This post was written by 楼凤天堂 member Cody Miller.
The freedom to read, access to books, and teacher鈥檚 curricular autonomy will all be impacted by the 2024 election. 楼凤天堂 noted that federal bills seeking to shore up the freedom to read are 鈥渟plit along party lines, and all four bills are only supported by Democrats or Independents.鈥� Every state that has . Similarly, . Stating these facts may sound like a partisan statement, but that is only because one party has embraced book banning legislation and other policies that curtail intellectual freedom. Nowhere are the stakes of intellectual freedom and affirming schools more apparent than in the policy proposals outlined in Project 2025.
What Is Project 2025?
Project 2025 has entered public discourse over the past month. Both and has resulted in . In their own words, Project 2025 is a The 鈥渕ovement-wide effort鈥� in question is one that continues and expands on book banning efforts we鈥檝e seen proliferate over the past four years. The website touts the as a , for instance.
Project 2025 is an explicitly partisan organization with . The Heritage Foundation has spent the last four years spreading and . Project 2025 is preparing the groundwork for enacting book banning policies proliferating in states like Texas and Florida on the national level if Donald Trump wins the 2024 election. Recently, Donald Trump has tried to distance himself from Project 2025, but ties to the group and his administration are , , and . In fact, the . In many ways, Project 2025 is an extension of recent bills congressional Republicans have introduced, such as a and a .
Educating the Public
Our field must be diligent in fighting for intellectual freedom and the right for all students to have affirming schools. Fortunately, most voters favor the freedom to read. Book banning politicians, , lost significant races in both the 2022 and 2023 elections. Many voters remain unaware of Project 2025. However, . Therefore, our greatest asset as teachers in this moment is to teach the public about the threats of Project 2025. I believe we should educate our peers and communities about Project 2025鈥檚 attack on intellectual freedom, their plans to curtail civil rights for students, and policies that would eliminate critical funding and resources for schools. We as English teachers must be informed about Project 2025 because its stated policies pose a real danger to the field of English language arts.
Before continuing, I want to note that I will be using direct and summarized quotes from . I will provide the page number for each quote for readers to research on their own. However, I will not include full quotes that include homo- and transphobic language and talking points. The document echoes multiple homo- and transphobic terms, language, and lies. Readers can read those comments in full in the document, but I will not be amplifying such language in this post.
Policies on Books Bans and Intellectual Freedom
The first point to address is the goal of further book banning and limiting intellectual freedom. Like book banning policies we鈥檝e seen in the past four years, Project 2025 cloaks its and Efforts to diversify school curriculum, update reading lists, and include LGBTQIA+ narratives are decried as attempts to 鈥渋ndoctrinate schoolchildren, alter beloved books, abridge free speech, undermine the colorblind idea鈥� on page 19. The second paragraph on the first page of the over 900-page document spews homo- and transphobic talking points and claims that LGBTQIA+ literature is 鈥渋nvading [their] school libraries.鈥� Journalists and academics have already noted how is a .
Project 2025鈥檚 advocated policies would make diversifying school curriculum even more difficult for states and districts, as page 5 calls for the 鈥渢enets of 鈥榗ritical race theory鈥� and 鈥榞ender ideology鈥欌�� to be 鈥渆xcised from curricula in every public school in the country.鈥� Tellingly, while . Project 2025 believes that 鈥淪tates, cities and counties, school boards, union bosses, principals, and teachers who disagree鈥� with their stance on school curriculum 鈥渟hould be immediately cut off from federal funds.鈥�
Policies on Students鈥� Civil Rights
The second point that should be addressed is Project 2025鈥檚 multifaceted plan to radically curtail civil rights for students. On page 285, the Department of Education is described in inflammatory language as a 鈥渙ne-stop shop for the woke education cartel.鈥� that has been since 2020. The word 鈥渨oke鈥� appears in some form over 20 times in the document.
Project 2025 calls for the complete elimination of the Department of Education and accuses the federal agency of injecting 鈥渞acist, anti-American, ahistorical propaganda into America鈥檚 classrooms鈥� on page 8. Four pages earlier, the document calls for 鈥渄eleting the terms sexual orientation and gender identity (鈥楽OGI鈥�), diversity, equity, and inclusion, gender, gender equality, gender equity, gender awareness, gender-sensitive鈥� from 鈥渆very federal rule, agency regulation, contract, grant, regulation, and piece of legislation that exists.鈥� All current Department of Education and Department of Justice policies to fight LGBTQIA+ and race-based discrimination in schools would be repealed.
Policies on School Funding and Essential Resources
The third point that educators should be aware of relates to school funding and access to crucial resources. Policy proposals outlined in Project 2025 would deny students crucial material and funding now provided by public schools. Project 2025 calls for a radical limiting of the 楼凤天堂 School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program on pages 302鈥�303. The document calls federal school meals an 鈥渆ntitlement program鈥� and an example of the 鈥渆ver-expanding federal footprint in local school operations鈥� before explicitly calling to 鈥渞eject efforts to create universal free school meals.鈥� This policy echoes . Needless to say, feeding students should be a priority of schools because it is much harder to learn when you are hungry.
Project 2025 also calls for nationalizing 鈥渆ducation saving accounts,鈥� which would reroute public money for schools into the private sphere, on page 347. The document notes the passing of such a program in states like Florida, Arizona, and West Virginia. Pro Publica recently detailed how Arizona’s education saving plan has drained funding for a The Texas legislature tried to pass a similar bill but . English teacher and education journalist Peter Greene . 聽Taken together, these two policies would radically reduce the current funding public schools receive to provide holistic care to all students.
Advocating against Project 2025
There are other elements of Project 2025鈥檚 plan that would harm schools and communities ranging from to . Project 2025鈥檚 for readers who wish to know more. Dr. Erica Buchanan-Rivera has provided plan. Reading the proposal for schools and curriculum illustrates the threat Project 2025 poses to intellectual freedom, the freedom to read, and the ability of educators to create affirming schools for all students. I urge readers to inform their friends, colleagues, and communities about these plans and then act by contacting your local, state, and federal elected officials. Then, stay up to date on topics of intellectual freedom through 楼凤天堂鈥檚 Intellectual Freedom Center, especially the federal legislation spotlight. Advocates for the freedom to read have won before. I believe we can win again.
Cody Miller is an associate professor of English education at SUNY Brockport. During his seven years as a high school English teacher and in his current role, he has positioned texts as vehicles to discuss broader sociopolitical issues in students鈥� lives and worlds. Miller is the editor of English Leadership Quarterly. He was awarded 楼凤天堂鈥檚 LGBTQIA+ Advocacy & Leadership Award in 2022. He can be reached via email.
It is the policy of 楼凤天堂 in all publications, including the Literacy & 楼凤天堂 blog, to provide a forum for the open discussion of ideas concerning the content and the teaching of English and the language arts. Publicity accorded to any particular point of view does not imply endorsement by the Executive Committee, the Board of Directors, the staff, or the membership at large, except in announcements of policy, where such endorsement is clearly specified.