10 Advocates on Why They Won’t Stand for Classroom Censorship

Right now, educators across the country are welcoming a new class of learners. At the same time laws that censor teachers and stifle classroom conversations about race, gender, and sexuality are threatening our right to an inclusive education.

Under the guise of “transparency” and “parents’ rights,”’ state lawmakers have been pushing bills that regulate how educators address systemic racism, LGBTQ+ issues, and other so-called “divisive concepts.” The ability to discuss and debate ideas, even those that some may find uncomfortable, is a crucial part of our democracy and barring discussion of our history or lived experiences is anathema to free speech.

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

The ACLU is committed to defending young people's First Amendment right to learn free from censorship. But we need your help.

Source: American Civil Liberties Union

The ACLU has challenged classroom censorship laws in Florida, New Hampshire and Oklahoma to protect educators’ and students’ right to teach and learn. This back-to-school season, we stand with the teachers, students, parents, and school systems on the frontline of our fight against classroom censorship.

We asked our audience to share how diverse teaching has impacted their lives and why they, too, support access to an inclusive education system.

“Finding the color purple on the shelf of my high school library changed my life.” – Naomi Olivia, advocate for the right to learn

“If you don’t teach diversity and the truth as it was, we risk repeating the horrors of the past. Not only that, but we actively harm and further oppress the voices of the marginalized.” – Dezz, advocate for the right to learn

A divider graphic featuring an open book.

“History isn’t always pretty. Knowing what really happened [is] critical to understanding our past and how [it is] impacting our present.” – Jeff W., advocate for the right to learn

A divider graphic featuring a library checkout card.

“People should be able to learn whatever they wish to learn.” – Daniel L., advocate for the right to learn

“How are we supposed to help bring about a better world for all when we are no longer supposed to learn about and talk about other people and their life experiences. “ – Kathy G., advocate for the right to learn

“Let’s stop being paranoid about children learning diversity, it won’t harm them, in fact it will bring good to the world as not only will it help them with their own self discovery, it will help them be more kind, caring, empathetic, and understanding towards those who are different from them.” – Kortniey J., advocate for the right to learn

“I am a parent, a grandparent, and a recently retired public school teacher and school librarian. My school library was a safe place for all of the students who felt different, left out, or who felt they could not talk to their parents.” – Ann, advocate for the right to learn

“I grew up in the 1970s in a pretty progressive city. We were starting to talk about race then. What I didn’t learn in school left me ignorant about the world around me and my role in it.” – Anonymous advocate for the right to learn

“As a parent raising a non-binary child in the early 2000s, I again didn’t know what I didn’t know, didn’t recognize what I was seeing. With no representation or discussion of gender identity in schools at that time, they truly were alone and struggling.” – Anonymous advocate for the right to learn

“By not teaching our kids about themselves and about others, by depriving them of the images and stories and histories of diverse people and cultures, we deprive them and ultimately our society of the opportunity to reach our full potential.” – Anonymous advocate for the right to learn

What you can do:

Defend Every Student's Right to Learn

Take the Pledge

Trump's Attempt to Unilaterally Control State and Local Funding is Dangerous, Dumb, and Undemocratic

The Trump administration has not been subtle in its desire to use federal funding for political punishment. Whether threatening to cut off grants to sanctuary cities, to block financial assistance to states that push back against the president’s demands, or to freeze all federal grants and loans for social services across the country, Trump and his allies want us to believe they can wield the federal budget like a weapon. The reality is that the administration’s ability to withhold or condition funding is far more limited than they let on. The Constitution, Supreme Court precedent, and long-standing federal law stand firmly in the way of this brazen abuse of presidential power. Trump’s Attempted Funding Freeze? Blocked Immediately A week into his second administration, Trump attempted to freeze trillions of dollars in federal grants and loans that fund a vast array of critical services already approved by Congress. If allowed to go into effect, this unprecedented and far-reaching...

Documents Reveal Confusion and Lack of Training in Texas Execution

As Texas seeks to execute Carl Buntion today and Melissa Lucio next week, it is worth reflecting on the grave and irreversible failures that occurred when the state executed Quintin Jones on May 19, 2021. For the first time in its history — and in violation of a federal court’s directive and the Texas Administrative Code — Texas excluded the media from witnessing the state’s execution of Quintin Jones. In the months that followed, Texas executed two additional people without providing any assurance that the underlying dysfunction causing errors at Mr. Jones’ execution were addressed. This is particularly concerning given that Texas has executed far more people than any other state and has botched numerous executions. The First Amendment guarantees the public and the press have a right to observe executions. Media access to executions is a critical form of public oversight as the government exerts its power to end a human life. Consistent with Texas policy, two reporters travelled t...

The Supreme Court Declined a Protestors' Rights Case. Here's What You Need to Know.

The Supreme Court recently declined to hear a case, Mckesson v. Doe , that could have affirmed that the First Amendment protects protest organizers from being held liable for illegal actions committed by others present that organizers did not direct or intend. The high court’s decision to not hear the case at this time left in place an opinion by the Fifth Circuit, which covers Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, that said a protest organizer could be liable for the independent, violent actions of others based on nothing more than a showing of negligence. Across the country, many people have expressed concern about how the Supreme Court’s decision not to review, or hear, the case at this stage could impact the right to protest. The ACLU, which asked the court to take up the case, breaks down what the court’s denial of review means. What Happened in Mckesson v. Doe? The case, Mckesson v. Doe , was brought by a police officer against DeRay Mckesson , a prominent civil rights activi...

Search This Blog