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


                       FREE SPEECH UNDER ATTACK:
                   BOOK BANS AND ACADEMIC 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

                               __________

                             APRIL 7, 2022

                               __________

                               No. 117-77

                               __________

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


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

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
47-266 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 April 7, 2022....................................     1

                               Witnesses

Panel 1

Shreya Mehta, Student, Richland, Washington
Oral Statement...................................................     6
Olivia Pituch, Student, York County, Pennsylvania
Oral Statement...................................................     8
Christina Ellis, Student, York County, Pennsylvania
Oral Statement...................................................     9

Panel 2

Samantha Hull, Librarian, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
Oral Statement...................................................    11
Mindy Freeman, Parent, Bucks County, Pennsylvania
Oral Statement...................................................    13
Jonathan W. Pidluzny (minority witness), Vice President of 
  Academic Affairs, American Counsel of Trustees and Alumni
Oral Statement...................................................    15
Jessica Berg, Teacher, Loudoun County, Virginia
Oral Statement...................................................    16
Ruby Bridges, Author
Oral Statement...................................................    18

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

                              ----------                              

  * Collection of Articles on Cancel Culture; submitted by Rep. 
  Biggs.

  * Post and Courier Article on College of Charleston; submitted 
  by Rep. Mace.

Documents are available at: docs.house.gov.

 
                       FREE SPEECH UNDER ATTACK:
                   BOOK BANS AND ACADEMIC CENSORSHIP

                              ----------                              


                        Thursday, April 7, 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 11:07 a.m., in 
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, and via Zoom; Hon. 
Jamie Raskin (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Present: Raskin, Wasserman Schultz, Kelly, Pressley, 
Norton, Tlaib, Davis, Mace, Jordan, Sessions, Biggs, and 
Donalds.
    Mr. Raskin. Good morning. Thank you to all of our witnesses 
for joining us today. Thanks to all of the members 
participating. We are in the middle of votes, so there is going 
to be a little bit back and forth in classic congressional 
style. And I am very happy to be here with the wonderful 
ranking member of this subcommittee, Ms. Nancy Mace.
    In 1943, in West Virginia v. Barnette, the Supreme Court 
struck down compulsory flag salutes as a violation of the First 
Amendment, stating, ``If there is any fixed star in our 
constitutional constellation, it is that no official, no matter 
how high or petty, shall prescribe what shall be orthodox in 
matters of politics, religion, nationalism, or other matters of 
opinion, or for citizens to confess by word or act or faith 
therein.'' Then in 1969, in a case called Tinker v. Des Moines 
School District, which struck down Mary Beth Tinker's 
suspension from middle school for refusing to remove her black 
armband in protest of the Vietnam War, the Court affirmed that 
neither teachers nor students shed their First Amendment rights 
at the schoolhouse gate.
    In 1982, most relevant to our hearing today, in Board of 
Education v. Pico, the Supreme Court rejected the effort by a 
town school board in New York state to strip objectionable 
books from public school libraries. The members had gone to a 
conference promoting censorship of offensive and vulgar books, 
and came back with a target hit lists, the kind of hit list, 
which is now familiar to us, including ``Slaughterhouse-Five'' 
by Kurt Vonnegut, ``Best Short Stories of Negro Writers'', 
edited by Langston Hughes, ``Go Ask Alice'' by an anonymous 
author, ``Black Boy'' by Richard Wright. And after widely 
brandishing a compilation of the most prurient and lurid and 
profane passages, the board actually overrode its own 
censorship committee, which had recommended purging only two 
books from the schools, and went ahead and censored nine of 
them. When the case made it to the Supreme Court, the majority 
sided with the students who were claiming that the removal of 
books from the school library affected a form of political and 
ideological thought control, totally antithetical to the First 
Amendment of the Constitution.
    Justice Brennan, who had been nominated to the Court by 
Republican President Eisenhower, announced the judgment of the 
Court and delivered an opinion that was joined by Justice John 
Paul Stevens, who had been nominated by President Ford, Justice 
Harry Blackmun, who had been nominated to the Court by 
President Nixon, and Justice Thurgood Marshall, who had been 
nominated to the Court by President Johnson. So this was a 
decision dominated by Supreme Court justices who had been 
nominated to the Court by GOP presidents, which is something 
that we need to think about because I hope, Ms. Mace, that 
everything we talk about today will transcend the traditional 
party lines.
    In Board of Education v. Pico, Justice Brennan found that 
the Constitution protects not just the right to speak and to 
write, but the right to receive information and ideas. The 
First Amendment plays the central role in affording the public 
access to discussion, debate, and the dissemination of 
information and ideas. Freedom of inquiry, the Court ruled, 
extends to school libraries, and the selective removal of books 
from school libraries because someone considers the content 
offensive directly and sharply implicates students' free speech 
and thought. In school libraries, the regime of voluntary 
inquiry holds sway. The answer to books whose content or 
viewpoint you oppose or even deplore--check out this powerful 
logic--is to not read them or to write a negative review or 
even, shades of Voltaire here, to write your own book in 
answer.
    The First Amendment, I used to tell my constitution law 
students, is like Abraham Lincoln's golden apple of liberty: it 
is like an apple, and everybody just wants to take one bite out 
of it. Somebody hates left-wing speech and somebody hates 
right-wing speech and wants to censor it, and somebody hates 
hate speech about gay people and someone wants to censor speech 
about the love lives of gay people, and someone wants to censor 
Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn, because it uses the N-word, and 
someone else wants to censor Ibram Kendi's Antiracist Baby 
because they think it means that babies can be racist.
    Everybody wants to take just one or two bites out of the 
apple. But if we allow all those bites, there is no apple left. 
The freedom of speech disappears. The way to save the apple for 
all of us is to learn to tolerate the speech you will bore as 
well as the speech you agree with. It is not always easy, but 
this is incumbent upon people living in a free democratic 
society. If we cancel or censor everything that people find 
offensive, nothing will be left. Everybody is offended by 
something, and that is why other people's level of offense 
cannot be the metric for defining whether your rights, or my 
rights are vaporized.
    There is a famous story about Lenny Bruce, the somewhat 
risque comedian from the middle of the last century, and 
someone said his show should be shut down because it offended 
him. And Lenny Bruce said from the stage, ``My parents came to 
America in order to be offensive and not to be thrown in jail 
for it.''
    Now during National Library Week, a time to celebrate 
intellectual curiosity, scholarship, freedom of inquiry, and 
free expression, basic intellectual freedoms are under attack 
again. In 2021, the American Library Association's Office for 
Intellectual Freedom reported the highest numbers of censorious 
challenges to library books in its 20 years of tracking this 
data, 729 efforts to censor nearly 1,600 books. And in Texas, 
just one of these attempts to censor books implemented by a 
state legislator, has initiated the systematic review of at 
least 850 books in every school district in the state. There 
are over 1,000 school districts and 8,000 public schools in the 
Lone Star state. This challenge will require tens of thousands 
of teachers, librarians, and administrators to spend hundreds 
of thousands of hours reviewing the books to implement a regime 
of censorship at a time when school resources are already 
stretched thin and states across the country are facing teacher 
and staff shortages.
    The vast majority of books being targeted are not mandatory 
or part of the curriculum. They are books of choice. Students 
can pull them off the shelves if they want to and check them 
out, or they can ignore them entirely. What books are being 
targeted? Well, some old favorite targets are back like 
``Catcher in the Rye'', ``Native Son'', ``Huckleberry Finn''. 
There are also a bunch of these books I brought here: 
``Seahorse''. We are going to hear today from the great Ruby 
Bridges, whose book, ``Ruby Bridges Goes to School'', has been 
the target of censorship. ``The Bluest Eye'' by Toni Morrison, 
who is a Nobel Prize winning author. A kids book about racism 
has been targeted for censorship, a book called ``Hair Love'', 
the infamous ``Antiracist Baby Book'', ``Little Legends: 
Exceptional Men in Black History'', and finally, ``Little 
Dreamers: Visionary Women Around the World''. So these are some 
of the most common books that are being targeted right now.
    Obviously it is a legitimate subject for parents, teachers, 
principals, and school boards to discuss which books are the 
best and most age-appropriate curricular choices for different 
age groups and grades. This is what educators do, and the best 
ones include families, parents, and experts in the 
decisionmaking process all across the country. But that normal 
curricular and library selection process is completely 
different from whipping people up into a moral panic over the 
use of this or that word or passage in a book and then 
demanding its removal from the school library.
    Fashions and censorship change. For a great deal of our 
history, books were censored because they were considered 
indecent or politically subversive, for example, of the slavery 
system like ``Uncle Tom's Cabin'', which was seized, censored, 
and burned in many Southern states as propaganda. Many books 
are being targeted for censorship these days simply because 
they address racism or white supremacy as historical or 
sociological realities, or address human sexuality or LGBTQ 
issues, because the protagonist or author is gay or a person of 
color, or for some other allegedly objectionable reason.
    Finally, not quite sure where this is, if you can give me 
this, I wrote a book, which was censored called, ``We the 
Students'', or, I am sorry, forgive me. I correct myself. It 
has not been censored yet, but it is being targeted for removal 
from the schools in Texas. ``We the Students'' was amazingly 
sponsored by the Supreme Court's own Historical Society. It 
analyzes the constitutional freedoms of young people in public 
schools. It looks at a whole bunch of cases that affect kids in 
public schools, like censorship of newspapers, and yearbooks, 
and locker searchers, and drug testing. And I am certain now 
that it must be the first book ever sponsored by the Supreme 
Court's own Historical Society which is now being targeted for 
censorship. I only wish that the aspiring censors would read my 
discussion of Board of Education v. Pico on page 59 in my book 
before they censor it, because it tells them everything they 
need to know about how it is illegitimate to strip books from 
school libraries because somebody disagrees with it.
    OK. So the books on the poster boards have all been 
targeted for censorship or actually banned from schools. ``This 
Is Your Time'' by Ruby Bridges, a remarkable figure in the 
American Civil Rights Movement and we have the honor of hearing 
from today, has been challenged and targeted for censorship. 
Why? Simply because it said that a book describing the story of 
how a little girl who was one of the first to integrate public 
schools in her native Louisiana in the midst of a racist 
backlash may make white children feel uncomfortable. And this, 
I think, radically understates the powers of empathy, 
compassion, and solidarity that all children or most children 
have and are capable of developing. It also suggests that the 
actual lived experiences of people should be suppressed if 
learning of their experiences would make other people 
uncomfortable, a farfetched, unworkable, and unjust principle 
that cuts against the fundamental American idea of free 
expression.
    All right. With that, I am going to turn it over to Ms. 
Mace for your opening statement.
    Ms. Mace. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I should have brought my 
book ``In the Company of Men: A Woman at the Citadel'' this 
morning----
    Mr. Raskin. I brag about your book all the time.
    Ms. Mace. Yes, but thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to 
have the opportunity today to highlight the importance of 
freedom of speech in our country, as well as the important work 
to ensure that K through 12 curriculums in public schools serve 
our students well.
    The First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the 
right of freedom of speech to all Americans, and the First 
Amendment states that Congress shall make no law abridging the 
freedom of speech. The government may only set reasonable, 
time, place, and manner restrictions in very limited 
circumstances. The government cannot and should not police the 
speech of its citizens even when that speech is disagreeable or 
repugnant. When they say it aloud, sometimes we want to know 
what they have to say. We don't punish thought criminals in 
this country unless, of course, you are maybe a main character 
in Orwell's ``1984''.
    Freedom of speech isn't just a legal mandate enshrined in 
our Constitution. It is an essential element to democracy. This 
fundamental freedom ensures all views across the spectrum are 
debated within the marketplace of ideas, and public 
institutions of higher education are bound to abide by the 
First Amendment's prohibition and restrictions on freedom of 
speech. Yet often in this country, we see a tax on that very 
freedom. Public universities and colleges frequently run afoul 
the First Amendment freedom by enforcing broad or overly broad 
speech codes or by chilling speech across college campuses 
using bias response teams to investigate thought criminals. 
There have also been disturbing campaigns on these campuses to 
expel students by our faculty or disinvite speakers who hold 
views that are considered to go against the progressive 
consensus or groupthink. These universities and colleges are 
unlawfully stifling speech to coddle young adults at a time in 
their educational careers where they should be exposed to a 
variety of ideas and perspectives.
    While progressive activists shut down speech on college 
campuses, they are trying to hyper-expose young children who 
are still learning to read write, add, and subtract. And I can 
personally remember a story when my kids were in elementary 
school, and I was driving them home, picked them up from the 
carpool line in school that day, and they had a government 
lesson on government democracy versus socialism versus 
communism. And I asked them, which one is best, and they said 
socialism. So I pulled over on the closest exit off the 
interstate and had a conversation about the differences. And 
then they walked out of that conversation saying, ``No, mommy, 
democracy is the best form of government for the United States 
of America.''
    In an effort to indoctrinate our young students, 
progressives are burdening curricula with divisive and radical 
ideologies such as race essentialism, racial scapegoating, and 
content of a sexual nature that is not appropriate oftentimes 
for very young children. All children should be taught the 
academic skills they need to succeed, along with the history of 
our country, the good, the bad, and the ugly. You must also 
teach our children about the problematic chapters in our 
history, and we must also teach them about the heroes who lead 
us and have led us to a more perfect union. In fact, one of 
those heroes today is joining our hearing today, Ruby Bridges, 
who you mentioned earlier, a civil rights icon and author who 
made history as a six-year-old girl, courageously braving a 
hostile crowd to integrate an all-white elementary school in 
Louisiana.
    And in my home state of South Carolina, we have so many of 
those heroic stories that should be taught in our schools from 
Harriet Tubman, who rescued 750 slaves in one night in Beaufort 
County, South Carolina, to Joseph Rainey, who was the first 
African American to represent in the U.S. House of 
Representatives, who represented, by the way, South Carolina's 
1st congressional District, the seat that I sit in today.
    Public schools should exercise discretion with parental 
input and oversight to decide what is included in their 
curricula and what books to include in their libraries, 
especially for young elementary school students. But no child 
attending our public schools should be subject to government 
indoctrination, or exposed to radical ideologies while they are 
still building the foundations of their education. Instead, we 
ought to be teaching critical thinking skills so college-age 
students can discern, argue, and act on those values when faced 
with open and frank academic discourse. And, of course, our 
high school students, even if they aren't going to college, 
should be prepared to enter the work force when they graduate.
    I thank all the witnesses for appearing today and looking 
forward to a robust discussion on the First Amendment, freedom 
of speech, and how we can work together to preserve that 
freedom for every single American. Thank you, Chairman Raskin, 
and I yield back.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Ms. Mace, for a very thoughtful 
opening statement.
    Before I introduce our witnesses and swear them in, I just 
want to state that PEN America just released a report this 
morning finding that from July 1 of last year to March 31 of 
this year, there were 1,586 book bans that were implemented 
across 86 school districts and 26 different states. Forty-one 
percent of the banned titles had protagonists who are prominent 
secondary characters of color, 22 percent directly address race 
and racism, and 33 percent explicitly address LGBTQ issues. So 
though that is not a majority, that is a lot of where the 
action is. And of course there are the traditional targets that 
we know of, like Catcher in the Rye, and Huckleberry Finn, and 
George Orwell's 1984, and so on.
    Now I want to introduce our first panel of witnesses who 
are all high school students and will be testifying but not 
answering questions. First, we have Shreya Mehta, who is a 
student from Richland, Washington. Good morning. Then we are 
going to hear from Olivia Pituch, who is a student from York 
County, Pennsylvania. Finally, we will hear from Christina 
Ellis, who is also a student from York County, Pennsylvania. 
The witnesses will be unmuted, so we can swear them in.
    Please stand and raise your right hands if you can do that.
    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?
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    Mr. Raskin. Let the record reflect the witnesses have all 
answered in the affirmative. Thank you.
    Without objection, your written statements will be made 
part of the record.
    And with that, Ms. Mehta, you are now recognized for your 
five minutes of testimony.

   STATEMENT OF SHREYA MEHTA, HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT, RICHLAND, 
                           WASHINGTON

    Ms. Mehta. Thank you so much. Hi. My name is Shreya Mehta. 
I'm a senior this year at Hanford High School, a public school 
in Eastern Washington state. I want to start off by thanking 
the subcommittee for giving me the opportunity to testify 
today. It's an honor to be representing the students in our 
country, both as an organizer and as a booklover.
    Mr. Raskin. Can you just speak directly into the camera and 
the microphone, as close as you can just because you're fading 
out a little bit.
    Ms. Mehta. OK. So my district has had fewer outward book 
challenges, but the internal damages, the culture of censorship 
of BIPOC and LGBTQ+ voices and
    [inaudible] it has caused is immense. I believe that the 
rampant censorship is affecting even more districts than we 
think and supporting the bullying of marginalized students 
around the country. The rising book bans in my district has 
created a lot of fear so that entire classes centering diverse 
perspectives and plenty of new books that have been proposed 
have been stopped in their tracks for no other reason than fear 
of retaliation. I've spoken personally with educators who have 
been coerced into putting away books with LGBTQ+ or racial 
equity content.
    Marginalized students have unfortunately become collateral 
damage in this current moral panic. Just a week ago, I went to 
a school board meeting where a man spoke out against homosexual 
teachings and a woman spoke out against gender equality books. 
And these are some of the same adults who scream for bans but 
also misgender students and call them things and threats, which 
is why I believe this censorship is, in large part, tied to a 
lot of bullying happening, and oftentimes thinly veiled racist, 
sexist, or homophobic political statements that impede a 
student's right to intellectual freedom and to embrace their 
individual identities.
    I think students have their right to check out age-
appropriate material from their libraries, whether or not it 
contains material that's divisive, because the fact of the 
matter is that students are facing divisive topics in their 
everyday life, and they need to know that they're not alone in 
their struggle. And I keep on asking myself how many decades 
will it take before we can erase a generation of LGBTQ+ 
students in particular, who aren't institutionally guided and 
systemically educated to be as invisible and ashamed of 
themselves as possible?
    Mr. Raskin. Ms. Mehta, forgive me. I hate to interrupt you. 
Ms. Mace and I just have to go vote. We're going to freeze your 
clock right there at the halfway point. We'll be back as 
quickly as we can. We're going to drive over there, and then 
you can come finish it, and then we'll go to our next witness.
    Thanks everybody for having [inaudible].
    [Recess.]
    Mr. Raskin. The hearing will resume. And Ms. Mehta, you 
have two minutes and 30 seconds left to complete your 
statement.
    Ms. Mehta. Thank you. So I'm on spring break right now, but 
as an experiment for the subcommittee, I counted the amount of 
times I heard the f-slur used in the hallway the last day I was 
at school. It was 15 uses within 30 minutes worth of passing 
periods, one instance of bullying every two minutes, shorter 
than, you know, I've been speaking by this time. And I think 
that this kind of hatred is learned and entirely preventable, 
but the bullying has only been amplified as book bans have 
become more pervasive. And the political climate has made it 
that censorship amplifies many peoples', especially 
politicians', internalized homophobia and transphobia.
    I don't think LGBTQ+ characters subject matter is 
inherently inappropriate for any specific age. I think there's 
age-appropriate gay characters for five-year-olds and 15-year-
olds, and that school librarians know how to best use the 
literature. I believe that words have a lot of power and that 
they can teach us empathy and strengthen our democracy, and I 
really wish that political polarization wasn't dictating our 
education. I want to learn about my friends, even if I disagree 
with them. I want us to understand one another.
    But right now, my intellectual freedom and my students' 
intellectual freedom is not being supported or fought for. 
Please support this and support the fact that it's not 
politicians, but librarians and educators in partnership with 
the students they serve, who are best-suited and trained to 
cultivate a collection of books that are age appropriate and 
serve their diverse student bodies. And please make this the 
last generation of marginalized youth that have to grow up and 
feel invisible and ashamed of themselves.
    Thank you to the subcommittee for amplifying student voices 
today. That's all I have.
    Mr. Raskin. And thank you very much for your thoughtful 
testimony.
    Ms. Pituch, you are now recognized for your five minutes.

 STATEMENT OF OLIVIA PITUCH, HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT, YORK COUNTY, 
                          PENNSYLVANIA

    Ms. Pituch. Good morning, and thank you, Chairman Raskin, 
Ranking Member Mace, and members of the subcommittee for this 
amazing opportunity. I'm Olivia Pituch. I'm a senior at Central 
York High School, a member of the LGBTQ+ community, an 
activist, and the secretary and social media advisor of the 
Panther Anti-Racist Union, known as PARU, of Central York 
School District in Pennsylvania.
    In late August, an article published by a local news source 
revealed that the Central York School Board had banned an 
extensive list of resources, including books, articles, movies, 
and more, all written by BIPOC or LGBTQ+ authors containing 
BIPOC or LGBTQ+ characters, or about BIPOC or LGBTQ+ awareness 
and history. The booklet specifically included materials such 
as ``I Am Enough'' by Grace Byers, ``I Am Rosa Parks'' by Brad 
Meltzer, and ``Malala: My Story of Standing Up for Girls' 
Rights'' by Malala. All of these resources would help to not 
only aid BIPOC and LGBTQ+ students in embracing themselves and 
their identity, but would also spread awareness and educate all 
students on the importance of diversity.
    When this list was pushed out as a banned book list, I was 
appalled. Central, being the second most diverse district in 
the county, prided itself on diversity, but this ban silenced 
BIPOC voices and frankly announced that their identities were 
not welcome. With the help of my fellow students, Christina 
Ellis, the vice president of PARU, Edha Gupta, the president of 
PARU, Renee Ellis, our communications director, and Rebecca 
Delgado, our artistic director, and our amazing advisors, Ben 
Hodge and Patricia Jackson, we stood up to this act of 
discrimination.
    In the beginning, we organized small peaceful protests that 
were located outside of the high school, ending 15 minutes 
before the school day began. These caught the eye of local 
press and news outlets. This was no longer between a few 
students. Our story, voices, and messages were broadcast on 
many local channels and expressed in articles through 
interviews and coverage of the peaceful protests. Media 
coverage helped the community receive 3,000 books from the list 
to handout for free to community members and helped two 
community protests take place.
    It has been a hard journey in loving myself as a member of 
the LGBTQ+ community. I've been surrounded by amazing people 
who helped me through and offered advice, friends who are also 
members of the community, but not everyone is this lucky.
    Many kids find refuge in going to school and being within 
an inclusive community, but as education on inclusion slips 
away, that safe haven does too. I have heard slurs being thrown 
around, LGBTQ+ kids being made fun of, verbally abused and 
more. Ignorance is very real. It is important to teach 
inclusion and equality. It is important to have representation. 
I deserve to walk into my school library and find a book with 
someone like me. This is why education on inclusion is 
important and necessary. Without it, those kids who came to 
school for safety and acceptance will no longer have that safe 
spot.
    Too many kids have attempted suicide, harmed themselves, or 
been verbally or physically abused for who they are. Too many 
kids are alone and don't have that safe haven. Books that 
represent them offer them comfort and open conversations 
provide that safe place for all students. It is important to 
teach the students inclusion so that they can save a person's 
life just by showing them compassion and respect. We can't 
force LGBTQ+ kids into situations where the only time they hear 
about their community and themselves is when their rights are 
being debated between students. We have a place in this world 
and in this community. If I would have had open discussions, 
representation, and education, I would have been able to 
embrace and love myself a lot earlier on. Rather than sitting 
fearfully with my thoughts and feelings, I would have been able 
to learn what my feelings mean, and that it is OK to be me.
    Silence is deafening, but these books help to break through 
the silence and allow children to flourish. Kids need to see 
themselves, especially portrayed in a positive light. Provide a 
space where they can celebrate who they are. Give them the 
resources to help them love themselves for who they are. Don't 
silence the voices that are finally beginning to be heard. 
Thank you.
    Mr. Raskin. Ms. Pituch, thank you very much for your 
thoughtful testimony.
    And now, Ms. Ellis, you are recognized for your five 
minutes.

STATEMENT OF CHRISTINA ELLIS, HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT, YORK COUNTY, 
                          PENNSYLVANIA

    Ms. Ellis. Good morning. My name is Christina Ellis, and 
I'm a senior at Central York High School in York, Pennsylvania, 
the vice president of PARU, The Panther Anti-Racist Union at 
Central York. To start off, I'd like to extend my gratitude to 
Chairman Raskin, Ranking Member Mace, and members of the 
subcommittee, who made it possible for Olivia and I to come and 
speak today.
    I would like to discuss the book/resource ban that divided 
our school district. These books and resources banned were 
books such as, ``I Am Enough'' by Grace Byers, ``All Are 
Welcome'' by Alexandra Penfold, and even ``Ven a Mi Casa'' by 
Dr. Seuss. I remember the moment I heard about the ban. Edha 
Gupta, who's the President of PARU, messages me an article 
released by York Dispatch, a local news source, discussing in 
great detail the type of ``divisive resources'' that were 
banned.
    It didn't take long for us and countless others to realize 
these listed resources targeted the voice and representation of 
BIPOC communities, authors, and creators. We knew this ban 
didn't represent our district as the second most diverse 
district within York County. Thus, we created an executive 
board within PARU. Our first initiative was to peacefully 
protest outside of my high school every morning until the ban 
was reversed, and that is what we did. Seventy-plus students 
and even staff at the high school stood outside with signs like 
Black Lives Matter and Diversity Belongs in Education. We stood 
in solidarity until our presence was known, and soon enough, 
our presence was recognized. News anchors, like Fox News and 
CNN, picked up our story, and after all of our news coverage, 
our school board reversed the ban as of September 20, 2021. We 
did not rejoice at this news for long because we realize that 
there is so much more work that needs to be done.
    Myself and those in PARU will continue to strive for 
equality and diversity not only with our classrooms, but within 
our community. The reason why I stood against my school 
district's book ban was because I didn't want future African-
American kids to go through some of the things I went through 
growing up because of the lack of cultural sensitivity in my 
schooling experience. I didn't want students, in general, 
feeling like their culture didn't matter because, in school, 
there was little to no representation for them.
    Here's one of my personal stories. In elementary school, 
when the teacher would put a document on about slavery, some 
kids would turn around and stare at me, the only Black girl in 
the classroom. I found myself avoiding bringing my Caribbean 
food to lunch in fear of the looks and snarky comments from 
peers because the food was foreign to them. And sadly enough, I 
spent the majority of my K through 12 schooling straightening 
my hair so I wouldn't stand out. I wanted to blend in and not 
be different. I didn't want random people touching my hair 
without my permission. And sadly, still to this day, I 
encounter people who think it's OK for them to run their hands 
through my hair.
    Books that highlight our differences and teach others how 
to address diversity are crucial. These books shouldn't be up 
for debate. A slideshow presentation at the beginning of school 
year telling kids to be kind is not enough. It's not OK to joke 
about the way a student chooses to dress or what they pack for 
lunch. These books can help educate kids on various cultures 
and ways of life, and we need to rely on our trained educators 
to handle teaching these difficult and hard topics.
    This will decrease bullying and judgmental stares because 
kids will learn to approach their peers not from a place of 
educational ignorance, but from a place of compassion and 
understanding. This world needs more people who want to pay 
attention to others and not only themselves. Banning books of 
those of minority background and unique backgrounds, silences 
their voices and erases their history, and arguably is taking 
away the right to express themselves.
    These are words in a page that have the power to change a 
cold heart to warm. It's not indoctrination. It's education. 
Thank you.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much to all the students for 
your really powerful and illuminating testimony. It helps us a 
lot.
    The first panel is now excused. Please send our regards to 
your families and your teachers as you get back and tell them 
we're very proud of what you've done back at school and also 
what you did for the country today here in Congress.
    We will now welcome the second panel. I want to introduce 
our second panel of witnesses, and I will begin to introduce 
them as they enter and are seated.
    First, we have Samantha Hull, who is a librarian from 
Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Then we will hear from Mindy 
Freeman, who is a parent in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. Then we 
will hear from Dr. Jonathan W. Pidluzny, who is the vice 
president of academic affairs at the American Council of 
Trustees and Alumni. Next, we will hear from Jessica Berg, who 
is a teacher in Loudoun County, Virginia, not far from where we 
are. And last but not least, a witness who really needs no 
elaborate introduction for America, Ruby Bridges, who is a 
civil rights luminary and an author.
    The witnesses will please be unmuted so we can swear them 
in. If everybody would rise and 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?
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    Mr. Raskin. Let the record show that all the witnesses have 
answered in the affirmative. Thank you.
    Without objection, your written statements are going to be 
put in the record so we have every word that you want to submit 
officially for the congressional record.
    But with that, you're now recognized for your verbal 
testimony, and we've asked you to sum it up in five minutes, if 
you can do that.
    Ms. Hull, you are now recognized.

   STATEMENT OF SAMANTHA HULL, LIBRARIAN, LANCASTER COUNTY, 
                          PENNSYLVANIA

    Ms. Hull. Good morning, and thank you, Chairman Raskin, 
Ranking Member Mace, and members of the subcommittee for the 
opportunity to speak on such an important issue. We are here 
because books have been questioned, challenged, and banned at 
record rates this school year, and there are students watching 
from near and far. In fact, I've brought some of them with me 
as support in notes that they have given to me.
    Administrators have made hasty decisions. School board 
members have jumped to conclusions based on out-of-context 
experts, and librarians scramble to play catch-up to fight for 
our students' rights. When books are removed, communities lose 
the voice that that book represents. Measuring the damage of 
lost voices is daunting and longitudinal. We can measure the 
soaring rates of mental health disorders in adolescents. Many 
can directly correlate the teen mental health crisis to 
feelings of discontent, loneliness, and a lack of belonging. 
These are exactly the feelings that arise when we believe we 
are alone in what we are experiencing, and these feelings can 
be especially brutal and isolating in adolescents.
    The ability to learn about and appreciate the diversity of 
the human experience, perspective, and opinions is crucial to 
gaining a sense of belonging. We can gain this ability through 
our access to books and other resources. This is why a singular 
reaction to a book should never result in the immediate removal 
of a resource but instead be the basis for our conversation, to 
understand the purpose of a library and the support and 
resources that librarians offer.
    If a student reacts strongly to a book, it can be the start 
of a conversation with their family or trusted adult about the 
topic that caused the reaction. During the eight years I've 
been a librarian, I've seen the publishing industry react and 
support the need among adolescents for books representing a 
spectrum of thought and experience. Books have made a 
difference in our kid's well-being, ability to think more 
broadly, be more innovative, and be more empathetic. We see 
this in the many students who are standing up for what they 
believe in. Those students realized early that they have a 
voice and that their voice matters.
    School librarians have dedicated our careers to responding 
to our students' needs, and it motivates us to work hard as we 
keep our curated collections balanced. We work tirelessly to 
provide a sanctuary for students in the library, the place that 
they feel safe. Feeling safe, however, is not always the same 
as feeling comfortable. Growth doesn't necessarily happen when 
we're comfortable. It definitely will not occur when we are 
stagnant, or when we're uninterested, or when we accept the way 
things have always been done. Growth is uncomfortable, but it 
builds grit and determination. To learn is to grow, and when 
we're in an environment that fosters open-minded communication, 
the discomfort is outweighed by the possibility of learning.
    Open-minded communication is not fostered when we start 
making individual, monolithic, or one-sided decisions, 
especially without trained librarians' input about books based 
on out-of-context readings. When we take this road, we are 
limiting growth, we are stifling progress, and we are acting in 
the most undemocratic way possible. Adhering to loud minority 
viewpoints and not making space for all voices to be heard is 
not progress.
    Librarians urge everyone to take a minute, to consider why 
a book or resource makes us uncomfortable, what it might be 
trying to teach us, and what we are resisting to learn. While 
we are willing to fight, and those fights are always worth it, 
they take time, they take energy, and, most importantly, they 
remove us from our students, from our classes, and from our 
libraries.
    For a while, those lights were lonely. It seems like 
everything was happening behind closed doors, and many of us 
have found the strength and space to speak out on the 
injustices of self-censoring and outright book banning. Since 
those brave moments, the army has grown. Parents, students, 
community members, public librarians, store owners, authors, 
lawyers, teachers, and local politicians have embraced the 
discomfort and joined the fight. Librarians are in it for the 
long gain. We fight with courage in our hearts to balance the 
shelf so students can see themselves in what they read, find 
what they need, when they need it, and have a safe place to do 
so. If we don't have the answers, we'll help them find someone 
who does.
    Our democracy and our students' well-being hinge on the 
access young people have to fully representative resources 
curated by librarians and teachers with the education, 
expertise, and experience to handle this work. Without 
institutions that are curated by professionals to encapsulate 
the wide range of historical perspectives, we have no history. 
Without a location in our schools that is staffed by trained 
librarians, we have lackluster resources and ill-informed 
students. Without safe places to read, think, and discuss, we 
have no future.
    We librarians know firsthand our students, our world 
problem solvers, are ever curious. Through our student's 
curiosity, knowledge is generated and innovation occurs. That 
is growth. That is progress. That is democracy.
    Mr. Raskin. What a wonderful statement. Thank you very 
much, Ms. Hull.
    Ms. Freeman, you are now recognized for your testimony.

 STATEMENT OF MINDY FREEMAN, PARENT, BUCKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

    Ms. Freeman. Thank you, Chairman Raskin, Ranking Member 
Mace, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Mindy 
Freeman, and my pronouns are she/her. I'm a parent from Bucks 
County, Pennsylvania, where I lived with my spouse since we 
were married 25 years ago. I'm speaking from the heart as a 
person who loves their children, as a former elementary school 
teacher, and as someone who cares deeply about the education of 
our youth.
    I'm not a political person. I've been a registered 
Republican and a registered Democrat. I didn't even know what 
the House Oversight Subcommittee was until last week, and yet 
I'm here in the most political place on earth. This is 2022, 
and despite all the major issues needing our Nation's highest 
attention, book banning and censorship is a subject that we are 
now forced to be tackling, an attack on public education, 
diversity of thought, inclusion of people, and the ability of 
citizens to consume real, authentic stories of who we are.
    Books have a critical role in people's lives. My youngest 
child, Lily, who is here with me today, is a 15-year-old 
sophomore honors student at our local public high school. She 
acts, sings, dances, and draws beautifully. She loves to hang 
out with her friends, ride her bike with her dad, spend time 
with her grandparents and binge watch shows with me, you know, 
kids' stuff. Lily also happens to be a female of trans 
experience. She is proud to be trans, and we are proud of her. 
Being able to be visible for others and seeing herself in the 
books she reads is so very important. I want to be clear. If 
there is one soundbite to arise from my appearance here today, 
let it be this one: no book made my child become transgender 
any more than a book could have turned her eyes from brown two 
blue.
    Let me tell you a little bit about Lily's journey. Lily 
will tell you that as soon as she could recognize herself in 
the mirror, the person looking back at her was not the person 
she was. The male presenting person reflecting back at her did 
not align correctly with her being. As Lily was growing up 
during her younger years, she presented in what would be 
considered a more feminine way. As someone that had never known 
a transgender person, while this out-of-gender norm behavior 
made my spouse and I question what was going on with Lily, we 
did not discourage her from enjoying the thing she loved.
    In early elementary school, Lily lacked the words, insight, 
and confidence to describe what she was feeling. As school 
activities began to separate boys from girls, this only 
frustrated her. In fourth grade, when boys and girls were 
separated to learn about what was going on in their bodies 
during puberty, Lily began to panic. After sharing her feelings 
with my older two daughters, she came to my spouse and me. We 
did not have the knowledge of everything LGBTQ, especially 
trans related, but what we did know is that we loved our child 
and that we would support her no matter what, and this is when 
our learning journey began.
    We shared with Lily's fifth grade teacher what Lily was 
going through, and her teacher brought to our attention Alex 
Gino's book, ``George'', now ``Melissa'', an award-winning 
children's novel about a trans fourth grader and said that Lily 
had the option to read it. We appreciated the visibility that 
this provided to Lily as well as the support not only by the 
teacher, but by the school for having age-appropriate books 
accessible on the shelves. Two years later, in seventh grade, 
her social studies teacher made it easy for kids like Lily and 
students who wanted to learn about their LGBTQ classmates to 
check out age-appropriate books, LGBTQ literature from his 
classroom shelves. These books helped Lily's friends better-
understand what she and others were going through. Still middle 
school was a trial, and high school hasn't been easy either. 
Three teens, two from her school, are accused and charged with 
threatening and targeting Lily simply because she is 
transgender.
    It's no wonder LGBTQ youth have a higher rate of depression 
and suicide than their cisgender straight counterparts. Having 
age-appropriate LGBTQ books on our K through 12 library shelves 
contributes to an affirming and safe environment in our public 
schools. Banning and censoring books, especially LGBTQ books in 
schools, promotes divisiveness, harm, and hate instead of 
kindness, education and awareness. Schools are places of 
learning, and when you take away access to books, it's a 
discriminatory practice. Banning and censoring books benefits 
absolutely nobody. It's a practice which limits freedoms of 
speech and expression and facilitates exclusionary practices.
    I have never lobbied on Capitol Hill, run for political 
office, and I do not sit on a school board. I do not plan to 
either. I'm a parent who knows firsthand how having access to 
LGBTQ books in our K through 12 schools played a positive role 
in my daughter's life. And we, all of us, need to ensure that 
all of our children continue to have access to diverse books in 
their school libraries.
    Thank you so much.
    Mr. Raskin. And thank you very much, and thanks for joining 
us in the most political place on earth.
    Ms. Freeman. That's right.
    Mr. Raskin. And, Dr. Pidluzny, you are now recognized for 
your five minutes of testimony.

  STATEMENT OF JONATHAN PIDLUZNY, VICE PRESIDENT OF ACADEMIC 
        AFFAIRS, AMERICAN COUNCIL OF TRUSTEES AND ALUMNI

    Mr. Pidluzny. It's an honor to address the Subcommittee on 
Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. Thank you, Chairman Raskin, 
Ranking Member Mace, and members of the subcommittee.
    For the last 26 years, the American Council of Trustees and 
Alumni has been working to protect academic freedom and free 
expression in American higher education. We are grateful for 
this opportunity to address these critical issues. The data 
show conclusively, I think, that the problem of academic 
censorship has reached crisis levels on our college campuses. 
Instances of speaker disinvitations on the basis of viewpoint, 
intimidating shutdowns, and academic cancellations are a 
routine feature of campus life today, with documented examples 
running well into the hundreds.
    Mountains of survey research data demonstrate that the 
current campus climate chills free and open discourse. To take 
one of many examples, a forthcoming active survey of students 
at 12 elite liberal arts colleges found that 59 percent report 
that they are somewhat or very uncomfortable publicly 
disagreeing with a professor, only 32 percent said that their 
administration makes it very or extremely clear that free 
speech is protected, 54 percent said that they self-censor 
themselves at least occasionally, and 41 percent say that it is 
always or sometimes acceptable to shut down a speaker.
    Students' self-censorship appears to be linked to low 
levels of ideological diversity among professors. Among 
students who reported self-censoring very often, 67 percent 
said that increasing the faculty viewpoint diversity would 
improve the climate for campus expression. Studies of viewpoint 
diversity in the professoriate have found severe imbalances by 
political affiliation with registered Democrat to Republican 
ratios reaching as high as 60 to 1 on some campuses. Available 
evidence suggests that these disparities are not accidental. 
Fifty-five percent of academic philosophers and 38 percent of 
social psychologists admit to at least some level of 
willingness to discriminate against conservatives in the 
faculty hiring process.
    Hundreds of universities have gone so far as to build bias 
response teams to investigate student and faculty speech. 
Students have used them to report on others for watching Ben 
Shapiro for ableist comments like, ``on the other hand.'' 
They've reported faculty for giving a wrong look, and young 
Republicans for every conceivable instance of wrong think, all 
of this in the hope of setting off a burdensome investigation 
that will at least be reputation-damaging even where the speech 
is protected. Universities that encourage students to inform on 
their peers and professors create an anti-intellectual dynamic 
reminiscent of a Soviet police state where nobody knows what it 
is safe to say or who it is safe to talk to. Two appeals courts 
have ruled that bias response teams are exerting an 
unconstitutional chilling effect and yet hundreds remain in 
operation.
    Since this hearing is also concerned with K-12, I'd like to 
make three points specific to it. First, K-12 schools are 
funded by taxpayers because their mission is to advance the 
public interest. Curricula standards should, therefore, balance 
the concerns of families, policymakers, school board officials, 
and business leaders, while leveraging the expertise of 
educators. Not long ago, school districts around the country 
were removing ``To Kill a Mockingbird'' and ``Huck Finn'' from 
reading lists because of the N-word which features prominently. 
That doesn't mean Mark Twain and Harper Lee had their books 
banned. It means communities made a judgment about curricula 
value, however much many may disagree with it.
    Second, conversations about public school curriculum should 
be occurring at the state and local levels. The framers 
understood that educating children is a paramount parental 
responsibility. It can be delegated to others, but it is 
precisely the kind of function that should be kept close to the 
people. In a Federal democracy, local communities will settle 
on different policies and teach different books. That is the 
essence of representative government.
    Third, it is the responsibility of public school systems to 
teach materials that are age-appropriate. The American Library 
Association's list of the top 10 most challenged books helps us 
to understand what the real issue that brings us here is today. 
The first and second entries on the list, ``Gender Queer'' and 
``Lawn Boy'', are so graphic that parents reading them at 
school board meetings have repeatedly been stopped because the 
content is so obscene. When school board members judge content 
too hot for adults to handle, it isn't censorship to remove 
them from school libraries. It's their responsibility.
    If public school systems were systematically targeting the 
writings of, say, civil rights leaders, in response to parental 
or political pressure, I would not be here testifying today. As 
Justice Harry Blackmun has written, school officials may not 
remove books for the purpose of restricting access to the 
political ideas or social perspectives discussed in them. That 
is not what is happening in the majority of these cases. These 
books are being challenged generally because they contain age-
inappropriate sexual content that is neither necessary to 
create an inclusive learning environment and are uniquely well-
suited to promote diversity of thought.
    In conclusion, the most serious threats to free speech in 
an academic context are occurring in higher education today, 
not K-12. On our campuses, self-censorship is endemic, 
viewpoint discrimination is the norm, and students and faculty 
are routinely targeted by school-sponsored bias response teams 
for the political content of their speech.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much for your thoughtful 
testimony.
    And, Ms. Berg, you are now recognized for your five 
minutes.

  STATEMENT OF JESSICA BERG, TEACHER, LOUDOUN COUNTY, VIRGINIA

    Ms. Berg. Thank you, Chairman Raskin, Ranking Member Mace, 
and the subcommittee, for inviting me here today to speak on 
this very important issue. My name is Jessica Berg. I am a high 
school English and women and gender studies teacher in Loudoun 
County, Virginia, where I live with my husband and my two 
extraordinary daughters. Teaching is not a profession I planned 
on, but there is not a day that goes by that I'm not thankful 
for whatever fates led me into the classroom because it has 
been one of the most rewarding experiences of my life.
    However, this past December, along with teachers across the 
Nation, I was on the precipice of leaving the profession 
because of what political groups and politicians have done to 
education. The crusade against critical thinking has instilled 
fear in teachers, fear of repercussions for speaking up, fear 
of being fired for doing what we know to be right, fear of 
receiving actual death threats from members in our own 
community. And the continued challenge to our professionalism, 
our expertise, our compassion, and empathy for all of our 
students has cracked the will of underpaid and overworked 
teachers.
    Today, I hope to give a very brief insight as to what we 
educators and English teachers aim to achieve in the classroom. 
But more than that, I wanted to share some words for my 
students because theirs is the voice that is often forgotten in 
these discussions.
    The one thing I save year to year is the letters my 
students write, and rereading them, I was reminded that the 
biggest thing students take away from their time in English is 
the safe space created within the classroom walls and the books 
that play a pivotal role in their lives, leading them to 
lessons that extend beyond the classroom walls. But these are 
the books you are banning. Books offer a mirror to readers so 
they can see themselves reflected in some way, be it their 
gender, their race, their culture, their identity or their 
experience, and it make them feel less alone in the world. When 
they see themselves reflected, students do not feel erased, and 
they maintain their self-efficacy, the belief that their voice 
matters. And when I think about the books frequently being 
challenged, the only connection I see between them is that they 
are the books that give voice to the most marginalized in our 
society.
    A few years ago, I taught a brilliant young woman who 
almost missed her chance to attend college because she didn't 
yet understand the power of her voice. In a letter she wrote, 
``I will miss you so much when I go off to college, but I will 
always remember you. You have taught me so many lessons inside 
and outside the classroom. You have changed my life because you 
showed me during a difficult time that my voice matters, and I 
should stand up for what I believe in.'' But the political 
groups and politicians out there banning books don't want that. 
They don't want everyone to feel like they have a voice because 
the status quo is predicated on silence. And not only is 
banning these stories and censoring history, preventing 
students from being able to find their voice, but it is 
negatively impacting my ability as an educator to connect with 
my students in a meaningful way.
    The entrance into these life lessons that leave a lasting 
impact on students is stories. As one student wrote, ``Ms. Berg 
taught me a life lesson through her evident passion for the 
worlds of novels. She lets us explore the world outside the 
bubble that we rarely escape. This lesson is one I will never 
forget.'' That is the power of books. They offer students a 
window to see the world beyond themselves in the hopes that 
they understand that what divides us as humans is infinitesimal 
in the face of what unites us, but these are the books you're 
banning. And it is a fallacy when political groups ban these 
books under the guise of parental rights.
    I am a parent. We have rights in our student's education, 
but that parent-teacher team has been broken by the 
divisiveness of the moment. The loud, angry subset of political 
parents no longer communicate directly with teachers, and 
instead, they go straight to the school board and yell. If you 
do not want your child to read a book, that is absolutely fine. 
But it does not give you the right to make that decision for 
every other student in the county or across the Nation who 
might find a lifeline in the very book you banned.
    I understand wanting to protect kids. I want to protect my 
two daughters fiercely and for as long as I can. But I also 
want to prepare them for the real world so when I am not there 
to be their shield, I want to know that I have armed them with 
the sword of every story and the impenetrable power of 
knowledge that just might give them the ability to survive. And 
through my work as an educator, I hope to make the world my 
daughters will head into a little bit better, one story and one 
student at a time.
    And it was a former student who defined what we aim to do 
as educators so eloquently when she said, ``Ms. Berg, you are 
the best and most inspirational teacher I've ever had. You 
taught me more than grammar and writing skills. You opened my 
mind and prepared me to seek understanding from a wide variety 
of perspectives. I am better-equipped to process life and its 
complexities because of the time I spent in your class, and I 
can't thank you enough for that.''
    Maybe if we all were prepared to seek understanding from a 
wide variety of perspectives, we, too, would be better-equipped 
to process life and all of its gorgeous complexities. Thank you 
for your time.
    Mr. Raskin. Well, that was just outstanding, and even with 
36 seconds left over, so well done, Ms. Berg, a model to 
witnesses throughout Capitol Hill.
    Now I'm going to recognize myself for five minutes of 
questions.
    Oh, I'm sorry, Ms. Bridges. You've been so patient with us. 
We've got the great Ruby Bridges with us, and you are now 
recognized for your five minutes. Thank you.

    STATEMENT OF RUBY BRIDGES, CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVIST, AUTHOR

    Ms. Bridges. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and Mrs. Mace, 
Members of Congress, and the subcommittee. Thank you for having 
me. I am indeed honored for this opportunity to speak on this 
very important subject.
    When I first heard about possible book bans, including the 
targeting of my books, my initial thought was to avoid 
responding altogether as I thought it didn't deserve more 
attention, and the efforts would naturally subside. However, as 
these bans have somehow gained even more momentum, I feel it is 
now important to speak up. I cannot understand why are we 
banning books, I thought. My books are written to bring people 
together. Why would they be banned? But the real question is, 
why are we banning any books at all? Surely, we are better than 
this. We are the United States of America with freedom of 
speech.
    In every book I've written, I have purposely highlighted 
and lifted up those human beings as Americans who were seeking 
the best version of our country, like Supreme Court Justice 
Thurgood Marshall, who helped to win the landmark case that set 
me on this journey. As a six-year-old walking through the doors 
of this all-white elementary school in 1960, I wanted my 
readers to know I did not walk alone. I was protected by 
dedicated Federal marshals, commissioned by a sitting President 
of the United States. I was nurtured and taught by a 
compassionate teacher, mentored by a world-renowned child 
psychologist, all of whom were white, by the way, and mentioned 
in these very same books that some wish to ban. They became a 
part of my support system along with a supportive community, my 
village, my courageous family, and friends. So when I share my 
experiences, my story in these books, I share our shared 
history, good, bad, and ugly.
    As a six-year-old child, I had no idea I was taking a 
historic walk. My parents were sharecroppers raised in rural 
Mississippi, not activists. For them, education was a luxury 
they could not afford. They only knew that they wanted better 
for their own children: a mother that felt education would 
provide that better life. A father, who was a decorated Korean 
War vet, was skeptical, rightfully so, remembering his own 
experiences in a segregated branch of the military. He said he 
was always seen and treated as just another colored soldier, 
war hero or not.
    Needless to say, this historic walk put them at odds with 
one another, even though the same walk helped to change the 
face of education in this country, and I became the poster 
child for the civil rights movement. My father never lived to 
see the change that this walk helped to promote. As a six-year-
old, I had so many questions. What happened? How did it happen 
to me? Why that school? Sadly, no one, including my parents, 
could provide answers or they didn't want to. History happened, 
and it was over.
    Being six with limited capacity, I often wondered if it was 
all just a dream. How was I to ever understand my own place in 
history? This was a part of my identity. And yet, no one around 
me was equipped to discuss it, or maybe they just didn't want 
to. They didn't want to share it with me. I was always six. 
Let's face it, there was no Black History Month then, and the 
textbooks we use were obsolete then, and they are still 
obsolete today.
    I learned the full impact of my own story at the age of 17 
when a reporter showed up on my doorstep with the Norman 
Rockwell painting which depicted my walk. Until that moment, I 
thought my experience in 1960 was contained to my own 
neighborhood, in my own community, on my own street. I 
questioned if it really even mattered at all. But finally, 
seeing this painting, now I understood my role in history, and 
it didn't come from the textbooks used to teach me that very 
same history, unfortunately. The truth is that rarely do 
children of color or immigrants see themselves in these 
textbooks we are forced to use. I write because I want them to 
understand the contributions their ancestors have made to our 
great country, whether that contribution was made as slaves or 
volunteers. My books are written to inspire a new generation to 
contribute to building this great country for indeed there is 
much work to be done.
    So I say if we are going to have a conversation about 
banning books, then I say that conversation is long overdue. 
Let's have it, but it must include all books. If we are to ban 
books from being too truthful, then surely we must ban those 
books that distort or omit the truth. I do empathize with 
parents who are faced with answering questions that they do not 
feel equipped to answer. Remember, my parents once stood in 
those very same shoes.
    Even when my own grandson at seven came to me with a book 
about the United States presidents, their names and their 
faces, asking me, ``Mommy, do you have to be white to be 
President?'' As a grandparent, that truth was hard for me to 
look at. I had to be creative in my response while also being 
truthful because my grandson needed to feel good about the 
person he sees in the mirror as well. My response was, no, of 
course not. You don't have to be white to be President. They 
are waiting on you. You can be the first Black president of the 
United States. That held him at bay for a while.
    So you see, I encourage parents and teachers to be 
creative, without lying of course, because our children deserve 
the truth. The truth is pure. The truth is good. And we all 
know the saying the truth shall set us free. As I stated in my 
2014 TED Talks, teachers should be given the flexibility to 
teach. We must untie the hands of these very qualified 
educators. Books celebrate----
    Mr. Raskin. Ms. Bridges, forgive me, we are just over the 
time, but I am going to come right to you with my questioning, 
and I hope you will be able to complete the thought, if that is 
all right.
    Ms. Bridges. Yes.
    Mr. Raskin. So, we will now begin member questioning, and I 
will go right to you to finish that point and then I want to 
ask you another question. So please be as brief as you can be.
    Ms. Bridges. Books celebrate our shared history and they 
should not be banned. The integrity of books and history and 
stories within their pages must be embraced and preserved by 
all, for all. History is sacred and should not be changed and 
altered in any way.
    In closing, I would like to say the purpose of my books is 
to extend and expand education to children, all children, no 
matter their color of the skin. I write to remind children that 
we should embrace both our truth and our progress and I write 
to show them that we are truly better together than apart. In 
order for us to be the United States of America, we have to 
live up to our name. We, the people, must be united. Our 
babies, all of them, need to see themselves in our books, 
particularly in school. Representation doesn't just matter, 
it's vital, especially in the pages of the books that we teach 
from. When children read about President Dwight Eisenhower, 
they should also be able to read about the little six-year-old 
girl who made a difference during his presidency. That little 
girl was me, Ruby Bridges, and I am proud of my story as are 
thousands and thousands of kids, not just in this country, but 
around the world.
    Mr. Raskin. Well, thank you so much. I am holding up right 
now the famous Norman Rockwell painting, the rendition of it 
that is in your book, which is so wonderful and is indeed 
iconic.
    Your book has been objected by the people who want to 
censor your book because they say it may make white children 
feel uncomfortable, which struck me as just bizarre given that 
you have a beautiful tribute to the teacher you love the most, 
I take it, Mrs. Henry, with her picture and she was white. You 
have a picture of you with a bunch of kids who are white 
friends, a picture of John Steinbeck who wrote a beautiful 
essay about you, a tribute to Eleanor Roosevelt and so on. But 
I guess they were rubbed the wrong way by this. It must be the 
most clean-cut looking photo I have ever seen of a racist 
protester, ``We won't go to school with Negroes.'' And I 
imagine they had a search far and wide to find the use of that 
N-word as opposed to the other one.
    But what is your reaction to those people who say your book 
doesn't belong in school libraries or doesn't belong in a 
curriculum about the civil rights period because it might make 
some white kids feel uncomfortable? Do you think it will make 
white kids feel uncomfortable and what is your response to 
that?
    Ms. Bridges. My response to that is that I have thousands 
and thousands of kids that write to me constantly, who lift up 
my books and talk about how they have learned so much from my 
own story. I believe that, yes, there are some parents who 
might find the truth very hard to look at. As I mentioned in my 
talk, I understand that, but we cannot hide the truth from our 
kids. It is history, and history is sacred and we shouldn't 
change or alter it in anyway.
    Mr. Raskin. Well, thank you for writing this beautiful 
book, ``Ruby Bridges Goes to School'', and thank you for 
defending everybody's academic and intellectual freedom.
    I want to come next to Ms. Hull and Ms. Berg. Ms. Hull, you 
are a librarian. Ms. Berg, you are a teacher. And first I would 
wonder if you can concretely tell us what has been your 
experience of this new wave of attempts to ban books, censor 
books, challenge books, and so on. How has it affected you in 
your work? Ms. Hull, you can start.
    Ms. Hull. Thank you. I think it all stems from a 
misunderstanding of what the purpose of libraries are and what 
librarians can do, and how books end up on shelves. If those 
who are upset could understand the collection policy, 
development, and all the pieces that go into curating those 
collections. I think a lot of the misunderstandings could be 
avoided.
    Mr. Raskin. Great, and Ms. Berg.
    Ms. Berg. Yes. And so to my experience as a classroom 
teacher, it has not really changed anything because these books 
that are being banned are choice. They are not being forced on 
any student. They are books in the library. The curriculum is 
very different from the books that exist in the library. So the 
thing is, you can decide for your own child not to have them 
read the book. You don't get to make that choice for every 
other child in my school, in my school district, or in the 
Nation. And, in fact, we all had a commonality in ``The Great 
Gatsby'', which is a book on the curriculum we are all 
currently reading. Even Lilly is, I think, missing a quiz on it 
today. So, there are two very different sets of books when you 
are talking about a classroom curriculum and a library for 
choice.
    Mr. Raskin. Very nice. My time is up, but, Lilly, I am 
happy to write you a note if you need one. That might help, I 
am not sure.
    I am going to come now to Mr. Donalds for his five minutes 
of questioning.
    Mr. Donalds. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Witnesses, thanks for 
being here. I appreciate it.
    By way of background. I served in Florida's legislature. I 
was a chair of two education subcommittees. I wrote legislation 
about providing people who live within a county the ability to 
review all material, whether it is classroom or library 
material, and that all taxpayers, whether they are parents or 
reside in a county, should have an ability to review that 
material and examine it because they are the ones that pay for 
it. Ms. Berg, I know you are Virginia. Ms. Hull, I know you are 
Pennsylvania. I will describe for you the procurement process 
in Florida.
    Any material, whether it is in the library or in the 
classroom, is actually approved by the State Board of 
Education. The State Board of Education goes through their 
material procurement. They give a list of what they view as 
being responsible material for the school system. That list 
then goes down to the school districts. School district 
administrators review the list. They provide a list of what 
they feel should be acquired. The school board then votes on 
the recommendations from the administrators in order to provide 
the dollars to actually purchase those materials. And that is 
what actually ends up in the classroom or in the library. There 
might be a slight variation of that with the library, but, by 
and large, the administrators bring a list of materials to be 
acquired, school boards vote on them, and that is how they show 
up. Is that true?
    Ms. Berg. Yes, to my knowledge.
    Ms. Hull. It is a little different in Pennsylvania. There 
is a lot more local control.
    Mr. Donalds. OK. Fair enough. That is fair. Well, can we at 
least agree for the premise of what we are discussing that 
school boards are the ones that authorize purchases?
    Ms. Hull. Yes.
    Mr. Donalds. Does the school board have the legal authority 
and the taxing authority to decide what goes in and out of 
libraries and classrooms?
    Ms. Hull. It is my understanding that school board policy 
places the superintendent in a position to make those and 
delegate those decisions.
    Mr. Donalds. Does the elected school board have a 
responsibility to decide on the funding necessary to either 
acquire material or keep material in classrooms and/or 
libraries? ``yes'' or ``no.''
    Ms. Berg. I think in terms of Loudoun County, we also have 
a board of supervisors, which approves our budget and, again, 
like Ms. Hull said, it is our superintendent who has decisions 
in both staffing and allocation of resources.
    Mr. Donalds. So when the material is allowed to come in or 
there is a decision to remove material, is it just done at the 
behest of, A, group or is there actually a vote of some body, 
whether it is the school board, the board of supervisors, or 
even the decision of the superintendent? Is it that person's 
decision or that body's decision to remove said material?
    Ms. Hull. Not always. Most libraries have weeding processes 
with the removal of books in a general consensus, especially in 
nonfiction literature, where we need to keep updated 
information accurate. And that is a process that is trusted to 
the experts, the librarians, to be able to do that process 
without any voting.
    Mr. Donalds. Well, I would argue, Ms. Hull, that at the end 
of the day, you might decide what is going to sit in a library, 
but the funding comes from the taxing authority. And if they 
choose not to fund that purchase, they choose to remove that 
purchase, the responsibility falls with them. So, if the body 
politic, the parents that live in a community decide that they 
find material objectionable and they go to their elected 
representatives who have authority over the school district and 
they vote to remove material, wouldn't you say that is the 
appropriate way of representative democracy is supposed to 
work?
    Here is a better question. Should parents have the ability 
to have their voices heard about material that they think 
should be in front of their children, whether it is mandatory 
or whether it is optional? Do you think parents should have 
that ability to voice their opinions?
    Ms. Berg. Yes, absolutely. As I said in my statement, and 
they do have that right. The books that are being banned or a 
majority of the books from library, which are complete choice, 
they are not the books in our curriculum are required reading. 
You absolutely have a say in what your child should be able to 
read, but they are no longer coming to us, the professionals, 
the expert----
    Mr. Donalds. Ms. Berg, I have got one question.
    Ms. Berg. Wait. I would like to finish my answer.
    Mr. Donalds. I know but----
    Mr. Raskin. The gentleman has the time.
    Mr. Donalds. I have got 45 seconds. I got to focus this 
thing.
    Ms. Berg. Parents have a say. They don't have a say for 
every other parent.
    Mr. Raskin. Ms. Berg, you will get a chance.
    Mr. Donalds. I would not say that parents have the right to 
say for other parents. What I am saying is do parents or a 
large part of the community at large have an ability to lobby 
or engage with their elected officials on the local level to 
decide what's in the room? I would say the answer to that is 
yes.
    Ms. Freeman, quick question for you. I understand the 
situation that you laid out with your child. I have three sons. 
I could completely understand what you and your spouse are 
having to deal with, go through, explain. Support your child, 
completely understand that. If the material was not in your 
child's library, would you be able to still acquire that 
material through Amazon, through Barnes & Noble's, or anywhere 
else?
    Ms. Freeman. Personally me, yes, but not every parent has 
that opportunity to do that or every child feels safe enough 
and has been----
    Mr. Donalds. And I think this is important.
    Mr. Raskin. The gentleman's time is expired, but you can 
finish.
    Mr. Donalds. I mean, Ms. Freeman, I appreciate your answer. 
The point I am really trying to make is, is that we have many 
parents who have very different objectives and they all should 
be respected in this discussion. So to make the argument that 
books are being banned when they are going through the legal 
course of action to talk to their representatives, I think is 
very hyperbolic and is not actually correct about the process 
that is being used to decide what materials are in or out of 
the classroom.
    With that I yield back. Thank you for the leeway, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Mr. Raskin. Yes, you bet. Mr. Donalds, I would also just 
ask you to read page 59 in my book, We the Students about Board 
of Education v. PICO, which dealt with just precisely the 
process you are talking about, but where the Supreme Court 
still said you can't strip books from public school libraries 
because someone disagrees with the viewpoint or the content 
there. But check it out.
    All right. Let's see now. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, you are 
recognized for five minutes.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And 
shifting away from process for a moment, I am going to read 
some excerpts from the book, which is a Pulitzer Prize-winning 
book called ``Maus'' where some characters speak in broken 
English about anti-Semitism in this graphic novel account of 
the Holocaust. And so the excerpts go as follows: ``The mother 
is always told so, be careful. A Jew will catch you to bag and 
eat you. So they talked to their children. It was very hard 
there for the Jews, terrible: synagogues burned, Jews beaten 
with no reason, whole towns pushing out all Jews,'' each story 
worse than the other.
    Look, we know that bigotry is learned, but when children 
access worlds like this outside their own, we know it can also 
be unlearned. When a Tennessee School District pulled ``Maus'' 
from its eighth grade curriculum, it mirrored a national wave 
to ban so-called objectionable material from schools. White 
nationalism, anti-Semitism, and racism are on the rise, but 
purging books which candidly confront the genocide of 6 million 
Jews will only breed more ignorance fueled hate. ``Maus''' 
author Art Spiegelman said: It's as if the Tennessee School 
Board wants to ``Teach a nicer Holocaust.''
    Ms. Hull, books were removed from your library shelves 
overnight. My question is, targeting books like ``Maus'' sends 
what signal to students, in your opinion?
    Ms. Hull. It is my opinion that when books are removed, 
especially without conversation, without going through a 
process that includes all voices, out of concern to parents 
that of students and experts that students are erased, they 
feel that their identities are not as valued in the school and 
outside the school walls. It is also my opinion that when books 
like ``Maus'', when books like ``All Are Welcome'' are removed, 
that not only our community, but the teachers, the school 
community itself doesn't value students for who they are or 
what they might feel.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. These book bans coincide 
with spikes in anti LGBTQ+ attitudes and legislation where 
schools and libraries are the battlefield. Ms. Freeman, as a 
mother, what message does it send to your daughter and other 
LGBTQ+ students when books reflecting their identities and 
experiences are pulled from their library shelves?
    Ms. Freeman. It is sending a message that they are not 
welcome and they are not seen. And it is also encouraging this 
behavior of, you know, bullying, sending a message that it is 
OK to treat LGBTQ individuals in a negative way. That is the 
kind of message it is sending that they are not welcome in 
schools. Thank you.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. Thank you. Censoring 
LGBTQ+ books in class discussions tells these students that 
their identities are shameful or to be feared. And as a mother 
of three children myself who attended Florida public schools, I 
am frightened by the suppressive forces that are taking hold 
there. It is being challenged, but Florida's Don't Say Gay law 
would, ``prohibit any discussion about sexual orientation or 
gender identity in certain grade levels.'' So if you think the 
book bans and pulling from curriculum is bad now, just wait 
till this is fully implemented. God forbid. That is a law you 
expect to find in Putin's Russia, not America.
    And last, Ms. Berg, if Virginia were to pass such a law, 
would that change your day-to-day life as a teacher?
    Ms. Berg. Yes. It changed my life as a teacher because it 
changes the lives of my students. And already I have seen with 
the Don't Say Gay Bill in Florida, it is having repercussions 
on the mental health of LGBTQIA students across the country 
because they see what's happening. They see the writing on the 
wall. And I had a student say to me, ``I would rather kill 
myself than not be allowed to be who I am.'' That is absolutely 
affecting me as a teacher because I carry that with me.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And just to wrap up, and I am going 
to hold ``Maus'' up again, another excerpt from this book. 
``People haven't changed. Maybe they need a newer, bigger 
Holocaust.'' We have an obligation to ensure this passage from 
``Maus'' remains just that, a line from a book. But if we 
censor our unpleasant history and deny who we really are, that 
line of fiction may someday be a frightening new reality. And I 
want to just close with thanking Ms. Bridges for her 
perseverance for staying in the fight, for making sure that she 
gave meaning. Even though she didn't understand it when she was 
six years old, that she gave full meaning to what her parents 
did for her and for all school children, all across this 
country.
    Thank you so much. I yield back.
    Mr. Raskin. The gentlelady yields back. Thank you for your 
questioning, Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
    Now Mr. Biggs is recognized for his five minutes of 
questioning.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to approach 
the portion of our titled hearing that talks about academic 
censorship. And so with that, I would ask that we watch a 
videotape that my staff has prepared.
    Mr. Raskin. Without objection.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you.
    [Video shown.]
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman to let us show that 
video.
    Mr. Raskin. By all means.
    Mr. Biggs. One of the things that I have seen repeatedly, 
and I will be submitting some stuff for the record. I will just 
save it till after I question some witnesses. A CBP, Customs 
and Border Patrol, agent showed up at an invited event on the 
University of Arizona campus in March 2019. He was attacked, 
and this presentation was disrupted and the type of speech used 
against him was outrageous, calling him ``murder patrol,'' 
``KKK,'' ``anti-campus,'' that type of thing. Kyrsten Sinema, 
actually senior senator from Arizona, who is also an adjunct 
professor at ASU, recently, last October as a matter of fact, 
was teaching her class. She went to the restroom. She was 
followed into the restroom, into the stall, and was raided by 
students who were upset by a vote she had taken in her role as 
senator. Recently, UVA, the Cavalier Daily put out a piece 
saying former Vice President Mike Pence, it would be dangerous 
for him to come and just speak on campus. Concerned Faculty 
published a counterpoint to that, which is included in my 
documents that I will be submitting. In 2021, 111 scholars were 
targeted because of not even political ideology, just 
expressing thoughts contrary or heterodox to the entire left 
wing campus at these universities.
    I am almost at time already. I just have to say I was 40 
with six kids. I had worked at the United Nations, and I went 
back to get a graduate degree at a local university. And even I 
felt cowed actually expressing my true opinion because you 
understand one thing when you are in graduate school: the 
professor has your future in their hands. And if you don't 
acquiesce to what they are saying or at least solve their point 
of view sufficiently, you don't get welcomed into the club.
    So I will go to Mr. Pidluzny. The First Amendment would 
apply to state institutions like public colleges and 
universities. Is that right? And you will need the mic on. Can 
you explain the importance of free speech in our society, 
particularly on college campuses and the dangers to civil 
society where we stifle that free speech?
    Mr. Pidluzny. Absolutely. As Chairman Raskin pointed out, 
we need to learn to tolerate the speech that we abhor. That is 
the only way to rebuild a civil discourse. And the only way for 
that to occur is for us to feel like we can talk to people who 
disagree with us fervently to learn that they are people of 
goodwill who often want the same good things for society, but 
just have different ways of getting there.
    Mr. Biggs. And can you provide some examples where 
university administrators at public institutions have sought to 
constrain speech in a way that runs afoul of the First 
Amendment's protection for freedom of speech?
    Mr. Pidluzny. I mean, absolutely. They do it in dozens and 
dozens of ways. One example is overbroad speech policies where 
basically offensive speech is forbidden. If offensive speech is 
forbidden, there are a lot of things you cannot talk about, 
basically anything that is controversial in our sort of social 
lives. And so they use bias response teams to then enforce 
these, right, which allows any member of the campus community 
to file a complaint. The process to investigate the complaint 
is then deliberately burdensome, right? So, I think sometimes 
police officers are actually on these committees as well, which 
are called to have a discussion with the dean. Often it goes 
public. They publicize it. There may be social media involved 
for other students who are bystanders and the goal is to 
destroy the reputation of the conservative student.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you. I know my time is expired. May I give 
a----
    Mr. Raskin. Well, the problem is we are about, they are 
calling votes in just a few minutes. I want to try to get at 
least another person in.
    Mr. Biggs. OK.
    Mr. Raskin. We are going to do a second round. So I may----
    Mr. Biggs. OK. I may not be here for a second round. Are 
you content with me just giving you a stack of these documents 
and submitting it for the record?
    Mr. Raskin. Oh, sure. By all means. By unanimous consent.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you.
    Mr. Raskin. No objection.
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Raskin. No objection. And now I am going to 
come to Ms. Tlaib for her five minutes of questioning.
    Ms. Tlaib. Thank you so much, Mr. Raskin. Hi, Lilly. How 
are you? You know, I am a mother of two, raising, you know, two 
Muslim boys in our country. And it has been very difficult. 
But, you know, Ms. Bridges, I want to thank you so much because 
what you said really resonated with me. I know I get emotional 
every time I think of my two boys. You know, our children, they 
just simply want to exist as they are. They want to be loved. 
They want to feel human. You know, there is so much 
dehumanization happening just even at a young age, and they may 
want to feel like they belong.
    And it is so hard because I think my colleague, Wasserman 
Schultz, was right, and there are some things that we just have 
to understand that even some of this stuff that we just don't 
want to see, right, that it also has to be available so that we 
know just the impact and the detriment that it can have on our 
society. You know, I can't imagine, I mean, 850 books, 
Chairman, have been challenged in Texas. Sixty-two percent of 
them address LGBTQ+ issues. Eight percent address race and 
racism. When we have an issue in our country, anti-Blackness 
exists in our country, we should be constantly right now 
working and addressing it because it is a disease that kills, 
if by suicide or by violence, and so much more.
    You know, Ms. Bridges, something that you testified that 
when you were in school, you didn't see any of those stories, 
the images. I want to tell you, you know, my son saw this 
image. He had heard me talking about it. There was this image 
in USA Today depicting Muslims as like Nazis. It was awful. It 
was like a skeleton image. And it said ``Allahu Akbar,'' which 
means ``God is great,'' on the form. And, you know, I am 
talking to his dad and I am just like, oh my God, if people see 
this, they are going to want to kill us, right?
    My son walks in, Ms. Bridges, and you know what he says? He 
goes, ``Mamma, don't worry.'' He was 9. He goes, ``Don't worry. 
If somebody asks if I am Muslim, I will lie and tell them I am 
not.' Ms. Freeman that devastated me that my child didn't feel 
like he could exist because he's hearing me talk about these 
things. But also I want him to be able to pick up a book and 
see somebody of his faith or somebody that had that same lived 
experiences of being Muslim in America or being a child of a 
Palestinian father or a mother who grew up, you know, in 
Detroit in the most beautiful, Blackest city in the country.
    So, this is a really, really hard hearing. I mean, I love 
you Raskin, but you always have the most difficult hearings, 
Chairman. And I just, you know, I have so many questions, but I 
just hope my colleagues do understand the importance and the 
human impact. You know, you have a huge role, Ms. Hull. You 
know, I grew up with the Bookmobile, if you remember the 
Bookmobile, and I didn't speak English when I started school, 
and I was able to get up there and get the book that I needed. 
And I loved it because, of course, it was a Latina that was 
there that helped me understand, oh wow, you know, brown girls 
are in books, you know. And it was also the teacher that I was 
really shy, if you can imagine me being shy, Ms. Berg. But my 
first debate hearing, I got up and choked, but it was an 
amazing teacher, Mrs. Marshall, who showed me that I had a 
voice.
    This is so difficult because it is not just about the 
books, right? It is about being human in our country and stop 
politicizing it. We need to see ourselves in our country. And 
so I just look forward to the day when our children can read 
the history, right, in a class about the sad, hateful bigots, 
who tried to drag America backward, and I hope it inspires them 
to also be fighters like Lilly and like the witnesses here 
today, who stopped them dead in their tracks. I am with you.
    I just want you all to know, I really appreciate your 
courage being here. I could ask you all kinds of questions, but 
I feel like I am speaking to the choir. But I am happy that we 
are doing this because I think bringing it to the halls of 
Congress makes it more real and at least they can see some of 
us do see them and we do see them as human beings.
    Thank you, and I yield.
    Mr. Raskin. Well, thank you for that beautiful, moving 
statement, Ms. Tlaib. What an honor it is to get to serve with 
her.
    I am going to ask everybody's indulgence and patience one 
last time. We have to go vote. Nobody has been more patient 
than the great ranking member of this committee, Nancy Mace. 
She is going to come back and as soon as we get back. She is 
going to get to do the questioning. But we have a lot more 
questions for you. We have to get more to say, so please hang 
tough, everybody. And, Ms. Tlaib, we can give you a ride, if 
you want one. Thanks.
    [Recess.]
    Mr. Raskin. Back to order. We resume with questioning from 
our distinguished ranking member, Ms. Mace of South Carolina.
    Ms. Mace.
    [Presiding.] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for 
your patience today.
    Ms. Ruby Bridges great to have you, someone who is such a 
historical figure in the civil rights movement here today. We 
want to thank you for your time and for everyone who's here 
today. I know it took probably most of the time out of your 
day, and out of work and school, and everything. And I 
appreciate Mr. Chairman.
    I do have a unanimous consent that I want to enter into the 
record when this is over. And if we are waving books around, 
here is mine, ``In the Company of Men: A Woman at the 
Citadel'', that has not been banned yet, as far as I know, and 
probably can get it used for $1 on eBay.
    Ms. Mace. But nonetheless, I had some questions I wanted to 
followup on from my colleagues earlier today. And, Ms. Berg, I 
want to thank you for your time today. I have a few ``yes'' or 
``no'' questions that I want to ask the panelists this 
afternoon. And the first one, Ms. Berg, does a state 
superintendent of education have a role in defining curriculum 
for students of that state? ``Yes'' or ``no.''
    Ms. Berg. So, that is more than a ``yes'' or ``no'' 
question?
    Ms. Mace. ``Yes'' or ``no.'' Does the State Superintendent 
of Education have a role in determining the curriculum----
    Ms. Berg. That is not how curriculum works.
    Ms. Mace. What about the school board? So do school boards 
have a say in shaping curriculum in state's education?
    Ms. Berg. That is not how curriculum works.
    Ms. Mace. What about parents? Do parents have a say in 
curriculum in their kids' education? ``Yes'' or ``no.''
    Ms. Berg. I wrote a curriculum. That is not how it works, 
how the approval process works.
    Ms. Mace. OK. So, we don't want them to say ``yes'' or 
``no.'' So I believe that----
    Ms. Berg. Well, because it is not a ``yes'' or ``no'' 
question.
    Ms. Mace. OK. It is a ``yes'' or ``no'' in a democracy and 
in determining the outcome of education. As a daughter of a 
retired schoolteacher, as a parent, single working mom of two 
kids, I do believe that myself and their dad have a say in the 
outcome and the curriculum of my kids' education. Ms. Hull, 
thank you for being here today. And thank you for bringing your 
experience as a librarian with us this afternoon. So, are the 
only libraries in the United States school libraries? Are those 
the only public libraries in the U.S.?
    Ms. Hull. No.
    Ms. Mace. So, are there libraries that maybe 
municipalities, states, or counties also create in different 
states across the country?
    Ms. Hull. I believe they are known as public libraries.
    Ms. Mace. Right. So, is there anything that prevents a 
student from going to a public library if they can't find a 
book they want to read in their school library?
    Ms. Hull. Transportation would be the main one.
    Ms. Mace. OK. Are they allowed to go to a public library? 
Are students allowed to go a public library or only school 
libraries if they have transportation?
    Ms. Hull. That would be a parent decision.
    Ms. Mace. OK. Are there other places where students or 
parents can get books, maybe a bookstore, like a physical 
bookstore, like a Barnes & Noble's bookstore?
    Ms. Hull. Perhaps, if they have the financial means.
    Ms. Mace. Can parents buy books online, like from Amazon?
    Ms. Hull. Perhaps, if they have the financial means.
    Ms. Mace. Can you go to a place like Goodwill and buy a 
book for less than $1 or maybe even get it for free?
    Ms. Hull. Goodwill selection is certainly not as expansive 
as those carry----
    Ms. Mace. Or other bookstores? So, what you are saying is 
there is more than one opportunity for a student or a parent to 
get a book to their kid's liking. It is not just they are not 
only limited to public schools. They can get a book from a lot 
of different places, even in a coffee shop if they wanted to, 
right?
    Ms. Hull. Yes.
    Ms. Mace. And you mentioned in your testimony earlier today 
about students having safe spaces to read. Is a classroom a 
safe space to read?
    Ms. Hull. I believe that depends on the classroom.
    Ms. Mace. OK. What about school libraries? Are school 
libraries safe places to read?
    Ms. Hull. I also think that depends on the individual 
library space.
    Ms. Mace. Are kids safe to read when they are at home?
    Ms. Hull. Not always.
    Ms. Mace. Are most kids, do you think, safe to read while 
they are at home?
    Ms. Hull. I do not have the numbers to represent that.
    Ms. Mace. OK. And then I had some additional questions. If 
a student wanted to get an LGBTQ book that wasn't in a school 
library, could they get it at a public library? Would it be 
available in a public library?
    Ms. Hull. If they had the transportation and means to get 
there.
    Ms. Mace. But would a LGBTQ book be available in a public 
library?
    Ms. Hull. Of course.
    Ms. Mace. OK. Or a book of any other nature. And I don't 
have much time left. I want to get to Mr. Pidluzny. I apologize 
if I am not saying your name right. And you talked extensively 
about free speech, about free speech on college campuses, for 
example. There are a lot of examples of censored speech. Even 
people who are against censoring want to censor people because 
they don't believe in their beliefs. Like, there are some 
people out there that want to ban me from going on Fox News 
because they don't agree with me. But we are going to not stop 
doing that, and in even some cases, people are attacked for 
their beliefs. I have had my house spray painted last summer by 
someone who disagreed with my political beliefs. I have had my 
car keyed for the same thing. And sometimes on college campuses 
students don't have the freedom of speech. So, can you explain 
to us why freedom of speech is so important in the United 
States of America?
    Mr. Pidluzny. Absolutely. Many reasons. I talked about the 
importance of expressing different viewpoints to learn about 
other people's goodwill. You have to come in contact with those 
things already. Universities are also places where you have 
political scientists, economists. If everybody can freely 
explore issues, we are going to refine public policy, and the 
student leaders in those classrooms are going to learn how to 
solve today's problems a lot better. And if faculty are afraid 
to talk about things like racial inequality and do so in a 
truly wide ranging way, we are not going to come up with the 
new solutions that the country needs.
    Ms. Mace. Thank you. And before I run out of time, Chairman 
Raskin, I did want to ask unanimous consent to enter the 
following article into the record from my local hometown paper, 
the Post and Courier, regarding a college that banned a 
political club, a non-partisan political club. A lawsuit was 
filed, and the college had to pay the students' legal fees in 
$20,000. And this article details how the local college tried 
to deny access to funding and meeting spaces on a college 
campus for a political group that had no political affiliation. 
And after that lawsuit, the college changed its policy 
regarding how they treat students and freedom of speech.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Raskin.
    [Presiding.] Without objection. Thank you for your 
questioning.
    We now recognize the distinguished gentlelady from the 
District of Columbia, Ms. Norton, for her five minutes of 
questioning.
    Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    This is a very important hearing. Every challenge to a book 
or conversation in a classroom drains valuable resources from 
schools that are already stretched thin. Reviewing a challenged 
book imposes hours of additional labor on teachers and 
librarians and administrators. And then those hours could 
perhaps be better spent working with students or creating 
lessons or not trying to look at what books should be in the 
library.
    Ms. Hull, as a school librarian as well as a leader for 
librarians in your area, you have played a large role in 
reviewing books that were being challenged by parents and 
school administrators. How much time does it take to review a 
single challenged book and what extra administrative steps do 
you have to undertake?
    Ms. Hull. So, I will answer the first part of your question 
about timing. Generally the challenge process happens between 2 
and 3 weeks and the time out of the classroom, out of the 
library, the instructional time is around 1 to 2 hours per day 
during that 2 to 3 week period.
    Ms. Norton. So that is time that is not spent on teaching 
or with education.
    Ms. Hull. Correct. And then did you have a second part?
    Ms. Norton. What other things could you be doing with that 
time, for example, to support students if you weren't reviewing 
these challenges?
    Ms. Hull. Sure. I would be able to spend time doing what I 
was hired to do and that involves a variety of activities, but 
most importantly, it keeps the students at the center. So, 
often I'm working with students in small groups, in one-on-one 
situations. I am also working with teachers and co-teaching 
lessons. I also have a roster of my own and teaching classes to 
students directly. All of that on top of maintaining a 
collection and then sometimes having to support that 
collection.
    Ms. Norton. These book bans, along with related bills aimed 
at censoring school discussions, are taking their tolls on 
teachers as well. My own mother was a teacher. I understand how 
much work that involves. Ms. Berg, I believe, you have spoken 
before about facing increased complaints from parents. How long 
does it take for you to address each complaint and what types 
of issues are parents raising in these complaints?
    Ms. Berg. Yes, an increased complaint recently and 
depending on the issue or if there is an issue with a student, 
it is phone calls home. All of the meetings that we have with 
parents have to take place out of school hours, out of contract 
hours before or after school, or oftentimes on my planning 
block, which is where I usually try to grade or actually plan 
the lessons I am going to teach. So, one complaint can be 
anywhere from 3 to 4 hours, and that is out of contract time 
for these meetings.
    Ms. Norton. What types of issues are parents raising in 
these complaints?
    Ms. Berg. Again, like I said in my statement, it is a 
really sad state of affairs that this divisiveness has really 
kind of cut the communication between parents and teachers. A 
lot of our parents in Loudoun County specifically just go 
straight to the school board and don't actually come to the 
teacher with their questions or looking for an alternative 
text. A lot of it is just that they, you know, hear this 
rhetoric in the news about CRT or LGBTQIA policies and they 
don't want that discussed in class, but they never actually 
come to us, the teacher, to discuss what we are doing with our 
lessons in class regarding those issues.
    Ms. Norton. Ms. Berg, I think the committee would be 
interested in knowing how these challenges affect you 
personally as a teacher? What could you tell us about that?
    Ms. Berg. I love teaching. It is my just life's work, my 
passion. Like I said, I wrote a curriculum, created a class. I 
love the students I get to work with. And this past December, I 
was putting together a resume and ready to quit my job because 
of what is going on and the constant questioning of my 
professionalism, my care for my students. Like Ms. Hull said, 
they are always at the center of what we do. That is why we got 
into this profession because we care about students, and it is 
demoralizing. And we right now have a shortage of teachers in 
this Nation, and it is only going to get worse, and that is 
going to do damage to the education system as a whole. That is 
what these book bans, these challenges, this rhetoric, that is 
what it is doing. It is destroying education.
    Ms. Norton. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Ms. Norton, for your excellent 
questioning there. I think that a couple members are on their 
way back, Ms. Pressley and Mr. Jordan. So, let me just ask a 
few questions I had to sort of everybody and we could just go 
down the panel there.
    I think it is easy for us to recognize when something's 
actual censorship, you know, in violation of the Supreme 
Court's decision in Board Of Education v. Pico, when schools 
are saying we don't like Catcher in the Rye, and we don't like 
Native Son, and they offended some pressure group and we are 
going to remove them, or in the higher ed context, we are not 
going to hire someone who teaches critical race theory or we 
are not going to hire someone who's a conservative or a liberal 
or what have you. That is easy. But a number of you have talked 
about the somewhat more ethereal question of the climate of 
what the feelings are like, and that is much harder to put our 
finger on that.
    You know, I think one of our colleagues before said, you 
know, even as, I think, a 40-year-old who was involved in 
politics and a graduate student, he still felt he couldn't 
really express his feelings about something and we know a lot 
of LGBTQ people also feel, well, maybe nobody has said I can't 
talk about my sexual orientation. Maybe they haven't passed 
Don't Say Gay yet in my state, but I still feel stifled about 
it.
    How do we cultivate the values of tolerance and acceptance 
such that we don't have the informal mechanisms of 
marginalizing people? And maybe we can just start with Ms. Berg 
and, you know, work our way down to Mr. Pidluzny.
    Ms. Berg. Yes, absolutely. Mr. Pidluzny and I were actually 
having a great conversation, and I said the one thing that I 
foster my class was it being a safe space, is the ability to 
have these conversations regardless of your viewpoint. And I 
asked students, you know, what do you want to discuss, and it 
is always these major issues that are going on outside in our 
world. And I say one rule, one rule only. If you want to talk 
about this, you show respect. We are not here to all agree with 
each other. We are here to listen and you have to listen as 
much as you talk. And that is truly what is giving me hope for 
the future because my teenagers can do it. I hope we can, you 
know, talk and listen and just respect one another because you 
want them to have this access to the conversation to, again, 
hopefully change our future.
    Mr. Raskin. And you clearly model those values of respect 
and tolerance, so, thank you for that. Yes, Mr. Pidluzny.
    Mr. Pidluzny. So, I think every constituency has something 
to do. Administrators need to tear down their bias response 
teams and they need to fix the policies, but they should also 
model a tolerance of other viewpoints. So presidents and
    [inaudible] should go to talks on every side of the aisle, 
and they should make sure that we are inviting speakers to 
campus to discuss topics on every side of the aisle.
    Faculty need to hire faculty they disagree with, right? The 
biggest problem we see with faculty search committees is that 
they are duplicating themselves. And so political science and 
philosophy and literature, they become basically viewpoint 
monocultures, and we need to help students understand the 
importance of free and open discourse and of civil discourse. 
And so I think we need to incorporate training modules into 
first year seminars. Faculty need to remind students that, you 
know, that this is a place for free and open debate and that 
they shouldn't be using social media to shame people who are 
expressing disparate viewpoints.
    Mr. Raskin. Yes, I appreciate that. Ms. Freeman.
    Ms. Freeman. Thank you. I think Ms. Berg said a lot of what 
I was going to say, but I think we do better when we listen to 
each other's stories. And these stories are in the books that 
we read in the classroom, in the school libraries. And with me, 
you heard when I talked about the LGBTQ books, particularly for 
my family and learning about the people that we need to work 
with, whether it be in the school, in the community, even when 
you get out into the real world. So, I just think it is 
important that we do better when we know about each other, all 
of us, and it is within our books that we learn about each 
other listening to each other. Thank you.
    Mr. Raskin. Great. And, Ms. Hull before I come to Mr. 
Jordan for his questioning.
    Ms. Hull. Sure, I will echo everyone's thoughts. And then 
what I'm hearing is that we need to build tolerance and we need 
to build empathy. And how we do that is by starting through 
literature and we allow our youngest learners to be comfortable 
when they are uncomfortable, and being able to feel like they 
can ask questions and express different viewpoints in ways that 
have been modeled through even age appropriate children's 
stories all the way up through novels at the high school level.
    Mr. Raskin. Very good. Well, thank you all for your 
thoughtful answers to that question.
    And I am going to yield to Mr. Jordan for his five minutes.
    Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Pidluzny, did I 
get that close? I apologize.
    Mr. Pidluzny. That is it.
    Mr. Jordan. All right. I will call you ``Dr.'' from now on. 
I think I will just stick with that. Right now, where is the 
biggest concerns about free speech actually happening?
    Mr. Pidluzny. I think the two biggest problems are a lack 
of viewpoint diversity. As John Stuart Mill explains, it is not 
enough to have free speech or free expression rights. You need 
to be being presented with ideas that challenge you to think 
outside of your comfort zone or outside of the box.
    Mr. Jordan. I guess I'm asking, was that more so on college 
campuses or in----
    Mr. Pidluzny. Well, I think the situation on college 
campuses is much worse.
    Mr. Jordan. Yes, much worse. We got what, we got safe 
spaces and, you know, where you can go and you can't be 
triggered or whatever, and people can't say that you got free 
speech zones.
    Mr. Pidluzny. Yes. Ms. Berg and I were actually just 
talking about the fact that a lot of the things you put trigger 
warnings on in college or a lot of the things that students are 
trying to remove from their curriculum, like depictions of rape 
and classical literature, those are the things that they are 
talking about in middle school and in high school.
    Mr. Jordan. Well, so, I guess, and when it comes to, you 
know, elementary or even primary education, that is about what 
is appropriate for kids. That is a different debate than 
college campuses, adults' free speech. Is that right?
    Mr. Pidluzny. Absolutely, right. So I think it is perfectly 
reasonable for K-12 to ask, are these resources well-tailored 
to our educational objectives? And so you can never remove a 
book to restrict access to political ideas or social 
perspectives. However, and this is from Justice Blackmun 
writing in Pico. First Amendment principles would allow a 
school board to refuse to make a book available to students 
because it contains offensive language or because it is 
psychologically or intellectually inappropriate for the age 
group or even perhaps because the ideas it advances are 
manifestly inimical to the public welfare.
    Mr. Jordan. Yes, because moms and dads don't like that 
either. That is a different animal. On a college campus, can a 
safe space and a free speech zone be at the same location?
    Mr. Pidluzny. Well, they have different objectives, so I 
would say no. But the free speech zone is itself problematic 
because it suggests that there is only one part of the campus.
    Mr. Jordan. Exactly, because it seems to me, where is the 
free speech zone supposed to be?
    Mr. Pidluzny. Yes. Well, I mean, typically it is in the 
quad somewhere, some states are actually forcing----
    Mr. Jordan. It seems to me the First Amendment is the First 
Amendment. A free speech zone should be just about everywhere.
    Mr. Pidluzny. Well, absolutely.
    Mr. Jordan. It should be everywhere.
    Mr. Pidluzny. But for time, place, manner restrictions, or 
insightful speech, absolutely.
    Mr. Jordan. Sure. We understand that. I remember we had 
some hearings a few years ago. We had Ben Shapiro and Adam 
Carolla and other people come in and we had college professors 
come in. Tell me about these bias response teams. I remember 
that from a few years back.
    Mr. Pidluzny. I think they are one of the most insidious 
things that are happening on college campuses. There are 
hundreds of them out there. Basically, they look different on 
every campus. They often include police officers. They often 
include student life administrators.
    Basically what happens is you create some kind of portal, 
and students are encouraged to anonymously make complaints 
about things that are said or done, and this triggers some kind 
of an investigation. Sometimes the bias response team can refer 
for punishment or even enact punishment. But the design of the 
process is that it would be reputation damaging and onerous, so 
that any reasonable, objectively reasonable student would want 
to avoid this. How do you avoid it? Well, you avoid it by 
saying anything that anyone could take offense at.
    Mr. Jordan. Yes.
    Mr. Pidluzny. And that is the problem. And that is the 
point.
    Mr. Jordan. You don't want someone to report you to the 
bias response team. It chills everyone's speech on campus.
    Mr. Pidluzny. Well, you can't even watch Ben Shapiro on 
your dorm, right?
    Mr. Jordan. Yes, exactly. One of the things that I am 
concerned about is this term ``misinformation.'' Misinformation 
gets used, it seems to me, someone is, however someone defines 
misinformation. If you engage in misinformation, then that 
speech is not allowed to happen. And I am very concerned about 
that because I actually think that one of the biggest 
purveyors, maybe the biggest purveyor of misinformation is the 
government. Government tells us things all the time that aren't 
accurate, but somehow if a citizen says something that they are 
going to get attacked by, I think, often by the left for 
spreading misinformation.
    Mr. Pidluzny. Yes. I mean, the very concept of 
misinformation, the idea that we should be banning that 
actually flies in the face of the idea of an intellectual 
marketplace where if you have dialog between different ideas, 
the ones that are true are going to rise to the top, and the 
ones that are simply false will rise to the bottom. So, for 
example, we didn't do a whole lot of scientific discussion of 
masks and how effective masks were. All right. We just heard 
our public health authorities tell us, well, they don't help, 
and then that they do help, and that they don't help unless 
they are N95. Well, and the problem with that is it reduces our 
confidence in government and our public health officials and 
that is a huge problem.
    Mr. Jordan. Very much so.
    Mr. Pidluzny. I wish they would have just said we are not 
totally sure.
    Mr. Jordan. That is not the only example. There are all 
kinds of examples where the government told us one thing that 
turned out to be just the opposite. And yet if you question 
that, you were labeled as the one spreading misinformation and 
your speech got attacked. So, we got to be very careful with 
that phenomena as we move forward.
    With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Jordan, for your thoughtful 
questioning.
    And now, Ms. Pressley, it is my honor to recognize you for 
your five minutes of questioning.
    Ms. Pressley. Thank you, Chairman Raskin, and thank you to 
the first panel of students for sharing your stories and taking 
action.
    Across the country, scholars are calling out, rightfully 
so, how banning books on race and LGBTQ issues from our schools 
are impeding their education and their own personal development 
and growth. Republican book bans target literary classics like 
``The Bluest Eye'' and ``Beloved'' by Toni Morrison, the first 
Black woman to win the Nobel Prize in literature, because the 
novels discuss racism and slavery, but their focus is not only 
on works of fiction. In multiple states, Republicans have 
sought to prohibit students from reading non-fiction and 
historical recounts because the subject matter tells the truth 
about racial injustice in America.
    Ms. Bridges, you know this all too well. Your book, ``This 
Is Your Time'', is on the list of books that Texas Republicans 
want removed from public schools. And the so-called Moms for 
Liberty group has launched a campaign in more than 30 states to 
have one of your children's books, ``Ruby Bridges Goes to 
School'', banned because it makes students feel uncomfortable. 
Ms. Bridges, what do you say to the parents who do not want 
their children to hear your story or seek to exclude the truth 
of racism that you and your family experienced firsthand?
    Ms. Bridges. Well, as I said earlier, I believe that 
history is sacred, and none of us have the right to change or 
alter history in any way. Well, I have been taught that we need 
to know our history to know where we are going. Just thinking 
about everything that I have heard this morning, it seems to me 
that we have so many of these books of choice, that the reason 
why is that our young people cannot find their stories and 
contribution, sacrifices to this country in the books that we 
do not have a choice in. And that is in our textbooks.
    So it would seem to me that these books of choice is even 
more crucial that we have them so that our young people in 
schools have a place to go to find their stories and their 
contributions to this country. I mean, at some point in time we 
may be calling on these young people to serve and defend this 
country. And as my father felt back during the Korean War, I 
would think that this country would want to lift them up. Let 
those citizens know that we are indeed proud of them because we 
celebrate their stories, their contributions. So, I think that 
these books are proven to be even more crucial.
    Ms. Pressley. Thank you.
    Ms. Bridges. And shouldn't be banned.
    Ms. Pressley. Thank you, Ms. Bridges. And to your point 
about called on to be the future defenders, you know, in 
communities throughout the country, Black students of all ages 
continue to face white supremacist violence just for trying to 
access quality education. I mean, recent threats on our HBCUs 
are a stark example of this in fact. So how do you think the 
removal of books like yours will affect this young generation 
of students who might not be aware of the struggle to fight 
segregation in America? How does it affect their sense of 
purpose, their agency?
    Ms. Bridges. Well, I have to, you know, refer back to the 
thousands and thousands of kids who write me letters and saying 
how my story has actually helped them to stand up to be brave. 
So I would have to refer to that. Yes, as I mentioned earlier, 
the truth is hard to look at, but I do honestly believe that in 
the long run the truth will set us free.
    Ms. Pressley. And thank you so much, Ms. Bridges. These 
book bans are really no more than a malicious political 
campaign of erasure, erasure of civil rights history, erasure 
of LGBTQ equality, erasure of all the hard-fought progress made 
that allows our babies the chance to learn, and accepting and 
nurturing classrooms. But, of course, this is not just about 
knowledge. I could argue that books save lives. I know it saved 
my own when I was a child and real-time experiencing child 
abuse and I picked up Maya Angelou's ``I Know Why the Caged 
Bird Sings'' from my school library. And it was the first time, 
in the midst of all the shame and the fear that I was 
experiencing, that I knew that I was not alone in the world. 
So, yes, books expand minds and empower our young people and 
the place that they take in this world, but I think they save 
lives.
    Ms. Bridges. Absolutely.
    Ms. Pressley. With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Raskin. Ms. Pressley, thank you for your wonderful 
questioning. And that is we have come to the end of our 
representative questioners.
    Ms. Mace, did you have any final thoughts you wanted to 
conclude with?
    Ms. Mace. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank our 
witnesses once again for their time today and adhering our 
witnesses this afternoon and this morning.
    I think the idea of censorship is a far more important 
issue than the issue of state superintendents of education, 
state boards of education, local county boards of education and 
parents doing what is legally and rightfully theirs to 
determine is how their kids are educated in their communities. 
So, when you look at this issue and you look at some of the 
censorship that is happening on college campuses, as we heard 
today from Dr. Pidluzny, it is very difficult to say your name, 
but thank you for being here today. But that kind of 
censorship, censorship on social media, that is far more 
dangerous than what we are hearing, I think, from our witnesses 
today. And I have experienced it myself, you know, part of the 
American experiment is being able to have a debate of ideas, to 
have this exchange of ideas, and not get attacked for. But we 
are seeing conservatives and some on the far left and far right 
being attacked every single day in this country. And the 
censorship and this erasure is not being applied equally.
    I know the Kremlin is tweeting on Twitter right now. You 
know, we are banning conservatives from Twitter, and yet the 
Kremlin can still tweet today. And, you know, if you are going 
to have a standard, apply it equally across all users on social 
media. And complaining that parents go to school boards to have 
their voices heard is wrong. Accusing schools as in saying that 
there is no safe place to go read in the classroom or the 
library, that should be the safest place to read. And so this 
is, I think, not an accurate representation of what is truly 
going on.
    But at the same time, we want to have folks, like Ruby 
Bridges, having her voices heard. There are so many Black 
voices, so many LGBTQ voices, too, that have the right to be 
heard at the same time. But the questioning of speech and 
looking at that from that perspective, even Bernie Sanders, 
because we have got, I read a story earlier today from Daniel 
Marans on Huffington Post, who is sitting in the room today, 
quoted Bernie Sanders not too long ago, that people have a 
right to give their two cents worth, give a speech without fear 
of violence, intimidation, et cetera. And yet today we have 
that going on.
    We had the end of a 2020 election where mainstream media 
wouldn't talk about the business that Hunter Biden was doing, 
even talk about the emails that were on his laptop. And when 
talk about some of the, I would say allegedly shady work that 
he was doing and whether or not his father was a part of that 
and doing that at the tail end of an election. And so we see 
that every day.
    There was some citation earlier about kids not feeling safe 
because of their LGBTQ status. Mental health, mental issues are 
up. Depression and anxiety has been up by 25 percent over the 
last years because of COVID-19. That is a statistic from the 
World Health Organization. I have seen it in my own family with 
my own children who have suffered because they were not in 
school. They were in virtual school. And I have seen some 
children that haven't been able to get it back. I have seen 
increase in drug use from kids who don't even have the ability 
to drive right now. And so when we are having these 
conversations about anxiety and depression of our students, I 
hope that we can have a broader discussion of how keeping our 
kids out of schools has actually harmed them over the last two 
years.
    And I just want to last say it again, Mr. Raskin. Even 
though we sometimes disagree, we always agree to disagree, and 
I love the debate that we have in the Civil Rights Subcommittee 
on Oversight. And I want to thank you all for your time and 
being here today.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Raskin. Well, thank you so much for that excellent 
conclusion and for making sure you would be here with us today 
to participate in this. And I have got a few closing thoughts 
of my own.
    First, I want to thank our extraordinary witnesses 
beginning with the students who were with us on the first 
panel. But I want to thank Samantha Hull, who is a librarian 
from the great Lancaster County in Pennsylvania, Mindy Freeman, 
who is appearing from Bucks County, Pennsylvania. And we thank 
you so much for being with us along with your daughter. And Dr. 
Jonathan Pidluzny, who is with the American Council of Trustees 
and Alumni, and Jessica Berg, who is teacher in neighboring 
Loudoun County, Virginia.
    I also was very moved by the testimony and the seriousness 
with which all of you have approached a really important topic, 
and I just had a few cleanup thoughts I wanted to advance 
before we close. One is on the question of the fine old lost 
art of American heckling. I got heckled yesterday by our 
colleague Marjorie Taylor Greene on the floor of the House, and 
totally fine with me. I think they were about to gavel her down 
or tell her she had to be removed. You know, she was yelling at 
me, but she left some oxygen and space for me to respond, and I 
did. And that kind of heckling, you know, if you go back and 
read the Lincoln-Douglas debates, there is a great compendium 
of the Lincoln-Douglas debates by a historian named Harold 
Holzer. But he includes the heckling that took place and people 
would yell things out, and then Lincoln and Douglas would 
respond to them, and sometimes it would launch a whole new, you 
know, discussion between the two of them. That kind of heckling 
is fine for me. The kind that I think we saw in one of the 
tapes where people are actually trying to shut people up and 
shut down the event, that strikes me as not within the spirit 
of the First Amendment, much less something like we saw on 
January 6, which was the ultimate act of censorship.
    The ultimate expression of cancel culture was what took 
place on January 6, where 900 people entered this building 
unlawfully, evading the metal detectors, evading the officers, 
actually wounding and injuring 160 of our officers, smashing 
them in the face with baseball bats, and American flags, and 
Confederate battle flags, and so on. That, to me, was the 
essence of cancel culture. They were trying to cancel out our 
whole democracy. On that day they were trying to cancel out the 
whole Constitution, so I was not happy to see the relatively 
trivial violence before on the video. I don't think anybody 
was, you know, wounded or given post-traumatic stress syndrome 
or killed in that kind of violence, but I wasn't happy to see 
it. And I am not happy to see a form of heckling which is 
really just shutting down other people's ability to speak.
    The second thing I want to say, and we were about to get 
through the hearing so well on a bipartisan commitment, the 
First Amendment, but I did want to respond to my friend, Jim 
Jordan. I don't know if he's still out there somewhere. I'm 
sorry that he left the room. But, you know, it is very easy to 
feel that your group is somehow being unfairly targeted and 
made a victim. And I have spoken before to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio about this. He seems to believe that 
conservatives are somehow uniquely the victims of what he calls 
cancel culture.
    We have already heard from some people today--students, 
teacher, librarian, mom--about the actual attempts to strip 
books from people's libraries. And we heard from the great Ruby 
Bridges about the extraordinary and shocking effort to censor 
her books and remove them from public libraries in an attempt 
to silence the critical experience, the formative experience 
for our lives of the Civil Rights Movement affecting everybody, 
not just the African-American community, not just the Latino 
community, the Asian-American community, but the people in the 
white community, people all across the board. This is the 
American story.
    And so, I guess what I would like to say is I think that we 
are going to advance the First Amendment values that all of us 
hold dear, if we can step a little bit beyond our own sense of 
grievance and indignation, that somehow we are the first people 
ever to feel the sting of being marginalized. I know that 
conservatives feel marginalized. I think Oberlin is sometimes 
mentioned as a school, just like conservatives feel, liberals 
feel marginalized sometimes at George Mason University, or 
conservatives can feel marginalized at Wesley perhaps, and 
liberals can feel marginalized at the University of Chicago. 
OK. So, let's try to maintain a sense of balance about that, 
and we can talk about how to improve the climate for everybody. 
I think it is within the spirit of First Amendment values that 
we want to give everybody the right to speak, and to 
participate, and to try to respect them as much as possible, as 
Ms. Berg said.
    And finally is to the point raised by my friend, Ms. Mace. 
And I think a couple of the other members raised this too. We 
do have a kind of a tension or a balance in our public schools 
and, by the way, our public universities too, between 
individual freedom and democracy. There is no doubt that we 
have democratic mechanisms like school boards, and state 
legislatures, and county education superintendents who are 
involved in the preparation of curriculum. That is a function 
of democracy. And at the same time, under our First Amendment, 
the Supreme Court has said and certainly the people feel, our 
students or teachers don't shed their First Amendment rights at 
the schoolhouse gate. And so we have to try to reconcile those 
two values.
    All I would say about the current attempt to demonize and 
vilify people on school boards, teachers, librarians, is they 
are the democratic culture, along with our PTAs and our 
parents. They are the people that have been put in by the 
voters all across America. They are doing a hell of a job, I 
think. And so just because someone decides that they want to go 
on a book banning rampage or expedition doesn't mean suddenly 
that everybody who has been elected to the school boards or 
everybody who is in an office or everybody who is the head of 
the PTA, is somehow the enemy of the people. I don't accept 
that. I think that the teachers, the librarians, the PTA 
people, the school officials are doing their very best to 
reconcile all of these values in a democratic society. And the 
First Amendment is there to protect all of us.
    And the Supreme Court, I think, has been real clear about 
viewpoint discrimination, whether at the higher education 
level. Check out Board of Directors v. University of Virginia, 
I think it is called, and the Rosenberger case, where, no, you 
can't discriminate against religious student groups that want 
to get money to publish their newspaper. They have got an equal 
right to the Republicans, and the Democrats, and the liberals, 
and the conservatives. Just because you are religious group 
that is publishing a newspaper doesn't mean you can be 
discriminated against. But the Supreme Court has also been 
equally clear in the K through 12 context. While curriculum 
materials have to be age appropriate, you can't take books out 
of the library because somebody else doesn't like it.
    And I will just end with that image I started with. The 
First Amendment, freedom of speech, it is like an apple, and 
everybody just wants to take one bite out of the apple and if 
we let everybody take one bite of the apple, there is nothing 
left to it. So, we have got to defend not just the speech we 
love and the speech we agree with, but also the speech that 
might force us to learn something new or the speech that we 
think we really detest and we despise, that is what the First 
Amendment is about.
    I want to thank the great Ruby Bridges for gracing us 
today. It means so much to us to have you with us. And Ms. 
Hull, Ms. Freeman, Mr. Pidluzny--forgive me--and Ms. Berg, all 
the students, everybody participating, thank you for this 
important investment in American freedom.
    And the meeting is now adjourned.
    Witnesses will have five days to get us any changes to 
their testimony, and members will have five days within which 
to submit additional written questions for the witnesses to the 
chair and we will send them to you. If people have further 
questions, and please respond to them as quickly as you can.
    Mr. Raskin. And with that, the meeting is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 1:50 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                 [all]