Abstract

In this brief, I discuss the causes and effects of censorship within the education system. I examine the ways censorship occurs and analyze the problems that reside in current policy.

Executive Summary

Schools are allowed to remove content from their curricula if the content is deemed disruptive to student learning. However, content is being removed more than ever before and much of it has to do with personal beliefs. Censorship requests have been made on many topics such as racism, evolution, sexism, sex education and LGBTQ+ issues. School districts are beginning to experience more pressure from politicians and people of influence to deny students access to potentially beneficial information.

Overview

In recent years, more states have implemented laws to restrict what can be taught in classrooms. The American Association of School Administrators defines censorship as, “The removal, suppression, or restricted circulation of literary, artistic, or educational materials — on the grounds that these are morally or otherwise objectionable in light of standards applied by the censor.” Censorship occurs when personal or political beliefs are used to make decisions about what students should be allowed to learn.

With a lack of implemented policy, and a divide on what material is appropriate for students, more information is being withheld from classrooms. This restricted access to information poses a threat to student education. It is important that more policy is put in place to help prevent more information from being removed from student education.

Pointed Summary

• Censorship has been an issue in the education system for a long time, however, it has begun to quickly increase in recent years.
• Censored topics often align with personal or political beliefs such as racism, sexism, sexuality, religion and sex education.
• There is a lack of policy that makes removing informational materials preventable.
• More policy must be passed because a lack of representation in education can be extremely damaging to students.

Relevance

Censorship can be achieved in many ways. Almost 70% of all censorship requests are directed towards school libraries and classrooms, from books to films to lectures in the classroom. In the past eight years, the American Library Association has collected over 5,000 reports of banned books. A clear pattern of removal requests made to align with personal beliefs has been shown. Of the 5,000 requests, nearly 2,000 challenges were made alleging that the materials were sexually explicit, anti-family or "promoted homosexuality."

Furthermore, the ALA estimates that four to five reports go untracked for every report they receive. In a study conducted by PEN America from July 1, 2021, to March 31, 2022, book bans have occurred in 26 states, 86 school districts, and nearly 3000 schools. In 9 months alone, over 2 million students were affected. In PEN America’s study, 22% of banned books addressed racism, 40% contained LGBTQ+ themes and 9% were related to rights and activism. Consistent research suggests that more books are being removed without regard for students’ learning.

Limiting discussion about topics such as religion, race, and sexuality can be detrimental to a student’s education or mental health, and these topics must be discussed in a good learning environment rather than getting rid of them altogether.

Current Stances

While some states have attempted to address what material should be removed from classrooms without disregarding the First Amendment, other states have further limited what schools can discuss. An example of this is the passage of HB7 in Florida. The bill takes effect for all K-12 schools during the 2022-2023 school year and sets several restrictions on teaching U.S. history, specifically the history of racism. It also outlaws many components of critical race theory.

Since January 2021, 137 bills have been proposed by 35 states to place further restrictions on what teachers are allowed to teach within the classroom. These topics include sexual orientation, racism, sex education, and U.S. history. Idaho was the first to pass a bill like this, stating that the curriculum can no longer suggest that "individuals, by virtue of sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin, are inherently responsible for actions committed in the past." Tennessee also passed a bill stating that teachers are not allowed to instruct that one race or sex is privileged, racist, sexist, or oppressive.

Senate Bill 3 in Texas removes over two dozen curriculum requirements, including teaching about white supremacy and the Ku Klux Klan. It also restricts educators from discussing widely debated or controversial issues of public policy or social affairs; however, the bill did not define what is considered controversial.

Tried Policy

While very little policy has been passed to protect students’ rights to information, past Supreme Court rulings have been used as guidelines for what can be removed from the student curriculum. In 1969, Tinker v. Des Moines was one of the first court rulings to rule on student expression. After a group of students was suspended for participating in a protest by wearing black armbands, the students sued, arguing that it violated their First Amendment rights.

The court ruled that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." The court also emphasized that student expression should not be censored unless considered disruptive to the educational process. This case secured students’ rights to protest and speak out against their schools and is often referred to in other cases.

‍
In 1982, the Supreme Court ruled on the Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District v. Pico. Three school board members proposed to have dozens of books removed from school shelves because they were inappropriate for students. The Supreme Court made a significant decision about how much power school authorities had in removing information from student curricula. However, the final ruling was a three-justice plurality, making the outcome vague and hard to understand.

Justice William J. Brennan Jr. argued that the First Amendment provided students the right to receive information and limited what information school boards could remove from schools. The court also stated that school boards had "broad discretion" when managing "school affairs." The overall interpretation of the ruling today is that schools can remove or ban information. However, there are limitations, such as books can not be removed because they conflict with personal beliefs.

‍
The Supreme Court rulings ensure that students have a protected First Amendment right within schools. However, there are no clear guidelines for school administrators to follow when books or materials are requested to be removed. To combat this, many schools have adopted suggested guidelines created by the National Coalition Against Censorship and the American Library Association to ensure no inconsistent acts when implementing bans that could lead to legal doctrine. These guidelines include filing written or formal challenges made by parents to schools before going to the district.

The organizations also suggest that schools create review committees composed of librarians, teachers, administrators, and community members to reduce the chance of a biased decision being made. People often file complaints against books, which are removed as the request is processed. Instead, the guidelines state that books must stay accessible until a final decision is reached. By setting guidelines, valuable and important knowledge is less likely to be withheld from students.

Policy Problem

Stakeholders

The most important stakeholders in school censorship are the people receiving the education. Students are tremendously impacted as more and more books are being pulled off their library shelves, and more restrictions are placed on what teachers can teach. Rather than removing the information altogether, students must be properly educated about the topics in a formal setting.

Alongside many other issues, sex education is becoming more censored, and fewer people are receiving proper teaching. This denial of sex education could lead to unsafe habits and threaten students’ health. As censorship continues, students cannot share or ask questions about topics like sexuality, racism, and sexism. This will lead to students being undereducated in important issues.

‍
Educators are also deeply affected by censorship. Teachers cannot answer questions or share information about topics as more states pass laws banning discussions about issues like critical race theory. This makes teachers vulnerable, as they are forced to be cautious about saying the wrong thing. They are less able to incorporate material they believe would benefit their students and must stick strictly to the textbooks and information given to them. Claims made against teachers for violating laws of proper class discussion could result in serious consequences for the teacher, such as losing their teacher's license or paying hefty fines.

‍
Entire school districts are affected by censorship. Violating laws could result in the retraction of funding or thousand-dollar fines. Pressure is also placed on schools to follow suit. If the curriculum is changed or a book is removed from one school, it is expected that it is removed from others too. This can create an environment of tension between students and administrators as more schools are forced to narrow the education of their students.

Risks of Indifference

By removing or banning information from students, schools cannot fully educate them on important topics, which can result in long-term adverse effects.

LGBTQ+ topics are commonly targeted as inappropriate and requested for removal; however, the lack of inclusive LGBTQ+ teaching harms queer youth. Discussing topics such as sexuality provides a more supportive and open school environment. This is important to help reduce the high numbers of bullying and the stigma queer youth face in school.

A study conducted by GLSEN reported that 42.3% of queer youth reported they would feel very uncomfortable talking about sexuality with a teacher. Approximately 64.8% of students also reported not having access to LGBTQ+ information in their school library, computers, or textbooks. This lack of education makes it hard for queer youth to open up about feelings they are experiencing and leaves them vulnerable. LGBTQ+ topics are also often left out of sex education. According to GLSEN, only 12% of students reported receiving LGBTQ+ sexual health or safe sex education.

This further contributes to the rising number of queer men contracting syphilis. Transgender and gender-nonconforming youth experience high rates of sexual violence, and gay and bisexual men account for more than two-thirds of HIV infections in teenagers and young adults. Due to the inadequate teaching of LGBTQ+ topics and the censoring of many LGBTQ+ themes, queer youth continue to be at higher risk for poor sexual health.

Discussion of history and topics like critical race theory are commonly requested to be removed. It is vital that youth can learn the honest truth of history in order to prevent history from repeating itself. A common concern is that teaching historical events surrounding race will separate races further and make students feel ashamed of their race; however, honest education has proven to be more valuable to studies. Concepts such as critical race theory help to explain how today’s societal structures have been created and still connect to the past. It also helps to analyze and understand a multicultural and multilingual society effectively. Historical events must not be removed from students’ education but are appropriately explained and taught.

Every request for the removal of a book or classroom material must be considered seriously because the removal of information can be much more detrimental to learning than keeping it. From racism to sexism to homophobia, a lack of representation in education can cause serious harm to students.

Nonpartisan Reasoning

Past Supreme Court rulings have made it clear that material should only be removed from the classroom if it is disruptive or not age appropriate. However, there are no clear outlines of what qualifies as disruptive or age-appropriate resulting in much of the interpretation left to school districts and lower courts.

Some administrators argue that teaching concepts of sexuality or critical race theory has adverse effects on the student body and that more should be done to remove them from the curriculum. Others argue that schools are the best place to be educated about such topics to prevent stigma and misinformation. Despite outlines created by organizations like the National Coalition Against Censorship and the American Library Association, the lack of federal enforcement makes them inefficient, with only 4% of schools following a formal filing procedure.

The lack of federal support creates further disputes among states about what belongs in student education. As a result, the disparity between state curriculums persists, making it crucial that common censorship laws be implemented.

Policy Options

Due to the evident lack of federal law regarding censorship in schools, many possible policies could limit the amount of censorship occurring in the American school system.
One solution is requiring an alternative or substitute option for removed content. If a book were to be removed because of inappropriate content but still offered valuable information to a student’s learning, an alternative book would provide the information while still being age appropriate. This would help to prevent books or material from being removed based on personal beliefs.

While outlines and recommendations for filing policies are helpful, they are mainly inefficient. The problem is not the processes but that few schools use them. By forcing districts to set formal complaint procedures, materials would not be removed without proper reasoning. Additionally, there would be documentation of the reason the request was filed and how it was responded to, which would prevent any inconsistent or biased judgments.

The most significant issue with current policy regarding censorship in schools is that existing rulings are vague and difficult to interpret. By implementing a clear standard of what is to be considered appropriate material for each grade level, material that contains essential and educational information will not be removed. This will be effective in closing the curriculum disparity between states.

Conclusion and Recommendations

In recent years, censorship has become a more prominent issue. As censorship continues, students lose access to more and more information and are left to educate themselves about important topics. Not educating students about sexuality, racism, and sex education can be detrimental to students' physical and mental well-being.

While not much policy has been enacted in the past, there are many possible solutions that will prevent students from missing out on necessary education due to the personal beliefs of others. Each state has different laws regarding what can and cannot be taught in the classroom. This is not an issue that has been addressed on the federal level before, and it will take a series of steps to completely standardize and set forth clear guidelines for making and addressing removal requests.

Citation

MLA: Southall, Alexa. “Censorship Is Ruining America's Education.” The Institute For Youth in Policy, 28 Sept. 2022, https://cite.yipinstitute.org/YtryMK4.

APA: Southall, A. (2022, September 28). Censorship Is Ruining America's Education. The Institute For Youth in Policy. Retrieved [Insert Today's Date] from https://cite.yipinstitute.org/YtryMK4

Acknowledgement

The Institute for Youth in Policy wishes to acknowledge Marielle DeVos, Paul Kramer, Riya Kataria, Lilly Kurtz, and other contributors for developing and maintaining the Programming Department within the Institute.

Photo by Elissa Garcia on Unsplash

Works Cited

[1] “America's Sex Education: How We Are Failing Our Students.” 2020. USC. December 1. https://nursing.usc.edu/blog/americas-sex-education/.

[2] “Banned in the USA: Rising School Book Bans Threaten Free Expression andStudents' First Amendment Rights.” 2022. PEN America. July 1. https://pen.org/banned-in-the-usa/.

[3] Barack, Lauren.2020. “Improving LGBTQ Representation in Curriculum Reduces Stigma, Bullying.” K. June 24. https://www.k12dive.com/news/improving-lgbtq-representation-in-curriculum-reduces-stigm a-bullying/580239/#:~:text=An%20LGBTQ%2Dinclusive%20curriculum%20may,creating%2 0social%2Demotional%20learning%20opportunities.

[4] Burch, Jim. 2022.“Schools, Censorship, and the Law.” TheHill. The Hill. March 21. https://thehill.com/changing-america/enrichment/education/598630-schools-censorship-and-the-law/.

[5] Carson, Andrew. 2022. “Gov. DeSantis Bans Critical Race Theory for 22-23 School Year.” KnightNews.com. July 7. http://knightnews.com/2022/07/gov-desantis-bans-critical-race-theory-for-22-23-school-year/.

[6] “Censorship in Schools Is the Opposite of Teaching the Truth.” 2022. The Philadelphia Citizen. July 25. https://thephiladelphiacitizen.org/fight-classro om-censorship/.

[7] “Censorship in Schools: Learning, Speaking, and Thinking Freely: The First Amendment in Schools.” 2022. WebJunction. Accessed July 29. https://www.webjunction.org/documents/webjunction/Censorship_in_Schools_Learning_Speaking_and_Thinking_Freely_The_First_Amendment_in_Schools.html.

[8] Editors, The. 2022.“Teaching about Racism Is Essential for Education.” Scientific American. Scientific American. February 1. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/te aching-about-racism-is-essential-for-education/.

[9] Gross, Terry. 2022.“From Slavery to Socialism, New Legislation Restricts What Teachers Can Discuss.” NPR. NPR. February 3. https://www.npr.org/2022/02/03/107787853 8/legislation-restricts-what-teachers-can-discuss.

[10] Kruesi, Kimberlee. 2021. “Tennessee Bans Teaching Critical Race Theory in Schools.” AP NEWS. Associated Press. May 25. https://apnews.com/article/tennessee-racial-i njustice-race-and-ethnicity-religion-education9366bceabf309557811eab645c8dad13.

[11]  Levy, Gabrielle. 2018. “LGBTQ Teens Feel Unsafe and Unwelcome, despite Growing Support for Rights.” Us News. https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news /articles/2018-05-15/lgbtq-teens-feel-unsafe-and-unwelcome-despite-growing-support-for-rights.

[12] Lopez, Brian. 2021.“Republican Bill That Limits How Race, Slavery and History Are Taught in Texas Schools Becomes Law.” The Texas Tribune. The Texas Tribune. December 3. https://www.texastribune.org/2021/12/02/texas-critical-race-theory-law/.

[13] Miner, Barbara.2021. “Reading, Writing, and Censorship.” Rethinking Schools. May 4. https://rethinkingschools.org/articles/readingwriting-and-censorship-when-good-books-canget-schools-in-trouble/#:~:text=Censorship%2 0in%20school%20primarily%20involve,and%2 C%20increasingly%2C%20the%20Internet.

[14] Natanson, Hannah.2022. “More Books Are Banned than Ever before, as Congress Takes on the Issue. ”The Washington Post. WP Company. May 11. https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2022/04/07/book-bans-congress-student-library/.

[15] “Nearly a Dozen States Want to Ban Critical Race Theory in Schools.” 2022. CBS News. CBS Interactive. Accessed July 29. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/critical-race-theory-state-bans/.

[16] Paz-Soldan,Gabriela, Jonathan Green, Francisca Saldivar Palacios, and Henry Ding. 2022.“Curricula in Crisis: The Slippery Slope of School Censorship.” Brown Political Review. April 22. https://brownpoliticalreview.org/2022/04/curricula-in-crisis-the-slippery-slope-of-school-censorship/.

[17] Robertson, Rachael,Lisa Rapaport, Becky Upham, Katherine Lee, and By. 2022. “Censorship in Schools and the Effects on Our Children.” EverydayHealth.com.July 21. https://www.everydayhealth.com/kids-health/ censorship-schools-effects-on-our-children/.

[18] “Sex Education and Mental Health* T - UCLA School Mental Health Project.” 2022. Accessed July 30. http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/sexeduc.pdf.

[19] Siecus. 2022. “The Problem with Sex Ed Is...” SIECUS. February 22. https://siecus.org/the-problem-with-sex-ed-is/

[20] Smith, Alexandra. 2021. “Why Critical Race Theory Is Essential to an Honest Education in America.” Human Rights Pulse. Human Rights Pulse. September 2. https://www.humanrightspulse.com/mastercontentblog/why-critical-race-theory-is-essential-to-an-honest-education-in-america.

[21] “Supporting LGBTQ-Inclusive Teaching.” 2022. New America.Accessed July 29. https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy /reports/supporting-lgbtq-inclusive-teaching/.

[22] “Texas Senate Passes Bill That Removes Requirement to Teach Ku Klux Klan as 'Morally Wrong'.” 2021. NBCNews.com. NBCUniversal News Group. July 21. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/texas-senate-passes-bill-removes-requirement-teach-ku-klux-klan-n1274610.

[23] “The 2017 National School Climate Survey Glsen.” 2017. Glsen. https://www.glsen.org/sites/default/files/2019 -12/Full_NSCS_Report_English_2017.pdf.

[24] “Tinker v. Des Moines -Landmark Supreme Court Ruling on Behalf of Student Expression.” 2012. American Civil Liberties Union. November 15. https://www.aclu.org/other/tinker-v-des-moin es-landmark-supreme-court-ruling-behalf-student-expression.

[25] Walsh, Mark. 2021. “Yanking Books from School Libraries: What the Supreme Court Has Said, and Why It's Murky.” Education Week. Education Week. December 16. https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/yanking-books-from-school-libraries-what-the-supre me-court-has-said-and-why-its-murky/2021/12.

[26] Waxman, Olivia B. 2022.“Anti-'Critical Race Theory' Laws Are Affecting Teachers.” Time. Time. June 30. https://time.com/6192708/critical-race-theory -teachers-racism/.

[27] Woodcome, Tricia, Jerry Parshall, Peter Gordon, et al. 2017.“LGBT-Inclusive Sex Education Means Healthier Youth and Safer Schools.” Center for American Progress. October 11. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/lgbt -inclusive-sex-education-means-healthier-youth-and-safer-schools/.