By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A federal judge has ruled that the Department of Defense must return books about race and gender to school libraries on military bases after the removal of nearly 600 books sparked a lawsuit. The students, children of active-duty service members, alleged their First Amendment rights were violated due to the removal of books covering topics such as sexual identity and racism. The American Civil Liberties Union filed a motion on behalf of the families, arguing the removals stemmed from partisan motivations related to executive orders prohibiting materials promoting “gender ideology and discriminatory equity ideology” and guidance issued by the Secretary of Defense. Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles sided with the students, citing “improper partisan motivation” and ordering the restoration of the removed materials.
Read the original article here
Books about race and gender to be returned to school libraries on some military bases is a really interesting situation, and honestly, a bit perplexing when you step back and look at it. The core issue is that a significant number of books, specifically those dealing with race and gender, were removed from school libraries on some military bases. And the list of these books, provided by the ACLU-KY, is extensive, numbering in the hundreds. It’s hard not to be struck by the sheer volume of titles.
The situation is further complicated by who this affects: the children of military families. These are kids whose parents are dedicating their lives to service, and the argument is being made that these children, in a way, are being penalized by the removal of these books. It’s not just about a lack of access; it feels like these children are being denied opportunities, and it raises questions about the values we are prioritizing.
The initial reactions to this are interesting, and it’s a bit disheartening. The argument is often presented that if these ideas – critical race theory, discussions of non-traditional gender identities – are somehow easily refuted or fundamentally flawed, then there shouldn’t be a problem allowing these books. The idea is that our troops, and by extension their children, are capable of critical thought and forming their own informed opinions. This sentiment seems to be driven by a lack of trust in the military community and its children.
There’s an undercurrent of irony too. The goal is to cultivate a truly intelligent military. In a world of increasing complexity and nuance, a diverse range of perspectives seems crucial to develop robust and well-rounded thinking. It’s hard to reconcile the desire for an intelligent military with restrictions on the information available to its children. Shouldn’t we expect the best, from all our citizens, and trust them to be capable of handling diverse information?
The scope of the removal is also worth noting. It’s not just a selection of books deemed unsuitable. The list includes, unsurprisingly, sex education materials. The reasons behind this, when combined with the other removals, seem to be about a fear of certain topics and a desire to control the narrative.
The reaction to the removals also highlights deeper societal issues and debates. This often plays out in arguments around upholding particular societal structures. The core question is why there’s a perceived need to constantly reinforce them. Why is there a felt necessity to shield kids from these ideas, unless there is a true underlying vulnerability to those ideologies?
The quote about separating scholars from warriors resonates powerfully here. It suggests that a society that limits intellectual freedom is ultimately one where critical thinking is stifled, and decisions are made based on fear rather than informed judgment. This feels like a disservice to the very people we are asking to protect and defend us. A lack of diversity of thought will likely generate a lack of diverse solutions.
The discussion, of course, touches on some broader philosophical and economic ideas. The ideas of social Darwinism and interpretations of capitalism get brought up, usually in contrast to each other. These issues, while important, seem to drift away from the core problem of book removals and access to information.
Ultimately, the decision to remove these books from military base libraries raises serious questions about censorship, intellectual freedom, and the values we want to instill in the children of military families. It’s a complex issue with no easy answers, but the sheer number of books removed and the implications for the children involved demand further scrutiny.