Useful read from Literary activism as US Govt press releases will undoubtedly become increasingly politically charged from this point on
Us Lit grads love this sort of stuff, most will swallow the press releases hook line and sinker
As we truly enter a new administration—one that has reiterated time and time again that things like mis- and dis- information are not real and that those who teach such literacy skills may find themselves losing the right to vote (!)—it is going to be vital to learn how to critically read press releases disseminating from the federal government. Last week proved this as we saw the Department of Education announce that book bans were a hoax. While what the release stated was (partially) true, there was not only a lot of missing context to the press release, there was also a lot of response that indicated a lack of understanding about what the purpose of such a press release was. The release induced a lot of panic and anger, and while much of that was merited, that elicited response was intentional on the part of the new Department of Education. Let’s break down the press release to consider what it is and is not saying as a means of helping to practice critical literacy skills. This exercise is meant to help as we move through the next several years, as we will see such communication from the federal government happening over and over again. Find the full press release below. If it is challenging to read as a screenshot, head to the Department of Education’s website to look at it in entirety (we will break it down into more readable bits as we go).
Tools for Critical ReadingThere are two sets of tools we’ll use to read this press release, but there are many other useful ones available to you. The first set is basic, and it’s questions to ask as you read. Simply utilize the same methodology that’s used in writing such pieces, the five Ws and one H:
Not all of these will be immediately identifiable in what you’re reading, especially if you’re breaking a piece of writing apart bit by bit. That’s okay. These questions are starting points. As you read any news or you read a press release from this current administration, you’ll want to be thinking about these both in terms of the creators behind the writing but also in terms of the intended audience. Your second set of tools comes in the form of the acronym TOADSRIG. Again, it is not going to fully cover every critical reading tool at your disposal but it is pretty memorable. So what is TOADSRIG? It’s:
All of these close reading skills are useless, though, without what might be the most important part of examining anything critically: context, which is both the parts of discourse that help words and language make sense, as well as the conditions within which something exists. Context is the very thing that groups creating their own book review systems strip away when they do things like pull sentences they disagree with out of a book and then claim that book is “inappropriate” or obscene. They remove those sentences from the place where they exist in a book, so that an outsider doesn’t know where or how those sentences are being used and isn’t granted the opportunity to see where or how there might be pushback or acceptance of those statements in the text. Context stripping also occurs when a book like Anne Frank’s Diary: The Graphic Adaptation is banned for nudity, even though that nudity was the reality of Jewish people brought into concentration camps as they were poisoned. This is why context clues are a basic component of reading instruction and are comprehensive. For the sake of reading federal press releases and contemporary news, understand that our context is one the media claims is deeply polarized (not true, given that the election was not a blowout and research and statistical knowledge show that differences within groups are larger than differences between groups); a narrative that diversity, equity, and inclusion are harmful entitlements (they are not); book censorship and attacks on public institutions of democracy like libraries and schools are at a fever pitch (we have the actual data here); and more. Now, About That Headline
Though headlines don’t always give answers to all six of the W/H questions, they often provide the most salient while using language that entices the reader to care enough to read onward (see: clickbait). We know the Who and the Where here is the US Department of Education. The What is ending Biden’s book ban hoax. The When is indicated by the date in the press release, which is January 24, 2025. We will arrive at the Why and the How as we move deeper into the press release. There are two immediate red flags with the headline. The first is the Who and What of the headline. What do we know about the US Department of Education and How it relates to the current administration (i.e, the context)?:
Without needing to go any further than the first words of the headline, we can assess what and how information from this federal department is going to be presented. It’s a department that many of those in the current administration, as well as its supporters, want to see dismantled. It’s a department whose oversight is being given to someone with zero experience or knowledge, meaning that the goals of that chair aren’t necessarily aligned with those whose work depends on that department. Press releases are going to align with these values and actions. Red flag number two comes when we look at the tone of the headline. There is a clear slant in the language used, thanks to the word “Hoax.” What we know about the current Department of Education, alongside the use of that word, tells us that this press release is intended to raise anger from one set of readers and it is intended to excite another. There is no middle ground here and that’s on purpose. So what happens when we see a headline using language like this? We start to think about whether or not what we’re reading is going to be some form of mis- or dis- information and whether or not it is intended to be propaganda. We know for a fact that book bans are happening and have been happening at alarming rates since May 2021. This is well-documented across organizations filled with educated professionals who track book censorship, including the American Library Association and PEN America. Who has been claiming book bans are fake and a hoax? It’s the cadre of non-experts who have waged well-worn campaigns by those pushing for book bans claiming that removal of books from library shelves “is not a book ban.” Pause with this part. The reason the press release calls this a “hoax” is because those currently in power are utilizing a definition manufactured and perpetrated by those with their agenda. The goal is to make those people thrilled and to give them the satisfaction of feeling right for all of the book banning in which they’ve engaged. Who are those people? They’re Moms For Liberty, they’re No Left Turn in Education, and they’re the dozens of other local-level groups comprised of people whose manufactured outrage came not through actual news but through propaganda outlets like Fox News and The Lion and The Epoch Times and the rise of technology algorithms that feed them the things that make them angry in order to keep them addicted. If a lot of this is sounding familiar—an addiction to propaganda packaged as news and supplication to tech giants—that’s because it should. This press release headline alone tells you that this is disinformation, or information intended to do harm, and it is propaganda, or information intended to promote a specific viewpoint. The press release is not solely intended to appease followers of the administration, though. It is also intended to help create ill will from those who have supported the Department of Education. When someone who has otherwise not thought about the role of the Department of Education or someone who has supported it reads that headline, they begin to shift their beliefs about that institution. If the Department of Education is claiming book banning is a hoax, then fine, get rid of the Department because clearly they are biased and have no idea what they’re talking about. Analyzing the Press Release TextThe press release is Organized so that the information that the Department of Education deems most pertinent is at the top. This is also the Authorial intent and helps drive the Rhetorical purpose. Information first presented most supports the headline and is meant to be enough that most readers will scan the first few sentences, decide on their opinion of the piece (“good!” or “how dare you!”), then move on.
Beginning at paragraph one, the Who is the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) within the Department of Education. The OCR is tossing out 11 complaints related to book bans, as well as six pending investigations into book bans that it has received. Those complaints and investigations occurred because someone deemed those public school book removals were in violation of student civil rights. Now, the OCR states these books were rightfully removed because they were “age-inappropriate, sexually explicit, or obscene” and that such removal led to what the OCR believes is a dubious idea that schools can be hostile environments for students. The OCR is also dismissing the office’s “book ban coordinator.” Ask what you do or do not know about any of the Whos or Whats here and take the time to do the research where you need more information and context:
The missing context from the first paragraph alone is significant. We move then to the second paragraph, which is a chilling quote from Craig Trainor. Start here with Who Trainor is, the Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, then move onto What Trainor’s background is. He’s been deeply involved in legal work related to the suppression of free speech as it relates to college campuses. That particular issue has been the backbone of far-right activism related to “free speech”—campuses are “too woke,” of course. You can read more here, here, and here (note which political affiliation is the one buying the rhetoric that free speech on campus is in danger). Trainor is also a member of the Federalist Society. When you do a little Googling, you’ll learn some things about the influence of that group elsewhere in the US. It is the same group that South Carolina’s Department of Education Supervisor Ellen Weaver used to help ram through horrific state-level book banning laws in that state. Recall that in South Carolina, anyone can complain about any book in public schools across the state and the state’s education department makes a determination on whether or not the book should be removed from every public school in the state. While that background might sound unrelated, it’s not. Trainor’s quote is about how getting rid of Nosanchuk’s role and dropping every book ban complaint with the OCR is important because it gives back local control to school districts and parents. That “local control” is the same philosophy upon which the South Carolina book removals are premised. It’s the same philosophy upon which Utah has implemented state-sanctioned book bans and it’s the same philosophy upon which Idaho’s law about inappropriate materials for minors is premised. Now you’re noticing a pattern—the language being used in the press release is also language used to justify book bans by a large governing body. Dropping the OCR resolution in Forsyth County School’s book ban case isn’t about giving power back to locals in Forsyth County, as that would include the far larger contingent of parents who vehemently disagree with their removal. Instead, it’s about paving a path toward giving that power to the highest level possible, whether that’s the state of Georgia or the federal government itself. Know what else is tied to the Federalist Society, while we are here? The very author of the article from The Fire that likely inspired the language in the press release related to the “dubious” legal standard of students being in a hostile learning environment. Nothing here is not connected. Trainor’s quote ends by stating “These decisions will no longer be second-guessed by the Office for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Education.” If the job of the OCR is to investigate claims of federal civil rights violations, this statement explicitly states that that department is not going to bother doing their job because they trust it’s been done right elsewhere. That’s the same philosophy we’ll see used to undermine the professional work of librarians and educators in the very next paragraph. Notice a shift in language between Trainor’s quote and the explanation of the quote between paragraph two and paragraph three. Where Trainor actually invokes “teachers” in his statement, the third paragraph chooses instead to emphasize that decisions over curriculum and access to books falls squarely on “parental and community judgment.” No mention of trained educators. Zero mention of librarians, who continue to be undermined, if not outright ignored, as trained professionals (see here, here, here, and here, to begin). Some more things to consider as you read the first three paragraphs closely:
The answer is that it is the same parents who pledge loyalty to the administration, the same parents who’ve been stripping everything of its context, and the same parents who have the privilege of being white, cishet, ablebodied Christians made in the image of the very evangelicals currently taking over a government meant for all people. It’s the very same people claiming the OCR has no role in overseeing a very well-documented violation of student civil rights—when those students do not fit the mold of white Christian fundamentalism. Now, It’s Your TurnRather than do a step-by-step close reading of the second part of the Department of Education’s press release, take a few minutes to read through these paragraphs and apply the tools that allow you to read it as critically as possible:
Some things to consider or question as you apply the Ws, H, and TOADSRIG:
The OCR’s job is to ensure diversity, equity, and inclusion are at the forefront of public education. This is a convenient manner through which to firebomb that responsibility. It is not about renaming the DEI initiatives to be friendly in this administration. It’s about revoking the hard-earned rights of anyone who isn’t cishet, ablebodied, Christian, and white. Another tip for critically reading any sort of press release from the federal government or a news story? See what outlets are celebrating.
There’s no such thing as porn in schools, let alone “LGBTQ porn.” I won’t Google more for you since this headline and the outlet’s cheering says everything you need to know in one sentence. And lastly, what did the Department of Education post about the same week and into the next (in a usual instance, we could pull context from prior posting, but remember that was a different administration)? That they’re “celebrating” School Choice Week, which is antithetical to a department whose job is to oversee public institutions.
Here’s what this press release means: the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights is no longer going to investigate any claims that book bans infringe on student civil rights. It’ll now be the responsibility of parents/guardians/other interested parties to spend untold amounts of money filing lawsuits in courts to make decisions about student rights. This press release also means any prior guidance, like that seen with Forsyth County, is without any merit or meaning and Trump won’t be appointing anyone to fill the position created by Biden to oversee this work. Finally—and the thing that needs to be bolded—is that it sounds like the OCR isn’t going to bother protecting student rights at all, which is underscored by the fact that the Department of Education itself may not exist in the future. The administration doesn’t need to strip the Department’s website or policies related to DEI. They’re simply getting rid of the institution established to protect the rights of all students. We will also likely see a steep drop off in stories put out by the news about ongoing and new book bans. This press release is a permission slip for major news conglomerates—the majority ownership of local and regional news in our collapsing American news landscape—to stop covering the issue. The owners of those papers don’t want to get on the bad side of an administration that would eagerly shut down a “free” press. If you missed it recently, one such mega news owner, Allen Media Group, has laid off nearly all of their local meteorologists nationwide in favor of a “new initiative” that will sidestep covering the devastating weather changes we’re seeing in light of climate change (something else this administration does not believe exists). If something isn’t covered, then it simply is not happening. Is it exhausting to do this work in reading a simple press release? Of course it is. That’s the entire point. Rage-bait or calm-bait, the goal is to produce a firehose of information without actually saying a single damn thing. As we move through this era of rampant mis- and dis- information and endless propaganda, pause before responding. Take the time to not only understand what’s being said but how it’s being said. Consider what context is missing and what literacy skills you, as an intelligent consumer of information, can use to help other people understand that, as infuriating as this press release sounds, it actually says both a lot more and a lot less than it seems. Take some time to read some solid responses from organizations which have been doing anti-book censorship work, including Authors Against Book Bans, EveryLibrary, and PEN America. This analysis by the School Library Journal is another strong read. These are thoughtful and insightful statements that do not stoke the flames of fear—unfortunately, too many social media responses from individuals who haven’t been engaged in this work for the last half-decade have done just that. Good people with good intentions who support libraries and the freedom to read can be easily taken because literacy education and skills are tough to gain and continue to be removed as tentpoles of public education provided by librarians (and I don’t need to tell you that’s intentional). News Literacy Week begins next week. Set aside some time to practice your skills and to strengthen your ability to not only research claims but also your language around the information you consume and share (if you’re using the 56 Small Tasks to Be Proactive Against Book Censorship guide to help your anti-book ban work this year, news literacy practice is task 41). We can spend these next four years in a constant state of panic—and there’s absolutely value in anger!—but that constant panic is meant to wear you down into compliance and helplessness. Your time and energy is better spent engaging in the things that matter to you, including showing up in your own communities to support your local institutions of democracy, including public schools and libraries. Book Censorship News: January 31, 2025
I’ve linked to several stories over the last year about the parents pushing back against Montgomery County Schools in Maryland because part of the district’s curriculum involves LGBTQ books. That case will be going before the Supreme Court this year. One of the authors who has a book at the center of this case about
|