Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Alabama's SBOE banned the teaching of concepts that impute fault, blame, a tendency to oppress others, or the need to feel guilt or anguish to persons solely because of their race or sex.” [6] Georgia's SBOE banned teaching that "indoctrinates" students. Florida's SBOE prohibited teaching about critical race theory or the 1619 Project. [6]
The censorship of student media in the United States is the suppression of student-run news operations' free speech by school administrative bodies, typically state schools. This consists of schools using their authority to control the funding and distribution of publications, taking down articles, and preventing distribution.
The anti-DEI law also banned schools from having any policy, procedure, practice, program, office, initiative, or required training that is referred to or called "diversity, equity and inclusion ...
Many K-12 school districts use Internet filters to block material deemed inappropriate for a school setting. [87] [88] The federal government leaves decisions about what to filter or block to local authorities. However, critics assert that such decisions should be made by a student's parents or guardian.
More than 70% of high school teachers say that cellphone distraction is a “major problem” in their classrooms. Many education experts also believe that phones fuel bullying, sexual misconduct ...
The preliminary data was released at the start of Banned Books Week, an annual campaign by the ALA that raises awareness about censorship. US public schools banned over 10K books during 2023-2024 ...
Dean v. Utica Community Schools, 345 F. Supp. 2d 799 (E.D. Mich. 2004), is a landmark legal case in United States constitutional law, namely on how the First Amendment applies to censorship in a public school environment. The case expanded on the ruling definitions of the Supreme Court case Hazelwood School District v.
Private businesses, schools, libraries, and government offices may use filtering software to censor at their discretion, and in such cases courts have ruled the use of such censoring software does not violate the First Amendment. [55] US v. ALA (2003) 539 U.S. 194 is limited to its facts. It only holds that libraries may filter internet content.