closures, LGBTQ+ inclusion, and required diversity and equity workshops which she felt framed staff as “white supremacists.” 

“What we hope to accomplish is minimize it before it even starts and is full blown into the schools,” Chin said. “Raise awareness. Get a parent at every school board meeting to watchdog. We can’t normalize this stuff.”

Meeting by Zoom for about six months, the new Queens, New York chapter is following the same agenda as the organization, hoping to accomplish what some of the 285 other chapters already have: Limit or remove books and content featuring LGBTQ+ identities, racism and sex, which they believe can harm children. 

Some education experts were doubtful the New York City chapter will find much support in the overwhelmingly blue metropolis, but acknowledged people have always been in the city. Other parent groups with similarly conservative ideals have already gained a foothold locally.

Across the country, Moms for Liberty — making the Queens launch unsurprising to Michigan State researcher Rebecca Jacobsen, who’s been tracking the groups’ presence at school board meetings nationwide. 

“Their explicit mission says to represent voices that feel unheard. So in some ways, a really strong liberal location might lead to a small group of parents feeling like they don’t have a voice,” Jacobsen said. “Moms for Liberty has stepped in and said, ‘we’re here to represent you.’ And that’s a powerful feeling.” 

Chin was particularly concerned by the use of preferred pronouns, the number of children who told her they were gay, and the fact that she . 

“We’re telling children, you can tell me [you’re gay], and not your parents. That sounds like grooming to me,” Chin said. 

As a term, “grooming” has often been appropriated by conservatives to describe LGBTQ+ inclusion — a trend experts say minimizes real threats of child sexual abuse and vilifies queer people. 

Chin believes the number of children claiming they were gay and posters celebrating diversity was a “social contagion” at P.S. 64, for kids she said were just looking for more acceptance or to fit in with friends. 

Gender Queer was the only title Chin referenced in an interview with ����Ӱ��. The memoir, which won two American Library Association awards, the Alex for young readers and the Stonewall for nonfiction, has become a around the country for parents and politicians looking to ban school discussions about gender identity. 

In setting up the New York chapter, Chin has met roadblocks when attempting to open a bank account and finding a venue for in-person meetings. Two major banks declined her request. Only a third accepted, a smaller, local one which she declined to name. 

About 20 adults have “joined the movement” since April, Chin said. Outside of Queens, four members of the new Moms for Liberty chapter are from Brooklyn and one is from the Bronx. Every major racial group is represented. 

Yet not all are parents: Many are retirees, grandparents who “can have a voice without fear,” said Chin, who believes more parents with children in the city’s schools are staying away. 

“Many people are fearing for their jobs, fearing the association,” she said, “… and they fear retaliation against their kids.”

She is currently searching for a local location to screen an anti-trans documentary. The chapter plans to organize to oppose . While New York City goes beyond current state requirements to offer sex ed to its middle and high schoolers, the expansion would bring modified lessons to K-6 graders.

The group will also challenge curricula with an “anti-American message,” she said, that might make some children believe they are “victims” and others “oppressors.” 

Because the city’s schools are not governed by traditional school boards, where other chapters have exercised power to oust superintendents, the Queens chapter will advocate through media, political connections and gaining membership.

“That’s really my goal. To get people motivated everywhere,” Chin said. “I would love to see a chapter in every borough, minimally.” 

Moms for Liberty has been characterized , which Chin said is, “not a bad thing at all.” 

Even after the characterization, more members have joined nationally, Chin claimed. “So just twirl away,” she said. A spokesperson for Moms for Liberty’s national arm confirmed the group “saw a bump in membership and chapter openings,” after the SPLC’s hate group distinction in June 2023.

Maya Henson Carey, a research analyst with SPLC, said the organization’s rhetoric and work disproportionately hurts Black, brown and LGBTQ+ students, already some of the nation’s most vulnerable student populations. 

“By taking out books and parts of history that reflect who they are, they’re really seeking to erase their identities from public spaces and the classroom,” Henson Carey said. 

Though about 76% of New York City voted for President Joe Biden in the last election, have always thrived, particularly in parts of Queens, Staten Island and southern Brooklyn. It’s those pockets where Chin has already found support.

But some experts doubt the group’s conservative agenda will find much of a home in the city at large.

“When they get into the issue of book banning and attitudes towards gay and trans people, it’ll resonate with some folks, but I think the outcry against them will be very strong,” said Joseph Viteritti, public policy and education scholar at Hunter College. 

“If they’re going to lead with that kind of stuff, they’re going to realize very soon that we’re not Florida here,” added Viteritti, who served as a senior advisor to schools chiefs in New York City, Boston and San Francisco.

Yet already this year, parents of all races preferring more conservative education policies have made waves in the city, including in lower , a historically liberal block of neighborhoods. 

Via , conservative have found more power — 40% of candidates endorsed by Parent Leaders for Accelerated Curriculum and Education were elected this cycle. Only 2% of public school parents voted in the election, according to . 

PLACE, while not affiliated with the Queens Moms for Liberty chapter, shares some similar values. Particularly in wanting to preserve and expand merit-based admissions policies to the city’s most coveted schools — a practice research suggests reinforces racial imbalances. 

“I know that the things [Moms for Liberty] are talking about are things that I hear parents here in New York talking about all the time,” said Maud Maron, co-president of PLACE and community education council member in lower Manhattan’s District 2. 

In a dramatic reversal, the district, where seven of 10 community council members were PLACE-endorsed, has just announced it . 

Parents often say, ‘I’m 100% there, I just can’t tweet under my own name,’ or ‘I just can’t say it, because of work ramifications,’ Maron said.

For scholars who track Moms for Liberty’s work, despite hesitance or fear parents may feel in aligning with the organization, it’s clear small networks of parents are effective and organized at making their voices heard, sharing strategies via social media from coast to coast. 

As a result, New Yorkers may soon see the same language and challenges levied in Florida once the Queens chapter begins to act on its agenda.

“We would have thought, wow, those are really different,” Jacobsen said, referencing the Queens launch and other regions that would have seemed unlikely. 

“… That’s really what’s different today,” she said, “the ability to very quickly move the same message to really disparate places.”

Rhode Island Gov. Dan McKee joined nine other Democratic state and territorial governors Friday in signing a letter to nine school textbook publishers calling on them to resist censorship, especially when it comes to U.S. history.

The effort was led by New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy, who is head of the Democratic Governors Association.

“We are deeply troubled by the news of some textbook publishers yielding to the unreasonable demands of certain government representatives calling for the censorship of school educational materials, specifically textbooks,” .

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for ����Ӱ�� Newsletter

“We write to you out of concern that those who are charged with supporting the education of this country’s students, such as yourselves, may be tempted to water down critical information to appeal to the lowest common denominator. We urge any company who has not yet given in to this pressure to hold the line for our democracy.”

McKee’s office did not respond to requests for comment.

The move came a little less than a month after Florida authorities worked with textbook companies to “correct” 66 social studies textbooks previously declared to contain “inaccurate material, errors and other information that was not aligned with Florida Law,”

The scrubbing came after only 19 of 101 submitted textbooks were approved by the state education department for use in Florida schools. The objections from the department included:

• One textbook encouraged critical discussions at home around athletes “taking a knee” during performances of the National Anthem.
• The removal of a passage from a middle school textbook calling regarding the murder of Geroge Floyd and Black Lives Matter protests, calling it an “unsolicited topic.”
• Removal of the word “socialism” from a section on economics where the system was described as a way to keep things “nice and even.”

Other governors who signed the letter included: Maura Healey, of Massachusetts; John Carney, of Delaware; J.B. Pritzker, of Illinois; Wes Moore, of Maryland; Michelle Lujan Grisham, of New Mexico; Jay Inslee, of Washington; Albert Bryan, of the U.S. Virgin Islands; and Kathy Hochul, of New York.

The letter was sent to the Association of American Publishers, which represents the leading book, journal, and education publishers in the United States and the following publishers:

Cengage Learning, Goodheart-Wilcox, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, McGraw Hill Education, Routledge Taylor and Francis Group, Savvas Learning Co., Scholastic, and Teachers Curriculum Institute did not respond to requests for comment.

Pearson declined to comment.

is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Rhode Island Current maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Janine L. Weisman for questions: info@rhodeislandcurrent.com. Follow Rhode Island Current on and .

Florida’s top education officials on Wednesday approved new training protocols for school librarians to consider “bias,” “indoctrination,” and “pornography” when vetting books and other materials in schools.

The training, in part, instructs media specialists to “err on the side of caution” when deciding whether a book is appropriate for school libraries.

This point speaks to a larger trend in limiting ideas students are exposed to in Florida public schools.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for ����Ӱ�� Newsletter

However, some conservative activists argued the rules do not go far enough in limiting content available in public school libraries and classrooms.

The state Board of Education approved the rules to implement a law passed during the 2022 legislative session, HB 1467, which critics believed would bring a wave of book bans in Florida classrooms.

One point in particular stirred dissent, even those who supported the new rule overall: language defining materials deemed “harmful to minors,” including depictions of nudity, sexual conduct, or sexual excitement.

The statute allows consideration for literary merit or other purposes, saying that to be “harmful to minors” the material must be “without serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.” Conservative audience members argued that would allow books they find disagreeable or unduly graphic into classrooms.

“The language … has been used as a loophole not just here in Florida but all across the United States as a way to give permission for the harmful content to be in,” said Robert Goodman, the executive director of the Polk County Chapter of County Citizens Defending Freedom.

Many of the public commenters on hand Wednesday had connections to the group, a conservative organization that has played a major role in book challenges across the state.

The law requires new online training for “media specialists” who oversee school libraries, which the board approved during a meeting at the Nassau County School Board Office in Northeast Florida.

The training merges new and preexisting state rules involving instructional materials and library books, while offering “considerations” that media specialists should take into account when selecting books.

In addition to the age, grade level, and maturity of students, considerations should include “the accurate portrayal of the state’s broad racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, and cultural diversity, without bias or indoctrination,” according to officials who devised the protocols.

HB 1467, along with other laws like the Parental Rights in Education Act (known to critics as “Don’t Say Gay”) and Department of Education rules that ban works like The New York Times’ “The 1619 Project” have some educators and free speech groups concerned about a

Free-speech advocacy groups like PEN America have been tracking book challenges across the United States, ranking Florida No. 2 with the second highest number of book challenges and bans.

Here is a sampling of some of the most challenged book titles in Florida last school year, according to a Phoenix analysis of PEN America’s data:

“All Boys Aren’t Blue” by George M. Johnson, a series of essays reflecting the life of the author, who is Black and nonbinary. The book has been challenged in seven Florida school districts.“Beloved” and “The Bluest Eye” by Toni Morrison, who died in 2019, have been challenged in seven  Florida counties. Morrison earned the Pulitzer Prize for “Beloved” in 1988.“Nineteen Minutes” by Jodi Picoult, which centers the events of a school shooting, was challenged or banned in seven counties.“The Hate U Give” by Angie Thomas, which depicts police violence against Black characters and focuses on race relations, has been challenged or banned in eight school districts.“Thirteen Reasons Why” by Jay Asher, which depicts the story of a high-school student’s suicide and was adapted into a Netflix TV show, has been banned or challenged in eight school districts.

‘Literary value’

April Morgan, a teacher aid at the private Christian school Calvary Chapel Academy, questioned inclusion of “literary value” as a consideration.

“The argument for some is that we cannot remove the questionable books because they contain literary value. I’d like to challenge that valuation of books, because not all literature is beneficial for students. The keyword is ‘beneficial,’” Morgan said.

“Educational value is not equal to literary value. Literature containing descriptive details of rape, abuse, trauma, et cetera does not bring value to 12- to 18-year-olds,” she continued.

The wave of criticism may have swayed members of the state board, but because the “literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors” language comes from statute, there was little the board could do.

“So, if this board agreed with the sentiment from many speakers today that that there is, for lack of a better word, a ‘loophole’ or that there could be better language … we don’t have the authority to do that,” board Chair Tom Grady said. “You’re telling me that this is straight from the statute, and any changes would have to be addressed by the [Florida] Legislature.”

Board member Grazie Christie asked whether the board could ask the Legislature whether that language could be “tightened up” to keep “pornographic materials out of our children’s library.”

Education Commissioner Manny Diaz Jr. agreed that the language “certainly can be tweaked by the Legislature.”

With 2023 committee meetings underway leading to the 2023 legislative session starting in March, it’s possible the issue could be addressed then.

is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Florida Phoenix maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Diane Rado for questions: info@floridaphoenix.com. Follow Florida Phoenix on and .

A spate of policies banning books and tamping down teachings on race and gender proliferated nationwide in 2021 and 2022 — but are those rules actually legal? The American Civil Liberties Union has launched a multi-state effort to find out by challenging them in court.

The approach includes a mixture of lawsuits, public records requests and legal letters alleging the right-wing rules violate the First Amendment and other constitutional protections.

In Mississippi, a letter from the organization helped reverse a mayor’s decision to withhold $110,000 in funding from a local library until librarians removed LGBTQ literature. In Virginia, the ACLU urged a state court to dismiss a ban on the sale and distribution of the books and — which it did. And in Florida, a lawsuit litigated by the organization seeks to throw out provisions of the state’s “Stop W.O.K.E.” law that infringe on college and university instructors’ long-established academic freedoms.

“These laws have absolutely no relationship to any legitimate pedagogical interest and, in fact, are purely partisan political tools,” said Emerson Sykes, ACLU staff attorney. “We focus on challenging these laws in court.”

To date, legislation limiting classroom discussion of race and gender has been proposed in 42 states and adopted in 17, according to an . Many outlaw “divisive” topics and lessons that cause students to “​​feel discomfort, guilt, anguish” on account of their race or gender. Some explicitly ban the teaching of critical race theory, a graduate-level scholarly framework examining how racism is embedded in American institutions. The term has become a catch-all many Republicans use to describe teachings about systemic racism.

Right-wing, mostly white parent groups such as and have pushed for the bills, which have been supported almost exclusively by conservative politicians. Those who favor the restrictions broadly argue that classroom teachings about race can serve to divide students and give them a pessimistic view of the country’s history. They contend LGBTQ material can make students vulnerable to sexual predation, though those claims , and should be under the purview of parents, not schools.

Simultaneous moves to ban books have also spread in response to parent activism. With more than in schools and libraries from January through August, 2022 is on track to surpass 2021’s count, which was already “the highest number of attempted book bans since we began compiling these lists 20 years ago,” ALA President Patricia Wong said in an April .

So far, the ACLU has challenged classroom censorship efforts in 10 states, including three lawsuits against rules limiting teachings on race and gender. In its more than 100 years of operation, the organization’s have extended across all political ideologies, including defending the rights of the KKK and Nazis to express their views peacefully. 

The number of challenges to anti-CRT laws could soon increase, said Sykes,

“We are actively tracking and considering litigation in multiple states at the moment.”

Here’s a nationwide look at what has played out so far:

Oklahoma

In October 2021, the ACLU and affiliate organizations filed a lawsuit, BERT v. O’Connor, challenging a statewide bill that restricts public school instruction on race and gender. As a result of the law’s approval, according to the ACLU, school districts in the state have told teachers to avoid using terms such as “diversity” and “white privilege” in their classrooms, and have removed , and other seminal books from reading lists.

The court’s decision will have ramifications for Tulsa, the state’s second-largest school district, which received a in its accreditation status after the State Board of Education found an implicit bias training it administered was in violation of the state anti-CRT law. The city, which was the site of the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre that left hundreds of Black residents dead and over 1,250 homes destroyed, had recently doubled down on teaching the dreadful, long-buried episode. The demotion does not prevent teachers from covering that history, but some fear may lead teachers and school leaders to feel as if they are on thin ice.

New Hampshire

New Hampshire is among the 17 states that have passed laws restricting lessons on race and gender. The ACLU’s lawsuit, Mejia v. Edelblut, alleges that the Granite State’s legislation is so vague that it violates the 14th Amendment, because teachers’ innocent misunderstandings can place their jobs in jeopardy. The state chapter of the National Education Association, one of the plaintiffs, said teachers repeatedly voiced they were confused about what they could and could not teach, and were scared of the repercussions for guessing wrong. Letters to the state asking for clarification, the ACLU says, went unanswered.

Florida

Gov. Ron DeSantis signed Florida’s Stop W.O.K.E. Act in April, tamping down on teachers’ and employers’ ability to hold discussions related to race and gender. “We will not let the far-left woke agenda take over our schools and workplaces,” DeSantis said.

But the law has already run into legal difficulties. In August, a federal judge placed an injunction on the provisions that apply to the workplace. Now, a group of seven professors and one undergraduate student, represented by the ACLU, have also challenged the law’s restrictions on colleges and universities.

“There is a longstanding history in the Supreme Court and courts across our country of recognizing the freedom of professors, lecturers and educators in higher education to determine what to teach and how to teach it,” said Leah Watson, senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union’s Racial Justice Program.

Tennessee

In February, after the McMinn County Board of Education decided to remove the graphic novel from the eighth-grade curriculum, the ACLU of Tennessee calling for the board to share the parent complaints it received over the book.

Virginia

After Virginia initiated proceedings to block the sale and distribution of two books, Gender Queer and A Court of Mist and Fury, the ACLU and ACLU of Virginia filed a alongside several independent bookstores urging a state court to dismiss the obscenity proceedings against the two works. On Aug. 30, the court followed that recommendation and dismissed the attempted ban.

“The First Amendment is clear — disliking the contents of a book doesn’t mean the government can ban it,” the ACLU on Twitter.

Missouri

A Trump-appointed federal judge denied an ACLU motion for a preliminary injunction against the Wentzville School District’s book ban. The ACLU of Missouri originally filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of two Wentzville students after the school district pulled several books with Black, Hispanic, Asian and LGBTQ main characters from the shelves of its libraries. The lawsuit sought to temporarily halt the district’s book review policy. A trial on whether to permanently ban the district from enforcing that policy is .

Montana

The ACLU of Montana in February filed a public records request after officials in Kalispell, Montana held meetings over whether to ban by Jonathan Evison and Gender Queer by Maia Kobabe. The board dismissed the first potential ban and has delayed a decision regarding the second. 

Meanwhile, books were left in the Kalispell book drop in early August. Local police investigated and concluded that the books — none of them controversial titles — were mistakenly donated after being used for target practice, but the unnerving incident spurred the resignation of at least two librarians.

Nebraska

In late May, a Nebraska school district three days after the 54-year-old outlet published an LGBTQ-themed edition. The superintendent of Northwest Public Schools, in Grand Island, Nebraska, said the paper’s final issue was not the sole reason for its elimination. But school board Vice President Zach Mader was , saying, “If (taxpayers) read that (issue), they would have been like, ‘Holy cow. What is going on at our school?’”

In response, the ACLU of Nebraska submitted a public records request for all documents and communication records related to the decision scrapping the publication. The district’s legal representatives have said they are currently . The ACLU also sent a letter to the superintendent warning that the move violated students’ constitutional rights and other federal protections.

“The District’s unlawful attempts to quash student journalism and student opinions violate students’ rights to freedom of speech and equal protection under the Nebraska and United States Constitutions,” said the . “We urge the District to immediately remedy these violations [by] reinstat[ing] both the school paper and the journalism program.”

Mississippi

In January, Ridgeland Mayor Gene McGee withheld $110,000 from the town’s public library, giving librarians an ultimatum: get rid of LGBTQ literature or lose operational funds that had been slated for the building. The ACLU of Mississippi in February responded with a warning letter to McGee. “You have no authority to undertake such measures, and your actions are unconstitutional,” staff attorney McKenna Raney-Gray wrote. Following the letter, the funding was delivered to Ridgeland Public Library.

Idaho

In May, the Nampa School District banned 22 books from libraries and classrooms, including by Khaled Hosseini, by Margaret Atwood and by Toni Morrison. Concerned over a potential First Amendment violation and the possibility of bias in the board members’ decision, the ACLU of Idaho in July filed a public records request for all communications related to the board’s adoption of the policy.

In debate with Sexton over requiring school districts to submit lists of library books to the commission, state Rep. John Ray Clemmons, D-Nashville, asked what the state would do with the books, put them out in the street or set them on fire?

Sexton responded, “I don’t have a clue, but I would burn ’em.”

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for ����Ӱ�� Newsletter

The House passed the measure, but it is unclear whether it will pass the General Assembly. Sexton, a Bean Station Republican who is not seeking re-election this year, acknowledged the House and Senate bills are likely to go to a committee to work out differences. Sexton carried the bill for House Speaker Cameron Sexton, R-Crossville, and Sen. Jon Lundberg, R-Bristol.

Republican lawmakers have consistently pointed toward a book, “Me, Earl and the Dying Girl” as an example of obscene material found in elementary libraries. Sexton continued that mantra Wednesday, though he referred to it as “Me, Earl and the Girl Named Pearl,” saying it is “very sexual” and “pornographic” in nature. He also claimed lawmakers found obscene materials in school libraries in 93 of 95 counties.

The House legislation would require schools to make lists of books to be sent to the state textbook commission for approval. The commission, which will receive extra appointments, including the state library director, from House and Senate speakers, would be charged with going over those lists and giving approval.

The measure also sets up a process for parents to file complaints with the state.

Clemmons and other Democrats continued to object.

“Don’t librarians currently decide what’s appropriate to go in a library? And why are we usurping the authority of librarians and placing the state in the place of deciding what’s appropriate and what’s not for children?” Clemmons asked.

Sexton responded that he’s not sure who’s putting obscene or pornographic books in libraries, though he said librarians might be signing off on them.

In a back-and-forth with state Rep. Gloria Johnson, D-Knoxville, Sexton said he wasn’t sure about the qualifications required for people to serve on the textbook commission. But he noted his mother had no educational training and raised 10 kids, in addition to helping raise 23 great-grandchildren.

“She done a great job,” he said, adding common sense should be used to determine what is appropriate.

Just as parents turn off the TV when certain words are said in the presence of children, the state is doing the same thing in libraries.

“We’re turning those books off that are not appropriate, that use words that are very illicit, not only just words but some of these books have drawings. We consider them XXX and pay a premium price to see it at the movies,” he said.

Johnson noted in response, she would “have to trust you on that thing about movies.”

Arguing that one group shouldn’t determine what books are read by students across the state, Johnson noted, “History hasn’t looked fondly on people who ban books or burn books.”

Sexton, however, said the state isn’t banning books, just removing them from libraries.

Lindsey Kimery, past president of the Tennessee Association of School Librarians and legislative task force co-chair for the group, said Wednesday the library bill was not on her group’s radar until Monday night.

“This is how sly and sneaky it was,” Kimery said, adding she wondered why some Democrats voted for it previously.

Language was dropped that would have required creation of a statewide list of books. Instead, school districts will have to compile a list of books for the textbook commission to review.

Sexton said nothing about creating a statewide list during discussion in a committee meeting, only that it would add seats to the textbooks commission, Kimery said. 

The Tennessee Association of School Librarians worked for three years to create the position of state librarian, which was eliminated from the Department of Education around 2000, but not to oversee a statewide list of unapproved books, she said.

“We’re just watching in horror,” Kimery said. 

Librarians feel they’ve been turned into “collateral damage” this legislative session after groups affiliated with conservative organizations started complaining about selections they claim were found in libraries.

Representatives of Moms for Liberty, a Williamson County-based group, testified in committees for other legislation designed to ferret out books with obscene words. At one point, musician John Rich accused librarians of “grooming” students for sex and said they are worse than perverts who drive around in vans trying to lure children into the vehicle.

Lawmakers considered a bill earlier this session that would have criminalized librarians for allowing obscene material in libraries. It failed in the Senate. Another bill from Gov. Bill Lee set up a process to review books and handle parents’ complaints.

The Tennessee Association of School Librarians points out schools already have processes for parents to object to books, which involves talking to the librarian, going to the school administration, then the school district.

Librarians select thousands of books each year based on descriptions of the content, age recommendations, awards and other types of information. When parents make complaints, they work with them to handle the situation, she said.

Kimery, however, raised questions about the complaints directed at “Me, Earl and the Dying Girl,” pointing out it is a high school book. In her investigation, she could not find anything showing it was in an elementary school or middle school in the state.

The book does contain sexually graphic language in a couple of places, but it is written for students age 15 to 18, some of whom are old enough to serve in the military, Kimery said.

Librarians are worried this type of legislation will create a “slippery slope” for widespread book bans, she added.

“We’re providing books that meet the needs of our students, books they’re interested in reading because we want them to have books to choose from so they will become lifelong learners and readers, books that support the curriculum,” Kimery said.

is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Tennessee Lookout maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Holly McCall for questions: info@tennesseelookout.com. Follow Tennessee Lookout on and .

HB 1557, the so-called “Don’t Say Gay” bill, passed in the Senate 22 to 17 on Tuesday, with two Republicans joining Democratic senators voting against the bill. The legislation now goes to the governor’s desk for consideration.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for ����Ӱ�� Newsletter

The bill provides parents the opportunity to sue if a school district withholds certain information from them about their child’s well-being or if their child is exposed to instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity deemed not “age-appropriate.” That could mean everything from the very early grades to high school.

HB 1557 has drawn nationwide attention and protests across the state, and is considered one of the main “culture war” bills  in the 2022 legislative session in Florida.

LGBTQ advocates exhausted every effort to kill the bill, but they couldn’t block it at the legislative level.

Equality Florida, a statewide LGBTQ advocacy group, threatened potential legal challenges in a written statement Tuesday.

“Let us be clear: should the vague language of this bill be interpreted in any way that causes harm to a single child, teacher, or family, we will lead legal action against the State of Florida to challenge this bigoted legislation. We will not sit by and allow the governor’s office to call us pedophiles,” the statement reads. That’s a reference to over the weekend.

“We will not allow this bill to harm LGBTQ Floridians. We will not permit any school to enforce this in a way that endangers the safety of children. We stand ready to fight for Floridians in court and hold lawmakers who supported this bill accountable at the ballot box,” the statement reads.

Last month, President Joe Biden called it a “hateful bill.”

And Tuesday, U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona, with the U.S. Department of Education, released this statement following the vote:

“Parents across the country are looking to national, state, and district leaders to support our nation’s students, help them recover from the pandemic, and provide them the academic and mental health supports they need. Instead, leaders in Florida are prioritizing hateful bills that hurt some of the students most in need.

“The Department of Education has made clear that all schools receiving federal funding must follow federal civil rights law, including Title IX’s protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. We stand with our LGBTQ+ students in Florida and across the country, and urge Florida leaders to make sure all their students are protected and supported.”

The Senate sponsor of the bill, Sen. Dennis Baxley, said that the legislation works to empower parents, continuing the philosophy of Florida’s new Parents’ Bill of Rights law that parents have a right to direct the upbringing and education of their child.

“I want to encourage parents across Florida to own it. They’re your kids,” Baxley said Tuesday, defending the bill. He is a Republican who represents counties in Central Florida.

He added:

“You always feel liable for it. You are to blame for however your kids turn out…and I want you to be empowered. I want you to be empowered to say that you’re the parents. You have to take charge. You are in charge of the destiny of these kids.”

Supporters of the bill argue that the terms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” do not target LGBTQ people; the bill does not mention the word ‘gay,’ and certain conversations are best had at home.

However, when the full Senate first discussed the bill on Monday, Baxley said that one of his concerns that inspired the legislation is a “big wave” of students “experimenting” with different identities.

Baxley’s comments were criticized before the final Senate vote Tuesday.

Sen. Shevrin Jones, an out member of the LGBTQ community, read part of Baxley’s previous remarks and responded to them in the Senate Tuesday.

“Later in the debate, Sen. Baxley said ‘some of this is just the confusion that kids are going through.’ So let’s be clear — the bill sponsor…made it clear that this bill is about one thing… sexual orientation and gender identity,” Jones said Tuesday. He is a Democrat who represents part of Broward and Miami-Dade County in South Florida.

“But the take I got was…’it is not geared towards LGBT community. So you say — you can’t say that ‘it’s not’ but the bill sponsor says that ‘it is.’”

National free speech advocacy group PEN America said in a written statement Tuesday that the legislation “sends a disturbing message to young people that some voices should be silenced, some people erased.”

The statement continued: “This legislation doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It forms part of a wave of intrusive bills and laws that forcibly insert politics and ideology into realms that belong in the hands of educators, parents and children. Educators are experts at how to tailor complex subjects in age-appropriate ways, and students have every right to see a breadth of voices and identities–including those that may reflect or be different from their own–in what they learn and read.”

is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Florida Phoenix maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Diane Rado for questions: info@floridaphoenix.com. Follow Florida Phoenix on and .

That’s because two pieces of legislation making their way through the Legislature give parents the opportunity to sue school districts if their children are subjected to certain topics in classrooms, largely surrounding how history is taught and whether to acknowledge the existence and experiences of LGBTQ people.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for ����Ӱ�� Newsletter

While the usual discussion in K-12 education might be about math problems, science experiments, reading passages and state testing, the 2022 legislative session has become a hotbed of conservatism and righteousness when it comes to public schools.

The two bills in the House from Tuesday evening continue a troubling trend of lawmakers and other state officials looking to see where they can place guardrails on what students should be exposed to in Florida classrooms.

That could lead to a chilling affect on teachers and fear of lawsuits. And these measures are working through the state Senate too.

“It’s the Republicans in Tallahassee that keep wanting to say that ‘this is a free state,’” said Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried, who hosted a news conference prior to the Tuesday House discussion.  “If that were actually the case, why is the House here today debating two extreme bills that are state-sanction hatred and censorship, plain and simple.”

Fried is campaigning for the Democratic nominee in the 2022 gubernatorial election, as is Gov. Ron DeSantis, Senate President Wilton Simpson, a candidate for Fried’s position, and numerous other candidates in the 2022 election cycle.

But if you ask Republican lawmakers who are pushing the bills, teachers are still able to teach so long as they remain objective and stick to the curriculum set by school districts and the state Department of Education.

For example, HB 7, a bill described as “individual freedom,” posits a handful of principles that students may not be subjected to in the classroom. This bill also applies to employees and the work place.

Such principles include:

• “A person, by virtue of his or her race, color, national origin, or sex is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.”
• “A person’s moral character or status as either privileged or oppressed is necessarily determined by his or her race, color, national origin, or sex.”
• “An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, bears personal responsibility for and must feel guilt, anguish, or other forms of psychological distress because of actions, in which the individual played no part, committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, sex, or national origin.

Rep. Bryan Avila, a Republican who represents part of Miami-Dade County and the sponsor of HB 7, says that the legislation is an affirmation that people will not be judged by characteristics such as race or sex.

But HB 7 bill raises questions on the impact of classroom discussions about America’s racist past.

State Rep. Anna Eskamani of Orlando pressed about the meaning of teaching “objectively,” and whether assigned materials would violate the bill should it become law.

“Could a teacher assign Peggy McIntosh’s 1988 essay “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack,” — which is a great read by the way — for classroom discussion? Is just assigning the reading something that would not be objective?” she asked Avila.

Avila’s response: “All material has to be in line with the principles set forth in this bill. If that material in any way shape or form does not align with the principles in this bill then that material would certainly not be permissible within a classroom.”

When the bill was being discussed on the House floor Tuesday evening, Rep. Fentrice Driskell turned her questions to Japanese internment camps of the 1940’s.

“So if I’m understanding you correctly, you’re saying that a teacher can teach that ‘as Americans, we interned Japanese Americans just because they were Japanese,’ and that’s okay,” She said. “But if a teacher says ‘and that was wrong,’ — that that’s not okay?”

Avila’s response:

“What we’re saying is they can’t assign blame to a particular student, because of their race or because of their sex or because of their national origin and essentially say that because you are this, or you belong to a particular group, you are at least partially responsible for what occurred in that time.”

State Rep. Joseph Geller, representing parts of Broward and Miami-Dade, received a similar response when he questioned about teaching the Holocaust and whether teachers should be concerned about hurting the feelings of a student who may be a Neo-Nazi.

“Can I say that the Nazis were evil, cruel, and mass murderers, even if that’s assigning blame and someone who hears it might feel uncomfortable?” he asked.

Avila said that as long as a teacher sticks to the curriculum, they should be good, but the “problem lies when the teacher takes it upon themselves to assign blame to a particular group or to a particular student.”

But it’s not just history that has unanswered questions about what is permissible in the classroom.

HB 1557, which LGBTQ advocates call the “Don’t Say Gay” bill, directly says that there cannot be a classroom discussion about gender orientation and sexual orientation in a way that is not age-appropriate.

Specifically, the bill says that “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.”

Rep. Joe Harding, a Republican who represents Levy and part of Marion County, said that  there are some discussions, particularly for younger students that are “better had at home.”

But on the House floor Tuesday, Rep. Carlos Guillermo Smith of Orlando asked Harding “what types of conversations about people like myself are not age appropriate?” Smith is a gay man.

House Speaker Chris Sprowls chimed in and told House members to try not to take legislation personally. Smith replied that the bill is “deeply personal.”

But there was little clarity on what is “age appropriate” classroom discussion regarding LGBTQ people looks like. Harding said that what is outlined in Florida’s state standards is what’s age appropriate.

The Florida Department of Education recently scrubbed anti-bullying links from the department’s website that had any reference to LGBTQ students.

But because of the vagueness in the bill regarding older students, LGBTQ advocates and the Democratic lawmakers fear the bill would bring a chilling affect to Florida classrooms regarding LGBTQ history, students and families.

The bill allows parents to sue school districts if they are not privy to situations related to their children or if their students are encouraged to have discussions on sexual orientation and gender identity, continuing a sentiment enshrined in the Parents’ Bill of Rights law, that parents have a right to direct the upbringing and education of their child.

is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Florida Phoenix maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Diane Rado for questions: info@floridaphoenix.com. Follow Florida Phoenix on and .

In Flagler County, in Northeast Florida, “All Boys Aren’t Blue,” has been pulled from school library shelves.

And in Hillsborough County in the Tampa Bay area, “The Bluest Eye” was challenged by a parent who felt the novel’s explicit content was inappropriate for school-aged kids. The author: The late Toni Morrison, a Nobel Prize winner and a Pulitzer Prize winner.

While some advocates and lawmakers fear more books will be banned or challenged for telling the stories of LGBTQ people and racial minorities, GOP lawmakers are working to make it easier for parents and community members to weigh in and challenge books available for students in school libraries, potentially taking them off the shelves for weeks at a time or permanently.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for ����Ӱ�� Newsletter

Legislation moving through the 2022 legislative session would require that each new book or other material be open for “reasonable opportunity” for public comments.

That sounds okay, but maybe not. Current book bans and challenges in Florida and across the nation leave some lawmakers and activists concerned that the legislation will lead to an onslaught of removal of books relating to the experience of the LGBTQ community and certain perspectives on history, such as the Holocaust.

In a bill that passed the full House on Feb. 10, district school boards must report to the Department of Education any material for which the school district received an objection to and report any material that was removed as a result of the objections. Then the department would publish a list of “materials that were removed or discontinued as a result of an objection and disseminate the list to school districts for consideration in their selection procedures.”

What’s happening isn’t just about Florida

National outlets have reported increased scrutiny on what books are available in school libraries.

In Virginia, several books focused on the experience of LGBTQ teens have been pulled from school library shelves, .

A county in Tennessee banned a Pulitzer Prize-winning graphic novel called “Maus” by Art Spiegelman from its schools. It depicts the Holocaust through anthropomorphic animals, but was removed for crude language and depictions of nudity,

In Missouri, “The Bluest Eye” by acclaimed author Toni Morrison, was banned by a local school board, The novel tells the story of a young Black girl growing up in the Great Depression. The American Library Association placed Morrison’s book in the .

Meanwhile, in Florida, George M. Johnson’s book “All Boys Aren’t Blue” was pulled from Flagler County Public Schools in December, according to

Jason Wheeler, a communications staffer with the Northeast Florida school district, confirmed with the Phoenix that as of Monday, Johnson’s book is still “not available for checkout” in Flagler public schools, and it’s not clear when it could be again, if at all.

The book relays Johnson’s experience of growing up as a Black queer man.

“It is very interesting, and sometimes just overwhelming to, daily, get Google Alerts of new counties, every single day, removing the book from classrooms while also getting direct messages from students and from parents who are desperately fighting to keep the book in school systems,” Johnson said during a virtual press conference Monday.

The press conference was hosted by Free-Speech advocacy group PEN America. The conversation focused on various legislation that members of the LGBTQ community say work together in order to diminish the visibility of LGBTQ people in Florida schools and nationwide, including the Florida Legislature’s

In the Polk County school district, 16 books have been pulled from middle and high schools for the time being, as district officials evaluate whether to keep them in libraries following complaints from a group called County Citizens Defending Freedom, the

Polk communication staffer Jason Geary told the Phoenix that the 16 books are currently under review and it could be weeks before a decision is made on whether the books will return to Polk school library shelves. Meanwhile, the books are “in quarantine,” Geary said.

One of the books is “I am Jazz,” which documents the life of a young transgender girl native to South-Florida. Another is called “Two Boys Kissing,” which explores the experiences of young gay boys.

The books in this list are not just focused on LGBTQ issues either.  Two are Toni Morrison books, “The Bluest Eye” and Pulitzer-prize winning “Beloved.”

The Kite Runner is on the list as well. It was on the the top 10 most challenged book in 2017, according to the American Library Association. The book includes sexual violence.

What is County Citizens Defending Freedom?

The Phoenix reached out to County Citizens Defending Freedom (CCDF-USA), a group describing itself on its website as “an organization that provides the tools and support needed to empower citizens to defend their freedom and liberty, and place local government back into the hands of the people. As patriots have done throughout America’s history.”

The group has not yet responded to the Phoenix. Here’s what the national branch of County Citizens Defending Freedom said about the situation in Polk County schools, in a written statement on Jan. 31:

“County Citizens Defending Freedom has received an overwhelming positive response for bringing to light content within library books available in Polk County public schools that is explicit and inappropriate for minors.”

The statement continues: “The family values and virtues that shape a child should be and are developed in the home, and the content found in these books stand in opposition to those very core values. Parents should have confidence in sending their children to school without worry that undesirable, even unthinkable material is available to their children in their school libraries; especially books that potentially violate Florida’s decency and child protection statutes.”

Increased parent input

The current bill in the Legislature about potential book bans and censorship is HB 1467, sponsored by Republican Rep. Sam Garrison. He’s an attorney and represents part of Clay County in Northeast Florida.

“What this bill is seeking to do is provide transparency to reinforce, for parents, the security and the confidence of knowing that when they drop their kids off at the local library and be comfortable of where they are. They want to encourage their kids to go to the library. We want people to be talking about libraries,” Garrison said last week on the House floor.

Jon Harris Maurer, Public Policy Director with Equality Florida, a statewide LGBTQ advocacy group, told the Phoenix:

“But our fear is how we see this bill potentially being manipulated by anti-LBGTQ extremists.”

Maurer noted that public comments in support of the House bill and the Senate version wanted LGBTQ materials removed from classrooms.

He continued: “We know that these bills also have a chilling effect and can make schools less likely to want to have those materials that are supportive to the LGBTQ community because they don’t want to face these challenges and liabilities from the anti-LGBTQ opponents who may try to use the system just to object to those materials that they don’t like.”

The House passed the bill 78-40, generally on party lines. It’s now headed to the Senate for deliberation.

Here are some of the other components of the bill:

All elementary schools would have to publish  “in a searchable format” a list of all materials in the school library or on a required reading list.

The bill works to integrate “public participation” in the material selection process for school districts, meaning that parents and community members would be more included when school districts are considering new books and instructional materials.

The bill includes meetings that must be open to the public when a district is selecting books and other materials.

During debate on HB 1467 last week, Rep. Carlos Guillermo Smith of Orlando worried that more books representing members of the LGBTQ community will be targeted.

“I agree with the fundamental concept that parents have the right to control what their child reads. But they do not have the right to control what other parents’ children are reading,” Smith said. “And let’s be real, most of these movements to ban books in our schools, which should trouble all of us, are mostly movements to ban books about us. And by us, I mean LGBTQ Floridians, LGBTQ students, LGBTQ families.”

is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Florida Phoenix maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Diane Rado for questions: info@floridaphoenix.com. Follow Florida Phoenix on and .

At issue is an ongoing effort from the DeSantis administration to dictate how race and other topics are discussed in schools, as well as an increasing effort to limit the freedom of private businesses to make decisions for their companies.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for ����Ӱ�� Newsletter

Rep. Bryan Avila, a Republican who represents part of Miami-Dade County and the sponsor of HB 7, says that the legislation is an affirmation that people will not be judged by characteristics such as race or sex.

“This bill makes it clear, that in Florida, people will be judged as individuals — by their words, their characters, and their actions,” Avila said at a Wednesday House Judiciary Committee meeting. The bill passed 14 to 7 (with one vote missing), and with Democrats in opposition.

“This bill cripples the ability for teachers to teach effectively,” said Rep. Dianne Hart, who represents part of Hillsborough County, said at the Wednesday meeting.

“Every teacher I’ve ever encountered, does their job from not only an academic standpoint, but from a personal one,” Hart said. It is their personal experiences that they use to make the curriculum come alive for their students. Even more so for the Black and Brown students on the topic of race and discrimination.”

HB 7 expands the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, according to the bill analysis, which “secures for all individuals within the state freedom from discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status.”

The bill affects areas of education and employment, saying that individuals should not be subjected to training or materials that espouse principles such as:

• “Members of one race, color, national origin, or sex are morally superior to members of another race, color, national origin, or sex.”
• “A person, by virtue of his or her race, color, national origin, or sex is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.”
• “A person’s moral character or status as either privileged or oppressed is necessarily determined by his or her race, color, national origin, or sex.”
• “A person, by virtue of his or her race, color, national origin, or sex bears responsibility for, or should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of, actions committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, national origin, or sex.”
• “A person should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race, color, national origin, or sex.”

These principles would also apply to students and school employees under the Florida Educational Equity Act, should the bill become law. There is a  also moving through the 2022 legislative session.

“Those are principles that I think each and everyone of us — whether you’re a Democrat, whether you’re a Republican, whether you’re an Independent — I think everyone would agree that when you look at those principles, no one would disagree with any one of those principles,” Avila said at the Wednesday committee meeting.

Ben Diamond, a Democrat who represents part of Pinellas County, is opposed to the bill.

“What we’re prepared to do is to say that if a business is engaged in the perfectly lawful exercise of diversity training, and someone in the business feels a sense of guilt or sense of anguish or has some emotional reaction to that, they can sue. How is this helping our businesses in our state?” Diamond said.

Much of the debate and public testimony centered around the bill’s effect on schools and whether it would curtail frank discussions about United States history and race.

Aliva said that the bill does not “ban the teaching of historical facts about slavery, about sexism, about racial oppression, racial segregation, or racial discrimination.”

But many of the Democratic lawmakers disagreed.

At issue is an ongoing effort to dictate how race and other topics are discussed in classrooms.

In June, the Florida State Board of Education approved a  in classrooms, claiming that the theory “distorts historical events” and is “inconsistent” with the state board’s approved standards. The new rule also banned materials from The New York Times’ “1619 project,” which focuses the establishment of the United States from perspective of Black people.

Rep. Hart brought up this attack on Critical Race Theory in debate on HB 7 Wednesday.

“Critical Race Theory is not even taught in K-12 schools. It’s, of course, used in law schools to increase understanding of the implication of laws. So the question becomes: What is this really about?”

Ida Eskamani, representing the group Florida Rising and Florida Immigrant Coalition, said during public testimony:

“This legislation is a part of a dangerous and shameful nationwide agenda to censor discussions of race and gender equality in the classrooms and the workplace.”

“These bills don’t just set back progress this nation has made in addressing racism and sexism, they also rob young people of a fact-based education and blatantly suppresses speech about race, gender, and our collective history,” she continued.

She is the sister of Democrat Rep. Anna Eskamani of Orlando.  She noted that a school district in Central Florida recently canceled a professor’s lecture on civil rights “because these policies are creating a climate of fear among historians.”

According to the Orlando Sentinel from earlier this week: “A Flagler College history professor planned to spend an hour Saturday teaching Osceola County teachers about the civil rights movement, his area of expertise.

But supporters of these initiatives to limit how race is discussed in classrooms and in the workplace claim that certain teaching and materials espouse that a person’s race or sex determine a person’s character.

House Speaker Chris Sprowls, a Republican who represents part of Pinellas County, said in a written statement Wednesday:

“These movements have tried to hijack the important conversation about race and use it as a pretext to attack institutions– ranging from capitalism to the very idea of objective truth in the hard sciences.”

Sprowls continued: “They want to use the sins of the past to shut down dissent in the present. HB 7 ensures Florida’s workplaces and schools are places where we can have healthy dialogues about race or diversity without losing sight that we are all, first and foremost, unique individuals.”

is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Florida Phoenix maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Diane Rado for questions: info@floridaphoenix.com. Follow Florida Phoenix on and .

At a meeting Friday, the Texas State Board of Education officially refused to recommend three health textbooks, including two books mentioned in this report. Board members voted along party lines to reject the middle school textbooks from LessonBee, Inc. and Human Kinetics that include sex education, with opposition citing content about masturbation and abortion, insufficient attention to abstinence or a lack of constituent support. A third health textbook for elementary school failed on a 6-6 tie. 

The culture wars keep coming in Texas, and the latest one involves sex, textbooks, and the LGBTQ experience. 

On Tuesday the State Board of Education will decide whether proposed textbooks that include content on gender identity and sexual orientation will make their way into the backpacks and laptops of children in Texas and across the country. 

Both sides are gearing up, the latest in a series of polarizing fights in Texas schools, which recently included school mask mandates, teaching about systemic racism and library books with sexual content. Just last week, Governor Greg Abbott wanted against educators offering “pornographic” books to students after pointing out two .

Now, after last year’s approval of new state standards for health classes, the board must approve new textbooks—and that’s where the new battlefront is.    

“Gay people can get married today; you can’t fire LGBTQ people because of their sexual orientation or gender identity,” said Dan Quinn, a spokesman for Texas Freedom Network, a left-leaning social justice group. 

While much has changed in the last few decades, he fears, “textbook adoptions in Texas have not.”

Conservative activists and parents have issues with all five of the health textbooks the board must approve, but are particularly focused on two for middle schoolers, saying they go too far by “normalizing” sexual activity, questioning gender identity and going beyond the new state standards. 

State law now requires parents to opt-in their children to lessons on sex education. Parents groups, like the Tarrant County Chapter of Moms for Liberty, a right-leaning organization focused on preserving parental rights, argue they want to be the ones instilling morals about sex to their children. They say the new textbooks would rob them of that right. 

“The attitude of devaluing family and oversexualizing education is detrimental to children, even adults, as well as harmful to society,” said Mary Lowe, Moms for Liberty Tarrant County chair.

This base has been galvanized. Loud groups of parents are fuming about what their children are being taught about systemic racism and, using that frustration as a road map, Republican Glenn Youngkin won the Virginia governor’s race by making critical race theory and schools key issues in his campaign.  

Red meat topics like inappropriate sexual content in schools are ripe for conservative Texas Republican politics ahead of the crowded March 1 GOP primary elections, said Rice University political science professor Mark Jones. 

In addition, political attacks like Abbott’s fit the narrative that liberal school boards are dropping the ball when it comes to educating the country, he added. And those are the people Abbott wants to show up at the primary election, he said.  

“It’s not what do average Texans think. It’s what does the average Republican primary voter think,” said Jones. When it comes to teaching about sex, he said, it’s “that nothing should be taught or the bare minimum.” 

Textbooks and Standards

Up until last year, the state’s teaching standards for health and sex ed hadn’t changed since 1997. After more than a year of public hearings and panels, the State Board of Education updated the standards in 2020, with the most significant change requiring seventh and eighth-grade students , including condoms and other forms of contraception. The new standards go into effect in August 2022. 

Progressive advocates urged board members to add topics like abortion, consent, gender identity and sexual orientation to the mandatory curriculum, but the heavily conservative 15-member board declined.

When it comes to high school, sex education is optional. Many schools don’t offer sex ed at all. State law requires those that do teach sex ed present abstinence as the preferred choice to all sexual activity, encouraging abstinence until marriage. 

A teacher can go further and offer an “abstinence plus” curriculum, but must devote more attention to abstinence from sexual activity than any other behavior.  

On Tuesday, the elected board will take an initial vote to recommend textbooks school districts could buy that cover the new standards. A final vote is expected Friday. 

How the final vote will play out is unclear. Several conservative members of the board who voted on the standards in 2020 have since left the policy-making body, replaced by Republicans who skew toward the center. Advocates for comprehensive sex education hope the shift will mean the two textbooks that teach beyond the standards will be approved as is.

Textbook publishers are not bound to those standards and will try to provide content they believe makes their books attractive to school districts in Texas and across the country. While waning, with more than five million students in Texas public schools, the lone star state makes up a giant share of the national textbook market and continues to have outsize influence on content. 

But parents like Lowe and advocates like Mary Elizabeth Castle believe the books violate the standards.

“The fact that so much public input and agreement among the board went into the standards, it would be transparent and the right thing to do to have the books aligned with the standards,” said Castle, senior policy advisor for Texas Values, an organization dedicated to preserving conservative family values.

While parents can yank their students out of sex ed instruction, groups like Texas Values last year convinced the board to keep LGBTQ content out of the standards and is frustrated it’s still showing up in textbooks.

In the textbook by Human Kinetics, Castle said the text uses two students engaging in sexual activity as an example in a lesson, and in another case has students question whether their gender identity is similar to the one they are assigned at birth. The other textbook, by LessonBee, Inc., includes a text message conversation about ejaculation and arousal.

Advocates for stronger sex ed say the textbooks are needed because students want medically accurate and age-appropriate information about sex.

“We want young people to be able to engage in sexual activity if and when they feel comfortable to do so, when they feel they have all the information they need to make that decision for themselves and for their future,” said Gabrielle Doyle, state partnership coordinator for Sex Ed for Social Change, a group in favor of the textbooks.

Texas Leads in Repeated Teen Births 

What to teach students in school, particularly when it comes to sex, is a touchy subject in Texas. The state has some of the highest . A baby is born to a teen mother every 23 minutes in Texas, according to Jen Biundo, director of policy and data at the Texas Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy. And Texas is the top state in the country for repeated teen births. 

Texas has historically opted to promote abstinence among teenagers to reduce teen pregnancies. 

Despite whether more in-depth teaching about sex ed could be beneficial, Jones, the political science professor, said Republicans have little political incentive to encourage it. 

As a Republican, said Jones, “you’re not going to win any votes in an election by pushing a more progressive agenda on sex ed.”