[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]






 
                        FREE SPEECH UNDER ATTACK

                     (PART II): CURRICULUM SABOTAGE

                        AND CLASSROOM CENSORSHIP

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               before the

            SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES

                                 of the

                         COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
                               AND REFORM

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                              MAY 19, 2022

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-82

                               __________

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Reform
      
      
      
 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
      


                       Available on: govinfo.gov
                         oversight.house.gov or
                             docs.house.gov
                             
                             
                             
                          ______                       


             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
47-668 PDF           WASHINGTON : 2022 
                              
                             
                             
                             
                   COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM

                CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York, Chairwoman

Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of   James Comer, Kentucky, Ranking 
    Columbia                             Minority Member
Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts      Jim Jordan, Ohio
Jim Cooper, Tennessee                Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia         Jody B. Hice, Georgia
Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois        Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
Jamie Raskin, Maryland               Michael Cloud, Texas
Ro Khanna, California                Bob Gibbs, Ohio
Kweisi Mfume, Maryland               Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York   Ralph Norman, South Carolina
Rashida Tlaib, Michigan              Pete Sessions, Texas
Katie Porter, California             Fred Keller, Pennsylvania
Cori Bush, Missouri                  Andy Biggs, Arizona
Shontel M. Brown, Ohio               Andrew Clyde, Georgia
Danny K. Davis, Illinois             Nancy Mace, South Carolina
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida    Scott Franklin, Florida
Peter Welch, Vermont                 Jake LaTurner, Kansas
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr.,      Pat Fallon, Texas
    Georgia                          Yvette Herrell, New Mexico
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland           Byron Donalds, Florida
Jackie Speier, California            Vacancy
Robin L. Kelly, Illinois
Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan
Mark DeSaulnier, California
Jimmy Gomez, California
Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts

                      Russ Anello, Staff Director
               Devon Ombres, Subcommittee Staff Director
                    Amy Stratton, Deputy Chief Clerk

                      Contact Number: 202-225-5051

                  Mark Marin, Minority Staff Director
                                 ------                                

            Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties

                    Jamie Raskin, Maryland, Chairman
Kweisi Mfume, Maryland               Nancy Mace, South Carolina, 
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida        Ranking Minority Member
Robin Kelly, Illinois                Jim Jordan, Ohio
Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts       Andy Biggs, Arizona
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of   Scott Franklin, Florida
    Columbia                         Byron Donalds, Florida
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York   Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
Danny K. Davis, Illinois

                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hearing held on May 19, 2022.....................................     1

                               Witnesses

Panel 1

Elle Caldon, Student, Dallas County, Texas
Oral Statement...................................................     9

Claire Mengel, Student, Hamilton County, Ohio
Oral Statement...................................................    11

Krisha Ramani, Student, Oakland County, Michigan
Oral Statement...................................................    12

Panel 2

Suzanne Nossel, Chief Executive Officer, PEN America
Oral Statement...................................................    14

Dr. James Whitfield, Former Principal, Colleyville Heritage High 
  School
Oral Statement...................................................    16

Willie Carver, Teacher, Montgomery County High School, Kentucky
Oral Statement...................................................    18

Virginia Gentles, Director of the Education Freedom Center, 
  Independent Women's Forum
Oral Statement...................................................    20

Jennifer Cousins, Parent, Orlando, Florida
Oral Statement...................................................    22

Prof. Timothy Snyder, Richard C. Levin Professor of History, Yale 
  University
Oral Statement...................................................    23

Written opening statements and statements for the witnesses are 
  available on the U.S. House of Representatives Document 
  Repository at: docs.house.gov.

                           Index of Documents

                              ----------                              

  * CNN, article, April 22, 2022, ``Florida Releases Four 
  Examples from Math Textbooks It Rejected for Public Schools''; 
  submitted by Rep. Donalds.

  * Math Book screenshot; submitted by Rep. Donalds.

  * Tampa Bay Times, article, ``Florida Rejected Dozens of Math 
  Textbooks But Only 3 Reviewers Found CRT Violations''; 
  submitted by Rep. Raskin.

  * New York Times, article, ``A Look Inside the Textbooks that 
  Florida Rejected''; submitted by Rep. Raskin.

The documents entered into the record for this hearing are 
  available at: docs.house.gov.


                        FREE SPEECH UNDER ATTACK

                     (PART II): CURRICULUM SABOTAGE

                        AND CLASSROOM CENSORSHIP

                              ----------                              


                         Thursday, May 19, 2022

                   House of Representatives
                  Committee on Oversight and Reform
           Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., 
2154 Rayburn House Office Building and via Zoom; the Hon. Jamie 
Raskin (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Present: Representatives Raskin, Maloney, Wasserman 
Schultz, Kelly, Norton, Tlaib, Davis, Mace, Jordan, and 
Donalds.
    Mr. Raskin. Good morning. The committee will come to order. 
Welcome to today's remote hearing.
    Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a 
recess of the committee at any time. And I will now recognize 
myself for an opening statement, and I want to thank our 
witnesses for being here for this important hearing, and we 
have got some great witnesses today.
    It is our second subcommittee hearing addressing the 
escalating assault on free speech and free thought in 
classrooms across America. Last month, our hearing was on the 
thousands of books being targeted for censorship in school 
libraries, in classrooms, such as George Orwell's 1984, Toni 
Morrison's The Bluest Eye, Drama by Raina Telgemeier, and 
Margaret Atwood's Handmaid's Tale, because they address the 
historical and psychological realities of race, gender, sexual 
orientation, or power in ways that are deemed politically 
incorrect.
    Book censorship wrecks a healthy environment for free 
inquiry and learning, and I have been amazed by the widespread 
response we have received across the country to our hearing 
from students, parents, teachers, and authors alarmed by what 
is taking place in their communities. But I am also heartened 
by their expressed determination to fight for the freedom to 
think, to read, to debate, to discuss, and to explore.
    I want to introduce into the record a letter signed by more 
than 1,300 children's and young adult authors and illustrators, 
including New York Times best-selling authors and Newberry and 
Seuss Award winners like Judy Blume, Rick Riordan, Jacqueline 
Woodson, and Mo Willems, that is decrying book bans in 
classroom censorship.
    Mr. Raskin. This hearing addresses the closely related 
nationwide assault on the rights of teachers and students to 
engage in free speech and learning in the classroom through the 
dissemination of basic facts and historical truths that are 
deemed by some politically incorrect or just uncomfortable. 
Authoritarianism always opposes historical memory and teachings 
that record and evoke the experiences of prior victims of 
authoritarianism, racism, and fascism. The historical record of 
oppression and suffering is treated as an impediment to 
imposing new forms of control over people's lives and people's 
thoughts and people's bodies.
    Of course, the replacement of education based on facts, 
truths, and ideas is the spread of dangerous conspiracy 
theories, big lies, and disinformation, and America has come to 
know the bitter price of conspiracy theory and big lies and 
disinformation--social polarization, virulent racism, and white 
nationalism, proliferating hate crimes, deranged gun violence, 
and racial massacre.
    The people of Buffalo, New York, just paid that terrible 
price on Saturday. Six days ago, an 18-year-old gunman, jacked 
up on deranged conspiracy theory and white supremacy packed up 
a small arsenal of firearms and drove four hours to a 
neighborhood grocery store in Buffalo, New York, called Tops 
Friendly Market, where he proceeded to execute 10 people and 
wound three others. After months of planning, the gunman 
selected this neighborhood because it was the most densely 
populated African American community nearby. Inspired by prior 
deadly racist massacres, from the Oklahoma bombing to 
Christchurch to El Paso to the Tree of Life Synagogue to the 
Mother Emanuel Church, the killer livestreamed his sickening 
atrocity on the gaming platform, Twitch.
    The gunman's 180-page manifesto justified what he 
cheerfully called his act of terrorism by reference to white 
replacement theory, the pervasive, right-wing conspiracy theory 
which asserts that white people, the rightful rulers of 
America, are being purposefully replaced in society with Black 
and Brown minority groups by their Jewish controllers for the 
purpose of destroying the white race. The killer wanted to warn 
non-whites to, quote, ``Leave while you still can. As long as 
the white man lives here you will never be safe.'' He openly 
stated that his goal was to, quote, ``kill as many Black people 
as possible.''
    Significantly for our hearing today, the mass murderer 
invoked the spread of critical race theory as a factor in his 
crime. Critical race theory was a theory advanced in the 
1980's, when I was in law school, to explain the stubborn hold 
of white supremacy and racism, even after the Supreme Court's 
decision in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. And these 
scholars argued that American legal institutions and legal 
doctrine must incorporate the people's lived experience of 
slavery, the Dred Scott decision proclaiming that African 
Americans have no rights, that the white man is bound to 
respect, the Civil War and reconstruction, Plessy v. Ferguson, 
in 1896, upholding Jim Crow apartheid in America, as well as 
the recurring heroic struggle for civil rights and freedom in 
our country.
    Critical race theory has barely been taught in most law 
schools recently and was never taught in America's public 
schools, in elementary school or middle school. The vast 
majority of public school teachers had never even heard of it 
before the right wing decided to make it the name of everything 
they wanted to purge from public schools in America, 
specifically the actual history of race and racism in our 
country as well as teachings about gender, sexual orientation, 
and gender identity.
    This effort began with a right-wing propagandist named 
Chris Rufo, who decided to use critical race theory as the 
cover in the villain for his campaign to destroy public 
education in America. In November of last year, he tweeted, 
``It is time to clean house in America. Remove the Attorney 
General, lay siege to the universities, abolish teachers' 
unions, and overturn the school boards.''
    Recently he elaborated his program in a speech called 
``Laying Siege to the Institutions,'' apparently a favorite 
phrase of his that has an eerie ring to those of us who were 
here on January 6, 2021. But in that speech he stated, ``To get 
to universal school choice you really need to operate from a 
premise of universal public school distrust.'' And he said, 
``You fight on terms you define. Giving the game away,'' in his 
attack on institutions, ``you have to create your own frame, 
your own language, and you have to be ruthless and brutal in 
pursuit of something good.''
    When called out specifically for attempting to create a 
mass campaign against public education that starts with (one) 
sowing mass distrust in public schools in order to win, and 
(two) universal school choice, Rufo responded, ``Hell, yes. 
Thanks for sharing.''
    This sinister strategy to promote paranoid distrust in the 
school environment is now playing out in states around the 
country. Some 17 states have passed classroom censorship laws 
or adopted orders prohibiting the discussion of race-related 
issues in history, literature, and current events in public 
schools. These prohibitions include teaching anything that 
might make a student feel guilt, anguish, or psychological 
distress on account of race or sex, which imagines that our 
students, millions of students, specifically white students, 
are snowflakes who cannot handle the actual history of our 
country, including racism, Jim Crow, or massacres like the 
Tulsa race riots. These laws are designed so that if a student 
hears something that might make them uncomfortable their 
parents can complain, and in many states get the teacher 
disciplined or fired.
    This is, of course, an absurd, unworkable, and dangerous 
principle upon which to base education about history and 
society which is inevitably filled with material that might 
make someone or everyone uncomfortable. Must we purge the 
teaching of World War II, with its genocide and massacres in 
high school because the students are considered too fragile to 
handle the truth? Must we purge the truth of wars against 
Native American Indians in the 18th and 19th centuries because 
that would hurt the feelings of the descendants of whites who 
were alive at the time?
    A grotesque effect of these censorship laws is that 
teachers cannot even discuss with students the actual self-
proclaimed motivations of the Buffalo shooter or the falsehoods 
and racial animosity inherent in white replacement theory 
without fear of getting fired. Under new Texas laws, not only 
could classroom discussions about the shooting be prohibited 
but Twitch could also be prohibited from removing the 
livestream of the massacre from its servers because that would 
be defined as viewpoint discrimination.
    Classroom censorship has also expanded into attacking the 
LGBTQ+ community by creating a moral panic about lesbian and 
gay people recruiting and indoctrinating children, grooming 
them for sexual exploitation. Florida passed the so-called 
Don't Say Gay Act, which prohibits teaching anything related to 
human sexuality or gender identity to K through 3rd-grade 
students.
    The truth is that grooming in this twisted parlance is not 
and has never been part of a state or local curriculum or any 
competent teacher's practice. No one wants to teach 
kindergartners about sexual activity beyond recognizing what a 
bad touch or overture from a grownup is. No. If young students 
are learning about sexual orientation and gender identities it 
is in the context of recognizing differences in family 
structures. Yes, some kids today may have two moms or two dads, 
just as a lot of kids may have a single parent at home. What is 
wrong with teaching that? And the emotion-social learning 
curricula that have come under attack teach you that it is OK 
to be yourself, or perhaps it is part of anti-bullying 
instruction. It is not OK to vilify or humiliate someone just 
because they are different.
    The classroom censorship laws being passed and proposed 
today are the hallmark of authoritarian regimes, removing 
anything from the public sphere that does not comport with a 
strict party line and then demonizing it. In Russia and Belarus 
today, it is a crime to disseminate so-called LGBTQ+ propaganda 
or discredit the institution of the family, just as it is a 
crime to describe the war against the sovereign democratic 
nation of Ukraine as a war. That can get you sent to prison in 
Russia today.
    A proposed law in Tennessee would prohibit the use of any 
classroom material addressing LGBTQ lifestyles. A proposed 
Kansas bill would make it a misdemeanor to use any classroom 
materials depicting gay people. These laws are not being passed 
for the benefit of students and their educational progress. 
They are not being passed to support parents' rights to 
transparency and involvement in their children's education.
    They are being passed to enforce the will of a right-wing 
minority hellbent on destroying public schools against the 
exhausted majority of parents who support real education and 
trust teachers, principals, and elected school boards to do 
right by their children. These laws are being used to undermine 
public faith in public schools and destroy one of the key 
pillars of our democracy, one that was precious to the founders 
of our country and that is precious to the parents of America, 
more than 90 percent of whom send their kids to public school.
    I look forward to hearing from our excellent witnesses 
today, and I now yield to our superb ranking member, the 
distinguished gentlelady from South Carolina, Ms. Mace. But I 
must begin by congratulating her, because I understand that she 
recently got engaged over the weekend to one of the luckiest 
guys in America, Mr. Patrick Bryant.
    So congratulations to you, Ms. Mace, and I now recognize 
you for your opening statement. And please, I think I have gone 
over so you use the time you need.
    Ms. Mace. Thank you, Chairman Raskin, and I know Patrick 
will appreciate the congratulations. We are both still on Cloud 
Nine from the weekend. I appreciate our witnesses being here 
today, both in person and virtually.
    Our state and local government can and should make informed 
decisions and choices about curriculum for our students. In 
fact, the first hearing we had on this a few weeks ago we had 
eyewitnesses, and when I asked them if state superintendents of 
education should have a say in the curriculum of students, they 
could not answer the question yes or no. When I asked if school 
boards should have a say in students' education, those 
witnesses could not answer yes or no. And when I asked if 
parents should have a say in the education of their children, 
those witnesses could not answer the question.
    But, in fact, in 1982, it was the Supreme Court that 
recognized state legislatures and school boards are, in fact, 
empowered to establish and apply their curriculum in such a way 
as to transmit community values. And that makes total sense. 
Legislatures and school boards are directly accountable to 
voters and to the parents of students attending local schools. 
And as we often like to say up here in Washington, DC, on the 
Hill, is that the government closest to the people is a 
government that governs best for the people.
    And I want to recognize that there is important work going 
on across the country to ensure K-12 curriculum in public 
schools serve our students well and prepare them for success. 
And there is no time like the present to be having this 
conversation because kids are still suffering from what we put 
them through in COVID-19, aka virtual school, which was an 
absolute abject failure for our students across the country.
    At the last hearing we talked about the importance of our 
freedom of speech, and it is important in our American society, 
especially given the attempts to stifle free speech on college 
campuses and across the country. And in the last hearing I 
talked about a college in my own backyard, where a student 
tried to start a nonpartisan political organization and was 
banned from doing that on his college campus and had to sue to 
establish that organization. And that should never happen in 
this country. Whether you have a R or a D by your name, or 
whether you have the most far right or far left beliefs in this 
country, free speech should not be stifled. I know the chairman 
will agree with me that when they say it aloud, you want to 
hear them. We want to know what folks are thinking.
    I am concerned this hearing may be here today to discredit 
legitimate and lawful attempts to ensure our curricula are 
designed to empower students to achieve their full potential. 
These are the things we should be focusing on.
    I have seen it in my own personal household. I am a single 
working mom of two teenagers, one in high school and one in 
middle school, and I cannot tell you how devastating COVID-19 
and virtual school has been, not only on our family but 
families across the Nation. And every one of our students, no 
matter their ZIP code or the color of their skin, should have 
the opportunity to reach their full personal and academic 
potential. But unfortunately we have seen attempts to 
indoctrinate our young students. In fact, we saw an examples of 
this during the pandemic. We saw teachers' unions that 
conspired with the far left, with some far-left politicians, to 
keep schools closed, to keep parents of school board meetings.
    Parents watched their children struggle through virtual 
school, like I myself did. We saw kids that were struggling 
with their mental health. We had suicides and attempted 
suicides and suicidal thoughts and mental health issues with 
our children increase over 25 percent during the COVID-19 
pandemic, and many of these kids have not recovered.
    We also witnessed lesson plans being laced with divisive 
and radical ideologies. But make no mistake--we should be 
teaching our children the academic skills they need to succeed 
along with the complete history of our country, the good, the 
bad, and the ugly.
    And, in fact, I talked about this last weekend when we were 
commissioning a missile destroyer named after Lieutenant 
General Frank E. Petersen, Jr., who was the first African 
American aviator in the U.S. Marine Corps. He was the first 
African American flag officer or general on the U.S. Marine 
Corps. He served for 38 years. He flew over 350 missions, 
combat missions, and received the Distinguished Flying Cross, a 
Superior Service Medal, the Purple Heart, and any number of 
other commendations.
    I also talked about some of the rich Black history we have 
in the low country, in the area that I represent, from Robert 
Smalls, who commandeered a Confederate ship during the Civil 
War and got it to Union soldiers in Beaufort and Hilton Head 
Island in the low country area. I talked about Harriet Tubman, 
who rescued over 700 slaves in one single night during the 
Civil War. I talked about the history of the first Black 
American to ever sit in the U.S. House of Representatives, and 
his name was Joseph P. Rainey. He was a Black Republican 
representing South Carolina's First congressional District.
    We have so many heroes that our children, Black, white, and 
other, can aspire to. These are the things that we should be 
talking about celebrating and teaching our kids our history, 
giving them hope for the future, giving them people and heroes, 
literal heroes, to look up to, and one day become.
    But make no mistake. As I stated earlier in and in the last 
hearing we held on this subject, we must teach our children all 
of the chapters of our history, and in K-12 classrooms there 
are no places to be teaching concept like race as essentialism, 
racial scapegoating, the concept of a sexual nature that is not 
age appropriate for our young children. These are things that 
the vast majority of Americans cannot agree to.
    Our children's innocence should be protected and 
prioritized along with their potential for their personal and 
academic success. Our children are the most loving and 
forgiving among us. Our children are the ones who can teach us 
so many lessons about how to be fair, how to be equitable 
amongst those that are not. Our children should not be taught 
that they are oppressors or that they are victims, merely based 
on the color of their skin. Instead, we should redouble down on 
our efforts to ensure our children have the foundation to 
achieve their best and full potential. Reading, writing, 
arithmetic, where too often our schools are failing our 
children.
    I look at my own state of South Carolina, where we are 
slated, right in the smack-dab in the middle of the amount of 
money that we spend per pupil in this country. And yet we are 
always last on education and the academic achievements of our 
students in this country. We have so much further we have to 
go, and we are not doing it. And we need to do better in terms 
of the way and the amount of money is spent, and getting it to 
the classrooms and to our teachers rather than to bureaucrats 
that are doing a great disservice to parents and students 
across the country.
    Those students whose schools were closed the longest have 
suffered the most, whose parents worked outside the home, whose 
parents were impoverished and did not have internet or their 
kids did not have computers to work on when schools were 
closed. We miserably failed our students during COVID-19. This 
learning loss was acute. This learning loss continues, and many 
of our students I know personally have not recovered. I know 
this personally because I have seen it with my own family, with 
my own eyes, and I have seen it in students across the state of 
South Carolina.
    We have empirical data to show the losses. Studies from 
both Harvard and Brown University demonstrate children in 
virtual school had the greatest learning loss. Those students 
are the very students who the far left claims they care the 
most about. The most disadvantaged, the greatest minority 
populations were the ones that we left behind. The far left are 
dismissive of the greatest increase in educational inequity in 
our history because it was at the hands of blue state 
officials. And until we acknowledge the problem they created we 
cannot fix it.
    Now I am concerned that we are simply not doing enough to 
get our students back on track. Our children's future, our 
country's future is at stake.
    I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, 
especially about their ideas to ensure our students can reach 
their full potential and the many obstacles that we have 
created, how do we overcome them to do better for our kids and 
our country?
    Thank you, Chairman Raskin, and I yield back.
    Mr. Raskin. And thank you, Ms. Mace, for that very fine 
opening statement.
    I want to recognize the chair of the full Oversight 
Committee for an opening statement. Ms. Maloney, you are 
recognized if you wanted to speak for a few minutes.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you so much for this hearing. It 
is very timely. I would also like to commend you on your 
leadership and taking on this issue in your subcommittee. It is 
extremely important.
    I served as a teacher early in my career so I know how 
challenging a job it can be and also how important it is that 
educators are free to tell our children the truth--the truth 
about our history, the truth about our great nation, and the 
truth about themselves.
    Censoring classroom discussions on race, gender, and LGBTQ 
issues is an affront to the right of free speech guaranteed in 
our Constitution. It can also have devastating consequences. 
The horrifying, racist attack at a grocery store in my home 
state this past weekend shows what happens when we ignore and 
spread hatred. That attack was carried out by a man who 
targeted a Black neighborhood in Buffalo and killed 10 innocent 
people. He found his motivation in a racist and radical 
conspiracy theory that he discovered online. On June 8, the 
full committee will examine the failures that allowed guns to 
get into the hands of this individual and other criminals.
    But today we are talking about a more fundamental concern, 
how censorship laws will facilitate the further spread of 
hateful ideologies, because hiding the truth from our children, 
as the state laws we are discussing today aim to do, only makes 
it more likely that racism, homophobia, and other lies will 
fester and spread.
    Proponents of some of these new censorship laws claim they 
want to protect children, but banning classroom instruction on 
uncomfortable issues like slavery, Jim Crow, the Black and 
LGBTQ civil rights movements does nothing to protect children, 
nor do we protect children when we hide books from them that 
might teach them about the beauty and humanity of people and 
cultures that are different from their own.
    Among the most disturbing aspect of these censorship laws 
is how they seek to poison the relationship between teachers, 
students, and their families, turning relationships of trust 
into relationships of fear. For example, lesbian, gay, and 
transgender students often see schools as safe havens where 
they can learn about who they are and seek guidance. Evidence 
shows that LGBTQ children who have even a single adult they can 
confide in, especially when they may not have one at home, are 
less likely to attempt suicide than their peers that have no 
support.
    But laws like the Don't Say Gay bill in Florida make it 
almost impossible for teachers to talk about these issues and 
could even require teachers to report a child who comes out to 
them to the child's parents. This puts an already vulnerable 
population of students at even greater risk. These extreme 
censorship laws also put teachers in constant fear of 
discipline and even legal or financial harm simply for doing 
their jobs.
    We have an important group of people who are here to 
testify. I look forward to your testimony. I have a very long 
statement. I am going to put it in the record because I want to 
hear what you have to say and I know our time is limited.
    Chairwoman Maloney. I thank the chairman for yielding to 
me. I would like to yield back now to hear your testimony on 
this very important issue.
    Mr. Raskin. And thank you so much, Madam Chair. And now it 
is my pleasure to introduce our first panel of witnesses who 
are all high school students. They will be testifying but not 
answering questions, pursuant to agreement with Ranking Member 
Mace and customary practice.
    First we have Elle Caldon, who is a student from Dallas 
County, Texas. Then we will hear from Claire Mengel, who is a 
student from Hamilton County, Ohio. And finally we hear from 
Krisha Ramani, who is a student from Oakland County, Michigan.
    The witnesses will please stand or be unmuted so I can 
swear you in. Please raise your right hands.
    Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to 
give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, 
so help you God?
    Ms. Caldon. I do.
    Ms. Mengel. I do.
    Ms. Ramani. I do.
    Mr. Raskin. Let the record show that all of the witnesses 
have answered in the affirmative. Thank you very much. Without 
objection, your written statements are going to be made part of 
the record. We give you five minutes within which to explain to 
the committee your basic point.
    And with that, Ms. Caldon, you are now recognized for your 
testimony.

 STATEMENT OF ELLE CALDON, HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT, DALLAS COUNTY, 
                             TEXAS

    Ms. Caldon. My name is Elle Caldon and I am a student at 
McArthur High School in Irving, Texas. I would like to thank 
the House Oversight Subcommittee----
    Mr. Raskin. Ms. Caldon, I am sorry. We cannot hear you. Can 
you speak up or more directly into your microphone?
    Ms. Caldon. My name is Elle Caldon and I am a student at 
McArthur High School in Irving, Texas. I would like to thank 
the House Oversight Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil 
Liberties for providing me the opportunity to speak today about 
my school where various classes and clubs have been effectively 
dismantled after administrators scraped rainbow-striped ally 
stickers off of teachers' doors, and students and teachers 
sought an explanation. One of the teachers asking questions was 
my favorite teacher, Rachel Stonecipher. She taught English, 
yearbook, journalism, and newspaper. When she supported her 
newspaper staff in pursuing information about the policies 
behind the stickers' removal she was removed, and recently her 
contract was terminated.
    The trouble began over the weekend of August----
    Mr. Raskin. I am sorry. You said her contract was what?
    Ms. Caldon. Terminated.
    Mr. Raskin. Terminated? OK.
    Ms. Caldon. The trouble began over the weekend of August 27 
through 29 of last year, when school administrators covertly 
removed the small rainbow stickers from where they had 
unobtrusively sat for over a year on allied teachers' doors and 
windows. Teachers and students arrived the morning of August 30 
to scratch marks on doors and residue on windows, leaving 
students unsure and fearful of who may have removed them so 
suddenly. It became clear that administrators had removed the 
stickers without any communication with the school's large Gay-
Straight Alliance Club that has provided them to its sponsors, 
of whom Ms. Stonecipher was one.
    Ms. Stonecipher, responding to a newspaper student's 
interest in reporting the matter shared the public information 
that the district had given teachers concerning its policy 
justification. Later we found out that teachers had been 
directed to bring their concerns about the stickers only behind 
closed doors, which ultimately revealed there was no policy 
behind the stickers' removal and that all had unfolded in 
closed-door conversations among administrators.
    Shortly after Ms. Stonecipher voiced her questions to 
administrators about why and when the stickers disappeared, and 
only two days after all five GSA sponsors filed a grievance 
about the district requesting the stickers to be re-allowed, 
she was removed right in front of me and my classmates during 
my seventh-period newspaper class on September 16. Less than a 
week later, GSA sponsor, history teacher, and National Honor 
Society leader, Zobaria Shah was next.
    In my view, administrators could only be satisfied to leave 
the school without a newspaper, a yearbook, a philosophy club, 
a competitive journalism team, a National Honor Society, and 
great history and English teachers during a teacher shortage if 
they had abandoned the belief that education matters more than 
politics. The district could have simply talked with the LGBTQ 
students and allies seeking answers, but somehow administrators 
found their priorities in conflict with the ideals of 
transparent communication and support for students.
    This is becoming a national trend. Teachers are being 
vilified. They are being attacked. They are taking the fall for 
administrative mistakes. They took the fall when my district 
removed the rainbow stickers and claimed there was a policy 
supporting their actions. Since I was a part of the newspaper 
staff, philosophy club, and Uil journalism team, Ms. 
Stonecipher's sudden absence has seriously compromised my 
academic plans, like other students. I have been verbally 
demeaned by district and school officials for challenging their 
motive behind terminating a teacher who, in my view, 
outperformed other teachers. But I do not believe in muzzling 
student inquiry or speech, and I will not be silenced.
    Ms. Stonecipher's English language and composition class 
taught me the power of words in our perception of the world. As 
newspaper editor-in-chief, I was thrilled when she managed to 
attract over 30 students in this year's staff, which the 
previous year only had four students. Two weeks in we had a 
brand-new design concept and 15 articles in production, but 
after her disappearance her students were relocated to sit in 
the gym without any lesson plans. Once a permanent substitute 
arrived we got back into the classroom, but the newspaper 
classes were given assignments from the English 2 course, which 
most had already taken or were concurrently enrolled in.
    On September 29, I met with a high-level school 
administrator who told me that they had been unaware Ms. 
Stonecipher even taught newspaper and promised to provide a 
curriculum, but a newspaper never happened. In November, I 
wrote an article about what students thought when the teachers 
came down and Ms. Stonecipher left. But on November 9 I was 
told not to submit my story because of, quote, ``personnel 
matters,'' unquote, and
    [inaudible] would bar it from publication regardless. I 
wrote a complaint concerning September's events. In a meeting 
between myself and a campus operations official I was told that 
talking about Ms. Stonecipher made my arguments less effective 
and that I should know that because I am a writer. That 
official also suggested I only filed the complaint because I 
want to be a lawyer.
    The
    [unclear] at McArthur High is more than the absence of a 
sticker or even two teachers. It is the disavowal of the ethics 
of education that I hope is not a signal for worse things to 
come in our Nation.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you for your excellent testimony and for 
finishing within five minutes and for hanging tough for your 
teacher and for freedom.
    Let's see. Ms. Mengel, you are now recognized for your 
testimony for five minutes.

   STATEMENT OF CLAIRE MENGEL, HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT, HAMILTON 
                          COUNTY, OHIO

    Ms. Mengel. Good morning. My name is Claire Mengel, my 
pronouns are they/them, and I am from Cincinnati, Ohio. Thank 
you for inviting me here today and for holding this hearing.
    I want to tell you about an event my school hosts called 
Diversity Day and how its cancellation is affecting my peers' 
education and mental health. But first I want you to know two 
things about me. In my whole life I have been taught by only 
one teacher of color, my Mandarin teacher from China. Also, I 
live in suburban Cincinnati where just under 90 percent of my 
classmates are white.
    Diversity Day is a one-day, optional event at Turpin High 
School at which students participate in activities and 
discussion to learn about and celebrate diversity. On the day 
before Diversity Day this year the event was postponed. Our 
school board told us that the permission slips sent to parents 
were not comprehensive enough so the event had to be postponed. 
Students could immediately tell that their issue was not with 
the permission slips. The board members expressing concerns had 
campaigned on anti-CRT policies and were using CRT as a 
scapegoat to cancel open discussion of diversity.
    We were determined to preserve Diversity Day so we sent new 
permission slips and rescheduled the event for May 18. Then, on 
Sunday, May 1, the board held a special meeting and canceled 
Diversity Day. They voted 4-0 that the event could not happen 
on school property, during school hours, or using any school 
funds.
    Students took matters into our own hands. We made a 
GoFundMe to cover the cost of student shirts and raised more 
than $13,000, over double our goal. We planned a shortened 
version of the event, outside school hours, and not on school 
property. Because we did not have a whole school day we could 
only have one of our four original speakers. We had to cut many 
activities and videos.
    Yesterday, almost 400 students participated in a peaceful 
protest during the school day, but because of sprots and other 
conflicts only 140 could attend the after-school Diversity Day.
    We held an event outside of school because it was the only 
option. But the shortened event paled in comparison to what we 
originally planned, and an extracurricular event will not be a 
viable path forward for future Diversity Days.
    Like many others, my district is in the middle of a mental 
health crisis. Seven students have committed suicide since I 
started middle school. While administrators are doing 
everything they can just to keep us alive, the anti-CRT 
rhetoric by the school board is causing immeasurable stress on 
our students and staff. I, and other students, spent many hours 
planning this replacement event instead of studying for exams 
and cherishing our last weeks of high school.
    The board's actions have also taken a toll on our teachers 
and administrators. The superintendent announced his 
resignation after the first postponement. Our teachers are 
scared. I have had teachers whisper to me that they wish they 
could take a sticker that says ``Protect Diversity Day'' but 
they fear repercussions. Something has gone very wrong when 
teachers think they will be fired for supporting the concept of 
diversity.
    Most critically, students of color are being told by the 
highest authority in their district that their stories do not 
deserve to take up school time, school grounds, or school 
resources. I bring up mental health to remind you that this 
issue is, in many cases and in many ways, life and death.
    I ask you, shouldn't we, as students, have the freedom to 
learn in school about different cultures, perspectives, and 
backgrounds? Our event is not about CRT. Our event is about 
diversity, learning about it and celebrating it. The school 
board brought politics into our schools when they attacked our 
event. Their actions have harmed our education, our mental 
health, and our community.
    I urge you to protect students' opportunity to learn about 
diversity and I urge you to listen to student voices.
    Thank you for inviting me here.
    Mr. Raskin. Claire, thank you for that very powerful and 
cogent testimony, and thank you for hanging tough for freedom 
and the right of inquiry and organizing.
    And now we come to Ms. Ramani. You are now recognized for 
your five minutes of testimony.

   STATEMENT OF KRISHA RAMANI, HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT, OAKLAND 
                        COUNTY, MICHIGAN

    Ms. Ramani. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. I am Krisha 
Ramani and I am a junior from Novi High School.
    I have had the privilege of growing up in two very 
different communities. From kindergarten through elementary 
school I attended a school where the majority of students there 
did not look like me, and I still remember this pivotal moment 
in my life, sitting down at this lunch table with all my 
friends around me. Still surrounded by my friends I felt 
different. And I felt different because looking around the 
table at everyone else's lunch, everyone had what I had come to 
know was normal food--pasta, burgers, pizza. And I looked 
around the table and I just felt different. And when that kind 
of thing happens again and again and again, you start to doubt 
yourself, and I did. I started to doubt my culture.
    When I was in fifth grade my family moved to Novi where 
there is a significant South Asian population, and being 
surrounded by people who could connect with my experiences, who 
could validate what I had gone through, discuss the things that 
I felt different for helped me cherish my culture.
    But so many students in this country are not afforded the 
luxury of living in a community with diverse perspectives. So 
many students in this country still feel different, and that is 
where the power of literature comes in. Books help us connect 
with people who may be going through the same difficult 
experiences, but over the past year 17 states have passed 
legislation prohibiting teachers from holding discussions about 
race, and many states are following in Florida's lead and 
introducing legislation that seeks to prohibit discussions of 
gender and sexuality.
    Let's put this plainly. These are targeted attempts to 
infringe on minority voices, and attempting to silence 
perspectives that we may not necessarily relate to or even 
agree with undermines the very values that make this country 
great. Our country is built upon the ability for our citizens 
to share their experiences through their First Amendment 
rights.
    Thomas Paine's Common Sense fan the flames for the push for 
freedom. Uncle Tom's Cabin and Frederick Douglass' 
autobiography galvanize grassroots action for the abolition 
movement. Silent Spring by Rachel Carson spurred national 
efforts to protect our environment. To censor voices that bring 
diverse perspectives to the mainstream is an unfettered attack 
on the very ideals that have progressed our country, and by 
infringing on students' rights to hear from diverse authors we 
effectively sanitize our history.
    But our country was powered by and founded by challenging 
perspectives, and young people want to hear these voices. Gen 
Z's utilize social media to transcend institutional barriers to 
organizing. Rather than filter through older generation's hold 
on traditional media, students have democratized the primary 
source of information. And young people's proficiency in 
navigating social media has enabled us to build a viable, 
sustainable platform for our voices.
    In fact, the most impactful movements of today has been 
conceived and perpetuated by Gen Z 16-and 17-year-olds. The 
Sunrise Movement, Project Exchange, YAF, March For Our Lives, 
millions of young people have been mobilized at a few taps on a 
glass screen. I mean, in Michigan alone, organizers like Dylan 
Morris, Lukich Dorevitch
    [phonetic], Rahi Shah, these students are organizing 
hundreds of thousands of young people. And through the school 
year my friends and I worked with lawmakers to propose 
legislation that enables high school constituents to vote for 
the school board members that are representing us.
    We are not exceptions to the rule. Across the country young 
people are educating themselves on our social landscape. Gen Z 
has the capacity, and more importantly, the willingness to 
learn about the issues affecting us. We want to participate in 
these tough conversations. We want to read about the diverse 
perspectives affecting us. And efforts to regulate what can be 
taught in the classroom is an insult to young people's ability 
to understand nuanced arguments.
    These book bannings, which disproportionately target 
authors sharing stories about communities that have never 
before been heard in this manner silence voices that we want 
and we deserve to hear.
    Now I am sure everyone is familiar with the glass ceiling 
metaphor, but what I want to talk about today is the glass 
fence that surrounds Capitol Hill. But finally, through social 
media, young people are melting down this glass fence. We are 
melting down these barriers. We are more connected, more 
educated, and more active than ever before. And as we continue 
to tear down this glass fence that separates the minds on 
Capitol Hill from the innovators of our time we have a duty to 
stop underestimating young people's ability to understand and 
connect with nuanced literature.
    It is time to stop underestimating us. Thank you.
    Mr. Raskin. All right. Well, thank you for that marvelous 
statement, and I think that nobody will underestimate this new 
generation after seeing these three very powerful presentations 
by these students. You have infused us with a lot of hope with 
your vivid language and description of what is actually 
happening, which is such a dramatic counterpoint to a lot of 
the program talking points and propaganda that we get up on 
Capitol Hill.
    So thank you so much for participating. You are now 
excused. And we welcome our second panel, so please show them 
in, and I am going to introduce them as they arrive.
    First we have Suzanne Nossel, who is the CEO for PEN 
America. Then we are going to hear from Dr. James Whitfield, 
who is the former principal for Colleyville Heritage High 
School in Colleyville, Texas. Then we will hear from Willie 
Carver, who was a teacher at Montgomery County High School, not 
in Maryland but Montgomery County High School in Mount 
Sterling, Kentucky. Next we will hear from Virginia ``Ginny'' 
Gentles, the Director of the Education Freedom Center at the 
Independent Women's Forum. And then we will hear from Jennifer 
Cousins, a parent of four, who has come to join us from 
Orlando, Florida. And finally, last but not least, we will hear 
from Dr. Timothy Snyder, the Richard C. Levin Professor of 
History at Yale University, who will join us by Zoom.
    The witnesses will please be unmuted or will rise so I can 
swear them in. If you all could rise.
    Please raise your right hands. Do you swear or affirm that 
the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Ms. Nossel. I do.
    Mr. Whitfield. I do.
    Mr. Carver. I do.
    Ms. Gentles. I do.
    Ms. Cousins. I do.
    Mr. Snyder. I do.
    Mr. Raskin. Let the record show that all of the witnesses 
have answered in the affirmative. Thank you very much for 
joining us, and without objection your written statements will 
be part of the official record of this hearing. And with that 
you are going to be recognized for five minutes of oral 
testimony.
    Ms. Nossel, you go first, and you are now recognized.

   STATEMENT OF SUZANNE NOSSEL, CHIEF EXECUIVE OFFICER, PEN 
                            AMERICA

    Ms. Nossel. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Raskin, 
Ranking Member Mace, and members of the subcommittee. I am 
Suzanne Nossel, CEO of PEN America. I applaud this committee 
for examining the wave of censorship engulfing our classrooms.
    PEN America's mission is to be both celebrate and defend 
free speech. We have championed rightist-facing Nazis, Gulags, 
fatwas, and life sentences. We work on free speech worldwide, 
including China, Turkey, Russia, Ukraine, Myanmar, and here in 
the U.S.
    I am the mother of two public high school students and a 
lawyer by training. I have proudly served in government twice, 
implementing the Helms-Biden agreement on U.S. arrears to the 
United Nations, and advancing U.S. interests at the U.N. Human 
Rights Council.
    Beginning in 2015, PEN America grew alarmed by rising 
censoriousness at college campuses, speaker dis-invitations, 
trigger warnings, and calls for safe spaces. We launched work 
on free speech in education, aiming to convince young people of 
the value of free speech and to enshrine it firmly in the 
future.
    In the last year, our concerns about free speech and 
education have widened and intensified. Since 2021, we have 
tracked the introduction of 185 bills, which we call 
educational gag orders, in 41 states. Nineteen have become law 
in 15 states that are home to an estimated 122 million 
Americans.
    Tennessee teachers have banned from discussing 14 distinct 
ideas, anything that promotes resentment of a class of people 
or questions whether individual rights are endowed by a 
creator. In Florida, from July, it will be legally risky for 
teachers to reference LGBTQ families before fourth grade. State 
legislation has led to written guidance for Iowa faculty on how 
to alter their teaching to avoid ``drawing scrutiny'' from the 
state. It has led to a trainer telling Texas teachers to 
balance books on the Holocaust with ``opposing views.''
    Over the last 10 months we have also documented more than 
1,500 book bans in 26 states, 350 new books slated to be 
destroyed in Rapid City, South Dakota, 110 books removed from 
shelves in Texas. Books targeted include Toni Morrison's The 
Bluest Eye, Art Spiegelman's Maus, and biographies of Ruby 
Bridges, Rosa Parks, and Martin Luther King, Jr.
    We are tracking proposals to surveil teachers, screen and 
censor public library holdings, mandate loyalty oaths, and 
encourage calling a hotline to report on educators for 
perceived acts of defiance.
    As an advocate who has championed stalwart U.S. leadership 
on free speech issues worldwide, I barely recognize my own 
country. The Supreme Court is clear that the discretion 
afforded to school boards is bounded by the First Amendment. 
The state cannot ``cast a pall of orthodoxy'' over the 
classroom nor ``contract a spectrum of available knowledge.''
    The current wave of bans and gag orders do just that, 
particularly because they are disturbingly vague. Current bill 
bar ``divisive concepts,'' stereotyping, and ``race and sex 
scapegoating,'' offering no definitions of these sometimes 
novel terms.
    Courts have held that speech bans must be narrowly tailored 
because they silence not just what is expressly prohibited but 
a wider band of what may be close to the line. Vague 
prohibitions risk rendering entire subject areas off limits. 
They could foreclose studies of the fugitive slave clause, 
Plessy v. Ferguson, or even the Civil War. At PEN America we 
think of our current moment as an ed scare, a time when 
manufactured fear is overtaking reason.
    Look, we are in a time of social transformation, addressing 
the unfinished business of the Civil Rights Movement. The drive 
for social change may sometimes take forms that feel heavy-
handed or even counterproductive. I have seen diversity 
training materials that seem to replace one set of pernicious 
racial stereotypes with another.
    The test for our democracy is how we respond. Of course 
parents must be deeply involved in our schools. That is why we 
have PTAs, parent-teacher conferences, and school boards. As a 
parent, if I have a concern I connect with those in charge, I 
attend a meeting, make a proposal about what could be done 
differently. I do not make threats or try to get people fired, 
because laws banning curriculum and books are not actually 
about giving parents a stronger say in schools. They are an 
orchestrated effort to polarize, intimidate, and restrict the 
flow of ideas.
    We also have to recognize that not all hazards to open 
discourse are equal. Topping any hierarchy of threats to free 
speech are those that the Constitution's framers most 
abhorred--viewpoint-specific, government prohibitions. So the 
idea that poorly thought-out training materials or tendentious 
classroom discussions can properly be met with government bans 
replaces one open debate with another that is far more potent 
and permanent.
    Our schools teach children not just math and reading but 
citizenship. Do we want them to think that the right response 
to these objectionable books or ideas is a government ban? If 
you are afraid of how this country is changing, what could be 
more frightening than seeing the First Amendment itself shunted 
aside to score points and sow division?
    In this time of widening fissures, schools help soldier us 
together as a Nation, yet these bills and laws are turning them 
into a raw, shredded battleground. Our public schools are the 
bedrock of American democracy. These attacks on open discourse 
and education risk cracking that foundation irreparably, an 
outcome that no defender of free speech and no American should 
allow.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Ms. Nossel, for your superb 
testimony.
    Dr. Whitfield, you are now recognized for your testimony.
    I just want to tell the members that votes have been 
called. We are monitoring it and we may have to recess, just to 
alert everybody.
    Dr. Whitfield, you are now recognized. Thank you for 
coming.

  STATEMENT OF JAMES WHITFIELD, FORMER PRINCIPAL, COLLEYVILLE 
            HERITAGE HIGH SCHOOL, COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS

    Mr. Whitfield. Good morning and thank you, Chairman Raskin, 
Ranking Member Mace, and members of the subcommittee, for 
having me here today.
    My name is James Whitfield. I am a husband and father of 
three amazing children. Most recently I served as a high 
principal in northeast Tarrant County, Texas, a suburb just 
outside of Dallas.
    I am here to tell you today there is reason for concern. I 
chose a career in education because of my school experience. 
Above all, I want school to be a place where students feel like 
they belong and they are excited to be each day, where staff 
are empowered, inspired, and equipped to serve each day, and 
where families feel connected and have the highest levels of 
trust as they send their young people into our buildings each 
day. I have witnessed what can happen when that environment 
exists. It is such a beautiful thing.
    But I have also witnessed how toxic things can get when 
people with nefarious agendas come to town--the lies, the 
bigotry, the intolerance, the racism. Never mind the fact that 
they do not know you or even care to know you. They have an 
agenda, and your mere existence threatens that, so they come 
after you.
    If not for public school educators filling some deep holes 
in my life I do not know where I would be. From Ms. Duffy, my 
junior high science teacher, who made me truly feel seen at 
school for the first time, to Coach Carmona, who was the first 
Black male educator I remember during my school experience, 
when I got to seventh grade, he was a representation for me of 
what could be. To Coach Stevenson, my high school basketball 
coach, who helped guide me through two pivotal points in my 
young life, my mother's diagnosis with leukemia when I was a 
sophomore in high school, and then in the spring of my senior 
year I became a father at the age of 17. Coach Stevenson 
wrapped his arms around me. He did not allow me to wallow in 
self-pity. He loved me and he continued to encourage me.
    When I sit before you today and tell you that education, 
specifically public education, saved my life I say that from 
the deepest parts of my soul. I serve as a public school 
educator with a deep sense of purpose and conviction like so 
many who have chosen this most noble profession. Teaching is 
one of the most complex and multifaceted professions on the 
planet. Every kid deserves a Ms. Duffy, a Coach Carmona, a 
Coach Stevenson in their lives. Someone who believes in them, 
inspires them, empowers them, holds them accountable, and above 
all, loves them.
    But here is what keeps me up at night. We are losing Ms. 
Duffys and Coach Carmonas and Coach Stevensons left and right 
as educators continue to be asked to do more with less, all 
while navigating the complexities of their role and enduring 
baseless attacks by individuals with political agendas. 
Processes for addressing concerns through procedural means have 
been overwritten by the loudest, most fanatical factions in our 
communities.
    Teachers are met with interpreting vague legislation which 
speaks to not making people feel guilt or anguish. Educators 
who pour their heart and soul into the growth and development 
of young people have been placed squarely in the crosshairs of 
political groups who are determined to destroy public 
education. They face bullying. They face calling for their 
jobs. They face death threats and hate mail. They have reached 
points of frustration and exhaustion that I have not seen in my 
near two decades in the profession.
    To be crystal clear, this is about disrupting and 
destroying public schools. When you say ``parents' rights,'' it 
is not what it seems. You see, parents have rights. To say they 
do not is a blatant lie to the public. As educators, we do not 
build walls between families in our schools. We build bridges. 
We understand the critical importance of a strong school-family 
partnership. We must simply call this what it is, a ploy to 
divert public school dollars to subsidize private education in 
the name of choice.
    This cannot be the way forward. We simply cannot afford to 
lose true public education. It is the key to upward mobility in 
our society. Every student, regardless of faith, race, 
socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, or any other factor 
deserves to be seen, heard, valued, celebrated, engaged, 
inspired, empowered, and loved each day.
    The past several months have been traumatic for my family 
and I, to say the least. I have witnessed firsthand what an 
environment can become when the most extreme, vile, hate-filled 
elements take grip of a community. But I have also witnessed 
large groups of students, like we have seen in here today, gain 
a voice and stand in the face of this hatred. I am so proud of 
our young people, and standing with you. They give me great 
hope.
    And far too often when mentioning parents we have left out 
the vast majority of parents and families who adamantly stand 
against these hateful efforts, as witnessed in my journey. 
Those people stood with me and stood in the gap for my family 
during such a chaotic time, and we are eternally grateful for 
their love, compassion, encouragement, and support.
    These concerns are real and have lasting impact on 
educators, students, and families, and I beg you to take these 
threats seriously and do all you can to support us.
    I appreciate the time to speak with you all this morning. 
Thank you very much.
    Mr. Raskin. Dr. Whitfield, thank you. Your love and your 
commitment to education is moving beyond words, and I know the 
committee is going to be interested in hearing more about 
specifically what happened to you, how your contract was 
terminated just for speaking out about diversity in the school 
and you were accused of participating in critical race theory, 
as I understand it. But we will come to you. Thank you for your 
testimony.
    Mr. Carver, you are now recognized for your five minutes.

 STATEMENT OF WILLIE CARVER, FORMER TEACHER, MONTGOMERY COUNTY 
             HIGH SCHOOL, MOUNT STERLING, KENTUCKY

    Mr. Carver. Chairman Raskin, Ranking Member Mace, and 
members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to 
come before you and offer my testimony on this issue.
    My name is Willie Carver. I am a 17-year teaching veteran. 
I sponsor multiple school groups and am published in dozens of 
professional organizations. I am the 2021 Teacher Who Made A 
Difference, and was chosen among 42,000 teachers as the 2022 
Kentucky Teacher of the year.
    I was born to teach, and I am good at it. I transform 
students' thinking, abilities, and lives. I have always faced 
discrimination as a gay teacher, and I have weathered the storm 
because my presence saves lives. Forty percent of trans people 
attempt suicide, nearly all before they are 25, but one 
affirming adult reduces suicide attempts by half.
    But that was before. Few LGBTQ teachers will survive this 
current storm. Politicizing our existence has darkened schools. 
I am made invisible. We lost our textbooks during lockdown so I 
co-wrote and found free printing for two textbooks, and I was 
not allowed to share them. Other schools celebrate similar work 
but my name is a liability. I am from Mount Sterling, Kentucky, 
and met the President of the United States. My school did not 
even mention it in an email.
    This invisibility extends to all newly politicized 
identities. Our administrator's new directive is ``nothing 
racial.'' Parents now demand alternative work when authors are 
Black or LGBTQ, and we are told to accommodate them, but I will 
not ethically erase Black or queer voices. We ban materials by 
marginalized authors, ignoring official processes. One parent 
complaint removes all students' books overnight. Students now 
use anti-LGBTQ or racial slurs without consequence. Hatred is 
politically protected now.
    My Gay-Straight Alliance, or GSA, a campus group dedicated 
to LGBTQ issues and safety, could not share an optional campus 
survey with classmates. I was told it might make straight 
students uncomfortable. When posters were torn from walls my 
principal responded that people think LGBTQ advocacy is ``being 
shoved down their throats.''
    Inclusive teachers are being thrown under the bus by the 
people driving it. During a teacher shortage crisis, gay 
educators with perfect records are being terminated. A Kentucky 
teacher's message of ``You are free to be yourself with me. You 
matter,'' with pride flags, resulted in wild accusations and 
violent threats. During this madness, his superintendent wrote 
to a parent, ``This incident is unacceptable and will not be 
tolerated.'' The situation became unimaginably unsafe. The 
teacher resigned.
    Last month, one parent's dangerous false allegations that 
my GSA was grooming students was shared 65 times on Facebook. I 
felt my students and I were unsafe. Multiple parents and I 
asked the school to defend us. One father wrote, simply, 
``Please do something.'' The school refused to support us.
    There are 10,000 people in my town. The fringe group 
attacking us does not represent most parents who trust us. 
School is traumatic. LGBTQ students are trying to survive it. 
They often do not. Year after year, I receive suicidal goodbye 
texts from students at night. We have always struggled to save 
those students but now I panic when my phone goes off after 10.
    Merrill, a gentle trans girl from Owen County High School, 
recently took her life. She always wanted a GSA. Her friends 
tried to establish one but the teachers who wanted to help were 
afraid to sponsor it. Merrill's mother, Rochelle, runs an 
unofficial group, Prism, from the local library.
    Forty-five percent of LGBTQ youth seriously considered 
suicide this year. We chip away at their dignity and spaces to 
exist. The systems meant to protect them will not even 
acknowledge them.
    I recently attended Becky Oglesby's TED talk. She described 
surviving a tornado with first-graders, how they huddled, her 
arms around them, as school walls lifted into the darkness. I 
sobbed uncontrollably. I realized that for 15 years I have 
huddled around students, protecting them from the winds, and 
now the tornado is here. As the walls rip away I feel I am 
abandoning them, but I am tired. I have fought for so long for 
kids to feel human, to be safe, to have hope. I do not know how 
much longer I can do it.
    I need you--we need you--to be brave, to face the storm 
with us. Strong public schools are an issue of national 
security and moral urgency. Political attacks are exacerbating 
teacher shortages, harming our democracy, and above all, 
hurting our children. We need you to pass the Equality Act to 
make discrimination against LGBTQ people illegal. We need you 
to pass the Safe Schools Improvement Act to protect all 
students from harassment.
    We are not asking for special treatment. We are asking for 
fundamental human decency, dignity, freedom from fear, and the 
same opportunity to thrive as everyone else.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Carver, for your service and for 
that eloquent presentation.
    Now, Ms. Gentles, you are now recognized for your five 
minutes.

   STATEMENT OF VIRGINIA GENTLES, DIRECTOR OF THE EDUCATION 
           FREEDOM CENTER, INDEPENDENT WOMEN'S FORUM;

    Ms. Gentles. Chairman Raskin, Ranking Member Mace, and 
members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to 
appear today.
    My name is Virginia Gentles and I am the Director of the 
Education Freedom Center at Independent Women's Forum. IWF is a 
nonprofit organization that advances policies that enhance 
people's freedom, opportunities, and well-being. My work there 
focuses on empowering parents by expanding educational freedom.
    Like you, Ranking Member Mace, I am a single parent of two 
school-aged children, and I also wanted to mention that I am 
the product of Orange County public schools in Orlando, 
Florida.
    The nearly universal public school closures that began in 
March 2020 temporarily granted parents access to classroom 
content. Before the pandemic began, many parents complacently 
trusted their neighborhood schools to provide a robust academic 
experience for their children.
    However, as parents logged on to access their children's 
online assignments and library books and peered over their 
children's shoulders into Zoom classrooms, they discovered 
materials focused on activism rather than academics. These 
materials repeatedly warned children of a looming climate 
catastrophe, instructed them that our country is irredeemably 
racist, and pressured them to define themselves by their 
racial, sexual, and gender identity.
    Parents realized two things during the school closures, 
which were lengthy in too many areas of the country. No. 1, 
limiting parental access to instructional materials had allowed 
schools to hide these weak and often politicized instruction 
that children receive. And No. 2, the combination of weak 
instruction and lengthy school closures left children 
struggling academically and falling further behind, resulting 
in widespread learning loss.
    The primary purpose of the education system is to educate 
students, so how have schools been doing with this primary 
responsibility? An avalanche of research suggests that our 
education system is failing to deliver on this most basic 
promise of developing an informed citizenry equipped with basic 
skills, knowledge, and prepared for the work force.
    It appears that today's hearing has been called in response 
to a wave of parental objections to school materials that 
promote an obvious political and ideological agenda. But the 
bigger crisis we need to focus on for our Nation's students is 
that of learning loss.
    Negligent school district leaders endanger children 
academically, emotionally, and physically but closing and 
refusing to open schools, decisions that led to devastating 
learning loss and significant mental health issues. As The New 
York Times has reported, children fell far behind in school 
during the first year of the pandemic and have not caught up.
    Unfortunately, vulnerable students were hit particularly 
hard, with the youngest students, students with special needs, 
and students from low-income households experiencing the most 
learning loss. Students in states and school districts that 
kept schools closed longer have suffered the most. A recent 
study from Harvard University found that schools with large 
numbers of low-income and minority students remained closed the 
longest, and remote instruction was a primary driver of 
widening achievement gaps. According to an author of the 
Harvard study, this will probably be the largest increase in 
educational inequity in a generation.
    Assessment provider Renaissance Learning discovered that 
students reading and math scores are worse this school year 
than last school year, suggesting that the pandemic is having a 
compounding effect on student achievement. And we see specific 
state results that are disturbing. California math scores have 
been described as a five-alarm fire, with eighth-grade students 
testing, on average, at the fifth-grade level in math. Maryland 
state assessment results marked the greatest single-year 
decline in any state test given in at least the past two 
decades.
    Sadly, children who had not yet learned to read before 
schools closed are still struggling to read. In Virginia, where 
I live, early reading skills are at a 20-year low.
    Unfortunately, most school district leaders are not taking 
this learning loss crisis that they created seriously. 
Districts are awash in Federal funding but they have not been 
strategically spending the $190 billion in supplemental funding 
that Washington showered upon them across three COVID-era 
emergency spending bills. Districts have only allocated a tiny 
portion of the funds to student-centered strategies like 
tutoring, and according to the U.S. Department of Education, 
most of the Federal funding remains unspent.
    Private schools reopened quickly and stayed open during the 
pandemic, protecting enrolled students from learning loss and 
driving support for education freedom to all-time highs. 
Policymakers should empower parents to leave public schools 
that do not prioritize academic instruction and enroll their 
children in options committed to educating students. State and 
local leaders should fund students directly by creating 
flexible education savings accounts. Allowing parents to access 
funding directly through such accounts enables them to escape 
the chaos of COVID-era education systems and swiftly address 
their children's educational needs.
    The majority of American students entered COVID with weak 
academic skills. School closures, atrocious remote instruction, 
and the prioritization of activism over academics compounded a 
pre-existing condition. Parents and policymakers must hold 
school districts accountable for the massive infusion of 
Federal funds and ensure that the resources are directed to 
proven student-centered strategies that will effectively 
address the Nation's learning loss crisis.
    Mr. Raskin. Ms. Cousins, thank you for your very thoughtful 
testimony.
    And now Professor Snyder, you are recognized for your five 
minutes.
    I am sorry. That was Ms. Gentles. Thank you for your 
thoughtful testimony.
    Ms. Cousins, your turn, and I will come to you, Dr. Snyder, 
in a moment.

    STATEMENT OF JENNIFER COUSINS, PARENT, ORLANDO, FLORIDA

    Ms. Cousins. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Raskin, 
Ranking Member Mace, and the rest of the subcommittee.
    I am a mom of four empathetic, beautiful, and intelligent 
kids, who my world revolves around. My kids are 6, 8, 12, and 
14, and I have two boys, one girl, and one gender nonbinary 
child. I am a fierce advocate for my children, all of whom have 
only ever attended public school, an institution I hold sacred.
    When I saw the bills that were going through Tallahassee 
earlier this year I felt the need to travel up there with other 
concerned parents, students, and advocates to share my concerns 
about House bills 1557, 1467, and 7. These new laws whitewash 
history, ban books, and more importantly, erase the 
acknowledgement of students, parents, and school staff that 
belong to the LGBTQIA+ community.
    H.B. 1557, also known as Don't Say Gay, as written forbids 
the instruction of sexual orientation and gender identity in 
grades K-3, and then only where age appropriate thereafter. The 
bill's sponsors did not bother to define in the law what was 
meant by ``sexual orientation,'' ``gender identity,'' 
``classroom instruction,'' or ``age appropriate,'' but we, and 
that includes school policymakers, know its intent is to target 
LGBTQIA+ inclusive learning.
    Supporters of the law have argued gender identity inclusion 
in middle and high school is not age appropriate and sexual 
orientation is only included in the voluntary state standard of 
HIV prevention curriculum. So now our local leadership is 
desperately waiting for clarity from the Florida DOE.
    If gender identity is commonly defined as a personal sense 
of one's own gender, a book or instructional material that 
depicts a girl proudly wearing a frilly, pink dress is just as 
much about gender identity as a material with a transgender 
character in it. A book featuring a Mommy and Daddy is just as 
much about sexual orientation as a book that features two 
Mommies.
    K-3 classroom materials are usually filled with pictures 
that are designed to engage early learners. Please take a 
moment and imagine what classroom materials would look like if 
they could not include families or relatable boys and girls.
    Teaching about the existence of LGBTQIA+ people in K-3 
prevents bullying, builds empathy, and ensures that every child 
feels included in the classroom. H.B. 1557 will impact my 
family. It will make my rising first-and third-graders second-
guess whether it is safe to speak proudly about our family and 
their sibling for fear of getting themselves or their teachers 
and school in trouble. It will increase the likelihood that my 
non-binary child will be bullied for simply existing, and it 
will make it harder for them to seek out support from school 
staff, knowing that this law incentivizes avoiding 
conversations about sexual orientation and gender identity.
    In a recent survey by the Trevor Project, it was shown that 
1 in 5 trans and non-binary youth have attempted suicide in the 
past year. Now that Florida is seeking to hide their existence 
and silence their voices, I fear for what those numbers will 
look like next year.
    In addition to the censorship, these laws allow for legal 
action to be taken and add a new barrier to building a positive 
parent-teacher relationship. Teachers are leaving the 
profession in droves, particularly in Florida, where pay, 
morale, and district support is low. This year, my honors 
English sixth-grader has been bounced between three different 
teachers, with their last one being a math teacher, and it is 
looking worse for next year. Laws such as these leave our 
educators weary of remaining in a profession where politicians 
are breeding distrust and removing their ability to make 
adjustments that best serve the unique makeup of their 
classrooms.
    Public schools always have and always will continue to 
serve the largest and most diverse group of students. Teachers 
are trained to discuss many controversial topics in the 
classroom in a way that will challenge our students to think 
critically about their own beliefs and perspectives. For most 
parents across the U.S. exposure to a diverse set of people and 
beliefs is a major attribute, not a risk.
    Why should our teaching professionals question their own 
expertise to cater to the most conservative voices in the 
community? LGBTQIA+ people are our family, our friends, our 
neighbors, our educators, and have been a part of our community 
since the beginning of time. Laws like Florida's, officially 
named Parental Rights in Education, seek to erase their 
existence for our youngest of children who, by nature, are 
already more open to learning about diversity and accepting one 
another despite their differences, and definitely deny parents 
like me a safe learning environment for my children.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Ms. Cousins, for your excellent 
testimony.
    Dr. Snyder, we come to you for five minutes.

  STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY SNYDER, RICHARD C. LEVIN PROFESSOR OF 
                    HISTORY, YALE UNIVERSITY

    Mr. Snyder. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am very 
glad to be here as a historian who has studied the worst 
aspects of totalitarianism, which include violations of free 
speech, as a proud product of Ohio public schools. I am also 
very glad to be here with the students and the teachers who 
make my own career as a university historian possible. I am 
glad to be here with my fellow parents.
    I have been asked to make general remarks about the 
significance of free speech in history. I will do that and then 
draw from another contemporary example.
    The purpose of free speech in history, as has been 
discussed for more than 2,000 years, is to allow contestation. 
The purpose of free speech as, for example, the Greek 
playwright, Euripides, instructed us, is to create situations 
that are uncomfortable for power. Free speech allows much else, 
but that is its central purpose.
    The purpose of history in free speech is to allow all of us 
to see the errors of those in power. History is not a source of 
comfort. It is not a source of political homogeneity. History 
is a source of self-correction, which is why history works 
together so well with democracy. So in these fundamental ways, 
democracy requires history and free speech, and in particular, 
it requires free speech about history.
    Representative Mace, I quite agree with your point that 
history involves the good, the bad, and the ugly. As Ms. Ramani 
quite importantly reminded us, we do not know what the good and 
the bad and the ugly are unless we allow unrestrained and 
continued research and instruction.
    I am historian of Eastern Europe, and so the contemporary 
example which is very much on my mind is the example of Russia, 
which is another country where the idea that divisive concepts 
should be kept out of political discourse has held sway. 
Indeed, it is a country where this idea has gone much further 
and, therefore, it is a country from which, unfortunately, we 
can learn.
    In Russia, the divisive concepts are things like the famine 
in Ukraine of the 1930's, or the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, 
in which the Soviet Union was, in fact, an ally of Nazi 
Germany, as the war began.
    In Russia, these things are subject to official taboos as 
well as memory laws. So, a memory law is something in which 
people are punished for saying the wrong thing about the 
history of their country. Memory laws are a widespread 
international phenomenon, a phenomenon which the United States 
has been joining, unfortunately, these last few months and 
years.
    What we see from the Russian example is that memory laws 
make democracy impossible because they prevent reflection about 
basic issues of public interest. What we see in Russia, as 
well, is that memory laws make war much easier because they 
prevent the kind of reflection about one's own past that would 
be necessary. And so, therefore, Russia can launch an invasion 
on Ukraine making very much the same kinds of arguments that 
Soviet leaders made back in 1939. Russia can steal Ukrainian 
foodstuffs, threatening a famine, very much as like happened in 
1933, but no one is able to make these points because the 
history is not known, and even if it were known it would be 
illegal to discuss it.
    Once Russia invaded Ukraine, teachers in Russia were 
instructed to avoid divisive concepts which might lead the 
children to discuss the war, and of course, there as here, what 
a divisive concept in practice might be is going to be 
determined by government officials in practice. Not 
surprisingly, when the war began there was also a purge of 
textbooks in Russia, which is now ongoing, the purpose of which 
is to remove all mentions of Ukraine and the city of Kyiv from 
Russian schools.
    So, in conclusion, very briefly, I would like to echo what 
Mr. Carver said about courage. Freedom of speech requires a 
certain amount of courage. Confronting history requires a 
certain amount of courage. One of the purposes of history 
education is to inculcate that moral virtue of courage to 
accustom students to an environment where they can be 
challenged and where they can also challenge those in power.
    I make comparisons and I invoke history because we, as a 
country, are only exceptional insofar as we make ourselves so. 
When we confront memory laws ourselves, we are making a choice 
between what is courageous and what is cowardly.
    Thank you very much.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much for that superb testimony.
    We will now go to questioning and I am going to invite--oh, 
OK. All right. So Congressman Mace and I are going to excuse 
ourselves to go vote. Representative Norton, who is still 
disenfranchised as the delegate for the District of Columbia, 
will stay and chair the proceeding for us, and she can begin 
with her questioning, and we will come back as quickly as 
possible. Thanks.
    Ms. Norton.[Presiding.] All right. I am going to indicate 
the first question.
    I would like to preface my questions by noting that if 
Republicans take the House in the next Congress we could see 
them abusing Congress' undemocratic power over the District of 
Columbia to try to ban books and regulate the curriculum in 
D.C. public schools. This is not mere speculation. A Republican 
on this committee has introduced a bill this Congress that 
would regulate the teaching of race and gender in D.C. schools. 
This is one of the many reasons D.C. needs Statehood to prevent 
such meddling in local D.C. affairs.
    I now turn to my questions.
    Most of the classroom censorship bills being passed across 
the country seem to be intentionally vague. Teachers do not 
know what they can and cannot say anymore, and have to try to 
do their jobs in constant fear of being fired, fined, or having 
angry parents turn on them.
    To give you one example, a school district in Texas was so 
confused by the wording of a recent Texas law that they 
informed teachers that they needed to provide students opposing 
perspectives about the Holocaust.
    Ms. Nossel, what effect do intentionally vague laws such as 
these have on the individuals they are intended to regulate, in 
this case students and teachers?
    Ms. Nossel. Thank you very much. The Supreme Court's 
jurisprudence on the First Amendment is very clear that 
restrictions on free speech must be narrowly tailored, and that 
is out of a recognition that when there is a law interfering 
with free speech, and the scope of such a law under the First 
Amendment is allowed in very limited circumstances, but even 
where there may be a compelling government reason for such a 
prohibition, it must be narrowly tailored because it casts what 
courts have recognized as a chilling effect. It affects not 
just the speech specifically delineated but anything that might 
be seen as close to a line, because people recognize that who 
interprets the scope of the law, the terminology in the law, 
may vary. It could be a judge who sees things your way. It 
could be a school administrator who looks at things very 
different.
    And so, where you have these vaguely worded prohibitions, 
things like ``scapegoating,'' ``race,'' and ``gender,'' or 
vague terms like ``divisive concepts'' or ``gender identity,'' 
the risk for teachers is that all sorts of things that they may 
put forward could fall under that ambit if it is being 
interpreted broadly. And so, they have to be very cautious. We 
have seen, just in the last few days, teachers who are afraid 
to talk about what happened in Buffalo for fear that they may 
run afoul of a prohibition on discussions of race or racial 
supremacy in the classroom, which are now banned by law in some 
states.
    And so, there is a wide, chilling effect that is descending 
on our schools where all sorts of subject matter suddenly are 
put off limits. Teachers are intimidated. They are forced to be 
cautious. Administrators are telling them not to take any 
risks, to not discuss these topics at all for fear of running 
afoul of these laws. Thank you.
    Ms. Norton. These types of censorship laws bear an alarming 
similarity to those found in authoritarian regimes. Professor 
Snyder, as a historian and expert on the development of 
authoritarian states, does the enactment of a censorship and 
anti-LGBT laws sweeping the country concern you?
    Mr. Snyder. Yes. Thank you very much for that fundamental 
question. It concerns me very much as a historian for two 
different reasons. The first is that if we simply look at 
historical cases of authoritarianism or totalitarianism, we 
cannot help but be struck by the fact that the banning of books 
and the attempt to limit classroom discussion to some kind of 
homogenized set of topics is a hallmark of the early stages of 
the end of democracy. That is simply a fundamental part of the 
historical record. Authoritarians and totalitarians are aware 
that in order to master the present and the future they first 
have to master the past.
    And that leads me to the second way that I am concerned as 
a historian. As a historian, I understand that the process of 
democracy involves reflection about the past, such that we can 
make decisions about the present, which then affect the future. 
In other words, democracy itself requires us to have a broad 
and rich sense of time, which is full of factuality, full of 
interpretations, full of different viewpoints. When we shrink 
the past with censorship, with fear, with intimidation, we are 
also shrinking the possibility for discussions in the present 
and also thereby narrowing the possibilities for the future.
    So, in that way there is nothing more undemocratic than to 
limit the possibility of discussion about the past, because 
it's precisely discussions about the past that allow us to see 
different viewpoints, to correct our own mistakes, and to make 
better policy. Without the possibility of historical knowledge 
that kind of discussion and self-correction is impossible, and, 
of course, discussion and self-correct is what democracy is all 
about. Thank you.
    Ms. Norton. Thank you, Professor Snyder.
    I call on Mr. Donalds of Florida next.
    Mr. Donalds. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, real 
quick, for the record I would like to introduce an article by 
CNN from April 22, 2022, titled ``Florida Releases Four 
Examples from Math Textbooks It Rejected for Public Schools.'' 
I would like to enter that into the record. And I would also 
like to enter into the record a screenshot of one of the bar 
graphs from the math book that was rejected by the State Board 
of Education in Florida.
    Ms. Norton. So ordered.
    Mr. Donalds. Thank you.
    Witnesses, actually what you are getting is handouts of the 
stuff, the items that I just placed into the record. First 
thing, witnesses, I would like to draw your attention to is the 
large bar graph that is being placed in front of you. This bar 
graph is actually from one of the math textbooks that was going 
to be for Florida adoption. The bar graph that is slated 
basically states here, it shows the differences among age 
groups on the implicit association test that measures levels of 
racial prejudice. Higher scores indicate stronger biases. This 
is a measuring of racial prejudice by age.
    This is an example of a math--this is math, now--this is an 
example of a bar graph being used in a math textbook that was 
slated for adoption in the state of Florida. The State Board of 
Education, under the law that was passed by the legislature 
dealing with critical race theory in curriculum--in classroom 
materials, excuse me, that actually rejected those materials 
being in classrooms. This is one of the examples that the State 
Board of Education actually cited for why this math book was 
rejected.
    There is another one. In the article set that you see the 
image at the beginning of the CNN article is, ``What me? 
Racist?'' More than two million people have tested their racial 
prejudice using the online version of the implicit association 
test. Most groups' average scores all between slight and 
moderate bias, but the difference among groups by age and by 
political identifications are intriguing.
    This was in a math textbook that was actually solicited to 
the state of Florida to be adopted by Florida public schools. 
So, if we are going to talk about curriculum and what should be 
adopted should we not actually get to the facts and talk 
specifically about what is in textbooks?
    So my question for all the panelists, and everybody can go 
one at a time, should material like this be in a mathematics 
textbook that would go before students, who might be taking 
math lessons somewhere in middle school, fifth grade, or even 
ninth grade? Should this bar graph, talking about implicit bias 
or racial bias, be included in a mathematics textbook, not just 
in the state of Florida but in any state in the union?
    Panelists, what is your answer? Not all at once, you all. 
Come on. Who is going first?
    Mr. Whitfield. I do not mind going first. Thank you for the 
question----
    Mr. Donalds. Sure.
    Mr. Whitfield [continuing]. and I look forward to hearing 
the responses from the rest of the panel.
    You have given us a little bar graph here. This is out of a 
textbook?
    Mr. Donalds. This is out of a textbook. This is an example 
of what Florida released about why they did not adopt a math 
textbook.
    Mr. Whitfield. Yes. So do we agree that racial prejudice 
exists?
    Mr. Donalds. Dr. Whitfield, the question is should this be 
in a mathematics textbook?
    Mr. Whitfield. Is there math in this textbook? Is 
disseminating a bar graph part of a student learning math?
    Mr. Donalds. Dr. Whitfield, we are talking about--should--
--
    Mr. Whitfield. It so happens----
    Mr. Donalds [continuing]. we be talking about implicit bias 
in a mathematics textbook----
    Mr. Whitfield [continuing]. sir----
    Mr. Donalds [continuing]. or should we be talking about 
actual math skills?
    Mr. Whitfield. I would daresay they are learning math 
skills. It just so happens that, again, this may be something 
that certain people view as uncomfortable. But racial prejudice 
is a real thing, and I daresay our students get that. They 
understand that. So, to say that just because something says 
something about bias or racial prejudice, as the professor has 
said, like we can't just remove that because we are trying to 
talk about something that can make some people feel 
uncomfortable. And I daresay if people feel uncomfortable, 
oftentimes there is a reason for that, and maybe that is what 
is needed to move forward.
    Mr. Donalds. Dr. Whitfield, I have got go to some of the 
other people because I have 28 seconds left. That is how 
congressional hearings work. I would love to have this extended 
conversation.
    Mr. Whitfield. Absolutely.
    Mr. Donalds. Ms. Nossel?
    Ms. Nossel. I saw this graph and I found it surprising, and 
frankly, inappropriate for a math textbook. I thought there was 
a risk that this was going to stoke division, detract from the 
lesson. You know, whether the entire panoply of math books, you 
know, should have been rejected for this one chart I think is a 
different question. Could this chart have been modified or 
changed? I think that is what we should focus on. Were the 
processes followed? Were educators consulted?
    But, you know, I understand what you are saying. I think, 
you know, we are all concerned about a polarized environment. 
We are concerned about how to keep our kids focused on learning 
and achievement. And something that risks detracting from that 
I do not think belongs there.
    Mr. Donalds. Well, I mean, look. I know I am out of time, 
Madam Chair. I appreciate the indulgence because we are over. 
The last thing I will say is I, for one, you know, I have young 
sons. My 14-year-old is sitting behind me now. I have got a 10-
year-old son. I do not want children having their attention 
distracted from actual learning. If we are going to talk about 
history, let's talk about history. But if we are going to bring 
in subjective material into the classroom, that is the problem 
that has some parents upset in the United States, and that is 
the concern that we need to think about. That is not a free 
speech issue, because students are a captive audience. They do 
not get to leave. Adults, we can walk out any time we want to. 
The kids cannot. That is why this is such an important 
discussion to be had.
    Madam Chair, thank you so much for the indulgence. I yield 
back.
    Ms. Norton. The gentleman yields back.
    I want to declare a brief recess at this time while we wait 
for members to come back from voting, so that we can have more 
questions for our panel.
    The committee stands in recess.
    [Recess.]
    Mr. Raskin. All right. Thank you for your patience and your 
indulgence, everybody. Welcome to our lives on Capitol Hill, 
and thank you for waiting for us.
    Let's see. I would actually invite the ranking member, if 
she would like to go now, if you want to take your five minutes 
for questioning?
    OK. Well, I will go first then. And I do not know if 
Professor Snyder is still out there. I am very curious about 
what you said about memory laws as being a hallmark of 
authoritarian regimes attempting to rewrite the past, which I 
suppose is one of George Orwell's insights in 1984. How do you 
connect what has been going on with these laws, against 
teaching critical race theory, to the memory laws that are 
taking place in Europe today, and did take place in Europe in 
the 1930's?
    Mr. Snyder. OK. Thank you. I am still here and glad to be 
here.
    It is really a very simple connection to make. As I was 
trying to stress in my earlier remarks, history is inherently 
discomforting. History is inherently divisive. If you read a 
good history book it is always going to leave you slightly 
unsettled. It is going to leave you not where you thought you 
were going to be. And this is very important to the possibility 
of democracy, precisely because good history books and good 
history teachers leave people unsettled and then bring them to 
a new place. They enable the kinds of conversations which allow 
us to recognize one another as citizens, to learn from one 
another, and to make good policy, which heads toward the 
future.
    The way to prevent that sort of thing, as dictators and 
aspiring dictators know, is to fasten on the subject in history 
which is hardest to handle and put it entirely off limits. If 
you are able to do that, in a general way, then you end up with 
a citizenry which falls back onto its own assumptions about who 
is innocent and who is guilty. You end up with a citizenry that 
is unable to talk to one another, which makes it, of course, 
much easier for you to rule, and also you end up with a 
citizenry which is much easier to polarize, when necessary, 
because they just do not have the practice of recognizing that 
history is complicated and that those complications in history 
mean that other people have other points of view.
    So, the things that I have said are grasped by 
authoritarians and aspiring authoritarians who just apply it in 
the negative way.
    In Russia, as I think I might have said, the divisive 
issues have to do with Stalinism. They have to do with the 
Stalinist terror of the 1930's, the famine in Ukraine, the mass 
killings of 1937, 1938. They also have to do with Stalin's 
choice to become a de facto ally with Hitler in 1939.
    These are the single most divisive issues for an aspiring 
dictator like Putin, or a real dictator like Putin, because, of 
course, remember, the word ``divisive'' is ultimately going to 
be defined by the government itself, not by the people. The way 
that Putin presents these laws is to say that these kinds of 
things are uncomfortable for Russians. Therefore, it is the 
government's responsibility to get out in front and censor and 
make sure the correct view is put across.
    During the extreme situation of the Russian invasion of 
Ukraine we see just how far this can go with there being 
essentially no independent media, no possible discussion of any 
of these issues. But the central commonality in all these 
memory law situations is that you find the issue which people 
would really have to understand to be a democracy, put that off 
limits.
    In the United States that issue is obviously the Civil War, 
the history of racism, the history of reconstruction, the 
history of voter suppression. That is the issue, the issue of 
relations between Black people and white people, the issue of 
full citizenry. That is the issue which makes it easier or 
harder for Americans to understand one another. That is the 
issue which a lot of folks find it difficult to confront. So it 
is the issue----
    Mr. Raskin. Well, and I appreciate----
    Mr. Snyder--and therefore the one that has to be central.
    Mr. Raskin [continuing]. I appreciate that very much, and 
it is a perfect entry point for me to go back to Dr. Whitfield. 
If you would describe, if you don't mind, some of your personal 
experience and how your contract ended up being terminated, 
because I think it was about something related to what 
Professor Snyder just said. It dealt with this discussion of 
race. Is that right?
    Mr. Whitfield. Well, thank you, Chairman Raskin. So 
essentially my contract was not terminated. There is a 
settlement agreement between the district and myself, and so I 
am prevented from discussing events pertaining to what happened 
with the district. But what initiated against me was much 
larger than that.
    It was a group of people, a small group of people, that 
were not parents of my students, that were not--a large number 
of them, not community members, that raised concerns that I 
sent out a letter in the wake of George Floyd's murder. They 
raised concerns that we created a diversity advisory committee. 
They raised concerns that I would even mention the word 
``systemic racism,'' because as the gentleman who alleged that 
I am promoting critical race theory said at the July 26 board 
meeting, I am promoting the conspiracy of critical race theory 
because of my views and, you know, what I had to say in that 
letter.
    Mr. Raskin. I see. OK. Well, I will be interested to follow 
what happens with your case.
    Let me just ask one final question and I will turn it over 
to you, Ms. Mace. Ms. Nossel, so we have talked about the 
dangers of this great white replacement theory, that the 
Buffalo mass murderer was jacked up on when he went on his 
killing spree. What is the best approach to dealing with 
something like the white replacement theory? Is it to try to 
censor it and say people cannot mention it, or is it to talk 
about it and to educate people about what is in there and 
refute its claims? I mean, what is your sense of that?
    Ms. Nossel. No, I absolutely do not think it should be 
censored. I think it has got to be dealt with in a sensitive 
way, depending on the age of the students, you know, what the 
setting is. Is this a history class where it can be explored 
and examined? You know, we have heard people talk today about 
the teachers who helped them make sense of all this, and for me 
that was essential, making sense of horrible chapters in our 
own history, in international history, understanding 
motivations, recognizing dangerous, bigoted ties and what their 
manifestations may be, the different faces that they show.
    And so, you know, the idea that we are cabining off 
discussions of race or even racial superiority, you know, 
whatever the motivation is that is counterproductive. We need, 
in our schools, for kids to be able to explore these things, 
talk about them, recognize them when they see them, to be able 
to persuade others and engage in these very difficult topics. 
So, censorship is not the answer.
    Mr. Raskin. That means a striking irony, of course, that 
critical race theory is being banned all over the country by 
these states but white replacement theory is not being banned. 
But in any event, neither of them should be banned. It is 
within the realm of ideas and that means it is within the realm 
of debate, discussion, inquiry, and empiricism, factual 
evidence, which ultimately is going to be the antidote to lies. 
So, I appreciate that.
    Ms. Mace, you are now recognized for your five minutes, 
liberally speaking.
    Ms. Mace. Thank you, Chairman Raskin, and I want to thank 
the witnesses for their testimony today. We appreciate your 
time and effort in sharing your stories of courage, especially 
to the students who were here today. You guys are remarkable.
    This issue is really personal to me. I am a single working 
mom, like Ms. Gentles, and COVID-19 really hurt my kids. 
Virtual school really decimated our household with regards to 
learning. So I have a few questions today, Mr. Carver, and I 
will start with you.
    Since the start of COVID do you know what the percent of 
increase in mental health issues has been with our students 
nationwide?
    Mr. Carver. I am not aware of specific numbers but I know 
that mental health issues are a problem across the board.
    Ms. Mace. About 37 percent of students admitted that they 
had an increase in mental health issues. Forty-four percent 
said that they are persistently sad, had feelings of sadness 
and hopelessness.
    Mr. Carver, do you know, roughly, the percentage increase 
in suicides from COVID-19 when kids were out of school mostly?
    Mr. Carver. I do not. I do know the percentage of suicides 
for trans students and LGBTQ students, which are very high.
    Ms. Mace. What was the percentage of that?
    Mr. Carver. Seventy-five percent of LGBTQ students say that 
they are consistently miserable throughout the day.
    Ms. Mace. So the rate of suicides during COVID-19 increased 
22 percent the summer of 2020 over 2019, and the winter of 2020 
it was a huge increase of 39 percent, on average. Do you know 
the percent increase in online bullying during COVID-19?
    Mr. Carver. Not off the top of my head.
    Ms. Mace. Seventy percent, a 70 percent increase, which 
coincides with the rate of suicide, as you mentioned earlier. 
Do you know the percent of decrease with regards to reading 
levels during COVID-19, when a lot of kids were home? Do you 
how bad it was, how bad it decreased?
    Mr. Carver. I am a teacher so I am aware of the losses we 
have had and the work that we have had to do to make up for it.
    Ms. Mace. About 30 percent. And then the decreases in 
learning math, particularly for those students who were in 
virtual school, was down 50 percent during COVID-19.
    My next question, Mr. Carver, do you believe that learning 
pronouns or learning to read is more important to kids in 
school?
    Mr. Carver. Pronouns are a part of reading.
    Ms. Mace. Which one is more important, pronouns or learning 
to read?
    Mr. Carver. Reading is more important.
    Ms. Mace. I was just curious. Do you believe that students 
should be suspended from school if they do not use the correct 
pronouns when they are in school?
    Mr. Carver. I need more context for a given situation.
    Ms. Mace. Some students recently, I think it was last week, 
were suspended from school, middle school students, for not 
using the correct pronouns.
    Should teachers' unions decide, in your opinion, whether 
schools should close, or should it be up to states and school 
boards?
    Mr. Carver. I think they should have a voice, but I do not 
think they should or do decide.
    Ms. Mace. So teachers' unions, actually, during COVID-19 
directed and guided the CDC on school closures rather than 
giving that grace to states and to school boards. They were 
trying to twist the arms of the CDC to make those decisions for 
parents, for teachers, for school boards, et cetera.
    Do you believe that parents have First Amendment rights? I 
guess, Ms. Nossel, you mentioned First Amendment in your 
comments earlier. Do you believe that parents have a right to 
the First Amendment?
    Ms. Nossel. All Americans have a right to the First 
Amendment.
    Ms. Mace. So do you believe it OK if parents show up to 
school board meetings to have their voices heard, especially 
when they disagree with school boards?
    Ms. Nossel. Absolutely. People have a right to have their 
say. If they are making threats or they are harassing people 
that is something different. But expressing your opinion 
vociferously, absolutely.
    Ms. Mace. I wholeheartedly agree. I was reading a story, it 
was last year where a parent showed up at a Loudoun County 
school board meeting because his daughter was sexually 
assaulted at school, and that father was arrested. I tell this 
story often. When I was 16, I was raped by a classmate of mine 
in high school, and when I was 17, shortly thereafter, I 
dropped out of school, because oftentimes women who are raped 
are victimized and re-victimized when they come forward. In 
this case it was a parent, and we want to make sure that we 
protect the rights of all parents to have a say in kids' 
schools.
    I want to thank you all for your time this afternoon, and I 
yield back.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back.
    And I yield now to Ms. Wasserman Schultz for her five 
minutes of questioning.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, I have some questions for my fellow 
Floridian, Ms. Cousins, but I would be remiss if I did not use 
this opportunity to engage with Professor Snyder, who I 
understand is participating virtually.
    Professor Snyder, my office loves your book on tyranny, and 
I firmly believe that it has succinctly and effectively helped 
veer America away from its recent turn toward authoritarianism. 
So thank you for that.
    But I want to tap into that talent for concision and ask 
you some very quick yes-or-no questions, and then get your 
larger take on my home state of Florida.
    Do oppressive governments censor unpleasant history in 
their schools?
    Mr. Snyder. Yes.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Do tyrannical governments muzzle 
teachers from telling the truth?
    Mr. Snyder. Yes.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Do authoritarian leaders regularly 
demonize the free press?
    Mr. Snyder. Yes.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Do tyrants criminalize protesters?
    Mr. Snyder. Yes.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Do despots make it harder to vote?
    Mr. Snyder. Yes.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Do they abandon facts, science, and 
reason?
    Mr. Snyder. Yes.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Do autocrats target marginalized 
communities like gays or communities of color?
    Mr. Snyder. Very much so.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
    Governor Ron DeSantis, the Governor of my home state, 
deploys every one of these authoritarian tools in Florida. Some 
are now law. One of them became law just this week. Yet these 
are the same oppressive tactics that thousands of my 
constituents fled from in Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua. That 
is why they came to Florida. And now Governor DeSantis is 
bringing a brand of authoritarianism to Florida that Putin, 
Maduro, or Castro would applaud.
    Mr. Snyder, should residents in Florida be resisting this 
rising authoritarianism of Governor DeSantis, and are we seeing 
the creeping anticipatory obedience that you talk about toward 
his repressive policies that you warned about?
    Mr. Snyder. So, No. 1, I think you are very right to make 
these comparisons, and Cubans of an older generation can 
actually remember school policies from their homeland which are 
similar to the ones that are being implemented in Florida now.
    No. 2, I think you are also quite right to talk about 
anticipatory obedience. It is very important not to see changes 
like this as normal and then to allow them to come creeping in 
so that they become the new normal.
    And No. 3, should people be resisting, absolutely. I mean, 
the way that democracies are overcome in the 21st century is 
generally from within, and it is generally by clever leaders 
who find ways around the rules and find ways to use minority 
positions which polarize in order to move----
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
    Mr. Snyder--toward the top. Thanks.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Snyder. It is not 
enough to just describe Ron DeSantis as a culture warrior. We 
should call him what he is, a tyrant who is using his position 
and power to install repressive and hateful policies in 
Florida.
    I want to turn next to Ms. Cousins, because as a Floridian 
you can give a first-hand account of how these policies impact 
children and families. Despite conservatives' assertions that 
anti-LGBTQ+ laws like Florida's Don't Say Gay Act are meant to 
protect younger students, the truth is they directly harm those 
students.
    For example, these laws would prevent children with same-
sex parents or LGBTQ+ siblings from being able to discuss their 
families in school, and it would also require teachers to out 
LGBTQ+ students to their parents without the student's 
permission if the parent requests the information, and allows 
parents to sue schools should they fail to do so.
    Ms. Cousins, you are a Florida parent and you have a non-
binary child in middle school as well as two younger elementary 
school students. How will your children be directly impacted by 
the Don't Say Gay law?
    Ms. Cousins. So my two youngest are rising first-and third-
graders, so the way that this is going to impact us is if they 
should be discussing the makeup of our family or their older 
sibling whilst in the classroom, some kid over here goes home 
and says, ``Hey, guess what? So-and-So's sibling identifies 
this way.'' If the parent does like the makeup of our family, 
they are now fully within the rights of the law to go and sue 
the school, and not only sue the school but the school will now 
be responsible for paying for that lawsuit, and that is money 
that we desperately know in Florida could be better spent on 
teacher salaries and student funding itself.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Can I zero in with you on that, 
because you have clearly been supportive of your non-binary 
child. I want to ask you specifically about forcing teachers to 
out their LGBTQ+ students to their parents. I mean, schools are 
supposed to be safe havens, and they very often are for these 
kids. You have clearly been supportive of your child, but how 
do you think outing students to their parents could affect 
them?
    Ms. Cousins. It is going to be devastating. It is going to 
lead to higher rates of depression and definitely higher rates 
of suicide. You cannot out a fragile child like that without 
them being ready for it. And the reason that they can be safe 
in school is because they do not come from supportive families. 
You know, my child has several friends in school that are 
trans. They can only live their trans self while they are in 
school because their families are not supportive. And I fear so 
much for kids that come from families like that.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. This is not about 
enhancing parental authorities. It is a direct attack on the 
LGBTQ+ community that will adversely affect the health and 
well-being of thousands of Florida students. And from one mom 
to another I thank you for being supportive of your child. That 
is so important.
    Ms. Cousins. Thank you.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I yield back. Thank you.
    Mr. Raskin. All right. I think we are going to give the 
other members a few more minutes just to get back. I think 
there is a press conference going on about Buffalo. In the 
meantime I am going to take another round of questions and 
invite Ms. Mace, if she wants to, to take another round.
    I am also struck by the way in which the autocrats and 
authoritarians feel it necessary to attack the LGBTQ community. 
All over the world we see that with Orban in Hungary. We see it 
with Putin in Russia. We see it with Duterte in the 
Philippines. Of course, the homicidal Crown Prince of Saudi 
Arabia, and on and on.
    I wonder why that has become such a hallmark of the 
authoritarian regimes around the world? You know, I thought I 
would get thoughts from anybody who wanted to, but perhaps, 
Professor Snyder, we could start with you.
    Mr. Snyder. Yes. Thank you for the question. So, No. 1, 
just to make a very simple observation, there is a lot of 
copying going on right now. So, it is not a coincidence when 
different right-wing regime around the world use these tools. 
There is a great deal of copying, and in particular, there is 
also a fair amount of contact between the American far right 
and the Russian regime on the issue of gays.
    No. 2, far right-wing regimes tend to identify children as 
an anxious place, and so they use the rhetoric of the 
exploitation of children as a way to seem to be on the right 
side of families. This is a way of destabilizing other 
conversations in a polarizing society and preventing actual 
democratic conversations of what policies should be like.
    Mr. Raskin. Very good. Yes, Mr. Carver, I will come to you, 
and then Ms. Gentles, I will come to you.
    Mr. Carver. I think it also plays on absolute primal fears. 
I am a teacher. I worry about my students. I worry about their 
safety. When kids are trying to commit suicide, we are the ones 
calling the police. We are the ones literally showing up at 
their houses to prevent them. We are the ones making sure that 
they get access to counseling. We are the ones fighting for it.
    I am very proud of the unions in Kentucky for fighting very 
hard when our students were threatened with the loss of mental 
health access in schools.
    I can understand and even sympathize with parents who, if 
they are told by extreme right-wing advocates, ``Your students 
are in danger,'' that they might feel worried. And we are in a 
time period in which lots of people feel stressed. So, I think 
advancing that narrative that their kids are in danger is an 
easy way to win people over at a most primal level that does 
not require them really to ask more questions other than how 
can I help my kid or protect my child.
    Mr. Raskin. I appreciate that. Ms. Gentles.
    Ms. Gentles. Yes. So, it was just mentioned that there is a 
lot of copying going on, and so I just wanted to mention that 
there is a lot of copying going on among middle school girls, 
in particular, right now. There is a bit of social contagion 
happening, where girls who feel like they don't fit in, girls 
who might have lagging social skills, girls with underlying 
issues--anxiety, depression, ADHD, often autism spectrum--they 
find relief in an identity, like a transgender identity, non-
binary, gender fluid. This is something that is happening very 
much in my community. I know of many girls who have embraced 
this identity when they hit puberty, when they hit middle 
school age.
    And so parents are seeing that happening. They are seeing 
the social contagion. They are seeing this spread among middle 
school girls. And they are wondering what is happening, and 
they are asking questions.
    So I would say we just need to be mindful of the fact 
that--I spoke with a child psychiatrist recently who said in 
the first 15 years of his practice he had never seen a trans-
identified child, but now most, many of his clients, the kids 
he works with, are embracing this identity.
    So I think it is appropriate for parents and for caring 
community leaders to probe, question, look at what is going on, 
and then ask why schools are creating these gender support 
plans, where these middle school girls come to the teachers, to 
the schools, say they want a new name, a new identity, and new 
pronouns, and then the school develops a plan to then hide it 
from parents. Why are they doing that, particularly when these 
are kids who have underlying issues. They have anxiety, 
depression, ADHD, autism spectrum. And as we have been hearing 
repeatedly, they might be more inclined to consider suicide, 
particularly when it is told to them, over and over and over, 
``You are more likely to commit suicide.''
    Those gender support plans are dangerous and they are 
cutting parents out of a really important conversation.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you for that. Ms. Cousins, did you want 
to opine, either on my original question or on that point that 
Ms. Gentles just made?
    Ms. Cousins. So my child knew that it was completely safe 
to come out to me first, so we never had an issue in school 
with having to create specific plans for them. And my wish is 
that every child came from a safe family like my own, where 
they are free to be themselves, they will not be judged, and 
they can live their authentic lives.
    You know, if the child does not feel safe to come out at 
home but they do feel safe with a particular teacher or 
guidance counselor in their school, then absolutely, it is 
important for the child to be able to confide in that safe 
adult. Because there are far too many trans and non-binary 
children lately who their families are not supportive and they 
will go home, they will be beaten, they will be bullied, they 
will not be accepted. And that is what is leading to the higher 
rates of depression, in my opinion.
    Mr. Raskin. So Mr. Carver, it seems like it is a 
complicated time to be a teacher these days, you know, with the 
rise in mental and emotional health problems. The Surgeon 
General has declared it a nationwide emergency. COVID-19 has 
been a nightmare for young people. It has been profoundly 
isolating and demoralizing. As Ms. Mace said, it has meant a 
setback in terms of kids learning, you know, almost across the 
board.
    And, you know, what is the best spirit within which a 
school can try to address all of these different problems in a 
meaningful and supportive way without ever imposing some kind 
of bar of political and ideological correctness of any 
perspective on families and on kids?
    Mr. Carver. For me, inclusion is the one word that matters. 
I know that students, for example, who come from families that 
try to change their gender identity, who disagree with them, 
are 300 percent more likely to attempt suicide.
    If a student, for example, comes into my classroom and 
says, ``I am a Democrat,'' ``I am a Republican,'' ``I am 
trans,'' whatever, it is not my job to say, ``Well, here is 
what you should be'' or ``Let's put you on a path to be 
something else.'' My job is to say, ``Great. You are welcome 
here. You are always welcome here.'' And I think if we 
politicize inclusion and say welcoming a student, making sure 
that this student feels safe, making sure that this student 
feels heard, if we somehow suggest that this in itself is a 
political act then it becomes impossible to make every single 
child feel safe.
    Mr. Raskin. OK. I am going to turn to Ms. Mace. Thank you 
very much for that, Mr. Carver. And Ms. Mace, and then I think 
we are going to close it out.
    Ms. Mace. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just had a 
few more questions for Ms. Gentles this afternoon.
    In your opinion, is it school closures or is it classroom 
content that has hurt students the most over the last two 
years?
    Ms. Gentles. Well to be clear, students entered into the 
COVID era in a bad position. They were already possessing weak 
math and reading skills, and those have only gotten worse 
because of school closures. Obviously, a child cannot learn how 
to read--a kindergartener, a first-grader cannot learn how to 
read on Zoom, and that has really impacted their ability to 
read, and that has really impacted their future. The school 
closures have had a huge impact.
    Ms. Mace. And then who do you believe is responsible, at 
the end of the day, for school closures that happened all 
across the country?
    Ms. Gentles. Well, I think it is part of the popular 
narrative to put the blame straight on Randi Weingarten, who is 
the head of the American Federation for Teachers, and I worry 
about that a little bit. She is absolutely a driving force, and 
the teachers' unions are a driving force in school closures, 
but there are a lot of people with responsibilities. The local 
leaders, the school boards, the superintendents had the 
responsibility to step up and recognize that children were not 
doing well with their mental health and with their academic 
achievement and that schools needed to be open.
    Ms. Mace. And then in your opinion, interventions now, what 
can we do now? What evidence-based interventions can we be 
advocating for, that Congress should be addressing learning 
loss and getting students back up? There are millions of kids 
that are going to be lost and we are not going to be able to 
get them back to where they need to be. But what, in your 
opinion, are some of the interventions that we should or could 
be doing now to make the environment better for learning for 
students who have been so negatively impacted by COVID-19 and 
being out of school?
    Ms. Gentles. Well, I think that is where the good news is. 
I mean, this hearing has been grim in a lot of ways. The school 
closures have been dreadful, and clearly there is a mental 
health crisis as well as an academic crisis in our country.
    But the good news is that student-centered interventions 
like high-dosage tutoring, where you have small groups or one-
on-one interacting with a tutor, a teacher, who is really 
focused on that student's individual needs and getting them 
caught up, that is a proven strategy to help students. And 
states and districts have $190 billion to spend, of Federal 
supplemental funding, on top of what they have already, and 
they are having a lot of trouble spending it. So go ahead and 
spend it on high-dosage tutoring.
    A state like Tennessee is doing that. They have a statewide 
tutoring corps, and I would love to see that happening in more 
states and districts.
    The problem is that some of the districts are having 
trouble with their contracting. The Wall Street Journal 
reported this week that the LA school district has not spent a 
penny of its ARP funding. That was the biggest amount of 
funding that was pushed out from Washington. Not one penny of 
ARP funding that they have received, and some of that was 
contracting issues. They had promised to do a tutoring program 
and they have not even lined up the contracts yet.
    Ms. Mace. Wow. Thank you. And I yield back.
    Mr. Raskin. All right. Well, I think that no other members 
have made it back in time. I understand that Mr. Donalds, while 
we were gone noted some examples of the reasoning behind 
banning of textbooks in Florida, and I just want to add a 
little context to some of the documents he introduced in the 
record.
    A full 41 percent of Florida math textbooks were banned 
because they contained critical race theory, which is 
surprising, but only 3 of 125 textbook reviewers had actually 
found poor alignment with even the critical race theory 
guidelines. One of the reviewers was a college sophomore at 
Hillsdale College, a conservative university in Michigan. 
Another was a member of Moms For Liberty, which has been 
driving the book bans across America.
    So I want to introduce an article from the Tampa Bay Times, 
``Florida Rejected Dozens of Math Textbooks But Only 3 
Reviewers Found CRT Violations.'' I also want to introduce an 
article from The New York Times, ``A Look Inside the Textbooks 
that Florida Rejected.'' The book that was referenced was an 
11th-grade pre-calculus elective textbook that is not the core 
curriculum.
    Mr. Raskin. Let's see. With that I want to thank all of our 
witnesses for the day, for really superb testimony--Ms. Caldon, 
Ms. Mengel, Ms. Ramani, Ms. Nossel, Dr. Whitfield, Mr. Carver, 
Ms. Gentles, Ms. Cousins, and Professor Tim Snyder from Yale. I 
want to thank all of you for really tremendous participation.
    All of the members will have five days within which to 
revise and edit their remarks and also to seek further 
questions of the members. So if there are other questions that 
are advanced I will forward them to you, and please get them 
back to us as soon as you can.
    And with that I want to thank you again for your excellent 
participation, and our hearing is now adjourned, and I bid you 
a good weekend.
    [Whereupon, at 12:42 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]