Hundreds of ‘DEI' books are back at the Naval Academy. An alum and a bookshop fought their removal.
'Do you believe it?' asked Marks, a 1996 alum who spearheaded a campaign to maintain student access to the books. 'What great news. We're thrilled.'
All the books the academy removed in early April had one thing in common: Officials flagged them for DEI themes. They include Maya Angelou's 'I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings,' Harper Lee's 'To Kill a Mockingbird' and Elizabeth Reis' 'Bodies in Doubt: An American History of Intersex.' The purge followed directives from Trump-appointed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who has called DEI initiatives 'divisive.'
Determined to ensure that students could still read the works, Marks began crowdfunding to replace them on April 5.
'The motto of the Naval Academy is 'from knowledge, seapower,'' said Marks, who served as a Navy commander for 22 years. 'What we mean is without knowledge, education and intellectual growth, we will never become a strong Navy. So this contradiction really struck me, that instead of encouraging knowledge and encouraging discussion, the Pentagon was actually suppressing knowledge and limiting discussion.'
About 4,400 students, members of the Brigade of Midshipmen, attend the Naval Academy while on active duty in the U.S. Navy. After graduation, they are required to serve in the Navy or Marine Corps for at least five years. Women represent more than a quarter of the student body, while men make up over 70 percent of midshipmen.
Initially, Marks hoped to fundraise $3,810, which he figured would be enough to cover the cost of the books pulled from Nimitz Library. Since Marks lives in Arlington, Texas, he tapped Old Fox Books & Coffeehouse in Annapolis, Maryland, home to the academy, to be his local partner.
Donations have far exceeded his goal, topping $70,000.
Jinny Amundson, an owner of Old Fox Books, said by the time she got the call from Marks, she had already heard about the books removed and had started compiling a list of them to purchase for the store's inventory.
'For a bookseller, the idea of censoring any kind of books just gives us heart palpitations,' Amundson said. 'And it's our community. The [midshipmen] think of our shop as a place that they love and one of their sort of unofficial bookstores. We have the mids, the faculty, the administration that come in and think of our space as their own.'
Amundson said she understood that the removal of books was an order, which has to be followed within the military. But she found the loophole: Her bookshop could store the titles targeted. It is conveniently located about a block away from the Naval Academy gates.
The day before the institution's May 23 graduation, Amundson learned that most of the pulled books were back on the library's shelves. She went to see for herself, took pictures of the books and sent them to many of the authors, who had personally contacted her when the restrictions on the works took effect.
Now, just 20 books are being sequestered pending a formal compliance review, according to the Department of Defense. A Navy spokesperson did not provide details to The 19th about those titles. Ultimately, a narrowing of the search terms used to flag books for review resulted in the return of hundreds of books to the Nimitz Library, as the Department of Defense first issued broad guidance about book removals to the military services.
'What struck me was the very arbitrary and even cruel nature of the books that got removed,' Marks said. 'These books were a cross-section of American culture. They were important to the discussion of American history.'
In an updated May 9 memo, the Pentagon instructed the military services to use 20 search terms to pinpoint books in their academic libraries that might need to be set aside because of how they engage race or gender. Among those terms were affirmative action; critical race theory; gender-affirming care; transgender people; and diversity, equity and inclusion.
People across the political spectrum expressed alarm about the book restrictions, which have been widely opposed, according to Marks. 'We really shouldn't be banning any books,' he said. That includes those with unpopular, or even offensive, ideas like Adolf Hitler's 'Mein Kampf,' which managed to evade the Naval Academy's book purge, he noted.
He calls his effort to maintain the midshipmen's access to all books in the Nimitz Library Operation Caged Bird, after the 1969 Angelou memoir that was likely targeted because it describes racial segregation and child abuse.
The name Operation Caged Bird also alludes to the feeling of being restrained by censorship. 'I almost felt like I could feel the bars closing in on me in terms of what I can read and can't read,' Marks said. 'That didn't sit right.'
Marks' GoFundMe campaign has raised enough money to supply 1,000 books in 2025 and fund a three-year initiative at Old Fox, ensuring midshipmen can access any contested title for free.
'If you're a midshipman and you're writing an essay paper and there's a book you can't find, maybe it's been removed or banned, you can call them, and they'll order it for you, and then you just pick it up free of charge,' Marks said. He's also coordinating with other service academies, anticipating similar battles.
At the Navy's three other educational institutions, fewer than 20 books have been flagged as potentially incompatible with the military's mission, as have a few dozen at the Air Force Academy and other Air Force academic institutions. The Army has also been ordered to assess library books at its educational institutions, but a spokesperson from West Point told The 19th that no books have been pulled at this time, as its compliance review is still underway.
The return of nearly 400 books to the Naval Academy library coincides with a pending lawsuit accusing Department of Defense-run schools of violating K-12 students' constitutional rights for limiting books and subject matter related to gender, race and sexuality. The American Civil Liberties Union filed E.K. v. Department of Defense Education Activity in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of 12 students. A hearing will take place June 3. The ACLU seeks a preliminary injunction to give the youth access to materials it argues have been restricted to align with President Donald Trump's executive orders and political agenda.
Amundson said she was pleasantly surprised that it took just weeks for the books to be returned to the Naval Academy.
'I believe that what happened and the response that was given in Annapolis — I think that made the administration be much more careful this time around as they're going for these other libraries, the other Department of Defense libraries around the world,' she said.
Amundson said using the funds raised from the GoFundMe campaign, the bookstore was able to give away nearly 500 books in the days leading up to the Naval Academy graduation. For weeks, letters of support piled up and people stopped by the bookstore with gratitude, some even driving from hours away to show their support in person.
In addition to Operation Caged Bird, Amundson said there were 'powerful arms at work.' There was pushback on the book removals from members of Congress, the Naval Academy's Board of Visitors and the superintendent — who wrote an open letter signed by hundreds of alumni.
'For right now, this was a huge win for us,' Amundson said.
The post Hundreds of 'DEI' books are back at the Naval Academy. An alum and a bookshop fought their removal. appeared first on The 19th.
News that represents you, in your inbox every weekday. Subscribe to our free, daily newsletter.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
18 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Trump tax law could cause Medicare cuts if Congress doesn't act, CBO says
WASHINGTON — The federal budget deficits caused by President Trump's tax and spending law could trigger automatic cuts to Medicare if Congress does not act, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported Friday. The CBO estimates that Medicare, the federal health insurance program for Americans over age 65, could potentially see as much as $491 billion in cuts from 2027 to 2034 if Congress does not act to mitigate a 2010 law that forces across-the-board cuts to many federal programs once legislation increases the federal deficit. The latest report from CBO showed how Trump's signature tax and spending law could put new pressure on federal programs that are bedrocks of the American social safety net. Trump and Republicans pledged not to cut Medicare as part of the legislation, but the estimated $3.4 trillion that the law adds to the federal deficit over the next decade means that many Medicare programs could see cuts. In the past, Congress has always acted to mitigate cuts to Medicare and other programs, but it would take some bipartisan cooperation to do so. Democrats, who requested the analysis from CBO, jumped on the potential cuts. 'Republicans knew their tax breaks for billionaires would force over half a trillion dollars in Medicare cuts — and they did it anyway,' Rep. Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania, the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said in a statement. 'American families simply cannot afford Donald Trump's attacks on Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare.' Hospitals in rural parts of the country are already grappling with cuts to Medicaid, which is available to people with low incomes, and cuts to Medicare could exacerbate their shortfalls. As Republicans muscled the bill through Congress and are now selling it to voters back home, they have been critical of how the CBO has analyzed the bill. They have also argued that the tax cuts will spur economic growth and pointed to $50 billion in funding for rural hospitals that was included in the package. Groves writes for the Associated Press.
The Hill
18 minutes ago
- The Hill
CEO of paid protest company says it works with both sides of the aisle
(NewsNation) — President Trump alleged Friday that Democrats are paying protesters to fight his Washington, D.C., crime policies. But how do paid protests actually work? NewsNation spoke with Adam Swart, the CEO of Crowds on Demand, about his company that provides services 'for impactful advocacy campaigns, demonstrations, PR stunts, crowds for hire and corporate events,' according to its website. 'All of our protesters are sincere advocates for the cause at hand. We've been in business 13 years, so we have a large roster of people we know and have networks of others we can call upon to be compensated for expressing their sincere points of view,' Swart said. Swart said compensation for protests is typically in the low hundreds of dollars, depending on the assignment. He said organizing a protest 'is like buying an ad.' He said his company receives requests for both conservative and liberal causes. 'We have been clear that we work with both liberals and conservatives on causes that align with common-sense values. Democrats are hiring our company, and so are Republicans,' he said. He did not disclose what protests his company has been asked to be a part of. Swart previously told NewsNation that he turned down $20 million to provide protesters for ' Good Trouble Lives On ' protests in July. 'I'm rejecting it not because I don't want to take the business, but because frankly, this is going to be ineffective; it's going to make us all look bad,' Swart said of the anti-Trump protests at the time.
San Francisco Chronicle
18 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Judge denies Trump administration request to end a policy protecting immigrant children in custody
McALLEN, Texas (AP) — A federal judge ruled Friday to deny the Trump administration's request to end a policy in place for nearly three decades that is meant to protect immigrant children in federal custody. U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee in Los Angeles issued her ruling a week after holding a hearing with the federal government and legal advocates representing immigrant children in custody. Gee called last week's hearing 'déjà vu' after reminding the court of the federal government's attempt to terminate the Flores Settlement Agreement in 2019 under the first Trump administration. She repeated the sentiment in Friday's order. 'There is nothing new under the sun regarding the facts or the law. The Court therefore could deny Defendants' motion on that basis alone," Gee wrote, referring to the government's appeal to a law they believed kept the court from enforcing the agreement. In the most recent attempt, the government argued they made substantial changes since the agreement was formalized in 1997, creating standards and policies governing the custody of immigrant children that conform to legislation and the agreement. Gee acknowledged that the government made some improved conditions of confinement, but wrote, 'These improvements are direct evidence that the FSA is serving its intended purpose, but to suggest that the agreement should be abandoned because some progress has been made is nonsensical.' Attorneys representing the federal government told the court the agreement gets in the way of their efforts to expand detention space for families, even though Trump's tax and spending bill provided billions to build new immigration facilities. Tiberius Davis, one of the government attorneys, said the bill gives the government authority to hold families in detention indefinitely. 'But currently under the Flores Settlement Agreement, that's essentially void,' he said last week. The Flores agreement, named for a teenage plaintiff, was the result of over a decade of litigation between attorneys representing the rights of migrant children and the U.S. government over widespread allegations of mistreatment in the 1980s. The agreement set standards for how licensed shelters must provide food, water, adult supervision, emergency medical services, toilets, sinks, temperature control and ventilation. It also limited how long U.S. Customs and Border Protection could detain child immigrants to 72 hours. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services then takes custody of the children. The Biden administration successfully pushed to partially end the agreement last year. Gee ruled that special court supervision may end when HHS takes custody, but she carved out exceptions for certain types of facilities for children with more acute needs. In arguing against the Trump administration's effort to completely end the agreement, advocates said the government was holding children beyond the time limits. In May, CBP held 46 children for over a week, including six children held for over two weeks and four children held 19 days, according to data revealed in a court filing. In March and April, CPB reported that it had 213 children in custody for more than 72 hours. That included 14 children, including toddlers, who were held for over 20 days in April. The federal government is looking to expand its immigration detention space, including by building more centers like one in Florida dubbed ' Alligator Alcatraz,' where a lawsuit alleges detainees' constitutional rights are being violated. Gee still has not ruled on the request by legal advocates for the immigrant children to expand independent monitoring of the treatment of children held in U.S. Customs and Border Protection facilities. Currently, the agreement allows for third-party inspections at facilities in the El Paso and Rio Grande Valley regions, but plaintiffs submitted evidence showing long detention times at border facilities that violate the agreement's terms.
