How Discriminatory Censorship Laws Imperil Public Education - Jonathan Feingold Boston University School of Law

The proponents of discriminatory censorship often rehearse vitriolic rhetoric about “critical race theory,” “WOKE indoctrination,” and “stu- dent discomfort” to justify these laws65; discriminatory censorship laws buttress broader backlash to the summer of 202066; media framing and analysis often overstates the scope of discriminatory censorship laws67; and public officials have invoked these laws. [...] and prohibit the practice of ban- ning specific books or resources.”108 Illinois also recently passed HB0376, which mandates that public elementary and high schools include a unit of instruction “studying the events of Asian American history, including the history of Asian Americans in Illinois and the Mid- 13 of 44 west, as well as contributions of. [...] The court dis- missed the complaint, finding parents’ allegations legally insufficient to support substantive due process violations for denying them the right to direct the education and upbringing of their children, the right to make medical and mental health decisions, and the right to family integrity. [...] Yet as noted, many censorship laws are not so direct, but rather prohibit educators from “endorsing” or “compelling” students to agree with a list of “divisive concepts.” Irrespective of this nuance, the public and media have internalized and publicized the often-inaccurate view that discriminatory censorship laws ban any discussion of targeted topics and protect the emotional well-being of White. [...] Without access to “the full stories and histories of varied groups,” students lack an opportunity to “build capacities for respectful evidence-based dialogue and to develop commitments to robust civil liberties and recognition of the dignity of fellow citizens.”182 These dynamics are likely to exacerbate the “civil opportunity gap between affluent White students, and their low-income and minority.