Category: Education

Introduction

Book banning occurs when an entity like a school, library, or government takes action to remove, censor, or block access to a book due to objections to its content. Throughout history, in the United States, book banning has been employed by such institutions as a means to prevent the spread of information that contradicts or challenges prevailing political or religious viewpoints. This has included instances like early American colonists banning William Pynchon’s “The Meritorious Price of Our Redemption,” which contradicted Calvinist beliefs, and Southern states prohibiting Harriet Beecher Stowe’s “Uncle Tom’s Cabin,” a book that exposed the horrors of slavery, during the Civil War.

The First Amendment prevents the US government from outright banning books, but the matter of restricting and removing books from public libraries remains a contentious subject. This debate originated in the early 1900s when books touching on specific political themes like communism, interracial marriage, or the confederacy were taken out of school and public libraries following requests from advocacy groups. This led to disagreements among educators and librarians who felt that these removals deprived students of valuable resources. They stressed that students’ First Amendment rights were consistent both inside and outside of school premises.

History of Book Banning and Legal Disputes

Although the First Amendment is designed to safeguard freedom of speech, it does not extend protection to materials deemed obscene. The 1973 Supreme Court case, Miller v. California, established a three-part test for obscenity. This test considers whether a work, according to prevailing community standards, “appeals to the prurient interest,” portrays sexual conduct in an overtly offensive manner as defined by state law, and lacks significant literary, artistic, political, or scientific value when evaluated as a whole. Supporters of banning specific books in schools use this legal precedent as justification. However, what one person views as obscene, another might not.

Following the banning of books as being “anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, and explicit,” the 1982 Supreme Court case, Island Trees Union Free School District v. Pico, ruled that school boards cannot remove books from libraries solely based on their disagreement with the ideas presented. Nevertheless, books could still be removed based on criteria like vulgarity, appropriateness for different age groups, or educational worth. The contemporary debate remains ongoing: Who should determine what information is suitable for children to read?

During the 2021-2022 school year, research by PEN America revealed that a total of 1,648 book titles were prohibited from school libraries across 32 states. Many of these banned books tackle subjects such as race, sexuality, and activism, and some contain content deemed to be explicit in terms of violence or sexual themes. The most frequently banned book nationwide is “Gender Queer” by Maia Kobabe, a novel centered around understanding gender identity and sexuality. Other commonly banned books include:

• “The Hate U Give” by Angie Thomas, a novel about a Black teenager witnessing a police shooting and the ensuing impact on the predominantly white community.
• “The Kite Runner” by Khaled Hosseini, a novel about two men growing up in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion and rise of the Taliban regime.
• “The Diary of Anne Frank” by Anne Frank, the nonfiction account of a young Jewish girl forced into hiding in the Netherlands during the Nazi occupation.

However, this data has been contested. The Heritage Foundation’s investigation revealed that 74% of the titles listed on PEN America’s roster of banned books remained accessible in the libraries that PEN asserted had removed them. The Heritage Foundation accuses PEN America of amplifying their conclusions and fabricating the discourse around book bans. Conversely, other organizations, like the American Library Association, have arrived at findings more aligned with those of PEN America.

Arguments in Favor

On one side of the debate, individuals contend that children should be shielded from specific information, particularly content involving violence and sexual themes. The American Society of Pediatrics found that exposure to violent content during childhood can lead to heightened aggression and desensitization. Advocates who strive to eliminate certain books from libraries highlight instances of “graphic” sexual descriptions and references to gay dating websites within materials found in schools and public libraries. They assert that this content aligns with the definition of obscenity. Supporters of book bans maintain that limiting children’s access to particular information and narratives is a means to safeguard them from potentially harmful and detrimental knowledge.

Given these convictions, numerous parents argue that they merit a more influential role in their children’s education. These parents and communities believe that the ability to shape the values and character of a generation, and consequently an entire nation, rests on what children are taught and the books they have access to. While these groups are sometimes criticized for their approach, proponents argue that due to the substantial impact of books, they advocate for banning certain titles to provide their children with what they perceive as the most suitable and advantageous education.

Arguments in Opposition

On the other side, anti-book ban advocates believe that restricting access to books containing “taboo” topics prevents children from learning about valuable information and prevents them from having important conversations. Research has found that young adults who read banned books are more likely to engage in civic behaviors. Meanwhile, other experts have argued that reading about “illicit” or unspoken topics opens up conversations about situations that are already occurring in the world and students may be facing. 

Further, these groups argue that book bans target minority groups, specifically restricting the stories of non-white and non-straight authors. In 1995, after parents attempted to remove a novel about a romance between two teen girls from schools, the Supreme Court case Case v. United School District No. 233 ruled that just because the story broke the parents’ own ideologies did not mean it could be banned. This pattern of banning certain types of books persists even in contemporary times, with many proponents of book bans labeling materials as “obscene” even when they don’t meet the criteria set by the Supreme Court. Instead, these bans often target books that directly address subjects related to race or sexuality. By some estimates, 41% of banned books directly relate to LGBTQIA+ topics, while 22% directly relate to race. Removing stories like these can be harmful, as consistent accounts reveal these, already less prominent, stories are affirming and positive for LGBTQIA+ and POC youth. 

Within the realm of law, these conflicting viewpoints are evident as well. In Florida, Governor DeSantis enacted the Parental Rights in Education bill. This legislation prohibits teachers from discussing gender and sexuality, mandates state-certified media experts to evaluate all books, and enhances parental involvement in curriculum matters. School districts in states including Utah, Missouri, Georgia, Iowa, and Texas have also recently banned a significant number of books and introduced laws akin to those in Florida. In addition, House Republicans in Congress have introduced the Parents Bill of Rights. Conversely, in Illinois, the Library Systems Act is set to take effect in January 2024. This act renders any library in Illinois that bans or restricts access to books ineligible for state funding.

Looking Forward

In essence, the ongoing discourse surrounding the prohibition of books in schools and public libraries underscores the enduring concern for children’s education and the information accessible to them. Both sides of the argument stem from their individual perspectives on what is in the best interest of students. One camp contends that eliminating content they deem inappropriate safeguards students, while the other believes that granting children access to challenging material exposes them to a broader array of narratives and crucial discussions.

After years of deliberation on this issue, an increasing number of laws are emerging across the nation either enabling or curtailing the banning of books. As the discussion persists and legal frameworks influence more school districts, comprehending the rationale behind both perspectives becomes progressively vital.

One component of the school choice movement is the implementation of school vouchers, which allow for the use of education tax dollars for tuition at private schools. Policies including K-12 tuition tax credits and educational savings accounts (ESAs) are examples of school vouchers. School voucher programs have varied across states, and several states have added, expanded, or introduced voucher policies this year.

What are school vouchers for and why are they in use?

School vouchers intend to provide families and students with more flexibility in educational content and method, and to expand access to private schools. Approximately one in ten American students attend private schools and proponents of vouchers argue that they expand access to potentially better private schools. According to the Goldwater Institute, private schools have always been an option for wealthy families. On the other hand, private education is only attainable for economically disadvantaged communities with access to vouchers. 

Other arguments in favor of school vouchers focus on the unique educational content available at various private schools. Some supporters of school vouchers argue that school choice allows families a say in the values taught to their children. Although public schools must teach a curriculum set by a district, private schools may diverge from others in their educational ideologies. Some students require special educational accommodations that only exist at private schools, which is an argument emphasized by Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt this year. 

Those favoring school vouchers further argue that school vouchers save governments money. Martin Lueken, a Director at the school-choice-supporting nonprofit EdChoice, contends that a voucher for a single student would cost less than the average cost per pupil taught in a public school. He adds that funding for public schools is often a formula of the local population, not the school population, and therefore vouchers would increase funding per pupil at public schools. 

Why do some oppose school vouchers?

Opponents of school vouchers assert that school vouchers divert money and attention away from public schools that may already be underfunded or undervalued. Depending on the policy, the funding for school vouchers is sourced from state budgets already stretched to maintain public education. In Florida, as much as 10% of state funding has been reallocated from public schools to voucher programs. 

Furthermore, those against school vouchers argue that the programs may not lead to academic improvement and do not reach those most in need. Some studies of universal voucher programs have shown evidence of learning loss following the switch to private schooling. Other studies have indicated that the precise cause of this educational slowdown is ambiguous; potential causes include a lack of oversight in private schools or simply the pressure of transferring. Regarding a voucher program’s reach, studies in Arizona indicate that more than three-quarters of voucher applicants were not enrolled in public schools at the time of their application. This means that the vouchers were used to subsidize private schooling for families already able to budget for the entire cost of private tuition.

Finally, opponents of school vouchers take issue with the religious affiliation of many private schools which accept vouchers. Private schools, unlike public schools, are not required to admit all students and may refuse to provide admission at their discretion. Historically, some voucher programs originated as a reaction to desegregation in public schools; some states, at that time, permitted private schools to deny students based on race. Opponents are also concerned that voucher programs violate the separation of church and state, as vouchers may end up providing public funding to private schools with religious affiliations. 

Finally, private schools often are not subject to the same educational standards or oversight as public schools. Because of this, the quality and content of education can vary widely. Some opponents feel that it is not appropriate for state funds intended for educational institutions with state oversight to be allocated to private schools instead. They believe that part of the contact between taxpayers and government involves oversight and responsibility for use of tax dollars. 

The debate around school vouchers has intensified recently in response to controversial public school policies, including the teaching of Critical Race Theory and school closures during the pandemic. State legislatures are increasingly introducing school voucher programs to debate. Ten state legislatures have introduced universal school voucher bills, and at least five states have already implemented a universal program in some capacity. Federally, the Educational Choice for Children Act was introduced in the Senate and the House in 2022 and includes a $10 billion school voucher program. 

Conclusion

Many arguments around school vouchers hinge on whether to prioritize the concerns of parents or public schools. Research continues to evaluate academic performance and opportunities following the implementation of school voucher programs.

Background

Affirmative action refers to policies which seek to positively discriminate towards racial, ethnic, gender, or other groups that may be underrepresented or have been discriminated against in the past. In the U.S. affirmative action is typically used in the admissions process of higher education institutions to help increase racial diversity at universities. 

Though race-based affirmative action has existed since the 1960s, its presence has grown over the several decades with it now being outlawed in 9 states, largely through ballot measures. Affirmative action policies are currently federally legal based on the precedent of Supreme Court cases Regents of the University of California v. Bakke in 1978, Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), and Fisher v. University of Texas II (2013). The Supreme Court established limitations such as banning ‘quotas’, or setting aside a specific number of seats for certain minority groups (per Bakke), as well as awarding large amounts of bonus points to applicants with certain racial identities (per Gratz). Furthermore, courts have taken the stance that although increasing diversity and reducing discrimination in admissions is important, universities should seek out easier, more effective ways to achieve those goals aside from affirmative action.

Policies can be enacted at the public level, or in private institutions. In the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court cases Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (a private college), and v. University of North Carolina (a public one) the difference between private and public is a key consideration in allowing the use of race-based affirmative action policies. Since the universities here both use race-based affirmative action policies, and they both receive some sort of federal funding (Harvard less so than public school UNC), they are being challenged for violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by allegedly discriminating against Asian and White applicants in favor of applicants from more underrepresented groups.

Arguments in Favor

Arguments in favor largely center around the importance of racial diversity on college campuses, and affirmative action’s essential role in supporting it. Some focus on remediation, or rather the use of positive discrimination to help rectify a history of inequality that could pose difficulty in certain minority groups being adequately represented. For example, Black students were traditionally excluded from many institutions of higher education. Although those policies were reversed, current generations may find it harder to be accepted in race-blind admissions programs because they don’t have the benefit of generational knowledge or legacy admissions. Others point to statistics showing minority groups are underrepresented at universities in states where affirmative action has been banned, such as California. For example, underrepresented minorities made up more than half of UCLA’s admitted students in 1995, and dropped to 24% after affirmative action was banned in 1998. 

Legally, supporters also argue that affirmative action is the best available and most ‘narrowly tailored’ (accomplishes only the original goal of the policy) solution to underrepresentation in this sphere.

Arguments in Opposition

Many who oppose affirmative action still value racial diversity in higher education. However, they assert that although there has been discrimination that challenges minority applicants, affirmative action’s discrimination against Asian and White applicants who bear no blame for their counterpart’s difficulties is unjustified. Meanwhile, others note representation steadily improving in recent years even in states without affirmative action. California’s 2022 admitted student rates are often cited:

• 5.7% Black (from 4.9% 5 years prior and compared to 5.6% of CA college-aged residents)
• 0.6% American Indian (from 0.5% 5 years prior and compared to 0.3% of CA college-aged residents)
• 37% Latino (from 33% 5 years prior and compared to 50.1% of CA college-aged residents).

Many believe affirmative action policies prevent schools from simply admitting the students with the most merit, which could elevate racial tensions. Additionally, with a history of voters rejecting affirmative action policies at the state level, many tout public polls which show a majority lack support. Lastly, opponents posit that there are better alternatives to promote diversity at college campuses that are less legally controversial, such as a focus on socioeconomic status instead of race, increased college recruitment and outreach, or automatically admitting the top n% of high school graduates.

Looking Ahead

Race-based affirmative action in higher education admissions has perhaps never been more topical than it is right now with its fate in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court. The current conservative-dominated court is seen as a major opportunity to dismantle affirmative action nationally. If it is dismantled, other programs that work towards the same goals will likely develop.

Within higher education, many students face basic needs insecurities including insufficient food and housing. In the largest annual assessment of basic needs security amongst college students, results indicate that:

• 45% of respondents were food insecure in the prior 30 days 
• 56% of respondents were housing insecure in the previous year 
• 17% of respondents were homeless in the previous year 

Additionally, of these respondents, only 20% of food insecure students receive the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and only 7% of students who experience homelessness receive housing assistance. For students at both two- and four-year institutions, 75% of Indigenous students, 70% of Black students, and 64% of Hispanic or Latino students experienced basic needs insecurity, compared with 54% of white students.

Basic Needs for Postsecondary Student Program

The U.S Department of Education currently funds a program called the Basic Needs for Postsecondary Student Program. This program provides grants to eligible institutions of higher education, supporting programs that address the basic needs of students and ensuring practices that improve student outcomes are reported. These grants awarded have a performance period of 3 years and the projects implemented must take a systemic approach to improve outcomes for underserved students through coordinating efforts with Federal, State, or local agencies, or community-based organizations that support students. 

For example, Passaic County Community College in New Jersey received one of these grants in 2021 to support the installation of a multicultural wellness and resource center. The project will provide basic needs services to 5,000 low-income, first-generation, minority students who also comprise underserved populations such as nontraditional adult students, parenting students, and undocumented students.

Introduced Legislation

There are a few proposed pieces of legislation coming from the Democratic Party circulating the House and the Senate. Two of these include the BASIC Act and the Student Food Security Act, both of which are currently under committee review. 

The Basic Assistance for Students in College Act, or BASIC Act, was introduced to the Senate in 2019. It proposes a $1 billion grant program to help colleges and universities research, plan, and implement a basic needs infrastructure. The grant money could be used to provide free or subsidized food, offer temporary housing, help students apply for public assistance programs, or collaborate with community organizations. 

The Student Food Security Act was introduced to the House in 2021. It proposes expanding SNAP eligibility to students who are eligible for work-study, have a $0 Expected Family Contribution, meet the financial eligibility criteria for a maximum Pell Grant (even if they have not filed the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA)), or are an independent student whose household is otherwise eligible. It also creates a SNAP student hunger demonstration program that would allow students to use their SNAP benefits at on-campus dining facilities at up to ten institutions and establishes a $1 billion per year grant program to help institutions identify and meet the food and housing security of their students.

Arguments For Expanding Basic Needs Programs

Proponents of expanding basic needs programs argue there are record high numbers of low-income students enrolling in college to increase their chances of social and economic mobility. Concurrently, increased tuition costs and the student debt crisis make it difficult for low-income students to reach their aspirations. Food and housing insecurity undermine academic success, so expansion of basic needs programs will increase college completion rates, persistence, and credit attainment of low-income students. Senator Alex Padilla, a California Senator pushing for the BASIC Act to pass, emphasizes this by saying, “​​We cannot let our students go hungry or sacrifice their health in order to afford a higher education… The BASIC Act will help students focus on their goal – graduating. For these students to compete in a modern workforce we must give them the tools they need to succeed.”

Arguments Against Expanding Basic Needs Programs

Those against expanding basic needs programs argue there is currently limited research on basic needs insecurities on college campuses, so there is a limited understanding of the scope of the problem. Besides the annual survey previously discussed, only 31 quality studies of campus basic needs insecurity have been conducted, few of which involve multiple colleges. 

Most proposed legislation lack support from conservative members of Congress. In 2020, Republican Rep. and top member of the House Agriculture Committee Michael Conaway shared he was opposed to increasing food stamp benefits during the pandemic, calling SNAP expansion a “backdoor way to get permanent changes.” He and other Republican officials believe that these programs foster long-term dependency on the federal government for low-income Americans. Many argue it is also not financially feasible to expand federal assistance. These proposed legislations both propose $1 billion grant programs and are extremely costly.

There are prominent race gaps across higher education as a field with respect to college enrollment and degree completion. 56% of Hispanic or Latino and 46% of Black or African American students finish a four-year degree within six years, compared to 72% of White students. Further, there are increasingly fewer Black and Latino/Hispanic students at the higher levels of education – the population size shrinks by 27% at each educational tier. 

Explaining the Race Gap

There are a few factors that have contributed to causing this gap:

• American universities began as exclusively white, male institutions, and measures to actively combat segregation in public education began after the Supreme Court’s ruling of Brown v. Board of Education in 1954;
• Education achievement gaps are correlated with racial socioeconomic disparities because higher-income and more-educated families typically can provide more educational opportunities for their children;
• With historically lower-income and less educational resources, Black and Hispanic families often have lower educational attainment than their White counterparts.

Affirmative Action – What is it?

In order to help bridge these gaps, higher education institutions have practiced a contested policy choice – affirmative action. Affirmative action includes policies aiming to increase the representation of people of color. This includes race-conscious admissions and extra consideration for underrepresented groups in college acceptances.  In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), the Supreme Court ruled that using race as a factor of consideration, among others, in admissions was permissible, but having quotas for underrepresented minority groups was not. Currently, 8 states have banned race-based affirmative action: California (1996), Washington (1998), Florida (1999), Michigan (2006), Nebraska (2008), Arizona (2010), New Hampshire (2012), and Oklahoma (2012).

Arguments in Favor of Affirmative Action

One argument in favor of affirmative action is that it could potentially help close the race gap, since students of color remain underrepresented on college campuses. For example, in California and in the University of California (UC) System, the ban on affirmative action has harmed Black and Hispanic students, decreasing their number in the University of California (UC) system while reducing their odds of finishing college, going to graduate school, and earning a high salary. At the University of California, Berkeley, the underrepresentation gap before the ban on affirmative action was 14.9 percent. The year after, it grew to 24.9 percent, and in 2015 it hit 34.4 percent. Many also argue that race is an important factor in college admission to ensure campus diversity in race, experience, and thought.

Arguments Against Affirmative Action

One argument against affirmative action is that race should not be necessary or required information for an officer to know when making a college admission decision. Merit and other factors students can control should be of greater focus, including grades, extracurriculars, test scores, etc. Furthermore, many argue that affirmative action hurts other groups – primarily Asian Americans – in the college admissions process as a lesser number of these students are being admitted to elite universities despite their merit. One study showed that in order to be admitted to certain selective institutions, Asian applicants needed to score 140 points higher than White students, 270 points higher than Hispanic students, and 450 points higher than African American students, if other factors are held equal.

Current Status of Affirmative Action

The Supreme court recently agreed to hear two cases that challenge the race-conscious admissions programs at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. The cases argue that Asian-American students have suffered discrimination in the admissions process at both schools. The group suing both universities, Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), has petitioned the Supreme Court to ban affirmative action in higher education in a 99 page filing. The decision is anticipated to be heard in Spring or Summer of 2023.