Book Censorship News, January 31, 2025

Your second set of tools comes in the form of the acronym TOADSRIG. Again, it is not going to fully cover every critical reading tool at your disposal but it is pretty memorable. So what is TOADSRIG? It’s:

Tone–how the writing sounds and/or intends to sound (persuasive, argumentative, cheerful, serious, and so forth)
Organization–how the information is presented (not just the order in which content is presented but also the tools used to break up paragraphs and ideas)
Author’s message–the goal of the author writing the piece or what they want you to take away from reading it
Diction–the style and choice of words being used
Syntax–how the words are arranged in sentences and paragraphs (one example of this is whether a sentence is in passive or active voice)
Rhetorical Purpose–how the author writes the piece for the reader to receive its message (this differs from Author’s message in that the Rhetorical Purpose is about the medium through which the message is delivered and can include things like mis- and dis- information)
Imagery–what descriptive or visual language is used
Genre–this does not just describe whether it’s fiction or nonfiction, science fiction or fantasy; it also describes the subgenre within some of the categories, such as narrative nonfiction or an opinion piece in a news outlet)

All of these close reading skills are useless, though, without what might be the most important part of examining anything critically: context, which is both the parts of discourse that help words and language make sense, as well as the conditions within which something exists.

Context is the very thing that groups creating their own book review systems strip away when they do things like pull sentences they disagree with out of a book and then claim that book is “inappropriate” or obscene. They remove those sentences from the place where they exist in a book, so that an outsider doesn’t know where or how those sentences are being used and isn’t granted the opportunity to see where or how there might be pushback or acceptance of those statements in the text. Context stripping also occurs when a book like Anne Frank’s Diary: The Graphic Adaptation is banned for nudity, even though that nudity was the reality of Jewish people brought into concentration camps as they were poisoned.

This is why context clues are a basic component of reading instruction and are comprehensive. For the sake of reading federal press releases and contemporary news, understand that our context is one the media claims is deeply polarized (not true, given that the election was not a blowout and research and statistical knowledge show that differences within groups are larger than differences between groups); a narrative that diversity, equity, and inclusion are harmful entitlements (they are not); book censorship and attacks on public institutions of democracy like libraries and schools are at a fever pitch (we have the actual data here); and more.

Now, About That Headline

press release headline that says "US Department of Education Ends Biden's Book Ban Hoax."

Though headlines don’t always give answers to all six of the W/H questions, they often provide the most salient while using language that entices the reader to care enough to read onward (see: clickbait).

We know the Who and the Where here is the US Department of Education. The What is ending Biden’s book ban hoax. The When is indicated by the date in the press release, which is January 24, 2025. We will arrive at the Why and the How as we move deeper into the press release.

There are two immediate red flags with the headline. The first is the Who and What of the headline. What do we know about the US Department of Education and How it relates to the current administration (i.e, the context)?:

There’s been nonstop talk from the far right about ending the Department of Education, including emphasis on Project 2025
That this talk has been championed by groups such as the conservative Cato Institute, Moms For Liberty, and groups that support voucher schemes that pay parents/guardians to send their children to private schools by taking that money away from public schools (those private schools do not need to follow federal educational laws)
Appointing Linda McMahon, a billionaire and wrestling executive with zero knowledge or experience in education to chair the Department of Education, suggests a lack of interest in having such a department overseen by a professional
A bill from Senator Mike Rounds (a South Dakota Republican) to defund the Department of Education is already on tap in the Senate for this session

Without needing to go any further than the first words of the headline, we can assess what and how information from this federal department is going to be presented. It’s a department that many of those in the current administration, as well as its supporters, want to see dismantled. It’s a department whose oversight is being given to someone with zero experience or knowledge, meaning that the goals of that chair aren’t necessarily aligned with those whose work depends on that department. Press releases are going to align with these values and actions.

Red flag number two comes when we look at the tone of the headline. There is a clear slant in the language used, thanks to the word “Hoax.” What we know about the current Department of Education, alongside the use of that word, tells us that this press release is intended to raise anger from one set of readers and it is intended to excite another. There is no middle ground here and that’s on purpose.

So what happens when we see a headline using language like this? We start to think about whether or not what we’re reading is going to be some form of mis- or dis- information and whether or not it is intended to be propaganda.

We know for a fact that book bans are happening and have been happening at alarming rates since May 2021. This is well-documented across organizations filled with educated professionals who track book censorship, including the American Library Association and PEN America. Who has been claiming book bans are fake and a hoax? It’s the cadre of non-experts who have waged well-worn campaigns by those pushing for book bans claiming that removal of books from library shelves “is not a book ban.”

Pause with this part.

The reason the press release calls this a “hoax” is because those currently in power are utilizing a definition manufactured and perpetrated by those with their agenda. The goal is to make those people thrilled and to give them the satisfaction of feeling right for all of the book banning in which they’ve engaged.

Who are those people? They’re Moms For Liberty, they’re No Left Turn in Education, and they’re the dozens of other local-level groups comprised of people whose manufactured outrage came not through actual news but through propaganda outlets like Fox News and The Lion and The Epoch Times and the rise of technology algorithms that feed them the things that make them angry in order to keep them addicted. If a lot of this is sounding familiar—an addiction to propaganda packaged as news and supplication to tech giants—that’s because it should.

This press release headline alone tells you that this is disinformation, or information intended to do harm, and it is propaganda, or information intended to promote a specific viewpoint.

The press release is not solely intended to appease followers of the administration, though. It is also intended to help create ill will from those who have supported the Department of Education. When someone who has otherwise not thought about the role of the Department of Education or someone who has supported it reads that headline, they begin to shift their beliefs about that institution. If the Department of Education is claiming book banning is a hoax, then fine, get rid of the Department because clearly they are biased and have no idea what they’re talking about.

Analyzing the Press Release Text

The press release is Organized so that the information that the Department of Education deems most pertinent is at the top. This is also the Authorial intent and helps drive the Rhetorical purpose. Information first presented most supports the headline and is meant to be enough that most readers will scan the first few sentences, decide on their opinion of the piece (“good!” or “how dare you!”), then move on.

The first three paragraphs of the press release. They read: "The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) today announced that it has dismissed 11 complaints related to so-called “book bans.” The complaints alleged that local school districts’ removal of age-inappropriate, sexually explicit, or obscene materials from their school libraries created a hostile environment for students – a meritless claim premised upon a dubious legal theory. Effective Jan. 24, 2025, OCR has rescinded all department guidance issued under the theory that a school district’s removal of age-inappropriate books from its libraries may violate civil rights laws. OCR is also dismissing six additional pending allegations of book banning and will no longer employ a “book ban coordinator” to investigate local school districts and parents working to protect students from obscene content.

“By dismissing these complaints and eliminating the position and authorities of a so-called ‘book ban coordinator,’ the department is beginning the process of restoring the fundamental rights of parents to direct their children’s education,” said Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Craig Trainor. “The department adheres to the deeply rooted American principle that local control over public education best allows parents and teachers alike to assess the educational needs of their children and communities. Parents and school boards have broad discretion to fulfill that important responsibility. These decisions will no longer be second-guessed by the Office for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Education.”

On Jan. 20, 2025, incoming OCR leadership initiated a review of alleged “book banning” cases pending at the department. Attorneys quickly confirmed that books are not being “banned,” but that school districts, in consultation with parents and community stakeholders, have established commonsense processes by which to evaluate and remove age-inappropriate materials. Because this is a question of parental and community judgment, not civil rights, OCR has no role in these matters. "

Beginning at paragraph one, the Who is the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) within the Department of Education. The OCR is tossing out 11 complaints related to book bans, as well as six pending investigations into book bans that it has received. Those complaints and investigations occurred because someone deemed those public school book removals were in violation of student civil rights. Now, the OCR states these books were rightfully removed because they were “age-inappropriate, sexually explicit, or obscene” and that such removal led to what the OCR believes is a dubious idea that schools can be hostile environments for students. The OCR is also dismissing the office’s “book ban coordinator.”

Ask what you do or do not know about any of the Whos or Whats here and take the time to do the research where you need more information and context:

The Office for Civil Rights’s role is to enforce federal civil rights in public schools across the country that receive funding from the Department of Education. Recall: the current administration wishes to get rid of the Department of Education, leaving things “up to the states.” This would mean that the OCR’s enforcement of federal civil rights nationwide—a requirement for these institutions to be funded—would be null. In other words, states would decide whether or not they’d enforce civil rights in their public schools, and given that one of the sexy appeals of voucher programs is that it allows students to attend any private school—institutions that are not required to follow Department of Education mandates—we can infer how well this will go. Some states will do the work. Others will not.
Federal Civil Rights in education that the OCR oversees include age, race, nationality, disability, and sex discrimination. It also oversees discrimination cases involving outside groups wishing to meet at public schools, ala the Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act.
The OCR protects from retaliation when an organization files a complaint related to civil rights in education.
We have no working definition of “age appropriate” nor “sexually explicit” in the press release, and we have no indication that the creator of the press release cares that there is a clear-cut definition of “obscene,” via the Miller Test. A federal agency choosing to omit this information is worse than when groups like Moms For Liberty at least note they don’t care about the Miller Test when writing reviews for BookLooks.
What were the 17 book ban related cases under the OCR that were dismissed? They included the resolution in Forsyth County School District (GA), where the District Superintendent authorized the board to approve bans for 15 books for being “sexually explicit.” Those books were, and this will come as a shock to anyone who has paid attention the last half-decade, LGBTQ+ books and books featuring BIPOC characters. Removal of those books led to a hostile school environment, as students who identified as queer or a person of color were now labeled as inappropriate by district leadership. OCR and the Forsyth County School District entered into a resolution that served as a crucial decision for student rights and protections related to books in schools. What this press release says is that that decision is not null and void.
The press release doesn’t name what “dubious legal theory” they’re referring to. Is it the civil rights of students in public schools? Is it that there are federal laws prohibiting discrimination? If the reference is related to the creation of a hostile environment for students in situations where school library book bans have occurred, then the question begins which students? We know the answer.
That phrase “dubious legal theory,” though, stands out in this release as not being of the same tone or syntax as the rest of what is written. This is an opportunity to consider where that phrase came from, even if there’s a lack of context to which it refers to. Drop that phrase into Google with some other words in the release—when you dig around a bit, you’ll find an interesting piece from an outlet called The Fire which refers to the “shoddy” legal analysis of the OCR in the book banning case related to Forsyth County Schools. Remember this, as we’re going to return to this piece a couple more times.
This press release does not explain what the “book ban coordinator” position is or was. The position, dubbed the “Book Ban Czar,” was a 2023 Biden-appointed role held by Matt Nosanchuk. His job was not to be a face for book bans or to show up in public spaces to advocate against book bans. It was to be a point person for federal civil rights discrimination claims related to banned books in public schools. As an appointed position. Nosanchuk was well aware his role could be eliminated were a new administration sworn in, and as intelligent consumers of information, we should not be surprised to see this happened because it was a role that stood in direct opposition to the current administration. This part of the press release isn’t news, despite how it’s portrayed. But its inclusion is intended to create cheer among those seeking book bans. That’s disinformation and propaganda.

The missing context from the first paragraph alone is significant.

We move then to the second paragraph, which is a chilling quote from Craig Trainor. Start here with Who Trainor is, the Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, then move onto What Trainor’s background is. He’s been deeply involved in legal work related to the suppression of free speech as it relates to college campuses. That particular issue has been the backbone of far-right activism related to “free speech”—campuses are “too woke,” of course. You can read more here, here, and here (note which political affiliation is the one buying the rhetoric that free speech on campus is in danger).

Trainor is also a member of the Federalist Society. When you do a little Googling, you’ll learn some things about the influence of that group elsewhere in the US. It is the same group that South Carolina’s Department of Education Supervisor Ellen Weaver used to help ram through horrific state-level book banning laws in that state. Recall that in South Carolina, anyone can complain about any book in public schools across the state and the state’s education department makes a determination on whether or not the book should be removed from every public school in the state.

While that background might sound unrelated, it’s not. Trainor’s quote is about how getting rid of Nosanchuk’s role and dropping every book ban complaint with the OCR is important because it gives back local control to school districts and parents. That “local control” is the same philosophy upon which the South Carolina book removals are premised. It’s the same philosophy upon which Utah has implemented state-sanctioned book bans and it’s the same philosophy upon which Idaho’s law about inappropriate materials for minors is premised.

Now you’re noticing a pattern—the language being used in the press release is also language used to justify book bans by a large governing body. Dropping the OCR resolution in Forsyth County School’s book ban case isn’t about giving power back to locals in Forsyth County, as that would include the far larger contingent of parents who vehemently disagree with their removal. Instead, it’s about paving a path toward giving that power to the highest level possible, whether that’s the state of Georgia or the federal government itself.

Know what else is tied to the Federalist Society, while we are here? The very author of the article from The Fire that likely inspired the language in the press release related to the “dubious” legal standard of students being in a hostile learning environment.

Nothing here is not connected.

Trainor’s quote ends by stating “These decisions will no longer be second-guessed by the Office for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Education.” If the job of the OCR is to investigate claims of federal civil rights violations, this statement explicitly states that that department is not going to bother doing their job because they trust it’s been done right elsewhere. That’s the same philosophy we’ll see used to undermine the professional work of librarians and educators in the very next paragraph.

Notice a shift in language between Trainor’s quote and the explanation of the quote between paragraph two and paragraph three. Where Trainor actually invokes “teachers” in his statement, the third paragraph chooses instead to emphasize that decisions over curriculum and access to books falls squarely on “parental and community judgment.” No mention of trained educators. Zero mention of librarians, who continue to be undermined, if not outright ignored, as trained professionals (see here, here, here, and here, to begin).

Some more things to consider as you read the first three paragraphs closely:

Why is book bans in scare quotes? Why is book bans never actually defined in the piece? We know it’s because this is an appeal to one readership and also that it is intentionally making another readership angry and frustrated (again, this is not a wrong reaction but it was partly manipulated from you!).
Who are the attorneys who investigated claims of book bans? Did you know that one of the reasons Nosanchuk was appointed as “Book Ban Czar” in 2023 was because he is a lawyer and thus, actually had the expertise and credentials to be named?
What are the lines in determining whether or not something is an OCR complaint, if it is not brought before the OCR? That last line of the third paragraph is especially worthy of dissection, as it further indicates that the OCR plans on abdicating its responsibilities writ large. When it comes to “a question of parental and community judgment, not civil rights, OCR has no role in these matters,” we must once again ask which parents?

The answer is that it is the same parents who pledge loyalty to the administration, the same parents who’ve been stripping everything of its context, and the same parents who have the privilege of being white, cishet, ablebodied Christians made in the image of the very evangelicals currently taking over a government meant for all people. It’s the very same people claiming the OCR has no role in overseeing a very well-documented violation of student civil rights—when those students do not fit the mold of white Christian fundamentalism.

Now, It’s Your Turn

Rather than do a step-by-step close reading of the second part of the Department of Education’s press release, take a few minutes to read through these paragraphs and apply the tools that allow you to read it as critically as possible:

From the department of education release, the second half: "Background

In June 2023, then-President Biden announced that he would appoint a “book ban coordinator” within OCR. The coordinator’s responsibilities included developing guidance and training to deter schools from limiting student access to sexually graphic or racially divisive books by claiming that these efforts may contribute to a hostile environment that may violate students’ civil rights.

Because the prior Administration amplified this false narrative, OCR received 17 complaints alleging that school districts engaged in book banning.

Additionally, incoming Trump Administration OCR attorneys discovered that the first complaint to advance the book ban hoax was filed with OCR on Feb. 23, 2022, against Forsyth County School District in Georgia. The complainant alleged that the district violated Title IX and Title VI by removing eight books from the school library because they contained sexually explicit content. OCR’s regional Atlanta office sought to dismiss the complaint in full, concluding that the complainant’s allegations failed to state a violation of Title IX or Title VI.

Biden-Harris Administration-appointed OCR leadership in Washington, D.C., however, overruled the nonpartisan, career-employee determination that the complaint had no merit and extracted a resolution agreement from the district under threat of further federal intervention. This included requiring the district to post a statement in all of its middle and high schools that embraced Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and encouraged students to make Title IX and Title VI complaints. The department will terminate the agreement and any obligations under it."

Some things to consider or question as you apply the Ws, H, and TOADSRIG:

The bias in this historical background information is crystal clear. Rather than noting the appointment of a Book Ban Coordinator was done to protect student civil rights when it comes to materials they can access in schools, it’s framed as the role being there so students could access “sexually graphic or racially divisive” books. Racially divisive toward who, when the books are by or about BIPOC folks that are being banned? Where and how is the label “sexually explicit” applied when the primary targets of those labels are LGBTQ+ books. Disinformation abounds.
The prior administration shining a light on book bans over the course of its run is because book bans increased astronomically between 2021 and 2024. It’s cold, hard fact, whether you follow the counts done by ALA or PEN America or you’ve had the privilege of sitting through school board meetings in this time period. The quantity of book bans particularly exploded in 2023 and 2024. Because professional organizations made this information accessible and because more people in school districts nationwide were impacted by these book bans, of course the number of complaints to the OCR about book bans increased. The new administration did not “discover” anything with Forsyth County’s complaint in 2022—they conveniently erased the context for when and how book banning increased so significantly that it rose to needing federal civil rights attention.
Is it true that the regional OCR office in Atlanta sought to dismiss the complaints over federal civil rights violations? Hard to say, given there’s no link to the “regional office” discussion. A lengthy time looking for this information came up short—it doesn’t appear to have been covered in news outlets or in any press releases. What we do have, though, is a letter from the OCR from May 2023 and the resolution agreement. Oh, also, we also have the analysis of those documents from the previously-mentioned Federalist lawyer who wrote about it for The FIRE.
The OCR is no longer investigating complaints over banned books. But is that the only thing they’re going to stop investigating when it comes to federal civil rights in education? Well…
What have we seen become a target of vitriol from this current administration in the year leading up to Trump’s election and in the weeks following his inauguration? What was one of the first Executive Orders passed when the president was sworn in? It’s the very thing cited in this press release—diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). This press release is a handy way for the Department of Education and its Office for Civil Rights to erase and shut down any language around its work in protecting those who need protection because of their marginalized status.

The OCR’s job is to ensure diversity, equity, and inclusion are at the forefront of public education. This is a convenient manner through which to firebomb that responsibility. It is not about renaming the DEI initiatives to be friendly in this administration. It’s about revoking the hard-earned rights of anyone who isn’t cishet, ablebodied, Christian, and white.

Another tip for critically reading any sort of press release from the federal government or a news story? See what outlets are celebrating.

screen shot of a headline from "American Thinker" that says "Trump's Department of Education finally says 'no' to LGBTQ porn in schools."

There’s no such thing as porn in schools, let alone “LGBTQ porn.” I won’t Google more for you since this headline and the outlet’s cheering says everything you need to know in one sentence.

And lastly, what did the Department of Education post about the same week and into the next (in a usual instance, we could pull context from prior posting, but remember that was a different administration)? That they’re “celebrating” School Choice Week, which is antithetical to a department whose job is to oversee public institutions.

Image of a Facebook post from the Department of Education, posted January 29. It reads "✔ Empower Parents and Students Through School Choice
✔ Put an End to Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schools
✔ Combat Antisemitism on College Campuses
✔ Make Education Great Again
We understand the assignment, President Donald J. Trump!" — Again: this is meant to make those who support this administration happy and it’s also supposed to make those who don’t turn against the Department of Education so it is easier to dismantle.

Here’s what this press release means: the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights is no longer going to investigate any claims that book bans infringe on student civil rights. It’ll now be the responsibility of parents/guardians/other interested parties to spend untold amounts of money filing lawsuits in courts to make decisions about student rights.

This press release also means any prior guidance, like that seen with Forsyth County, is without any merit or meaning and Trump won’t be appointing anyone to fill the position created by Biden to oversee this work.

Finally—and the thing that needs to be bolded—is that it sounds like the OCR isn’t going to bother protecting student rights at all, which is underscored by the fact that the Department of Education itself may not exist in the future. The administration doesn’t need to strip the Department’s website or policies related to DEI. They’re simply getting rid of the institution established to protect the rights of all students.

We will also likely see a steep drop off in stories put out by the news about ongoing and new book bans. This press release is a permission slip for major news conglomerates—the majority ownership of local and regional news in our collapsing American news landscape—to stop covering the issue. The owners of those papers don’t want to get on the bad side of an administration that would eagerly shut down a “free” press. If you missed it recently, one such mega news owner, Allen Media Group, has laid off nearly all of their local meteorologists nationwide in favor of a “new initiative” that will sidestep covering the devastating weather changes we’re seeing in light of climate change (something else this administration does not believe exists).

If something isn’t covered, then it simply is not happening.

Is it exhausting to do this work in reading a simple press release? Of course it is. That’s the entire point. Rage-bait or calm-bait, the goal is to produce a firehose of information without actually saying a single damn thing. As we move through this era of rampant mis- and dis- information and endless propaganda, pause before responding. Take the time to not only understand what’s being said but how it’s being said. Consider what context is missing and what literacy skills you, as an intelligent consumer of information, can use to help other people understand that, as infuriating as this press release sounds, it actually says both a lot more and a lot less than it seems.

Take some time to read some solid responses from organizations which have been doing anti-book censorship work, including Authors Against Book Bans, EveryLibrary, and PEN America. This analysis by the School Library Journal is another strong read. These are thoughtful and insightful statements that do not stoke the flames of fear—unfortunately, too many social media responses from individuals who haven’t been engaged in this work for the last half-decade have done just that. Good people with good intentions who support libraries and the freedom to read can be easily taken because literacy education and skills are tough to gain and continue to be removed as tentpoles of public education provided by librarians (and I don’t need to tell you that’s intentional).

News Literacy Week begins next week. Set aside some time to practice your skills and to strengthen your ability to not only research claims but also your language around the information you consume and share (if you’re using the 56 Small Tasks to Be Proactive Against Book Censorship guide to help your anti-book ban work this year, news literacy practice is task 41). We can spend these next four years in a constant state of panic—and there’s absolutely value in anger!—but that constant panic is meant to wear you down into compliance and helplessness. Your time and energy is better spent engaging in the things that matter to you, including showing up in your own communities to support your local institutions of democracy, including public schools and libraries.