Document Type
Article
Publication Date
2024
ISSN
0041-3992
Publisher
Tulane University School of Law
Language
en-US
Abstract
The summer of 2020 ignited global protests for racial justice. Across the United States, millions marched with a modest plea: that America reckon with its racism. For K-12 schools, this moment pushed local communities and district leaders to create more inclusive classrooms and curricula. Yet before the summer had ended, America's antiracist turn provoked a backlash campaign that has proven far more impactful and enduring.
This campaign has featured the rise and spread of "discriminatory censorship laws"-a term we apply to government action designed to demean inclusionary values and to deny students access to critical knowledge, inquiry, and thinking. As of January 2024, over 20 states and 145 school districts had enacted at least one discriminatory censorship law regulating K-12 schools. These laws cover over 1.3 million educators and nearly half the nation's 50 million public school students. Many have analyzed the legality of discriminatory censorship laws. Few have systematically assessed their impact. This Article fills that gap by synthesizing otherwise siloed research. Drawing on this scholarship, we identify two overarching threats discriminatory censorship laws pose to students, educators, and public education writ large: (1) hostile learning environments and (2) miseducation. We also surface how discriminatory censorship laws have spread notwithstanding their lack of popular support. Albeit unpopular, this ongoing campaign of discriminatory censorship is unlikely to relent absent an equally committed and coordinated response.
Recommended Citation
Jonathan Feingold & Joshua Weishart,
Discriminatory Censorship Laws
,
in
Tulane Law Review
(2024).
Available at:
https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/3913
Included in
Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, Education Law Commons, First Amendment Commons, Law and Politics Commons
Comments
forthcoming in Tulane Law Review