Minnesota school district sued by students, parents over book ban policy
The ACLU of Minnesota and Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP filed one of the two lawsuits on behalf of two parents of children in the school district to end the "illegal banning of books from the district's school libraries and classrooms."
The lawsuit is in response to the district's recent policy change that removed librarians and teachers from the book approval process and replaced them with a website called "Book Looks," founded by Moms for Liberty, a group that has been at the forefront of the conservative movement targeting books that reference race and sexuality.
The website rates books on a scale of zero to five, with zero being "for everyone" and five being "aberrant." St. Francis banned books with a rating of three and above, according to the ACLU. If a book is already in the library and has a rating of three or above and is challenged, policy dictates that the book must be removed.
Since the policy change, the lawsuit claims at least 46 books were removed or are in the process of being removed from St. Francis schools.
Education Minnesota-St. Francis also filed a separate lawsuit over the book ban on behalf of eight students in the district whose parents are teachers.
That lawsuit claims the district's policy is "antithetical to the values of public education and encouraging discourse."
Both lawsuits allege the policy violates the Minnesota Constitution and state law, saying school districts cannot discriminate against viewpoints expressed in books and that it violates the right to free speech and to receive information, as well as the right to a uniform and adequate education.
"The Book Looks rating system that is now binding upon the school district discriminates extensively based on viewpoint, particularly with regard to topics of gender, race, and religion," the lawsuit said.
The teachers' union says the Holocaust memoir "Night" by Elie Wiesel is set to be removed after a recent complaint.
On Sunday, Book Looks announced it was ceasing operations and taking all reports down from its website.
"Our charge was always to help inform parents and it would appear that mission has been largely accomplished. We pray that publishers will take up the torch and be more transparent regarding explicit content in their books so that there will be no need for a BookLooks.org in the future," an announcement posted to the website says.
St. Francis Area Schools says its legal team is reviewing documents from both lawsuits and determining next steps.
About 4,100 students attend the school district.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
a day ago
- USA Today
As Netanyahu expands Gaza war, some reservists grow more disillusioned
JERUSALEM, Aug 19 (Reuters) - As Israel seeks to expand its offensive in Gaza, a measure of how the country's mood has changed in the nearly two-year-old conflict is the discontent evident among some reservists being called up to serve once again. Shortly after the October 7, 2023 attack on southern Israel by Palestinian militant group Hamas, Israelis dropped everything -- honeymoons, studies and new lives abroad -- to rush home and fight. Now, some voice disillusionment with political leaders sending them back into battle, as the military prepares to take control of Gaza City, the enclave's biggest urban centre. According to a study conducted by Agam Labs at the Hebrew University which measured sentiment about the new campaign among more than 300 people serving in the current war, 25.7% of reservists said their motivation had decreased significantly compared with the start of the campaign. Another 10% said their motivation slightly decreased. Asked to describe their feelings about the campaign, the biggest group -- 47% -- of responders expressed negative emotions towards the government and its handling of the war and hostage negotiations. In March, before the latest offensive was announced, the Israeli news outlet Ynet reported that the amount of reservists reporting for duty was 30 percent below the number requested by military commanders. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed to destroy Hamas after it attacked Israel in Oct. 7, 2023 in the bloodiest single day for Jews since the Holocaust, killing 1,200 people and taking 251 hostages to Gaza, according to Israeli tallies. But the war has dragged on, with Hamas still putting up a fight and Israelis condemning their prime minister for failing to reach a deal with the militant group to win the release of hostages despite many mediation efforts. 'THIS WAR IS ENTIRELY POLITICAL' Reservists were among thousands of Israelis who took part in a nationwide strike on Sunday, one of the biggest protests in support of families of hostages, calling on Netanyahu to reach an agreement with Hamas to end the war and release the remaining captives. One of those angry protesters was Roni Zehavi, a reservist pilot who stopped serving out of principle after more than 200 days of service when the last ceasefire fell through. He said that when reservists were enlisted, they did everything required without saying a word. But then questions such as "where is this going?" started to pop up, he recalled. Reservists accused the government - the most far-right administration in Israel's history -- of perpetuating the war for political reasons. "This war is entirely political, it has no goal except to keep Benjamin Netanyahu as prime minister," he told Reuters. "He is willing to do everything necessary, to sacrifice the hostages, fallen soldiers, dead citizens - to do what he needs so that he and his wife will stay in power. It's the tragedy of the state of Israel and it's the reality". Asked for comment about the disenchantment voiced by some reservists, the Israeli military said it sees great importance in the reserve service and each case of absence is examined. "In this challenging security reality, the contribution of the reservists is essential to the success of missions and to maintaining the security of the country," it said. The prime minister's office was not immediately available for comment. Netanyahu has so far resisted calls to establish a state inquiry - in which he could be implicated - into the security failures of the October 7 attack. He has said such an investigation should not be launched as long as the war is still under way. Some of his far-right coalition partners have threatened to bring down the government should the war end without meeting all its stated goals. When Israel called up 360,000 reservists after the October 7 attack, the largest such compulsory mobilisation since the 1973 Yom Kippur War, it received an enthusiastic response. The mood among some reservists appears different now. 'I will not be part of a system that knows that it will kill the hostages. I'm just not prepared to take that. And I really fear that, to the point where it keeps me up at night," one combat medic told Reuters. He asked not to be identified as he was not authorized to speak. According to Israel's Channel 12, the military plans to call up 250,000 reservists for the Gaza City offensive. Israel has lost 898 soldiers and thousands have been wounded in the Gaza war, the country's longest conflict since the 1948 war that accompanied its creation. Its military response to the Hamas attack has killed over 61,000 people in Gaza, including many children, according to Gaza health authorities. 'LACK OF VISION' Military service is mandatory in Israel, a small nation of fewer than 10 million people, but it relies heavily on reservists in times of crisis. Reserve duty is technically mandatory, though penalties for evasion often depend on the willingness of the direct commander to enforce punishment. Reuters interviewed 10 Israeli reservists for this story. Like many other reservists, special forces Sergeant Major A. Kalker concluded that Israel's military and political leadership has failed to formulate a sound day-after plan for the war. "There's a lack of vision, both in the political and the senior military leadership, a real lack of vision," he said, but added that shouldn't amount to refusing to serve. "Bibi (Netanyahu) is the king of not making decisions … like treading water." Reservist Brigadier General Roi Alkabetz told Reuters that the military and Israel's Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir had transitioned to using the reservists in a "measured way", because Zamir understood the hardship for reservists and had put much of the hard work on soldiers in mandatory service. "He's doing it in a logical way," Alkabetz said. "The reservists will come." (Writing by Michael Georgy, Editing by William Maclean)
Boston Globe
a day ago
- Boston Globe
The convictions that count are the ones that sometimes sting
I bring up Goldberg's essay not only to recommend it but also because I was struck by the question with which he introduced it: 'What principle do you hold,' he challenged his readers, 'that is against your self-interest or political desires?' Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up It's a cogent and revealing test. It obliges anyone who answers the question to think about whether they embrace their convictions as a matter of principle or merely because they're convenient. Anyone can defend the freedoms or prohibitions that serve their own purposes. The truer test of ideological and moral seriousness is whether you adhere to your principles even when doing so cuts against your interests, tastes, or partisan loyalties. Advertisement This isn't an ivory-tower abstraction. American history is rich with examples of people who upheld principle at real personal cost. John Adams, though a patriot who hated British rule, risked his career to defend the redcoats accused in the Boston Massacre, convinced that even despised defendants deserved counsel and a fair trial. Justice John Marshall Harlan, raised in a Kentucky family of enslavers, broke with his social milieu to insist in his lone dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) that 'our Constitution is color-blind.' And in 1960, Richard Nixon, urged by allies to contest an election marred by serious irregularities, refused to plunge the nation into turmoil, saying the country's stability mattered more than his own ambition. I have tried to meet that test in my own writing — with what success, I leave others to judge. For instance, I defend the right even of Holocaust-deniers to spread Advertisement I have sometimes put a version of Goldberg's question to candidates in a primary election: Can you name a position you take that is clearly opposed by most of your party's base? Rarely have I gotten a substantive answer. Most politicians duck the question, unwilling to announce that they uphold an unpopular position on principle — even though doing so would be pretty strong evidence that their convictions were genuine. What makes this problem worse is the increasingly common belief that only those who agree with us are legitimate participants in American life. Too many on the right write off their opponents as anti-American, while too many on the left see theirs as irredeemably bigoted or authoritarian. If you begin from the premise that dissenters are not merely wrong but illegitimate, then there is no reason to extend to them the rights or freedoms you claim for yourself. But that mind-set drains principle of all meaning. Defending free speech only for your allies is like championing religious liberty only for your own faith: That's not upholding a principle — it's wielding a partisan cudgel, something that has become endemic in contemporary American life. So much of what bedevils our civic discourse these days, Goldberg writes, begins with 'the premise that America is defined by our politics and, therefore, the people with the wrong politics are not Americans.' Which is why Goldberg's challenge ought to be posed more often. A principle that only applies when it's easy isn't much of a principle at all. So, readers, I'll put the same question to you: What principle do you hold that runs against your own interest or desire? Please give it some thought and share your reflections. In a future column, I'll share some of the more intriguing and noteworthy responses. Advertisement Jeff Jacoby can be reached at
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
DHS speechwriter linked to hateful social accounts while claiming American conservatives are ostracized like Jews in Nazi Germany
A speechwriter at the Department of Homeland Security has been linked to hateful posts on social media, reportedly claiming that American conservatives are ostracized like the Jews were in Nazi Germany. A blog post reportedly authored by Eric Lendrum celebrated the January 6 insurrection and compared the following fallout for conservatives to the Holocaust and slavery, Notus reported. 'American conservatives are, right now, on a course for being every bit as ostracized and alienated from broader society as Jews were in the years leading up to Nazi Germany,' he claimed in a 2021 blog post on American Greatness, a rightwing opinion and news site. Lendrum posted on the site until March of this year. His podcast, The Right Take, is listed in the author's description on the site. On one episode of the podcast, he said he liked watching videos of scared legislators during the Jan 6 insurrection. 'There's something so gratifying about seeing the images of these members of Congress — especially the Democrats — crouching under their chairs, putting on those stupid, like, bubble masks, those anti-gas bubble masks, and then taking selfies,' a laughing Lendrum said just days after the Capitol riot. In another episode, published in October 2022, Lendrum said immigrants put Europe at risk, while also backing the 'great replacement theory.' The far-right theory claims that nonwhite immigrants are damaging the influence of white people. 'Given the direction of Europe right now, we could use a far-right government at this point,' said Lendrum. On X, the account @realEricLendrum has argued for the removal of transgender 'ideology' and compared asylum seekers to 'scum.' In another podcast episode, Lendrum referenced his brief period as a press assistant at the Interior Department during the first Trump administration, saying that he would only return to government if he could be closer to the president. 'If I could work more closely with him, that is the one case in which I would ever go back into government work,' said Lendrum, whose online profile was first reported by Notus. 'Government work is not fun.' The Independent has attempted to reach Lendrum for comment. The DHS Office of Public Affairs states that a speechwriter at the department is responsible for preparing 'speeches, talking points, editorials, Congressional testimony, video scripts, web content, and other written content for the Secretary and Deputy Secretary.' The department ranks as the largest federal law enforcement agency. In one of the blog posts linked to Lendrum, he appeared to argue that conservatives were facing political oppression similar to that of slaves and victims of the Holocaust. 'It has been said that the most surefire way to create an authoritarian regime is to completely dehumanize a significant portion of the population, so that their subsequent enslavement by the state will not face any larger resistance. It was true during slavery, it was true during the Holocaust, and it is true now,' the blog post stated. Responding to questions from The Independent, DHS shared a link to the text of the First Amendment. The X account linked to Lendrum argued that the U.S. should treat immigrants as an 'invading army.' 'They are not migrants. They are not 'undocumented.' They are an invading army. The largest invasion in American history,' one post stated in May 2023. 'And what are you supposed to do with an invading army? Crush it, by any means necessary. That's the #AmericaFirst way.' Also in the blog post about January 6, the author said, 'The Democrats were absolutely terrified — literally cowering under their seats, horrified at the prospect of mere peasants walking through the halls of their castle.' The lawmakers, including Republicans, were escorted by Capitol Police through the Capitol complex. 'The truth is that they are grateful the events of that day unfolded as they did,' the post argued regarding the Democrats. In a podcast episode published in April 2023, he said he would 'always properly deadname t***** freaks.' 'I will keep calling them t******* because I know it's derogatory, and I know they freakin' hate it. That's why I deadname them. That's why I use their original pronouns,' he said. 'You control the language. Don't give these freaks an inch on the language.' 'We need to eradicate transgenderism. Wipe it off the face of the Earth. Destroy it. Get rid of it,' he added. 'As a disclaimer, I'm not saying to wipe the people out. I'm not saying get rid of the people. I'm saying eliminate the ideology. Cure these people.'
