In recent years, America has seen a rise of conservatism and censorship take hold of the education sphere. In Idaho, librarians can now be prosecuted for allowing minors access to books deemed “harmful”—an ambiguous term the law never clearly defines.
Since 2021, Florida has passed legislation that restricts instruction or classroom materials related to race, sexual orientation and gender identity. According to a Tallahassee lawsuit against Gov. Ron DeSantis, these laws mandate that teachers avoid any classroom materials that are not “age or developmentally-appropriate for grades 4-12,” and if a teacher is not sure if a lesson or book is allowed, they are told to avoid it entirely.
Idaho and Florida are not isolated instances of this. Across the nation, a pattern is emerging: legislators are passing laws that rely on vague, emotionally charged language by banning books or curricula categorized as “divisive” or “woke.”
This ambiguity serves as a political weapon, as unclear rhetoric leaves the door open to broad censorship with no clearly defined limits.
These laws advance censorship by pretending to protect children, but in reality, they leave librarians and teachers vulnerable, fanning fear and encouraging self-censorship. And all of this results in fundamental rights being quietly rolled back.
Idaho’s House Bill 710 forces librarians to remove materials that are categorized as “harmful” to areas that can only be accessed by adults. If materials are located where the youth can access them, the youth or their parents have the right to complain and sue, winning a minimum of $250 in damages.
According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Idaho, again, discerning what constitutes books to be “harmful” could be difficult due to differing opinions or outlooks.
With this, “librarians may be too cautious in making decisions about moving books – for fear of being sued.”
Scared of provoking a lawsuit, this puts librarians in a precarious position where they may preemptively remove texts that may be educational and age-appropriate, conflicting with Idaho citizens’ right to access education freely.
Additionally, the law places a ban on texts containing “sexual content,” a term that is also broad and could be misapplied.
According to the ACLU Idaho School and Public Library Censorship: House Bill 710 Fact Sheet, books containing LGBTQ+ representation are often labeled as sexual merely because of the identities being represented. This can lead to books simply about queer individuals being banned–not because they are explicit but solely because they exist.
Going back to Florida, the state is the home of the “Don’t Say Gay” bill, or the “Parental Rights in Education” bill which aims to restrict the discussion of LGBTQ+ topics and gender identity in schools and include parents in the conversation of what their children are learning.
This is yet another instance where the wording of the law is deliberately vague. Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” bill stipulates that teachers cannot discuss topics that are not “age-appropriate,” but it fails to define what those terms mean and who decides what they mean.
With no clear guidelines, educators may opt for silence or self-censorship instead of risking wondering whether what they want to teach is permissible.
RAND researcher Ashley Woo said teachers are “actually “going beyond whatever their school district leaders had said to them.” So teachers are largely over-restricting themselves out of fear of losing their jobs.
In the long term, these bans will negatively impact students as the classroom and public libraries are increasingly no longer a place for open dialogue.
Conversations surrounding topics such as race, class and gender are being stifled and according to an American Oversight Report, children are being “denied the opportunity to learn about the full range of human experiences and ideas.”
Additionally, the “Don’t Say Gay” law almost creates a power imbalance between parents and educators. The law empowers parents to act as enforcers. If they disagree with what their child is being taught, they can complain and sue the school district in retaliation.
This shifts educational authority from professionals to the hands of parents or guardians who may be motivated by personal or political beliefs.
But Idaho and Florida are not the only states across the nation with restrictions limiting what can and can’t be taught in classrooms and put on library shelves. Currently, 21 states have laws or policies restricting curriculum related to “divisive concepts.”
But what do these terms mean? What exactly is a “divisive concept?” Or what do “obscene” classroom materials look like?
This language is rarely ever defined in legislation, and that is intentional.
These vague buzzwords or claims that bans prevent “woke indoctrination” are not grounded in reality and do not have consistent legal meaning; they are political tools to provoke fear among parents and alarm them into thinking their children are learning about dangerous topics when they are merely learning about people who are different than them.
All of these phrases and bans contribute to the rolling back of marginalized groups’ rights as they restrict the visibility of groups like the LGBTQ+ community or people of color by censoring their histories, identities and experiences. And when laws are rooted in fear rather than facts, education suffers and so does democracy.
Copy edited by Anijah Franklin
