Kim Snyder’s “The Librarians” made its North Texas premiere on Oct. 14 at the Texas Theatre in Dallas. The documentary chronicles how public school librarians became the front line in a fight about censorship.
Rachel Royster
rroyster@star-telegram.com
Through the art deco doors of the historic Texas Theatre in Dallas, movie-goers dressed in anti-book banning garb collected their popcorn and sat down for a story that started on library doorsteps.
Kim Snyder’s documentary “The Librarians” follows the experiences of public school librarians in Texas, Louisiana and Florida in the months after then-state Rep. Matt Krause, a Keller Republican, released a list targeting 849 books in 2021.
Krause, who is now a Tarrant County commissioner, initiated a legislative investigation into the listed literature about race and racism, the Black Lives Matter movement, sex and sexuality, abortion and LGBTQ rights. At the time, Krause said the aim was simply to gather information.
The list sparked a fire under Texas parents to challenge any books they had ideological disagreements with in school libraries.
In between Keller and Granbury school board meeting snippets, “The Librarians” explains how the posting of Krause’s list quickly devolved into librarians fearing for their safety at previously-wholesome bibliophile conferences.
Snyder’s documentary highlights how Texas created a blueprint to paint librarians as groomers and “porn dealers,” when students knew their spaces as a magical entryway to other worlds. It follows how the librarians featured went from working their dream jobs to the front lines in a fight about censorship.
North Texans will have another chance to view “The Librarians” on Oct. 25 and 26 at the Texas Theatre in Dallas. Rachel Royster rroyster@star-telegram.com
“Fahrenheit 451” was the first of many dystopian novels and movies referenced in the documentary. The nearly sold-out theater quieted as the opening line from Ray Bradbury’s classic came across the screen: “It was a pleasure to burn.”
At one point, black and white imagery of Nazi soldiers throwing books onto a burning pile turned to a full-color video of Americans in Tennessee doing the same last year.
“The Librarians” culled a nearly sold-out crowd to the Texas Theatre on Oct. 14. The audience was filled with activists and librarians donned in anti-book banning garb. Rachel Royster rroyster@star-telegram.com
Those in attendance couldn’t hold back sarcastic laughter, disgruntled groans and tears of heartbreak as the story unfolded. After one of the closing scenes of a librarian being told she is a hero, the audience stood in unison to applaud.
“The Librarians” premiered in January at the Sundance Film Festival and is only being shown in select theaters around the world. It will be available on PBS Independent Lens in February. North Texans have two more chances to view the documentary at the Texas Theatre on Oct. 25 and Oct. 26.
Three of the women featured in Kim Snyder’s documentary “The Librarians” came on stage for a Q&A following the screening at the Texas Theatre. Adrienne Quinn Martin, Audrey Wilson-Youngblood and Laney Hawes spoke about how the film came to life. Rachel Royster rroyster@star-telegram.com
This story was originally published October 15, 2025 at 5:32 PM.
Rachel Royster is a news and government reporter for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, specifically focused on Tarrant County. She joined the newsroom after interning at the Austin American-Statesman, the Waco Tribune-Herald and Capital Community News in DC. A Houston native and Baylor grad, Rachel enjoys traveling, reading and being outside. She welcomes any and all news tips to her email.
Thousands of books have been banned from schools over the last year, according to a new report, and just three red states account for the vast majority of the bans.
Schools across the country banned 6,870 books between July 2024 and June 2025, says the report from PEN America, a nonprofit organization that advocates for free expression. The 2023-24 academic year saw a 200% increase in school book bans, bringing the total instances of book bans since 2021 to nearly 23,000.
“Never before in the life of any living American have so many books been systematically removed from school libraries across the country,” Kasey Meehan, the director of PEN America’s Freedom to Read program, said in a press release. “A disturbing ‘everyday banning’ and normalization of censorship has worsened and spread over the last four years. The result is unprecedented.”
PEN America found that 3,752 unique titles have been banned in 87 different school districts across the country. The books the group identified as banned include those that have been prohibited entirely and those that have been removed during a review period, as well as those that have been restricted — for example, if they can only be accessed with parental permission or if they’ve been restricted to students in certain grades.
Florida, which has been at the forefront of the effort to remove books from school libraries, led the nation in book bans, with 2,304 instances recorded last school year. Texas came in second place with 1,781 removals, followed by Tennessee, which had 1,622 bans.
Like in years past, many of the banned books have LGBTQ+ themes, including “Last Night at the Telegraph Club” by Malinda Lo, which is about a teenage girl discovering her sexuality. The award-winning novel was one of the top five most-banned books last year. The most banned book last school year was “A Clockwork Orange” by Anthony Burgess, a satirical novel about a dystopian future.
Conservative groups have baselessly claimed many of the affected works contain “sexually explicit” material, therefore making them inappropriate for students. It’s all a part of right-wing culture warriors’ efforts to dismantle and remake the nation’s public schools into a place where far-right ideology can thrive.
TruthSavesLives
Your SupportFuelsOur Mission
Your SupportFuelsOur Mission
Dangerous myths about medicine spread fastest when watchdogs are silenced. Become a member today and help us safeguard science, protect health, and keep the public informed.
We remain committed to providing you with the unflinching, fact-based journalism everyone deserves.
Thank you again for your support along the way. We’re truly grateful for readers like you! Your initial support helped get us here and bolstered our newsroom, which kept us strong during uncertain times. Now as we continue, we need your help more than ever. We hope you will join us once again.
We remain committed to providing you with the unflinching, fact-based journalism everyone deserves.
Thank you again for your support along the way. We’re truly grateful for readers like you! Your initial support helped get us here and bolstered our newsroom, which kept us strong during uncertain times. Now as we continue, we need your help more than ever. We hope you will join us once again.
Since the aftermath of the 2020 racial justice protests, far-right groups like Moms for Liberty, which was founded in Florida, have spearheaded a movement to install conservative school board members, censor teachers and remove books that contain LGBTQ+ or racial justice themes.
Under Donald Trump, the movement has also reached the federal government. The Department of Defense removed nearly 600 books from schools on military bases, including those detailing the experience of transgender troops.
Though book bans aren’t new, many researchers and insiders in the book business agree that censorship efforts seem to be increasing. We at the Observer know this, too, which is why this year’s Best of Dallas issue is themed around banned books…
What does one organization do when pro-censorship advocates and special interest groups spearheading widespread book removals in local-area school districts permeate into public libraries?
It opens its own library.
The Woodlands Pride, a nonprofit pride organization based in The Woodlands, will host its grand opening of The Woodlands Pride Community Library on Friday. Those in attendance can skim through about 300 titles that feature minority and LGBTQ narratives and display stories about different races, religions and cultures.
According to Rachel Walker, engagement specialist and chair of community outreach for The Woodlands Pride, the library will stock books such as Kwame Mbalia’s Black Boy Joy and Martin Pistorius’s Ghost Boy and other texts deemed controversial.
“These books have come from people in the community that have donated,” Walker said. “We’ve had other organizations that help with their own smaller book drives. People have given monetary donations, which we use to purchase brand-new books through Village Books.”
The library will be located in the back room of Village Books, owned by Teresa Kenney. Kenney and Walker discussed possibly creating the library after a Montgomery County Commissioners Court meeting the two attended in late March.
The commissioners took action on a new policy by Montgomery County Judge Mark Keough that would remove librarians from The Montgomery County Memorial Library System’s book reconsideration committee and replace them with five commissioner-appointed residents.
The decision to replace these subject experts with members who were not required to meet any guidelines to be selected to review children’s, adolescent and parenting texts passed on a 3-1 vote. Montgomery County Precinct 2 Commissioner Charlie Riley was the sole dissenter.
The Woodlands Pride had been collecting titles from a book drive they launched last summer in response to the rampant book challenges by nearby public school boards — notably Conroe ISD — and increased legislative attacks on LGBTQ youth.
The organization planned to donate these books to Montgomery County’s library system. However, its plans changed after the new policy was approved, and members were concerned that the titles may never make it onto the shelves.
“Afterward, when the vote didn’t go the way we wanted, we went out for coffee and kind of chatted,” Walker said. “We both had the idea that using those books and opening up a library would be a wonderful idea, and she [Kenney] offered her space so kindly.”
Village Books will house the library; however, the library is a separate entity and not tied to Kenney’s business. Those who want to donate books to the community library can purchase titles from a wish list curated by Kenney or contribute financially to The Woodlands Pride. The organization will use these funds to buy books from the store.
“For Village Books, it was important for us to do this to give a voice to those who others are trying to take their voices away. This was one way we could do that,” Kenney said. “Particularly, because if they are being removed from shelves in the libraries or school libraries, not everyone can go out and purchase them, and we recognize that, and they still should be accessible to them. That’s why it was important to us to ensure that all voices are respected, heard and honored.”
Kenney, a staunch anti-censorship and literacy supporter, has also fought back against book bans individually. Her store has a section that features titles removed from school districts locally and nationwide.
The community library will be accessible to the public during Village Books operating hours, 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Saturday, except for Sunday, when the store opens at noon and closes at 5 p.m.
Walker said that the library will not be staffed until they determine the level of foot traffic it will attract. Instead, visitors can use the mobile app Libib — used by other nonprofits and teachers who catalog their classroom libraries — to check out and return titles.
Walker added that community members who want to donate books they have not purchased from Village Books can contact the media at thewoodlandspride.org to arrange a time for a volunteer to pick up the titles.
“We just hope that we can be a place that elevates the voices that it seems like outside influences are trying to silence,” Walker said.
With election season upon us, the forces of politics are pulling us apart and among the sharpest battles recently is a campaign to ban certain books from public schools. There were more than 3,000 book bans in schools last year, a thousand more than the year before. That rise is inspired, in part, by Moms for Liberty—a Florida-based conservative group that says it is fighting for the survival of America. You might expect a sympathetic ear in Beaufort, South Carolina. The county votes Republican and is home to many veterans who did fight for America. But when two people demanded the banning of 97 books, Beaufort found itself in a battle over the true meaning of liberty.
Beaufort has a history in literature and learning. It’s the hometown of the late novelist Pat Conroy, Prince of Tides, and in 1862 it opened among the first schools in the South for former slaves. Today, Beaufort County has 21,000 students and Dick Geier is vice chair of the school board.
Dick Geier: It is probably the most diverse district in the United States because we have tremendous wealth and Hilton Head and other gated communities here. And we have tremendous poverty. Half of our students are getting free and reduced lunches because their parents are qualified as being in poverty.
Geier is a retired Army colonel–a Republican—who focused on improving math and reading– until 2022.
Scott Pelley: What was the very first notion that you had a storm coming?
Dick Geier: We got a email from a citizen saying that “These 97 books that we’ve heard about online that should be banned in a school. How many of those books do you have in your school?” So we checked. We had virtually all those books in the school.
Dick Geier
60 Minutes
They’re mostly young adult novels with minority, gay, lesbian or transgender characters. Some depict sex and violence. Most were in high school libraries, four were in classroom curricula. Reasonable people disagree about books, and that’s why Beaufort already gave the last word to parents. Karen Gareis is a high school librarian after 27 years in the Navy.
Karen Gareis: So the procedure would be that it’s a conversation between myself and the parent. And if they don’t like the book, they have every right to say that their child can’t check that book out.
Scott Pelley: And how often does a parent do that?
Karen Gareis: I have never had a parent come and complain—
Scott Pelley: Never?
Karen Gareis: To me personally about a book? No.
Gareis also pointed to this “opt-out” form, “do not allow my child to check out any school library materials…without my approval…”
Dick Geier: Parents have the right to determine what their children are taught and what they’re allowed to read. No doubt about it. But what we’re having a problem with is parents that want to determine what other parents’ rights are for their children to read what they want.
The board wanted to follow established procedures but a few activists, agitated by conspiracy theories, threatened librarians and board members calling them “groomers” –extreme rightwing hate speech meant to brand opponents as molesters grooming children for sex.
Dick Geier: We’ve had a parent come in and tell a librarian that, “You are violating a state statute by providing pornography to a minor. I’m going to the sheriff. I’m going to have you arrested,” and storm out. Now that’s not just happened once, that’s happened multiple times at multiple schools. I even got an email saying, “OK, the sheriff said no, the solicitor said no, I’m going to the FBI!”
School Superintendent Frank Rodriguez feared violence so he pulled the books.
Karen Gareis
60 Minutes
Karen Gareis: From someone outside looking in, it’s almost obvious that most of the books hadn’t been read prior to being challenged, that some other source was used to gather these things together. So when that happened, I was like, “OK.” I knew we were in for a rough road.
That road began here, a book review website called BookLooks–founded two years ago by a Florida nurse. She declined an interview but told us her book reviews are written by volunteers using BookLooks’ own standards. And this is where Beaufort’s experience becomes a national story. Across the country, book bans are being demanded based on BookLooks’ amateur, volunteer, reviews, often in the hands of Moms for Liberty.
Moms for Liberty held a national convention last summer which attracted major Republican presidential candidates. It had been only two-and-a-half years since Moms was founded as a reaction against COVID mandates. Its founders include two Florida women with school board experience; Tiffany Justice and Tina Descovich.
Tiffany Justice: The truth of the matter is, that Tina and I are disrupting the balance of power in American education. Our moms, over 100,000 members across this United States of America, are disrupting the balance of power in public education. For too long, unions have had an undue influence in the decision-making process happening in our local schools. And we see where that has gotten us– a system that– protects itself, and oftentimes leaves the needs of students behind. And that has to change.
Conservative, anti teacher’s unions, Moms for Liberty is part of the pushback against the diversity and inclusion movement. Moms supports new Florida laws that limit lessons on race, and forbid lessons on sexual orientation and gender identity though high school.
Tina Descovich: We love teachers. My children have had the best teachers. I’ve had the greatest teachers that have influenced and impact me. But there are rogue teachers in America’s classrooms right now.
Scott Pelley: Rogue teachers?
Tina Descovich: Rogue teachers.
Tiffany Justice
60 Minutes
Tiffany Justice: Parents send their children to school to be educated, not indoctrinated into ideology.
Scott Pelley: What ideology are they being indoctrinated into?
Tina Descovich: Let’s just say children in America cannot read.
They often dodged questions with talking points.
Scott Pelley: You’re being evasive.
Tiffany Justice: 21% of–
Scott Pelley: What ideology–
Tiffany Justice: –Hispanic students are reading on–
Scott Pelley: You’re being–
Tiffany Justice: –grade level.
Scott Pelley: –evasive.
Scott Pelley: What ideology are the children being indoctrinated into? What is your fear?
Tiffany Justice: I think parents’ fears are realized. They’re looking at these books where sexual discussions are happening with their children at younger and younger ages.
Tiffany Justice read from sexually explicit books written for older teens but found in a few lower schools. Most people wouldn’t want them in a lower school. But in a tactic of outrage politics, Moms for Liberty takes a kernel of truth, and concludes these examples are not rare mistakes but a plot to sexualize children.
Scott Pelley: Your critics say that you have an anti-gay ideology.
Tina Descovich: That is–
Tiffany Justice: Nothing could be–
Tina Descovich: –false. That is false.
Tiffany Justice: Nothing could be further from the truth. We have gay members. I think it’s an effort to really try to marginalize us as an organization because parents are coming together across racial lines, across religious lines, across all of these different ways that we see Americans being divided so often.
But voters have not “come together” for Moms for Liberty. Last year Moms endorsed 166 school board candidates, two-thirds were defeated, according to the nonpartisan Brookings Institution. Moms also faces questions about its third co-founder, conservative education activist Bridget Ziegler. She left Moms for Liberty, and now she’s being asked to resign from the Sarasota school board. Last year she told police she had three-way sex with her husband and a woman. Her husband, Christian Ziegler had been accused of rape in another incident. Investigators concluded that alleged attack was, quote, “likely consensual.” But Christian Ziegler was forced out as chair of the Florida Republican Party.
We wanted to know about the messages on moms’ “X” account, which adopts the extremist smear with “if they don’t like being called groomers, they should stop trying to groom our kids.”
Scott Pelley: What are you trying to say?
Tina Descovich
60 Minutes
Tina Descovich: Well, I’m going to say that if– we’d have to see the exact tweet. Tiffany manages our Twitter account.
So, we read more exact tweets from their account. This targets a librarian. “You want to groom our children and we’re supposed to give you love?” Again, Justice and Descovich went to their talking points.
Scott Pelley: I’m just asking what do you mean by that? What do you mean by grooming?
Tiffany Justice: Parents want to partner with their children’s schools. But we do not co-parent with the government.
Scott Pelley: “Grooming” does not seem like a word that you want to take on.
Tiffany Justice: You know, we did some polling. And we asked– we really wanted to know, where are the American people on this issue of parental rights and what’s happening in our schools?
Dodging questions like those was not an option back in Beaufort, South Carolina. Critics of the book ban said they knew what “groomer” meant. And they saw it as a threat to people of color and the LGBTQ community.
Speaker: Don’t do that to these kids! They have the internet they’re going to get to it anyways, what are you doing? You’re wasting your time. You are only trying to make people feel bad about themselves and I am past the time where I am going to allow anybody to make me feel bad about myself!
Several parents and community members tried to get 97 books banned in a South Carolina school district.
60 Minutes
Ultimately, Beaufort confronted fear and ignorance with civility and knowledge. The town asked volunteers to actually read the books. In meetings that looked like book clubs– over the course of a year—146 community volunteers, plus teachers and librarians, discussed, deliberated and voted. Ruth-Naomi James volunteered to judge the books, she works for the schools and has a 16-year-old student.
Scott Pelley: How many of the four books have you reviewed that you felt should not be in the school system?
Ruth-Naomi James: None.
She’s not a mom for liberty but, still, a liberty-minded mom.
Ruth-Naomi James: I’m a combat veteran, right? There’s no way I went to Iraq thinking that when I moved back home, I would have to do this to make sure that the freedom that we fight for in this country is taken out of the hands of students and parents.
The final votes came this past December. Five books were judged too graphic in sex or violence. But 92 returned to the schools. Dick Geier says this lesson reaches beyond the classroom.
Dick Geier: Diversity brings tolerance. The more you understand what other people think and realize that what they say is important, but who they are, what their story, what their background is. The more you know that, the more you see the power of diversity. And then, be kind, and be understanding. And don’t make judgments because you haven’t lived their story. They have.
In the city that’s lived a story of letters and learning, one book that was banned and restored was “The Fixer,” a novel of antisemitism that won the Pulitzer prize. In its pages, the book’s hero expresses this opinion, “There are no wrong books.” “What’s wrong is the fear of them.”
Produced by Henry Schuster and Sarah Turcotte. Broadcast associate, Michelle Karim. Edited by Warren Lustig and Peter M. Berman.
Editor’s note: 97 Books Producer Henry Schuster is a resident of Beaufort County, South Carolina. He participated on one of the book review committees before beginning to produce the report for 60 Minutes.
Scott Pelley, one of the most experienced and awarded journalists today, has been reporting stories for “60 Minutes” since 2004. The 2023-24 season is his 20th on the broadcast. Scott has won half of all major awards earned by “60 Minutes” during his tenure at the venerable CBS newsmagazine.
On Tuesday, The Conroe ISD Board of Trustees voted to approve disposing of discontinued instructional resources — including more than 2,800 books related to the district’s recent removals.
Most of these books came off classroom shelves through informal reviews, not the formal challenge process laid out by the district, according to Conroe ISD General Counsel Carrie Galatas.
According to Dr. Tasslyn Magnusson, an independent researcher, district records indicate that 589 titles on the list of to-be disposed materials will have two or more copies thrown out. Of the 589 titles, 149 were banned by the district. A Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, Lord of The Flies by William Golding and The Hate U Give by Angie Thomas are the three top titles, with 368, 329 and 172 books to be disposed of, respectively.
Conroe ISD is also coming after the classics by removing 61 copies of The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison and 47 copies of The Color Purple by Alice Walker. The motion to dispose of these books passed 5 to 1. Trustee Stacey Chase opposed the motion and Trustee Datren Williams was absent from Tuesday night’s meeting. Conroe ISD Superintendent Dr. Curtis Null said the district would try to sell the titles in an auction first. It will then try to donate them.
If unable to find a donor, trustees will choose to recycle these texts if this option comes at no additional cost to the district. The final step would be to discard the books per Texas Education Code guidelines.
A teacher who requested to remain anonymous said they were heartbroken by the district’s decision, “I’m sickened. This is only slightly less aggressive than burning them (the books).”
“I had to talk myself out of resigning,” the instructor added.
The board’s action on these titles comes after teachers were asked to box up books that were a part of their classroom collections but were no longer permitted in the district amid ongoing book bans and restrictions.
This request resulted in a single campus getting rid of over 550 books, throwing roughly $8,000 out the window. These texts, purchased with state funds, were relocated to Conroe ISD’s textbook warehouse.
Galatas said overcrowding in the warehouse caused by the district receiving more science books was why these materials needed to be moved out. She added that it was unusual to be getting rid of texts purchased with instructional materials allocation funds, as the district typically uses resources bought with this money until they are no longer on state-approved list.
“We’ve never been in a situation like this before, but for needing room in the warehouse,” she said. “We probably would have let these materials just sit there for another year until they rolled off the state’s list. It’s just in space that is a premium.”
Trustees received a multi-page report listing the other resources that would be disposed of alongside the books, some of which are still used by the State Board of Education, including paper workbooks.
Chase brought up the lack of guidelines for parents and other community members who may want to oppose informal book challenges but may be unable to do so the way the district’s informal review process is set up.
“There is a desire from some people in our community that some of these books that have been removed from the informal, they would like to challenge,” Chase said. “They would like the opportunity to (do that). So, I don’t want to approve something to sell or dispose and then we bring it back.”
During public comments, several Conroe ISD parents spoke out against recent action taken by the district as the number of books removed from library shelves and classroom collections continues to grow.
According to district records, 14 library books were reconsidered last month. Of these texts, eight were removed, and three were retained. Three more titles were removed from the junior high libraries, one of which was kept at the high school level. The other two are pending review at this level.
The district’s list of books from classroom collections that do not meet selection criteria has not been updated since Friday, February 2. The list indicated that 112 books have been prohibited from being on classroom shelves, and five titles have been restricted to high school classrooms only.
Natalie Adams’ oldest son graduated from College Park High School, and her youngest is a freshman at Oak Ridge High School. Adams told the board that she grew up as a voracious reader and taught her sons to understand the power of the written word.
She took particular issue with how the books were banned, referencing titles taken out of campus libraries and classrooms through informal reviews rather than the formal challenge process.
A formal book review allows the challenge before a reconsideration committee of an administrator, staff member, education, and randomly selected parents. The committee reads the book, discusses it, and decides whether the text will stay at the approved level. The challenger can then appeal this decision and take it to the board — the trustees have the final say over whether or not the book remains.
The informal review track allows anyone, regardless of whether they are a Conroe ISD community member, to bring forth a text they have an issue with very little oversight.
“All types of books are important and should be available for children and teens to access,” Adams said.
“We (the district)should not be in the business of censorship, nor should we waste resources the district has already purchased,” she added. “Please stop effectively banning books (if) this is what’s happening. It helps no one to live in a society where children are not allowed to read, learn critical thinking, and be exposed to novel ideas.”
Another parent, Rachel Walker, called to attention the danger embedded in Conroe ISD’s recent book removals, of which many focus on texts that include LGBTQ+ characters.
Walker’s voice cracked slightly as she spoke about Nex Benedict, a 16-year-old nonbinary Oklahoma teen, who tragically died in the hospital earlier this month after they were beaten so badly in a school bathroom.
“Similarly to what is currently happening here, this Oklahoma School District had recently been the target of an anti-LGBTQ+ hate group. The leader of that hate group was appointed to a committee that reduced school library content,” Walker said. “They also targeted a former eighth-grade teacher that spoke out in support of LGBTQ+ students. Does any of this sound familiar?”
“The things you vote on from those chairs have bigger consequences than just access to books,” she added.
A handful of attendees thanked the three conservative “Mama Bears” Trustees Melissa Dungan, Tiffany Baumann Nelson, and Misty Odenweller, for protecting the children in the district from the “corrupt education system.” Others called for more to be done about the “ideologies” circulating across campus libraries.
Before the vote to approve disposing of these materials passed, Chase brought to her fellow trustees’ attention that some of the titles on the list provided were not only from the informal review process but were actively pending review.
Galatas said the titles could have appeared as if they were pending review because the district’s website might not have been updated. She also addressed Chase’s concerns regarding whether or not the district has guidelines for individuals who may want to oppose a book challenge.
Galatas added if an individual felt that the text removed did meet the board’s selection criteria or criteria set out by state law by the Texas State Library Association, that person could file a complaint and ask for the material to be returned. She noted, however, as Chase mentioned, that this was not a part of the board’s local instructional or library materials policies because that envisions removal of access, not adding access.
Null requested that the conversation be redirected back to the vote to dispose of the materials. He proposed that the district could put books removed through informal reviews at the back of the list when being thrown out.
“I don’t want us to sell a book or give a book away, and then six months from now, you all tell us we misinterpreted your policy and we did it wrong,” the superintendent said.
Chase attempted to amend the motion to exclude materials related to informal book challenges. However, the amendment failed to gain traction, and the initial motion to dispose of the instructional resources through selling, donating, recycling or discarding passed.
Before adjourning, Chase told the board she would like to revisit the district’s local regulation policies for library materials in an upcoming meeting. The next board meeting is Tuesday, March 19.
Thanks to Donald Trump’s presidential term, the conservative legal movement has been able to realize some of its wildest dreams: overturning the constitutional right to an abortion, ending affirmative action in college admissions, and potentially making most state-level firearm restrictions presumptively unconstitutional. That movement long predates Trump, and these goals were long-standing. But, like the rest of conservatism, much of the conservative legal movement has also been remade in Trump’s vulgar, authoritarian image, and is now preparing to go further, in an endeavor to shield both Trump and the Republican Party from democratic accountability.
Explore the January/February 2024 Issue
Check out more from this issue and find your next story to read.
The federal judiciary has become a battleground in a right-wing culture war that aims to turn back the clock to a time when conservative mores—around gender, sexuality, race—were unchallenged and, in some respects, unchallengeable. Many of the federal judges appointed during Trump’s presidency seem to see themselves as foot soldiers in that war, which they view as a crusade to restore the original meaning of the Constitution. Yet in practice, their rulings have proved to be little more than Trump-era right-wing punditry with cherry-picked historical citations.
The 2016 Trump administration was focused on quickly filling the judiciary with judges who are not just ideologically conservative but dedicated right-wing zealots. But that administration “didn’t have all of the chess pieces completely lined up” to get right-wing ideologues into every open seat, Jake Faleschini, of the liberal legal-advocacy group Alliance for Justice, told me. More restrained conservative jurists filled some of those seats. Trump and his allies will be better prepared next time, he said. “Those chess pieces are very well lined up now.”
The federal district judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a former anti-abortion activist, is the prototypical Trumpist judge. He has publicly complained about the sexual revolution, no-fault divorce, “very permissive policies on contraception,” and marriage equality, and has opposed nondiscrimination protections for the LGBTQ community. And like many of his Trump-appointed peers, Kacsmaryk has predictably issued rulings flouting precedent when doing so is consistent with his personal morals.
One of the most egregious examples came in September, when he dismissed a lawsuit filed by students at West Texas A&M University after the school’s president, Walter Wendler, banned a drag-show benefit aimed at raising money for the Trevor Project, an LGBTQ-focused suicide-prevention organization. Wendler made clear his political objections to the show, referring to drag as “derisive, divisive and demoralizing misogyny.” But even Wendler himself recognized that the show, as expressive conduct, was protected speech; amazingly, he admitted that he was violating the law. He would not be seen to condone the behavior of the show’s actors, Wendler wrote in his message banning the event, “even when the law of the land appears to require it.”
The case landed on Kacsmaryk’s desk. And because Kacsmaryk does not like pro-LGBTQ speech, he simply ignored decades of precedent regarding free-speech law on the grounds that, by his understanding of history, the First Amendment does not protect campus drag shows. The drag show “does not obviously convey or communicate a discernable, protectable message,” Kacsmaryk wrote, and consists of potentially “vulgar and lewd” conduct that could, he suggested, lead to “the sexual exploitation and abuse of children.” (The confidence with which conservatives have accused their political opponents of child sexual exploitation in recent years is remarkable, especially because their concern applies almost exclusively to situations, like this one, that justify legal suppression of their favored targets. It is far easier to find examples of pedophilia in religious institutions—hardly targets of either conservative ire or conservative jurisprudence—than it is to find drag queens guilty of similar conduct.)
The key to Kacsmaryk’s ruling was “historical analysis,” which revealed a “Free Speech ecosystem drastically different from the ‘expressive conduct’ absolutism” of those challenging Wendler’s decision. Echoing the Supreme Court’s recent emphasis on “history and tradition” in rulings such as Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned the constitutional right to an abortion, and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, which struck down gun restrictions in New York State, Kacsmaryk simply decided that the First Amendment did not apply. If not for its censorious implications, the ruling would be an amusing example of some conservative beliefs about free speech: A certain form of expression can be banned as “nonpolitical”—nothing more than obscenity—even as those banning it acknowledge their disapproval of that expression’s political implications.
The invocation of “history and tradition,” however, is no joke. The prevailing mode of conservative constitutional analysis for the past half century has been “originalism,” which promises to interpret the Constitution as it was understood at the time of its writing. As the dissenters pointed out in Dobbs, the Founders themselves imposed no such requirements on constitutional interpretation, noting that the “Framers defined rights in general terms, to permit future evolution in their scope and meaning.” And in practice, originalism has just meant invoking the Framers to justify conservative outcomes.
“It’s a very subjective inquiry,” the NYU law professor Melissa Murray told me. “This insistence on originalism as history and tradition ties you to a jurisprudence that’s going to favor a particular, masculine kind of ideology. Because those are the only people making meaning at that moment in time.”
In 1986, the late conservative legal scholar Philip B. Kurland observed, “We cannot definitively read the minds of the Founders except, usually, to create a choice of several possible meanings for the necessarily recondite language that appears in much of our charter of government. Indeed, evidence of different meanings likely can be garnered for almost every disputable proposition.”
“History should provide the perimeters within which the choice of meaning may be made,” Kurland wrote. “History ordinarily should not be expected, however, to provide specific answers to the specific problems that bedevil the Court.”
Right-wing justices have in all but name imposed this expectation, despite Kurland’s warning. It is no surprise that Kurland was not heeded—he testified against the nomination of Robert Bork, the father of originalism, to the Supreme Court, and cautioned that “he will be an aggressive judge in conforming the Constitution to his notions of what it should be,” one “directed to a diminution of minority and individual rights.” Now, with six Republican appointees on the Supreme Court, every judge is slowly being forced to conform the Constitution to Bork’s notions of what it should be.
In Dobbs and Bruen, and in a later case striking down race-based affirmative action in college admissions, the conservative justices cited historical facts that strengthened their arguments while ignoring those that contradicted them, even when the evidence to the contrary was voluminous. In Dobbs, Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the majority opinion, ignored the history of legal abortion in the early American republic and the sexist animus behind the 19th-century campaigns to ban it. In Bruen, Justice Clarence Thomas was happy to invoke the history of personal gun ownership but dismissed the parallel history of firearm regulation. In the affirmative-action case, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, Thomas’s imposition of modern right-wing standards of “color blindness” on the debate over the Fourteenth Amendment was ahistorical enough that it drew an objection from Eric Foner, the greatest living historian of the Reconstruction era.
Not every right-wing judge is as blatantly ideological in their decision making as Kacsmaryk, nor is every Republican appointee a Trumpist zealot. But those with ambitions to rise up the ranks stand out by how aggressively they advertise both qualities. And the proliferation of the language of “history and tradition” is turning originalism from an ideology of constitutional interpretation into something more like a legal requirement. Judges are expected to do historical analysis—not rigorous analysis, but the kind that a prime-time Fox News host will agree with. Conservative originalists seem to see themselves as the true heirs of the Founders, and therefore when they examine the Founders, they can see only themselves, as if looking in a mirror.
It is no coincidence that as conservatism has become Trumpism, originalism has come to resemble Trumpist nationalism in its view that conservatives are the only legitimate Americans and therefore the only ones who should be allowed to wield power. The results for the federal judiciary are apparent as right-wing appeals courts turn “fringe ideas into law at a breakneck pace,” as the legal reporter Chris Geidner has put it, in the hopes of teeing up cases for the Roberts Court, which can hide its own extremism behind the occasional refusal to cater to the most extreme demands of its movement allies.
It is not only the substance of the rulings that has changed—many now resemble bad blog posts in their selective evidence, motivated reasoning, overt partisanship, and recitation of personal grievances—but the behavior of the jurists, who seek to turn public-service roles into minor celebrity by acting like social-media influencers.
Fifth Circuit Judge James Ho, a favorite of the conservative legal movement and a potential future Trump Supreme Court nominee, is one example. In 2022, Ho announced that he was striking a blow against “cancel culture” by boycotting law clerks from Yale after an incident in which Yale students disrupted an event featuring an attorney from a Christian-right legal-advocacy group. In 2021, the Trump-appointed judge Barbara Lagoa complained publicly that American society had grown so “Orwellian” that “I’m not sure I can call myself a woman anymore.” She later upheld an Alabama law making gender-affirming care for minors a felony, arguing, of course, that such care was not rooted in American “history and tradition.” In June 2023, in the midst of a scandal over Justice Thomas receiving unreported gifts from right-wing billionaires with interests before the Court, the Trump-appointed judge Amul Thapar went on Fox News to promote his book about Thomas, and defended him with the zeal of a columnist for Breitbart News.
All of this and more will continue should Trump win a second term. Conservative civil servants who placed their oath to the Constitution above Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election were depicted by Trump loyalists not as heroes but as internal enemies to be purged. Republican-appointed judges will take note of which path leads to professional advancement and which to early retirement.
Already imitating Trump in affect and ideology, these judges are indeed unlikely to resist just about any of Trump’s efforts to concentrate power in himself. They will no doubt invoke “history and tradition” to justify this project, but their eyes are ultimately on a future utopia where conservative political power cannot be meaningfully challenged at the ballot box or in court.
This article appears in the January/February 2024 print edition with the headline “A MAGA Judiciary.”
The Scholastic Book Fair will discontinue its separate selection of books on race and gender following criticism that segregating the titles caters to the right-wing censorship that is spreading across the country.
“I want to apologize on behalf of Scholastic,” Ellie Berger, president of Scholastic Trade Publishing, said in a recent statement. “Even if the decision was made with good intention, we understand now that it was a mistake to segregate diverse books in an elective case. We sincerely apologize to every author, illustrator, licensor, educator, librarian, parent, and reader who was hurt by our action.”
Earlier this month, the renowned publishing company announced a new, separate catalog called “Share Every Story, Celebrate Every Voice,” which would feature 64 titles on race and gender that elementary schools could choose to include or exclude from their book fairs. The catalog included a children’s biography of Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, stories about same-sex families and books about basic history, such as “I Am Ruby Bridges,” about the first Black child to integrate an all-white school in Louisiana.
The catalog sparked backlash from critics who argued that creating a separate section for these books would exclude books from diverse authors, since schools would be allowed to opt out of having them at their book fairs.
PEN America, a free speech group and partner of Scholastic, asserted that the separate catalog accommodates the “nefarious laws and local pressures” and makes them “an accessory to government censorship.”
According to Scholastic, more than 30 states have introduced or enacted legislation aiming to ban certain books in schools, specifically ones that include LGBTQ topics and racial diversity. Book bans surged in 2022, and a recent report from PEN America found that school book bans and restrictions in the U.S. rose by 33% in the last school year.
The bans have led to clashes between proponents, who say that books which explore race and LGBTQ themes contain inappropriate language and are an attempt to “indoctrinate” children, and opponents who believe that such bans are an act of censorship. According to The New York Times, Scholastic had signed an open letter opposing state laws that ban books in schools.
Scholastic clarified in a statement that the catalog doesn’t place all diverse books into one selection and explained that the separate collection was intended to ensure kids can access books that are targeted by book bans across the country.
“Because Scholastic Book Fairs are invited into schools, where books can be purchased by kids on their own, these laws create an almost impossible dilemma: back away from these titles or risk making teachers, librarians, and volunteers vulnerable to being fired, sued, or prosecuted,” Scholastic said in its statement.
“We don’t pretend this solution is perfect ― but the other option would be to not offer these books at all ― which is not something we’d consider.”
PEN America acknowledged that legislators and those advocating for book bans are the ones placing Scholastic and other publishers “in an impossible bind when it comes to the distribution of a diverse range of books.” But the group still urged Scholastic to find alternative solutions to ensure access to books targeted by bans.
“Sequestering books on these topics risks depriving students and families of books that speak to them,” PEN America wrote in its statement. “It will deny the opportunity for all students to encounter diverse stories that increase empathy, understanding, and reflect the range of human experiences and identities which are essential underpinnings of a pluralistic, democratic society.”
Red Wine & Blue, a political group of liberal moms, created a petition against the separate book selection, which garnered more than 8,000 signatures as of Tuesday.
“By separating these books into their own collection for ‘opt-in,’ Scholastic is sending a message that the books are problematic and should be avoided,” the petition said. “They’re taking the most extreme policies from the most extreme state [legislatures] and applying them to everyone.”
In its latest statement, Scholastic apologized for the harm caused by its separate catalog and declared that it will be discontinued starting in January, when Scholastic’s next book fair season begins. It also pledged to “redouble our efforts to combat the laws restricting children’s access to books.”
“Scholastic recognized that, as difficult a bind as this pernicious legislation created, the right answer was not to become an accessory to censorship,” Jonathan Friedman, director of PEN America’s free expression and education program, said in a statement sent to HuffPost. “Scholastic is an essential source of knowledge and a delight for countless children. We are glad to see them champion the freedom to read.”
The Scholastic Book Fair is facing backlash for choosing to separate books on topics of race and gender from other books at its school fairs as right-wing censorship efforts continue to sweep the country.
The renowned book fair, which schools in the U.S. have hosted for decades, announced an optional book collection in elementary schools containing 64 titles called, “Share Every Story, Celebrate Every Voice.” The collection focuses on books with content on race, gender and sexuality which are banned in some conservative counties and states. Books listed in the new collection include “The ABCs of Black History;” a biography of Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first Black woman to be a Supreme Court Justice; and a book by JoJo Siwa, a singer and YouTube star who announced in 2021 that she is part of the LGBTQIA+ community, according to NPR.
PEN America, a nonprofit that focuses on books and human rights, said in a statement Tuesday that “sequestering books on these topics risks depriving students and families of books that speak to them.”
“It will deny the opportunity for all students to encounter diverse stories that increase empathy [and] understanding, and reflect the range of human experiences and identities,” the organization said. “In an environment of growing censorship, publishers have a dual obligation to both fight it, and to make books as maximally available as possible.”
Scholastic’s new collection comes at a time when conservative groups have pushed numerous book bansin schools across the country, claiming that books on gender, sexual orientation and race contain inappropriate language and are an attempt to “indoctrinate” children. Progressives have regarded the ongoing book bans as censorship and an attack on free speech.
In response to the backlash, Scholastic released a public statement to clarify that they have not put all of their diverse titles into one optional case for book fairs. The company said that the new collection only focuses on books on topics that are being targeted by active or pending book ban legislation, specifically, “mostly LGBTQIA+ titles and books that engage with the presence of racism in our country.”
“Because Scholastic Book Fairs are invited into schools, where books can be purchased by kids on their own, these laws create an almost impossible dilemma: Back away from these titles or risk making teachers, librarians, and volunteers vulnerable to being fired, sued, or prosecuted,” the company said.
It is also still possible for book fair organizers to request specific books from the collection rather than ordering the entire collection, NBC News reported.
PEN America urged Scholastic to look into better solutions for books targeted by the book bans.
The nonprofit argued that Scholastic isn’t the only organization facing challenges posed by right-wing legislation ― other “booksellers, teachers and librarians” are, too, PEN America said..
The nonprofit went on to accuse Scholastic of “accommodating these nefarious laws” and “being an accessory to government censorship” through this collection.
PEN America reported last month that there were 3,362 instances of book bans in classrooms and libraries across the country during the 2022-23 school year. The bans removed more than 1,500 books, according to their report. The bans occurred primarily in Florida, but also in Texas, Missouri, Utah and Pennsylvania.
A liberal mom’s political group called Red Wine and Blue started a petition that has garnered more than 3,300 signatures in opposition to Scholastic’s new collection. The petition continues to urge Scholastic to remove the collection and put the title back with the remainder of the book fair.
“By separating these books into their own collection for ‘opt-in,’ Scholastic is sending a message that the books are problematic and should be avoided. They’re taking the most extreme policies from the most extreme state legislatures and applying them to everyone,” the petition reads.
Anne Sparkman, a spokesperson for Scholastic, has defended their decision in a statement to HuffPost, saying that book fairs in every state have ordered books from the “Share Every Story, Celebrate Every Voice” collection.
“Our top priority is to make sure kids have access to books,” Sparkman, the Senior Vice President of Corporate Communications at Scholastic, told HuffPost.“We are invited guests in schools, and we support the paths they have taken, working with their communities, to continue to bring kids access to books, especially through fairs which creates the unique dynamic of kids being able to select books for themselves.”
In a public statement posted to their website, Scholastic also admitted that the solution wasn’t perfect.
“We don’t pretend this solution is perfect ― but the other option would be to not offer these books at all ― which is not something we’d consider,” their statement said.
Scholastic said this allows them to still offer books containing diverse content. They added that middle school book fairs have not changed.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed legislation Monday prohibiting schools from banning books because they highlight race, sexual orientation or other protected characteristics, a rebuttal to efforts in Florida and other GOP-led states to severely restrict students’ reading materials.
The legislation authored by state Assemblymember Corey Jackson (D) enacts a financial penalty against school districts that make “efforts to categorically exclude” books related to race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation and other demographics that have faced discrimination.
In a statement Monday, Newsom referenced recent pushback from California’s Temecula Valley Unified School District. Its board twice rejected California’s new social studies book and curriculum because of its coverage of LGBTQ+ historical figures.
“From Temecula to Tallahassee, fringe ideologues across the country are attempting to whitewash history and ban books from schools,” Newsom said in a statement. “With this new law, we’re cementing California’s role as the true freedom state: a place where families — not political fanatics — have the freedom to decide what’s right for them.”
Though the Temecula school board finally agreed in July to adopt the new curriculum, its members said it would pull any material referencing Harvey Milk, the first openly gay man to be elected to public office in California. Two members of the board, Joseph Komrosky and Danny Gonzalez, claimed during meetings that Milk, who was assassinated in 1978, was a “pedophile.”
While Temecula is an outlier in California, book banning is becoming commonplace in Republican-controlled states. The number of book bans in public schools nationwide increased by 33% in the 2022-23 school year compared to the previous one, the free speech organization PEN America said in a report released last week. In total, the organization tracked 3,362 book bans affecting 1,557 unique titles.
Florida is far and away the leader in book bans, the report noted.
“Over 40 percent of all book bans occurred in school districts in Florida,” it said. “Across 33 school districts, PEN America recorded 1,406 book ban cases in Florida, followed by 625 bans in Texas, 333 bans in Missouri, 281 bans in Utah, and 186 bans in Pennsylvania.”
Among the most repeatedly banned books are the 2019 memoir “Gender Queer” and a recent graphic novel version of 1985’s “The Handmaid’s Tale.”
A school district in Texas has fired a teacher who assigned eighth-grade students a graphic novel adaptation of Anne Frank’s diary.
The Hamshire-Fannett Independent School District’s communication coordinator, Mike Canizales, told KFDM-TV in Beaumont, Texas, that an unnamed teacher allowed students to read a version of “The Diary of Anne Frank” in class that was “not approved” by the district.
The school district, which is in Jefferson County, east of Houston, confirmed to HuffPost that it had hired a substitute teacher while it searches for a full-time replacement.
“As you may be aware, following concerns regarding curricular selections in your student’s reading class, a substitute teacher has been facilitating the class since Wednesday, September 13, 2023,” read an email sent to parents on Friday, which Canizales provided to HuffPost. “The District is currently in the process of posting the position to secure a high-quality, full-time teacher as quickly as possible. During this period of transition, our administrators and curriculum team will provide heightened support and monitoring in the reading class to ensure continuity in instruction.”
Anne Frank was a Jewish teenager who documented her thoughts and struggles during the Holocaust as she and her family hid in a secret annex in a house in Amsterdam. Her original diary, published in 1947, has been lauded by many educators, writers and scholars as essential reading.
“Anne Frank’s Diary: The Graphic Adaptation” was written by Ari Folman, whose parents survived the Holocaust, and it was illustrated by David Polonsky. It details an experience in which Anne Frank walked through a park that displayed nude female statues and a conversation in which she asked a friend that they each show each other their breasts, The Associated Press reported in April. It also includes a section where she discusses both male and female genitalia, according to the Post.
The New York Times Book Review wrote that the illustrated book is “so engaging and effective that it’s easy to imagine it replacing the [original diary] in classrooms and among younger readers.” Its target audience is listed on Amazon as students from eighth through 12th grade.
The school district claims the book was unapproved, but KDFM reported that the book was on an approved list that had been sent to parents at the start of the school year. An investigation is underway, the district’s communication coordinator told KDFM.
Anne Frank Fonds, based in Basel, Switzerland, the organization that published the graphic novel, condemned book banning in an email to HuffPost.
“The graphic adaptation of the diary is based on the text of a 12-year-old girl in the 1940s. Since its first publication, the diary has repeatedly come under fire from ideological groups,” the foundation wrote. “The girl, who never knew freedom in today’s sense, stood up for it in her texts and dreamed of it.”
“The Anne Frank Fonds Basel observes with increasing concern that, in addition to bans on the text in dictatorships, idéologie-soaked bans on books of world literature are now also increasingly being implemented in the free world, threatening the achievements of enlightenment,” the publisher said.
The district’s firing falls in line with the conservative-led nationwide push to ban books that mention race, sex education and gender identity. Texas has been at the forefront of this book-banning effort and has had the most attempts to ban books in schools when compared to other states, according to a 2022 report by the American Library Association.
Books like Frank’s diary or “Maus: A Survivor’s Tale” by Art Spiegelman, a graphic novel about the Holocaust, have been the target of conservatives in the last several years. Parents who have complained about Holocaust literature and the school boards that have banned them have often cited foul language or nudity in such works. But historians and librarians see it as a larger attack on teaching students the truth about racial injustice and antisemitism.
In 2021, a Texas lawmaker made a list of approximately 850 books and distributed it to school districts around the state, demanding to know whether schools had any of the listed books on its shelves. Last May, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott signed a law that bans books with “sexually explicit” material. Educators and other critics have said the law is vague.
In an era when conservatives are seeking to discredit teachers, reading a book is no longer a routine part of an educator’s day but can now become a punishable offense.
In the last year alone, a fifth-grade teacher in Georgia was terminated after reading “My Shadow Is Purple” by Scott Stuart, a children’s book that deals with gender identity, to her students. In South Carolina, students complained after a high school teacher included Ta-Nehisi Coates’ “Between the World and Me” in an Advanced Placement Language Arts class because the Republican-controlled state legislature had banned classroom discussions on systemic racism. And in Louisiana, a school librarian was threatened online after speaking out against censorship.
Teachers in Iowa are scrambling to remove books from their classrooms that might not comply with a new law. However, educators say the law is vague and confusing enough that they aren’t sure how to follow it — and at least one district is turning to artificial intelligence to help teachers avoid professional consequences.
Senate File 496 bans instructional materials with “descriptions or visual depictions of a sex act.” It also restricts instruction on gender or sexual orientation and prohibits students from going by a name that isn’t on the school’s file without parental permission. Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds (R) championed the law, saying it “put parents in the driver’s seat” and “empowers teachers to prepare our kids for their future.”
The law went into effect on July 1. Starting in January, anyone who violates it could be subject to a written warning and a disciplinary hearing.
However, the Iowa Department of Education offers no guidance on how to ensure books comply with the law, leaving each school district to their own interpretation. It’s unclear whether the department will be providing guidance in the future. The Iowa Department of Education did not respond to HuffPost’s request for comment.
“One of the unintended consequences is that there is a wide variance of interpretation of the law,” said Mike Beranek, the president of the Iowa State Education Association, the state’s only teachers union. “The anxiety and the angst and the worry about the consequences if they do something wrong is very burdensome.”
Some schools cast a wide net. In the Urbandale Community School District outside of Des Moines, a school official initially flagged nearly 400 books that potentially had to be removed. After a public outcry, the school board whittled the list down, eventually removing 65 books.
Bridgette Exman, assistant superintendent for instruction in Mason City, took a different approach: She used ChatGPT to narrow down which books could be violating the state law, Popular Science first reported.
“People have poked a lot of holes in my process, but no one has given me a formal process,” Exman told HuffPost.
Exman let ChatGPT choose from a list of books that are widely banned in U.S. schools, then read any she wasn’t familiar with or reread ones that she didn’t remember well. She eventually ended up with a list of 19 books that were removed.
“When I think of all the things I could be spending my time on, spending hours and weeks on trying to protect kids from books just didn’t sit right with me,” said Exman, who is a former English teacher.
“I should have been preparing professional development meetings, or learning how to welcome our new immigrant families,” she added. “Instead, I’m googling book summaries.”
Exman said the law fixes a problem that hadn’t even existed, noting that Mason City schools haven’t had a book challenge in more than 20 years. “Our communities trust us,” she said.
But Exman said she felt as if she needed to flag certain books for removal because she was worried about what consequences teachers could face.
“I want to protect our teachers,” she said. “This isn’t fair to them and they don’t want to lose their jobs.” Iowa, like many other states, is in the midst of a teacher shortage due to low pay and restrictive laws.
But the Iowa state legislature is following a playbook that was popularized by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) and is now spreading rapidly in states controlled by Republicans. Culture warriors have zeroed in on public education over the last few years, with the goal of undermining it.
“They’re trying to demolish public education,” Beranek said. “We’ve had legislators saying we’re sinister and that we’re trying to indoctrinate children.”
Framing policies like the new law in Iowa as an issue of parental rights or protecting children, conservatives have enacted laws that prohibit books with LGBTQ+ or racial justice themes, policies that censor what teachers can say about gender identity and sexual orientation, and measures that attack transgender and nonbinary children. In short, GOP-led legislatures have launched an all-out war on their own constituents.
“There’s been a real concerted effort in our state legislature to poke holes and damage the integrity of the public education system,” Exman said. “It feels like an intentional chaos bomb.”
The Cobb County School Board in Georgia voted 4-3 on Thursday evening to officially terminate a fifth-grade teacher who was suspended for reading a book about gender identity to her students last school year.
Katie Rinderle, a fifth-grade teacher at Due West Elementary School in Marietta was fired in June after reading a book to her class. Even though Rinderle had purchased “My Shadow Is Purple” by Scott Stuart at a school book fair, a parent complaint spurred a monthslong investigation that determined reading the book violated Georgia’s “divisive concepts” law. Rinderle had excellent performance reviews, according to her lawyer, but the school administrators terminated her regardless.
The law, signed by Republican Gov. Brian Kemp in 2022, prohibits educators from teaching about “divisive concepts,” including that the United States is fundamentally racist. (It does, however, have a special carveout that allows educators to respond “in an objective manner and without endorsement to questions regarding specific divisive concepts raised by students.”) The law does not mention discussions or instructions related to gender.
As soon as it was enacted, educators complained that the law was vague and would be difficult to follow.
Rinderle’s firing and subsequent hearing are among the latest flashpoints in a sprawling culture war. Across the country, conservative activists and elected officials have set their sights on what books are allowed in classrooms and libraries.
Conservative parents have smeared teachers as abusers or accused them of indoctrinating their children for introducing their kids to books about gender identity or racial justice. In turn, GOP legislators have passed laws that restrict what teachers can say in the classroom and which books may be used for instruction, all under the guise of protecting children. In practice, these policies, which are often vaguely worded, have forced teachers to censor themselves and for books to be banned.
Rinderle has maintained that she didn’t break any laws by reading the book and that the school had not explained which part of the “divisive concepts” law she had violated. Georgia law requires school districts to set a date for a hearing after termination of a teacher.
Last week, a three-person tribunal held a two-day hearing in order to make a non-binding recommendation on whether Rinderle’s termination should be upheld. At the time of termination, Rinderle was charged withinsubordination and willful neglect of duties, and “other good and sufficient cause.”
At the hearing, Rinderle maintained that the book was appropriate for her class. “This was about inclusivity, balance, acceptance and being true to yourself,” she said.
Cissi Kale, the principal of Due West, said Rinderle’s defense of the book meant she could not be an effective teacher. “I think it would be very hard to coach her going forward on this issue because she hasn’t acknowledged that the book was controversial. So, I can’t be sure that she wouldn’t read another book of the same nature,” she said.
The district’s assistant superintendent, Gretchen Walton, echoed Kale.
“We are concerned she chose to put a book about gender identity in a class of 10- and 11-year-olds,” Walton said.
A parent spoke in support of Rinderle, saying she wants her daughter to read diverse books like “My Shadow Is Purple.”
On Monday, the tribunal had ruled that Rinderle did not violate insubordination rules and should be able to keep her job. They did, however, contend that she violated the district’s policies on books allowed in the classroom and by not allowing parents to opt out of the lesson.
“The district has never provided adequate guidance on how I am supposed to know what is and what is not allowed in the classroom based on these vague policies,” Rinderle said in a statement after the hearing. “Prioritizing behaviors and attitudes rooted in bigotry and discrimination does not benefit students and undermines the quality of education and the duty of educators.”
But despite the tribunal’s recommendation, the school board still opted to fire Rinderle, sending a chilling message to teachers in Georgia.
Across multiple fronts, Democrats and their allies are stiffening their resistance to a surge of Republican-led book bans.
President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris in the past month have conspicuously escalated their denunciations of the book bans proliferating in schools across the country, explicitly linking them to restrictions on abortion and voting rights to make the case that “MAGA extremists” are threatening Americans’ “personal freedom,” as Biden said in the recent video announcing his campaign for a second term.
Last week, Illinois became the first Democratic-controlled state to pass legislation designed to discourage local school districts from banning books. And a prominent grassroots progressive group today will announce a new national campaign to organize mothers against the conservative drive to remove books and censor curriculum under the banner of protecting “parents’ rights.”
“We are not going to let the mantle of parents’ rights be hijacked by such an extreme minority,” Katie Paris, the founder of the group, Red Wine and Blue, told me.
These efforts are emerging as red states have passed a wave of new laws restricting how classroom teachers can talk about race, gender, and sexual orientation, as well as measures making it easier for critics to pressure schools to remove books from classrooms and libraries. Partly in response to those new statutes, the number of banned books has jumped by about 30 percent in the first half of the current school year as compared with last, according to a recent compilation by PEN America, a free-speech group founded by notable authors.
To the frustration of some local activists opposing these measures in state legislatures or school boards, the Biden administration has largely kept its distance from these fights. Nor did Democrats, while they controlled Congress, mount any sustained resistance to the educational constraints spreading across the red states.
But the events of the past few weeks suggest that this debate has clearly reached a turning point. From grassroots organizers like Paris to political advisers for Biden, more Democrats see book bans as the weak link in the GOP’s claim that it is upholding “parents’ rights” through measures such as restrictions on curriculum or legislation targeting transgender minors. A national CBS poll released on Monday found overwhelming opposition among Americans to banning books that discuss race or criticize U.S. history. “There is something about this idea of book banning that really makes people stop and say, ‘I may be uncomfortable with some of this transitional treatment kids are getting, and I don’t know how I feel about pronouns, but I do not want them banning books,’” says Guy Molyneux, a Democratic pollster.
The conservative call to uphold parents’ rights in education has intensified since Republican Governor Glenn Youngkin in 2021 unexpectedly won the governorship in blue-leaning Virginia partly behind that theme. In the aftermath of long COVID-related shutdowns across many school districts, Youngkin’s victory showed that “Republicans really did tap into an energy there” by talking about ways of “giving parents more of a choice in education,” Patrick Brown, a fellow at the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center who specializes in family issues, told me.
But as the parents’-rights crusade moved through Republican-controlled states, it quickly expanded well beyond academic concerns to encompass long-standing conservative complaints that liberal teachers were allegedly indoctrinating kids through “woke” lessons.
New red-state laws passed in response to those arguments have moved the fight over book banning from a retail to a wholesale level. Previously, most book bans were initiated by lone parents, even if they were working with national conservative groups such as Moms for Liberty, who objected to administrators or school boards in individual districts. But the new statutes have “supercharged” the book-banning process, in PEN’s phrase, by empowering critics to simultaneously demand the removal of more books in more places.Five red states—Florida, Texas, Missouri, South Carolina, and Utah—have now become the epicenter of book-banning efforts, the study concluded.
Biden and his administration were not entirely silent as these policies proliferated. He was clear and consistent in denouncing the initial “Don’t Say Gay” law that Florida Governor Ron DeSantis passed to bar discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity in early grades. But that was the exception. Even during the 2022 campaign, when Biden regularly framed Republicans as a threat to voting and abortion rights, he did not highlight red-state book bans and curriculum censorship. Apart from abortion and voting, his inclination has been to focus his public communications less on culture-war disputes than on delivering kitchen-table benefits to working families. Nor had Education Secretary Miguel Cardona done much to elevate these issues either. “We have not seen a lot of visibility” from the Education Department, says Nadine Farid Johnson, PEN’s managing director for Washington.
The administration’s relative disengagement from the classroom wars, and the limited attention from national progressive groups, left many grassroots activists feeling “isolated,” Paris said. Revida Rahman, a co-founder of One WillCo, an organization that advocates for students of color in affluent and predominantly white Williamson County, south of Nashville, told me that the group has often felt at a disadvantage trying to respond to conservative parents working with national right-leaning groups to demand changes in curriculum or bans on books with racial or LGBTQ themes. “What we are fighting is a well-funded and well-oiled machine,” she told me, “and we don’t have the same capacity.”
Pushback from Democrats and their allies, though, is now coalescing. Earlier this month, the Freedom to Learn initiative, a coalition organized mostly by Black educators, held a series of events, many on college campuses, protesting restrictions on curriculum and books. The Red Wine and Blue group is looking to organize a systematic grassroots response. Founded in 2019, the organization has about 500,000 mostly suburban mothers in its network and paid organizers in five states. The group has already provided training for local activists to oppose curriculum censorship and book bans, and today it is launching the Freedom to Parent 21st Century Kids project, a more sweeping counter to conservative parents’-rights groups. The project will include virtual training sessions for activists, programs in which participants can talk with transgender kids and their parents, and efforts to highlight banned books. “We want to equip parents to talk about this stuff,” Paris told me. “It’s moms learning from moms who already faced this in their community.”
Illinois opened another front in this debate with its first-in-the-nation bill to discourage book banning. The legislation will withhold state grants from school districts unless they adopt explicit policies to prohibit banning books in response to partisan or ideological pressure. Democratic Governor J. B. Pritzker has indicated that he will sign the bill.
Potentially the most consequential shift has come from the Biden administration. The president signaled a new approach in his late-April announcement video, when he cited book bans as evidence for his accusation that Republicans in the Donald Trump era are targeting Americans’ “personal freedom.” That was, “by far, the most we have seen on” book bans from Biden, Farid Johnson told me.
One senior adviser close to Biden told me that the connection of book bans to those more frequent presidential targets of abortion and democracy was no accident. “There is a basic American pushback when people are told what they can and cannot do,” said the adviser, who asked for anonymity while discussing campaign strategy. “Voters,” the adviser said, “don’t like to be told, ‘You can’t make a decision about your own life when it comes to your health care; you can’t make a decision about what book to read.’ I think book bans fit in that broader context.”
Biden may sharpen that attack as soon as Saturday, when he delivers the commencement address at Howard University. Meanwhile, Vice President Harris has already previewed how the administration may flesh out this argument. In her own speech at Howard last month, she cited book bans and curriculum censorship as components of a red-state social regime that the GOP will try to impose nationwide if it wins the White House in 2024. In passing these laws, Republicans are not just “impacting the people” of Florida or Texas, she said. “What we are witnessing—and be clear about this—is there is a national agenda that’s at play … Don’t think it’s not a national agenda when they start banning books.”
The Education Department has also edged into the fray. When the recent release of national test scores showed a decline in students’ performance on history, Cardona, the education secretary, issued a statement declaring that “banning history books and censoring educators … does our students a disservice and will move America in the wrong direction.”
His statement came months after the department’s Office of Civil Rights launched an investigation that could shape the next stages of this struggle. The office is probing whether a Texas school district that sweepingly removed LGBTQ-themed books from its shelves has violated federal civil-rights laws. The department has not revealed anything about the investigation’s status, but PEN’s Farid Johnson said if it concludes that the removals violated federal law, other districts might be deterred from banning books.
The politics of the parents’-rights debate are complex. Republicans are confident that their interconnected initiatives related to education and young people can win back suburban voters, especially mothers, who have rejected the party in the Trump era. Polling, including surveys done by Democratic pollsters last year for the American Federation of Teachers, has consistently found majority national support for some individual planks in the GOP agenda, including the prohibitions on discussing sexual orientation in early grades.
Brown said he believes that at the national level, the battle over book bans is likely to end in a “stalemate.” That’s not only, he argued, because each side can point to examples of extreme behavior by the other in defending or removing individual books, but also because views on what’s acceptable for kids vary so much from place to place. “We shouldn’t expect a national consensus on what book is appropriate for a 13-year-old to be reading, because that’s going to be different among different parents in different communities,” Brown told me.
Yet as the awakening Democratic resistance suggests, many in the party are confident that voters will find the whole of the GOP agenda less attractive than the sum of its parts. In that 2022 polling for the teachers’ union, a significant majority of adults said they worry less that kids are being taught values their parents don’t like than that culture-war fights are diverting schools from their real mission of educating students. Paris said the most common complaint she hears from women drawn to her group is that the conservative activists proclaiming parents’ rights are curtailing the freedoms of other parents by trying to dictate what materials all students can access. “What you’ll have women in our communities say all the time is ‘If you don’t want your kid to read a book, that’s fine, but you don’t get to decide for me and my family,’” she told me.
The White House, the senior official told me, believes that after the Supreme Court last year rescinded the right to abortion, many voters are uncertain and uneasy about what rights or liberties Republicans may target next. “There is a fear about Where does it stop?,” the official said, andbook bans powerfully crystallize that concern. Trump and DeSantis, who’s expected to join the GOP race, have both indicated that they intend to aggressively advance the conservative parents’-rights agenda of attacks on instruction they deem “woke” and books they consider indecent. Biden and other Democrats, after months of hesitation, are stepping onto the field against them. The library looms as the next big confrontation in the culture war.
While negotiating the state budget last week, Missouri House Republicans voted to defund all of the state’s public libraries. As the proposal moves to the Missouri Senate, public librarians are worried about how the draconian move would hurt the communities they serve.
The attempt to completely defund public libraries actually began with Senate Bill 775, legislation that was intended to provide more rights to sexual assault survivors.
Republican state Sen. Rick Brattin hijacked the bill and included an amendment that banned educators from “providing sexually explicit material” to students. Like many similar proposals, the wording was broad and unclear. The bill became law, and just a few months later, conservative parents began using it to target books with LGBTQ themes, smearing books about gender or sexual identity as “pornography.”
The new law led to 300 books being removed from schools across the state between last August and November, according to PEN America.
In February, the ACLU of Missouri, the Missouri Association of School Librarians and the Missouri Library Association filed a lawsuit against the state, arguing that the ban violated the First Amendment.
Republicans decided to retaliate against MLA, a nonprofit organization of professional librarians, for joining the lawsuit. Their proposal: cut the $4.5 million allocated to public libraries each year.
“I don’t think we should subsidize that effort,” Republican House Budget Chairman Cody Smith said. “We are going to take out the funding and that is why.”
But neither professional organizations named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit receive state aid, which goes directly to the libraries, and the ACLU of Missouri is paying for the lawsuit.
“They’re choosing to punish librarians for exercising their right to question their government,” Katie Hill Earnhart, the executive director of the Cape Girardeau Public Library, told HuffPost.
“There’s job assistance, access to computers, passport applications, free tax help, warming and cooling centers for houseless folks. We’re doing way more than just checking out books.”
– Otter Bowman, president of the Missouri Library Association
Books have becomethe target of conservatives’ ire over the last few years. As racial justice protests swept the nation after the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Republicans whipped up fear among white parents over what their kids were learning about race in their classrooms. Over the last few months, conservative attention has shifted to books with LGBTQ characters and themes.
The Missouri state government is constitutionally required to provide aid to public libraries, so it’s unlikely that Republicans will successfully strip away all funding. But librarians are still worried there could still be drastic cuts that would require some libraries to curtail services or close their doors.
“I think it’s more of a political statement to completely zero it out, but there is a valid fear that there would still be a significant cut,” Otter Bowman, the president of the Missouri Library Association, told HuffPost. “There’s a greater sense of urgency that this could be real.”
The amount of funding each library receives from the state varies, but no library would be immune from defunding or drastic cuts.
“My library would’ve received around $26,000, which is about 20% of our buying budget,” Earnhart said. “We’d either have to find excess funds somewhere … or we’d have to reduce the number of items we can buy.”
Earnhart said her library is lucky to have other funding sources — if the state pulls its funding, it won’t have to close its doors. Libraries in rural areas wouldn’t be as fortunate.
“They don’t have the tax base that cities do,” Bowman said. “Rural libraries would have to cut hours, and staffing and their collections — which are already minuscule.”
Libraries in these areas are often community hubs that offer a variety of resources to residents — not just “woke” children’s books, as conservatives tend to argue.
“There’s job assistance, access to computers, passport applications, free tax help, warming and cooling centers for houseless folks. We’re doing way more than just checking out books,” Bowman said.
Bowman said she’s concerned about the long-term impact of anti-library policies: The rush to pass new laws restricting what materials librarians can provide to patrons has led to a decline of people who even want to join the profession.
“We like to serve people and were obviously not in it for the money, but attacking us is making it really hard to keep people,” she said.
It’s unclear how the Republican-controlled Senate will vote on the budget. In the past, such extreme bills used to be seen as wishful thinking for far-right legislators. But in recent months, the culture wars have become top priorities for Republican lawmakers — defunding the entire public library system is now a mainstream proposal.
Across the state, librarians are ready for whatever comes next.
“If we’re gonna get cut,” Bowman said, “we’re not gonna go quietly.”
When we think of bees in decline, we often think about pesticides and a lack of food (itself linked to human environmental destruction). However, another big factor is parasites (like varroa mites). When a then-16-year-old teen from Connecticut, Raina Singhvi Jain, learned about these parasites and the declining bee population, she made it her mission to help save the bees. Even since learning she was allergic (a sting that had her out of commission for two weeks), Jain understands their importance and, now at 20, has helped develop a technology to aid in the fight against the parasites.
Jain 3D printed a device called HiveGuard, and it acts as an entryway for bees. She told CNN, “As bees pass through the entranceway, the thymol rubs off onto the body of the bee, where ultimately the concentration kills the varroa mites, but the honeybee is left unharmed.” 70% of the bees that go through the entrance (dozens of times a day) have these parasitic mites killed. Killing varroa mites also helps fight against the human-caused decline since mite-less bees have better health and immunity. While we just learned about her efforts, Jain has been talking about these entranceways for a few years and even secured funding to help expand this project.
Since working on the project, she also started The Queen Bee, a business that sells what bees make in their hives. The website states, “I used to take raw honey and royal jelly straight from the hive and mix it with ginger and turmeric to create an elixir immunity shot, a recipe passed down from my grandmother.” According to the website, for each bottle sold, they plant one pollinator tree so that it acts as a self-sustainable business.
“Save the bees” may seem like just a catchy slogan to those that don’t want to pay attention to human-caused issues in nature, such as climate change, but bees (and their role as roaming pollinators) are very important to our lives too. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 75% of crops that produce fruits or seeds that we use for food depend on pollinators. Pollinators affect 35% of global agricultural land.
Another week goes by, and tens of thousands of books are ‘under review’ because people are straight-up bigots that want to control other people’s kids. (via BookRiot)
Marvel’s Avengers will make our favorite ex-Hydra agent available for free in-game at the end of the month. (via IGN)
Media Matter for America reporter documents all the extremely right-wing nationalists and populists that Elon Musk welcomed back to the platform. (via Twitter)
Iranian artists dropped banners of Mahsa Amini at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art to bring attention back to the death and disappearances of Iranian women. (via Hyperallergic)
And finally, Tee Noir is back with part two of her series focusing on hypersexuality and pussy perfectionism.