Archives for category: Extremism

Ryan Walters of Oklahoma may be the worst state superintendent in the nation. Read John Thompson’s latest report on Walters’s plans for the Tulsa public schools and see if you agree.

Thompson writes:

The Tulsa World reported that the Tulsa Public Schools (TPS) “is zeroing in on 6,200 students in grades four to eight who must improve on state tests to help the district avoid a state takeover.” Given the threats State Superintendent Ryan Walters has thrown at the district, I understand why the TPS is undertaking a probably doomed-to-fail intervention. By appeasing Walters (who now supports the Tulsa plan), they might save the school system from Walter’s most destructive attacks. But that shouldn’t be the issue.

The question we should be asking is: Will their rushed effort to increase test scores help the 18% of the district’s students who are targeted or will it do them more harm? This experiment will inevitably teach students a lot of things – including destructive lessons rooted in worksheet-driven malpractice. The question should be: Would the supposed gains justify the likely damage that will be done to those students? If history is the guide, it seems inevitable that the tragedies of No Child Left Behind and ESSA will be repeated, especially for the most-disadvantaged students. For instance: What are the chances that the $360,000 spent on state test-aligned test preparation materials will result in a drill-and-kill mindset which is antithetical to the meaningful learning students need?

One of many examples of research on why programs like Walters’ demands have failed is National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s 2011 study, Incentives and Test-Based Accountability in Education. It found:

Test-based incentive programs, as designed and implemented in the programs that have been carefully studied, have not increased student achievement enough to bring the United States close to the levels of the highest achieving countries. When evaluated using relevant low-stakes tests, which are less likely to be inflated by the incentives themselves, the overall effects on achievement tend to be small and are effectively zero for a number.

I was attending a rally of teachers when Walters announced his latest assaults on Tulsa schools, and the district’s response was outlined. On one hand, the conversations with Tulsa and Oklahoma City teachers were stimulating. I was impressed by their emphasis on trusting and loving relationships, and supporting students who face so many obstacles. I was inspired by the embraces of Social and Emotional Learning (SEL), and how overworked and stressed out teachers remained devoted to their kids. I was told about successful efforts in some schools to restore holistic and meaningful learning, as well as other schools where test prep was still dominant.

Moreover, I was consistently told about the exhaustion and anxiety the educators face, and how Walters’ attacks will force schools to ramp up test prep. These conversations brought me back to the first decade of the 21st century when low-performing schools were the primary focus of drill-and-kill, and where recess, field trips, arts, and music were taken away.

Then, I was brought back to the second decade when almost every student and educator was targeted for reward-and-punish accountability. Just as the Race-to-the Top (RttT) was doubly devastating because NCLB had already broken the resistance to test-driven accountability, today’s mandates are likely to be doubly dangerous because they follow Walters’ and the Moms for Liberty’s campaigns for Prager’s false, rightwing curriculum, attacks on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), LGBTQ and trans students, and public education’s principles.

By the way, who are the students TPS needs to immediately move up at least one achievement level from “below basic” on state tests? The World reports they are 92% are economically disadvantaged, 20% require special education services, 43% are multilingual learners. They will be the ones who will likely suffer the stress, the drill-and-kill instructional malpractice, and lower graduation rates that typically result from Walters-styled mandates. This raises the question: Wouldn’t they benefit more from properly funded social and emotional supports, equitable spending on holistic instruction, diversity, and inclusiveness?

Instead of asking those questions, as the Voice reports, Walters said he will be proposing a rule which says “sexual activity in public targeted towards kids” is inappropriate. He said “the rule is a direct result of a district hiring an administrator who dresses as a drag queen during non-work hours.” Walters said he would respond to out-of-state groups that oppose prayer in school by introducing “a rule that protects prayer in schools.”

Moreover, the TPS will be required to make “midyear changes in principal assignments and reassigning central office staff to support the Tulsa schools needing Most Rigorous Intervention, or MRI, based on federal education standards.” It will also need to restructure “the district’s leadership team, and aligning leadership priorities and strategic planning to the state’s demands.”

Even if Walters’ priorities and plans made sense, how could the TPS effectively implement them is such a rushed manner? While I’m not optimistic that the TPS will dare to heed research on why the federal School Improvement Grants largely failed, I hope it will not ignore (like many reformers have) the reasons why the billions of dollars invested in turnaround and transformation schools didn’t improve student outcomes.

I must emphasize a key difference, however, between the hurried transformations that backfired so badly over the last two decades, and those that Walters is coercing Tulsa into adopting. I spent hundreds of hours trying to explain to researchers and funders who hurriedly devised the previous turnaround attempts. Even though they were extremely smart, they didn’t know what they didn’t know about public schools. These venture philanthropists and their staff sought to “blow up” the status quo so that innovators could reinvent schools.

Walters is even more aggressive in trying to blow up public education, and he’s shown no interest in improving schools. He might be able to intimidate Tulsa into “knocking down the barn” but, even if he was interested in the welfare of students, there’s no way he would be interested in rebuilding public schools.

Two states, Colorado and Maine, have ruled that Donald Trump is disqualified to appear on their state ballot for President because of Section Three of the 14th Amendment.

That section, written after the Civil War, says:

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Trump did take an oath “to support the Constitution of the United States” and he did incite and encourage a mob to invade the U.S. Capitol to disrupt the counting of the electoral votes and thereby “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the Constitution. In addition, he spent months trying to block the orderly transition of power from himself to Joseph Biden, who won the Presidential election of 2020.

His speech on January 6 was incendiary. Just as bad were his efforts to pressure state officials to change the results in their states and to create slates of fake electors. All of his actions were aimed at remaining in power despite the fact that he lost both the popular vote and the vote of the electoral college. Because he is a SORE LOSER, he summoned a mob to Washington, D.C. on January 6 and urged them to “fight like hell” to overturn the election and to march on the Capitol and prevent the peaceful transfer of power.

Nothing like this happened before in the history of the United States.

All of these facts, including the video footage of the horrific events of January 6, are evidence that he should be disqualified from the ballot.

The Supreme Court is dominated by conservative jurists who claim to be Originalists, who read the Constitution in light of its original intent. The original intent of Section Three of the 14th Amendment is unambiguous. Trump disqualified himself.

Somehow, I expect, the Court will find a way to avoid ruling against Trump. They might say that the case involves politics and is not in the judicial realm, as some state courts have ruled. That is an evasion, of course, but it may suffice to get them off the hook. How many judges want death threats, a frequent tactic of the Trump mob?

But I disagree. I want Trump on the ballot.

My reason for wanting Trump ON the ballot has nothing to do with the Constitution. I believe that his role in the insurrection is indisputable. The Biden campaign should run ads featuring the mob overrunning the Capitol and attacking police officers again and again. They should remind the public that Trump did nothing for three hours while the seat of our government was ransacked.

I want him to be defeated by vote of the American people. I believe he will lose in 2024. I can’t be certain. But if he is taken off the ballot, a significant part of the population will believe that he was removed for partisan reasons.

For the rest of his life, he will rail about the “rigged” election and how he was cheated.

I want him to be beaten fair and square as he was in 2020.

I do not believe that the American people will again vote into the presidency a man of no character, a man facing multiple indictments, a man whose motive for running is to pardon himself of federal crimes and to wreak vengeance on his critics, , a man who has no respect for the Constitution, a man who can’t be trusted to leave office ever.

He lost the popular vote by almost three million in 2016. He lost it by 7 million votes in 2024, along with a decisive defeat in the Electoral College. His behavior since he lost in 2020 has been undignified and loathsome. I predict he will lose by 10 million votes in 2024.

Let him run.

The Network for Public Education has worked recently with “Documented,” an organization that defends democracy. Its executive director Nick Surgey led a panel at our 10th conference in D.C. in October. Nick and his colleagues described their very well documented work to expose the plot to destroy public education. As I left the room, David Berliner said to me, “That was a terrifying hour.”

Here is the video. Please take the time to watch.

Nick is an expert on the extremist Alliance Defending Freedom, which has led attacks on public schools and on abortion rights. The Speaker of the House Mike Johnson was a lawyer for ADF.

Please read the Documented brief describing their work.

It will open your eyes to a well-funded plot to destroy our public schools.

The MAGA faction of the Republican Party has made clear that it does not want to defend Ukraine. It does not see the point of helping Ukraine resist a Russian takeover. As foreign policy expert and national security specialist Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene has said, “Ukraine is not our 51st state.” Like Trump, the “Freedom Caucus” does not want to pay to repel Putin’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. Trump thinks that Putin might be our ally if only we give him whatever he wants. (He has said he wants to restore the USSR.). You need only look at any photo of Trump and Putin together to see how Trump looks at Putin with a deferential and adoring expression.

Timothy Snyder, Professor of History at Yale University, published this powerful article in the Kyiv Post. He should have published it in The Washington Post.

He writes:

Imagine that freedom was in decline around the world. Imagine that things had gotten so bad that a dictatorship actually invaded a democracy with the express goal of destroying its freedoms and its people. And yet… imagine that this people fought back. Imagine that their leaders stayed in the country. Imagine that this people got themselves together, supported and joined their armed forces, held back an invasion of what seemed like overwhelming force. Imagine that their resistance is a bright moment in the history of democracy this whole century. We don’t have to imagine: that attack came from Russia and those people are the Ukrainians. Would you sell them out?

Americans have an alliance in North America and Europe which has existed for more than seventy years, with the goal of preventing an attack from the Soviet Union and then from Russia. Imagine that, when the Russian attack came, the hammer fell on a country excluded from that alliance. Ukraine indeed took the entire brunt of the invasion, resisted, and turned the tide: a task assigned to countries whose economies, taken together, are two hundred fifty times larger than Ukraine’s. In so doing, Ukraine destroyed so much Russian equipment that a Russian attack on NATO became highly improbable. With the blood of tens of thousands of its soldiers, Ukrainians defended every member of that alliance, making it far less likely that Americans would have to go to war in Europe. Would you sell them out?

(If there is anyone out there who still thinks that NATO had anything to do with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, consider this: invading Ukraine made Russia far more vulnerable. If Russia actually feared NATO, invading Ukraine would be the last thing it would do. Russian leaders are perfectly aware that NATO will not invade Russia, which is why they can pull troops away from the borders of NATO members Norway and Finland and send them to kill Ukrainians.)

For this whole century, American politicians and strategists of all political orientations have agreed that the greatest threat for a global war comes from China. The scenario for this dreadful conflict, in which hundreds of thousands of American soldiers could fight and die, is a Chinese offensive against Taiwan. And now imagine that this can defused at no cost and with no risk. The offensive operation the Chinese leadership is watching right now is that of Russia against Ukraine. Ukrainian resistance has demonstrated how difficult a Chinese offensive operation in the Pacific would be. The best China policy is a good Ukraine policy. Will we toss away the tremendous and unanticipated geopolitical gain that has been handed to us by Ukraine? There is nothing that we could have done on our own to so effectively deter China as what the Ukrainians are doing, and what the Ukrainians are doing is in no way hostile towards China. Ukrainians are keeping us safe in this as in other ways. Would you sell them out?

Imagine, because it’s true, that the whole world is watching the war in Ukraine. From everyone else’s point of view, whether they like us, hate us, or don’t care about us, Ukraine seems like an obvious ally and an easy win for the United States. Anyone around the world, regardless of their own ideology, knows that Ukraine is a democracy and America is supposed to support democracies. Anyone around the world, regardless of the state of their own economy, knows that our economy is enormous, far larger than Russia’s, and that economic strength wins wars. Anyone around the world can easily see that Americans are not at risk in Ukraine, and that Americans draw extraordinary moral and geopolitical gains from Ukrainian resistance. From the point of view of all observers, in other words, defunding Ukraine would demonstrate enormous American weakness. Is that the face we want to show the world? Do we want to tell everyone that we are unreliable and unaware of our own interests? Ukrainians, with American help, make Americans look sensible and strong. Would you sell them out?

Imagine that this is a winnable war, because it is. Russia’s main strategic objective, the seizure of Kyiv, was not achieved. Ukraine won the Battle of Kyiv. Russia was forced to retreat from Kyiv and Chernihiv and Sumy oblasts. Imagine the Russia’s campaign to take Kharkiv failed. Ukraine won the Battle of Kharkiv. Imagine that Kherson, the one regional capital Russia has taken in this war, was taken back by Ukraine. Ukraine won the Battle of Kherson. Snake Island, lost early in the war, has been taken back by Ukraine. Ukraine has taken back more than half of the territory seized by Russia in this invasion. Knowing that all is this is true, imagine that Putin knows it too. Russia’s main offensive instrument, the paramilitary Wagner Group, staged a coup against Putin and that Putin had to kill its leader. Imagine that Putin knows he cannot really take much more Ukrainian land — not without American help, anyway. Ukraine has a theory of victory that involves gains on the battlefield. Putin has a theory of victory that involves votes in the US Congress. Putin thinks that he has a better chance in the Capitol than he has in Kyiv. Should we prove him right?

Imagine a world food system with Ukraine as a major node. In normal times Ukraine can feed four hundred million people, and usually the UN World Food Program depends upon Ukraine. Ukrainian exports feed some of the most sensitive parts of the Middle East and Africa. Much of the instability in those regions is related to shortages of food. Russia has destroyed a major dam to destroy Ukrainian farmland. And mined Ukrainian farms on a huge scale. Russia targets ports and grain storage facilities with its missiles, and claims the piratical right to stop all shipping on the Black Sea with its navy. And yet… Imagine that Ukrainians resist here as well. Ukrainians farmers are hard at work. Ukraine still supplies food to the World Food Program. Ukrainians, through their own innovative weapons and clever tactics, managed to intimidate the Black Sea Fleet and open a lane for commercial shipping. That they are feeding the people who needed to be fed. Would you sell them out?

Imagine that we were a country that cared about war crimes. And imagine that there was a law, an international genocide convention, that defined five actions that constitute genocide, and that Russians have committed every one of these crimes in Ukraine. I cannot keep on writing about “imagining” when I have seen some of the death pits myself. I cannot say “imagine” when writers I know have been murdered because they represent Ukrainian culture. I cannot stay with my device when I read that the Russian state boasts of having taken 700,000 Ukrainian children to be russified, when every day Russian propagandists make clear that Russian war aims are exterminationist. And yet Ukrainians resist and persist. This is a genocide that can be stopped, that is being stopped. We are living within the scenario, the one we say that we have been waiting for, when American actions can stop a genocide, simply by helping the people who have been targeted, simply by paying their taxes. Whenever the Ukrainians take back land, they rescue people. This is how they think of their liberated territories: as places where no more children will be kidnaped, no more civilians will tortured, no more local leaders will be murdered. Would you sell out a people to a genocidal occupation? A people that has done nothing but good for you?

I have heard the excuse that Americans are “fatigued.” I have been in Ukraine three times since the war began. I have been in the capital and in the provinces. I have seen almost no Americans, fatigued or otherwise, in the country. And that is for the simple reason that we are not in Ukraine. How can we be fatigued by a war we are not fighting? When we are not even present? This makes no sense. It causes no fatigue to give money to the right cause, which is all that we are doing. It feels good to help other people help themselves in a good cause.

If we stop supporting Ukraine, then everything gets worse, all of a sudden, and no one will be talking about “fatigue” because we will all be talking about disaster: across all of these dimensions: food supply, war crimes, international instability, expanding war, collapsing democracies. Everything that the Ukrainians are doing for us can be reversed if we give up. Why would lawmakers even contemplate doing so?

If you happened to know lots of Ukrainians, as I do, you would know people who have been wounded or who have been killed. You would know people who get through their days with dark circles around their eyes, because everyone has dark circles around their eyes. You would know people who have lost someone, because everyone has lost someone. You would know people who are grieving and yet who are nevertheless doing what they can do. You would not know anyone in Ukraine who believes that fatigue is a reason to give up. Would you sell such people out?

I have heard the other excuse: that we need to audit the weapons we send to Ukraine. The expenses are minimal and the gains are great: a nickel on our defense dollar, achieving what we cannot ourselves do with all the rest. And here’s the thing: the weapons we send to Ukraine are the only ones in our stockpiles that are being audited. They are being audited not by accountants in suits and ties but by men and women in camouflage. They are being used and used well by people whose lives are at stake and whose country’s future is at stake. Ukrainians have used American air defense more effectively than anyone knew that it could be used.

Ukrainians are using American missiles that we consider outdated to destroy the most advanced Russian assets. Ukrainians are taking American weapons built in the last century and using them to defend themselves and the rest of us in this one. In large measure they are literally using arms that we would otherwise be paying to disassemble because we regard them as obsolete.

If that battlefield audit done by the Ukrainian army is not good enough: well, then, by all means, American lawmakers, come and visit Ukraine and see for yourself. You and your staffers would be very welcome. Ukrainians want you to come. It would be a very good thing if more of us visited Ukraine.

I will tell you what I witnessed in Ukraine: when Ukrainians see American weapons systems, they applaud. Would you sell them out?

Reprinted from @tashecon blog. See the original here.

The New Republic has named Elon Musk its scoundrel of the year. Forbes Magazine just named him as the richest man in the world, with assets of more than $250 billion. Just goes to show, I suppose, that you can’t buy respect, although he could easily buy The New Republic and make Mark Zuckerberg the biggest scoundrel next year. Musk has welcomed all previously banned characters back to Twitter, be they fascists, Neo-Nazis, bigots, election-deniers, or COVID liars. So go to Twitter to read the latest thoughts of Alec Jones or Mr. MAGA. However, I will note with protest that my brother was banned from Twitter five years ago for writing an offensive tweet about Trump. When he read that Musk was allowing everyone back, he appealed to have his Twitter account restored, he was rejected. Alec Jones, ok; Donald Trump, ok; my brother, Sandy S., rejected.

Alex Shephard wrote in The New Republic:

In one sense, Elon Musk has gotten exactly what he wanted. For all his talk about free speech, his primary motivation for sinking $44 billion into buying Twitter last year was clearly an unquenchable desire to be the center of attention. After Donald Trump’s defenestration in the wake of the January 6 insurrection, there was a main-character-size hole on the social network: Enter Musk and his infantile need for validation.

That Twitter—now renamed X, for reasons only Musk really understands—is now teetering on the brink of collapse and worth less than half what the world’s second-richest man paid for it is funny. It elicits deserved schadenfreude. Musk entered Twitter’s office carrying a sink—a terrible joke, and one of his better ones—last fall and has subsequently made countless decisions, big and small, all of which have made the platform significantly less viable and less worth spending any amount of time on. It is hard to think of a billionaire who has done more to damage their own reputation in such a short period of time.

Not so long ago, Musk was seen by many as a good tech billionaire, if not the good tech billionaire. While others like Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg built digital trinkets that actively made the world a worse place, Musk was something different: a visionary intent on building real things, whether they be electric cars or rockets, that were aimed at accelerating a Jetsons-like vision of the future. While rivals at Google and Facebook—and, for that matter, Twitter—were hauled before Congress to testify about the deleterious effects of their creations, Musk remained relatively unscathed. Now it is clear that he is not just more villainous than all of them but that he is also a deeply stupid and unserious person.

Elon Musk is evil. While he has mostly made headlines for his incompetence, he has unleashed and legitimized truly heinous forces on Twitter: He has welcomed back some of the world’s most toxic people—Alex Jones, Donald Trump, innumerable Nazis and bigots—and has gone out of his way, again and again, to validate them. That Musk would endorse a heinous antisemitic conspiracy theory, as he did last month, is both unsurprising and reprehensible. It is, more than anything else, a reflection of who he is: He may be fantastically wealthy, but he is also deeply hateful, someone who has decided to devote his fortune and his time to attacking diversity and progress on nearly every front.

Musk has insisted again that he bought Twitter to save it from itself—that the platform had become too restrictive and that, to become a true “digital town square” where the best ideas rise to the top, it needed to welcome everyone. It is now abundantly clear that Musk’s real intention is and always has been to put his thumb on the scale: to elevate his own hateful views about, in no particular order: liberals; the media; diversity, equity, and inclusion programs; trans people; and liberal Jews. He sees Twitter as a weapon, a way to not only push his agenda but to sic his army of loyalist losers on anyone he deems an enemy.

For all of the talk about Musk being a “real life Tony Stark,” he has always been a deeply uncool person’s idea of a cool person: He is, in many ways, a sentient m’lady Reddit postcirca 2011. It’s hard to think of a more pathetic figure now: someone scraping the internet for conspiracy theories and “jokes” aimed at affirming his status and influence. He has, again and again, done the opposite: Far from showing himself as a swaggering, popular figure, he has revealed himself to be a venal, thin-skinned moron. He may very well be the most unfunny person alive, a fact reified dozens of times a day.

This was most apparent late last month, when Musk appeared at The New York Times’ glitzy annual DealBook conference and delivered a near-perfect encapsulation of the particularly toxic mixture of megalomania and neediness that has defined nearly everything he does. Asked by Andrew Ross Sorkin about a wave of advertiser defections in the wake of Musk’s embrace of an antisemitic conspiracy theory—via a post on X, of course—that suggested that Jews were secretly working to bring in troves of minorities to dilute America’s white population, Musk recoiled.

Bob Iger, the chairman of Disney—one of many companies to cease advertising on X in the wake of Musk’s comments—could “go fuck himself,” Musk said. It was clearly a pre-planned moment: an instant that Musk thought would bring him a wave of adulation and support that would force Disney back to his precious platform. Iger would be faced with the massive mistake he was making and come crawling back. Instead, there were a few awkward laughs and audible rustling. This was not a triumphant moment but a sign of a meltdown: a fabulously wealthy adult behaving like a toddler. Musk responded by telling Iger to go fuck himself again—as if it would somehow work this time. It hasn’t. Of course it hasn’t: Musk may have immense wealth, but his time at Twitter is a reminder that even that has its limits. Iger is also very rich; Disney is worth nearly 10 times what X is. Disney doesn’t need X. It certainly doesn’t need Elon Musk. X and Elon Musk need Disney.

Twitter, for all of its many flaws, was once a vital breaking news service. It is not that now. It’s not entirely clear what it is, beyond a toxic cesspool increasingly made in the twisted image of its deeply unwell owner. Changes to its verified user system, Musk’s decision to open the floodgates to bigots and trolls, and his own presence on the site have destroyed any utility it once had. It is now a source of endless misinformation and propaganda, a place where a pro-Putin conspiracy theorist can become a widely read source for information on the Israel-Hamas war, and where Alex Jones can spew lies about children murdered in schools. This is by design. Musk hates the media, but he also hates the truth and would rather live in a fantasy world in which his many enemies are destroying the world around him. It is, it practically goes without saying, actually Musk who is making the world worse in innumerable ways.

X is hanging on by a thread. After waves of layoffs, there is seemingly almost no one left minding the store. Musk dismantled Twitter’s Trust and Safety team almost immediately. As a result, hateful content often stays up for days, if not longer. The wave of advertiser defections means that the platform is also peppered with advertisements for ridiculous companies and scams. If Musk is still in charge of the platform in a year, it would be a shock. If it exists in a year at all, it would be a surprise.

X features heavily in Musk’s year in review, if only because he has successfully used it as a vehicle to make himself inescapable. But it is not his only venture, and it is not the only reminder that he is actually a deeply stupid and incompetent person. Tesla, his main business, just recalled nearly all of its vehicles because its much-hyped self-driving feature keeps causing cars to crash into people and things. Its much-hyped Cybertruck is unbelievably dumb-lookingand pointless: It is bulletproof, for some reason—exactly the kind of silly detail on which Musk would fixate to look cool, even as his cars … keep killing people. The rockets from his rocket company, SpaceX, keep exploding. (Musk says this is a good thing.) Everywhere you look, there is more evidence that Elon Musk is an idiot.

Behind all of the bloviating and attention-seeking is a small man who is simply not very good at anything. Musk has long wanted to present himself as a world-historical genius—and was recently minted as such by world-historical genius-minter (and world-historical toady) Walter Isaacson—but the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming. Musk was able to parlay early wealth (via a disastrous tenure at PayPal) and, perhaps more importantly, fantastically low interest rates, into seed capital for lots of silly ideas. But the bill came due in 2023. Musk’s self-image is in tatters. What’s left is what we saw at the DealBook conference: a puffy, pathetic man increasingly untethered from reality. This is funny, in many ways. It is certainly funnier than anything Musk has ever tweeted.

I stumbled serendipitously on a book review by Eric Foner, the pre-eminent scholar of the Recobstruction era. The review of a book by historian Gary W. Gallagher addressed the question: why did white northerners fight the South? Gallagher argues that the abolition of slavery was a byproduct of the war, not its primary goal. The primary goal, he says, was to save the union.

Foner writes:

Among the enduring mysteries of the American Civil War is why millions of Northerners were willing to fight to preserve the nation’s unity. It is not difficult to understand why the Southern states seceded in 1860 and 1861. As the Confederacy’s founders explained ad infinitum, they feared that Abraham Lincoln’s election as president placed the future of slavery in jeopardy. But why did so few Northerners echo the refrain of Horace Greeley, the editor of The New York Tribune: “Erring sisters, go in peace”?

The latest effort to explain this deep commitment to the nation’s survival comes from Gary W. Gallagher, the author of several highly regarded works on Civil War military history. In “The Union War,” Gallagher offers not so much a history of wartime patriotism as a series of meditations on the meaning of the Union to Northerners, the role of slavery in the conflict and how historians have interpreted (and in his view misinterpreted) these matters.

The Civil War, Gallagher announces at the outset, was “a war for Union that also killed slavery.” Emancipation was an outcome (an “astounding” outcome, Lincoln remarked in his second Inaugural Address) but, Gallagher insists, it always “took a back seat” to the paramount goal of saving the Union. Most Northerners, he says, remained indifferent to the plight of the slaves. They embraced emancipation only when they concluded it had become necessary to win the war. They fought because they regarded the United States as a unique experiment in democracy that guaranteed political liberty and economic opportunity in a world overrun by tyranny. Saving the Union, in the words of Secretary of State William H. Seward, meant “the saving of popular government for the world.”

At a time when only half the population bothers to vote and many Americans hold their elected representatives in contempt, Gallagher offers a salutary reminder of the power of democratic ideals not simply to Northerners in the era of the Civil War, but also to people in other nations, who celebrated the Union victory as a harbinger of greater rights for themselves. Imaginatively invoking sources neglected by other scholars — wartime songs, patriotic images on mailing envelopes and in illustrated publications, and regimental histories written during and immediately after the conflict — Gallagher gives a dramatic portrait of the power of wartime nationalism.

His emphasis on the preservation of democratic government and the opportunities of free labor as central to the patriotic outlook is hardly new — one need only read Lincoln’s wartime speeches to find eloquent expression of these themes. But instead of celebrating the greatness of American democracy, Gallagher claims, too many historians dwell on its limitations, notably the exclusion from participation of nonwhites and women. Moreover, perhaps because of recent abuses of American power in the name of freedom, scholars seem uncomfortable with robust expressions of patriotic sentiment, especially when wedded to military might. According to Gallagher, they denigrate nationalism and suggest that the war had no real justification other than the abolition of slavery. (Gallagher ignores a different interpretation of the Union war effort, emanating from neo-Confederates and the libertarian right, which portrays Lincoln as a tyrant who presided over the destruction of American freedom through creation of the leviathan national state, not to mention the dreaded income tax.)

Gallagher devotes many pages — too many in a book of modest length — to critiques of recent Civil War scholars, whom he accuses of exaggerating the importance of slavery in the conflict and the contribution of black soldiers to Union victory. Often, his complaint seems to be that another historian did not write the book he would have written…

Gallagher maintains that only failure on the battlefield, notably Gen. George B. McClellan’s inability to capture Richmond, the Confederate capital, in the spring of 1862, forced the administration to act against slavery. Yet the previous fall, before significant military encounters had taken place, Lincoln had already announced a plan for gradual emancipation. This hardly suggests that military necessity alone placed the slavery question on the national agenda. Early in the conflict, many Northerners, Lincoln included, realized that there was little point in fighting to restore a status quo that had produced war in the first place.

Many scholars have argued that the war brought into being a new conception of American nationhood. Gallagher argues, by contrast, that it solidified pre-­existing patriotic values. Continuity, not change, marked Northern attitudes. Gallagher acknowledges that as the war progressed, “a struggle for a different kind of Union emerged.” Yet his theme of continuity seems inadequate to encompass the vast changes Americans experienced during the Civil War. Surely, he is correct that racism survived the war. Yet he fails to account for the surge of egalitarian sentiment that inspired the rewriting of the laws and Constitution to create, for the first time, a national citizenship enjoying equal rights not limited by race.

Before the war, slavery powerfully affected the concept of self-government. Large numbers of Americans identified democratic citizenship as a privilege of whites alone — a position embraced by the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott decision of 1857. Which is why the transformation wrought by the Civil War was so remarkable. As George William Curtis, the editor of Harper’s Weekly, observed in 1865, the war transformed a government “for white men” into one “for mankind.” That was something worth fighting for.

Joshua Zeitz is a historian and contributor to Politico. He writes here about Nikki Haley’s failure to admit that slavery was a leading cause, maybe THE leading cause, of the Civil War.

Someone asked her the question at a New Hampshire town meeting. What caused the Civil War? She released a word salad about rights and freedoms but failed to memention the peculiar institution of slavery. The next day, she realized that her omission was a major gaffe, and she insisted that everyone knows that slavery was an important cause of the devastating war, implying that it was not worth mentioning what everyone knew.

Jacob Zeitz wrote an analysis of her omission. He believed she was echoing the “Lost Cause” nostalgia so beloved to sons and daughters of the Confederacy.

As a high school student in the 1950s in Houston, I recall that our American history textbook spouted “Lost Cause” propaganda. Slaves in the South were treated kindly, it said. Plantation owners never wanted to damage their expensive human property. The Civil War was about “states’ rights,” not slavery. Many years later, when visiting an ante-bellum mansion in Charleston, South Carolina, the docent said the slaves were content; she referred to the Civil Was as “the War of Northern Aggression.”

Nikki Haley echoed Lost Cause sentiment.

Zeitz wrote at Politico:

In William Faulkner’s novel, Sartoris, someone asks the title character, Colonel John Sartoris, why he had fought for the Confederacy so many decades before. “Damned if I ever did know,” replied the aging veteran, now a pillar of his community in fictional Yoknapatawpha County, Mississippi.

Of course, we know why Colonel Sartoris raised arms against the United States. So does anyone with a high school diploma — assuming they used up-to-date textbooks. And so did Alexander Stephens, the vice president of the Confederacy, who in 1861 famously asserted that the “cornerstone” of the new Southern nation rested “upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.”

All of which makes it disappointing, though not surprising, that at this late date — almost 160 years after the Civil War — Nikki Haley, a leading contender for the GOP presidential nomination, shares Colonel Sartoris’ selective amnesia on the topic. When asked a softball question this week about the causes of the Civil War, Haley, a former South Carolina governor, flubbed the answer, calling it a “difficult” question and mumbling on about “basically how government was going to run — the freedoms and what people could and couldn’t do.”

This morning, Haley qualified the comment on a radio show called “The Pulse of New Hampshire,” and followed the clean-up job with a press release, stating: “Of course the Civil War was about slavery. We know that. That’s unquestioned, always the case. We know the Civil War was about slavery. But it was also more than that. It was about the freedoms of every individual. It was about the role of government.”

But as Haley must know — after all, as governor of South Carolina, she presided over the removal of Confederate flags from the Statehouse — many Americans do question the fundamental fact that slavery precipitated the Civil War, and her equivocation played into a long-standing agenda to rewrite American history. Haley was effectively parroting the Lost Cause mythology, a revisionist school of thought born in the war’s immediate aftermath, which whitewashed the Confederacy’s cornerstone interest in raising arms to preserve slavery. Instead, a generation of Lost Cause mythologists chalked the war up to a battle over political abstractions like states’ rights.

With red states doing battle with American history, seeking to erase the legacy of violence and inequality that counterbalance the great good also inherent in our national story, it’s worth revisiting the rise of the Lost Cause, not just to remember how damaging it was, but to confront just how damaging it still is.


In the immediate aftermath of the war,the work of interpreting the rebellion fell to a small group of unreconstructed rebels. The pioneers of Confederate revisionism included wealthy and influential veterans of the Confederacy like Jubal Early, B. T. Johnson, Fitz Lee and W. P. Johnson, who helped formulate the Lost Cause myth that would take hold by the 1880s.

The narrative strains were simple. They painted a picture of Southern chivalry — mint juleps, magnolias and moonlight — that stood in sharp contrast with the North, a region marked by avarice, grinding capitalism and poverty. The rebellion, by this rendering, had been a legal response to the North’s assault on states’ rights — not a violent insurrection to preserve chattel slavery. Even Confederate veterans like Hunter McGuire knew that to admit the war had been about slavery would “hold us degraded rather than worthy of honor … our children, instead of revering their fathers will be secretly, if not openly, ashamed.”

The myth gained steam by the end of the century, largely because of the work of organizations like the United Confederate Veterans (UCV), the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) and the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV), groups that offered a compelling story that people could wrap their minds around — including many Northerners, who were eager to put the war behind them. Because the Lost Cause emphasized heroism and honor over slavery, it venerated military figures like Robert E. Lee and swept politicians like Jefferson Davis under the rug. So it was that in May 1890 over 100,000 citizens gathered in Richmond for the dedication of a statue of Lee.

The decade saw hundreds of towns across the former Confederacy raise similar monuments to their heroes and war dead. These marble and steel memorials were often planted in town squares and by county courthouses to help sanitize not only Confederate memory but the new Jim Crow order. After all, if secession had been a noble thing, so was the separation of the races.

The signs of revisionism ranged from subtle to clear. During the war, for instance, Confederate soldiers had keenly embraced the term “reb,” but the new gatekeepers of Southern memory abandoned the term. “Was your father a Rebel and a Traitor?” asked a typical leaflet. “Did he fight in the service of the Confederacy for the purpose of defeating the Union, or was he a Patriot, fighting for the liberties granted him under the Constitution, in defense of his native land, and for a cause he knew to be right?” Equally important was figuring out what to even call the war. It couldn’t be the “Civil War,” which sounded too revolutionary. It couldn’t be “the War of Rebellion” which smacked of treason. In the late 1880s, the UCV and UDC approved resolutions designating the conflict that killed 750,000 Americans the “War Between the States.” The term stuck for generations to come.

It wasn’t just Southerners who suffered willful memory loss in these years. Jaded by the experience of Reconstruction and in the thrall of rising scientific racism, many Northerners were equally eager to remember the war as a brothers’ quarrel over politics rather than a struggle over slavery and Black rights. The jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., who began the war as a committed abolitionist, later erased the roots of the conflict and celebrated the battlefield valor of both Union and Confederate troops. “The faith is true and adorable which leads a soldier to throw away his life in obedience to a blindly accepted duty,” he said, “in a cause which he little understands, in a plan of campaign of which he has little notion, under tactics of which he does not see the use.”

Of course, historians agree that most Union troops did know why they were fighting. So did Holmes. But years after the fact, he was willing to forget. As were tens of thousands of veterans who attended Blue and Gray reunions well into the 20th century, including a massive camp gathering of 25,000 people who gathered at Crawfish Springs, Georgia, in 1889, near the Chickamauga Battlefield, for a picnic and public speeches. These mass spectacles helped Yankees and Confederates rewrite the history of the 1850s and 1860s, ostensibly in the service of national reunion and regeneration, but also in a way that fundamentally reinforced the emerging culture and politics of Jim Crow.


The Lost Cause mythology was more than bad history. It provided the intellectual justification for Jim Crow — not just in the former Confederacy, but everywhere systemic racism denied Black citizens equal citizenship and economic rights. Its dismantling began only in the 1960s when historians inspired by the modern Civil Rights Movement revisited the era of the Civil War and Reconstruction, adopting the views of earlier Black scholars like W.E.B. DuBois and John Hope Franklin, who always knew what the war was about and had shined a spotlight on the agency of Black and white actors alike.

That’s why the recent retreat to Lost Cause mythos is troubling. One would think that a Republican candidate for the presidency might be proud of the party’s roots as a firmly antislavery organization that dismantled the “Peculiar Institution” and fomented a critical constitutional revolution during Reconstruction — one that truly made the country more free.

With GOP presidential candidates waffling on the Civil War, rejecting history curricula in their states and launching political fusillades against “woke” culture, it remains for the rest of us to reaffirm the wisdom of Frederick Douglass, who in the last years of his life stated: “Death has no power to change moral qualities. What was bad before the war, and during the war, has not been made good since the war. … Whatever else I may forget, I shall never forget the difference between those who fought for liberty and those who fought for slavery.”

Alexander H. Stephens, Vice-president of the Confederacy, described the true purpose of the South’s secession: to preserve slavery. Read his famous Cornerstone speech here.

Here is the key section of his speech:

The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails.

One of the biggest obstacles to waking up the public is that most people have no knowledge of the privatization movement. They don’t understand that the attacks on teachers and public schools are part of a long-range plan to destroy public education as a community asset and turn it into an individual consumer choice, like choosing what kind of milk you want when you go grocery shopping (as Florida Governor Jeb Bush memorably said at the 2012 Republican Convention). The culture wars over LGBT issues, trans kids, and critical race theory are part of the same plan to sow distrust of a valued community institution.

This story appeared in Vanity Fair. It was written by Laura Pappano and produced by The Hechinger Report. It brings the controversy to an audience that is not immersed in education politics. Laura Pappano is the author of School Moms: Parent Activism, Partisan Politics and the Battle for Public Education, to be published by Beacon Press in January 2024. By the way, I just subscribed to a digital edition of Vanity Fair for only $1 a month. There is an educator price of only $8 a year. What a bargain for a publication with excellent content like this story.

Pappano writes:

In Priest River, Idaho, the moms seated at the conference table on Election Day were worried. They had good reason: Their poll watchers at voting sites—grange halls on dirt roads, community centers hardly larger than a bungalow—suggested things were not going their way.

There were no formal exit polls conducted in West Bonner County, where the school district covers 781 square miles over timbered hills and crystalline lakes in the north Idaho panhandle. But Dana Douglas, a fit and forceful blonde sipping on an Americano and a water bottle boosted with electrolytes (she was teaching spin at 6 p.m.) had been poll-watching at Edgemere Grange Hall, and she had her indicator for how voters were casting their ballots: “Anyone who said, ‘Hello, good morning’” was in their camp. “Anyone with a scowl” who would not look her in the eye was in the other.

“It’s going to be a battle,” she said at the table. Sitting beside her, Candy Turner, a retired elementary school teacher who had brought Ziploc bags of pear slices and dried cranberries for the hours ahead, agreed. “I think we are in trouble based on what I saw.”

After Election Day, headlines in key locales all around the country spoke of moms fighting extremists in local school board races and winning. But even as some celebrated “flipping” their school boards back, far-right groups like Moms for Liberty remain. As the organization declared in an email blast in which they claimed winning 50 new school board seats: “WE ARE JUST GETTING STARTED!”

Some people overlook school board skirmishes, seeing them as trivial. For Turner, Douglas, and many in the West Bonner County School District, they are anything but. It’s not about Democrats versus Republicans (Turner is a registered Democrat; Douglas is “a proud conservative Republican”). It’s about the viability of public education in their community.

This is not hyperbole. The national infection facing public schooling—the tug-of-war between education professionals and extremist culture warriors—has brought chaos and damage to West Bonner County. After this past school year ended, the superintendent acknowledged that 31% of teachers, counselors, and education leaders left the district, and scores of parents pulled their children, opting for homeschooling, online learning, or enrolling in another district. Buildings are infrequently cleaned; an elementary school principal reported at an October school board meeting that mice were running over children’s feet and hallways smelled of urine.

What has happened in West Bonner County offers a warning to public school supporters elsewhere. Douglas, Turner, and others are fighting to restore normalcy to an institution that should not be up for grabs—but is.

“We’ve been the canary in the coal mine,” Margaret Hall, the current school board chair who faced a far-right challenger, said on the eve of the November election. Hall, a soft-spoken but firm force, has served on the board for eight years, even through chemotherapy treatments for cancer. “What has to happen,” she said, “is people have to wake up and decide, ‘We don’t want someone to come in and tell us what we want. We want to decide ourselves.’”

Idaho is a conservative state and Bonner County is even more so, with registered Republicans outnumbering Democrats by almost seven to one (statewide it’s closer to five to one). Despite the nation’s bitter party politics, residents of this county have traditionally exercised a neighborly pragmatism in which the kids—or, as Douglas prefers, “our babies”—come first.

People filled in the gaps when it came to local needs, from sending groceries home with some children over weekends to teachers helping students brush their teeth or spending extra hours with struggling readers. But that spirit is now being tested by extremists who see a soft target in a stressed school district. Suddenly, the far-right’s anti-public-education catchphrases blared regularly on the national stage have become wedged into the local lexicon.

For example, “transgenderism” (described by one candidate as “boys in girls bathrooms, boys in girls sports, ‘gender-affirming care,’ and related absurdities”) became a top issue in this November’s school board race. One candidate for reelection, Troy Reinbold, a nonchalant figure who has attended meetings in cutoff shorts and exited mid-agenda without explanation, touted his work on “the strongest transgender policy in Idaho schools” and opposition to “social emotional learning,” which he called “a precursor to critical race theory.”

Hall, for her part, abstained in an August vote on a school district policy that would require teachers and staff to “refer to students by their biological sex” and students to use bathrooms and locker rooms corresponding to their genders assigned at birth, along with bar transgender girls from girls’ sports teams. She said it was confusing, poorly written, and not vetted by the board’s legal counsel (instead it was reviewed by the anti-LGBTQ Christian legal advocacy group, Alliance Defending Freedom). Hall’s campaign signs were later tagged with rainbow stickers. The policy ended up passing 4-0.

How a place that had long treated differences with a live-and-let-live ethos adopted the intolerant tone of national politics is anyone’s guess. Some blame an influx of newcomers. Bonner County, like the rest of Idaho, is growing, and over the past decade, the tally of registered voters has risen almost 50% to nearly 32,000.

But who they are and why some of them don’t support public education is a more complicated question. It’s possible that Idaho’s lax COVID-19 rules lured extremists, survivalists, and those lacking a communal impulse. There’s also a broader arc at play in a state economy that’s forced people to shift from work in local sawmills to commuter jobs that get them home later and leave them reliant on others to keep civic life running—a common pattern in 21st-century America. But Priest River, where the district is headquartered, is close-knit, populated by descendants of the six Naccarato brothers, who came from Italy to build the Great Northern Railroad in the late 1800s and stayed. That includes many mom organizers like Candy Naccarato Turner.

Priest River police chief Drew McLaindates the start of recent drama to the school board vote to rescind the English Language Arts curriculum from the well-established education publisher McGraw Hill. It had been swiftly and unanimously approved in June 2022 and was delivered to replace the curriculum that was out of print. But far-right activists objected, complaining that it included aspects of social emotional learning. Such instruction—on skills like “self-confidence, problem-solving, and pro-social behavior,” as McGraw Hill described the curriculum on its website—is a bugaboo for conservative ideologues. And on August 24 of last year, with one member missing, the board voted 3-1 to return the texts to the publisher.

The decision got the attention of moms like Douglas, Turner, and others. Whitney Hutchins,a new mother who graduated from West Bonner County schools in 2010 and whose family has operated a resort on Priest Lake for generations, started attending school board meetings. Ditto for Jessica Rogers, a mom of three daughters who had served on the curriculum committee and was upset by the reversal. Others, too, wondered what was happening.

After all, for years the meetings had been quiet affairs at the district’s storefront office on Main Street in a room with aged wood floors, folding chairs and tables, and a capacity of 34. By late 2022, such serenity was a thing of the past. People started lining up three to four hours in advance, which McLain said forced him to close Main Street for safety. Quickly, the gatherings got more and more unruly. First, McLain sent one officer, then several. At times, he called on the sheriff for backup.

Things escalated even further when Jackie Branum, who was hired as superintendent in the summer of 2022, proposed a supplemental levy, which sets a chosen amount as property tax to support local schools’ operating costs, and a four-day school week to address financial issues—then abruptly resigned. The board approved the shorter week, angering many parents. Then it appointed Susie Luckey, a popular elementary school principal, as interim superintendent until June. By May, the board had put a levy before voters that would provide roughly one-third of the district’s budget.

Supplemental levies in Idaho, which ranks 50th nationally in public school funding, had long been used for capital projects and are now essential for operations. But residents suddenly sorted into “for” and “against” factions. Signs sprouted along rural roads; arguments raged on Facebook. The levy failed by 105 votes out of 3,295 cast. Parents expressed concern at a public meeting that the district would cut sports and extracurricular activities; some worried about teacher retention. Not to mention: The district still had no permanent superintendent.

In a swift but puzzling process, the school board eventually announced two finalists for superintendent. One was Luckey. The other was a far-right former elected politician who worked for the Idaho Freedom Foundation by the name of Branden Durst. Durst was an unusual choice given his lack of school experience and the IFF’s hostility to public education. (In 2019, the president of the IFF called public schools “the most virulent form of socialism (and indoctrination thereto) in America today,” adding, “I don’t think government should be in the education business.”)

Then again, it wasn’t Durst’s first go-around: In 2022, the Democrat turned Republican ran for state superintendent of public instruction. He lost the GOP primary but in Bonner County beat his two challengers with 60% of the vote. Among the donors to his campaign were IFF leaders and a local resident who had opposed the McGraw Hill curriculum.

It is unclear how Durst, an abrasive outsider from 420 miles south in Boise, was so quickly ushered into contention. Jim Jones, former Idaho attorney general and a former justice of the Idaho Supreme Court, points to the IFF. He said the organization aims to “discredit and dismantle” public schools throughout the state, “starting with West Bonner County School District.”

Jones also credits the IFF for helping extremists Keith Rutledge and Susan Brown get elected to the West Bonner County School Board in November 2021 in a low-turnout race. It was a pivotal election—but people didn’t realize it then. In hindsight, Douglas said residents “got lazy and complacent and we didn’t get to the polls and put people in the district that valued public education.”

By early 2023, Rutledge and Brown—along with Reinbold, who revealed himself as a fellow extremist—had become a majority voting bloc on the five-person school board. Hall, the school board chair who works on climate change mitigation and who readily references the Idaho education code, and Carlyn Barton, a mother and teacher who describes herself as a “common sense constitutional conservative,” were at odds with the other three.

Durst’s candidacy earlier this year turned up the heat on divisions both on the board and in the community. School board meetings were packed. Militia started showing up. And while the Second Amendment is cherished in Idaho, residents were alarmed to find men donned in khaki with walkie-talkies—and presumably guns—present for conversations on children’s education.

“The militia should not be at school board meetings,” argued McLain, the police chief who claimed that one grandfather “was so pissed at the militia” that he arrived drunk with a rifle. “It’s been frustrating,” he added. “If you told me I had the choice of a school board meeting or a bank robbery, I would be way less stressed going to the bank robbery.”

Following multiple contentious meetings with Hall and Barton, who pressed board members to reconsider Durst’s candidacy, in late June, he was selected by a 3-2 vote. After his hiring was finalized, Barton charged that “the direction of our board has turned into a fascist dictatorship with an agenda which is far from our conservative point of view.”

From the moment he slid into the superintendent’s maroon Naugahyde-upholstered chair in the West Bonner County School District office, Durst seemed to relish his position of power. There was serious work to do—like negotiating a teacher contract—but he appeared far more interested in burnishing his reputation, describing his takeover as “a pilot” that others could learn from.

This was a chance, he told me in multiple interviews, to use the district to test his “ideas that are frankly unorthodox in education,” including some rooted in his Christian values. He wanted intelligent design taught alongside evolution in biology classes. He was working to have a Christian university offer an Old Testament course to high school students at a Baptist church near their school. He hoped the district would adopt curricula developed by the Christian conservative college Hillsdale in Michigan.

Durst also cast himself as a model for how non-educators could take charge of a school district. He boasted that national far-right figures were in touch and encouraged him not to “screw this up.” As he put it, “I broke into the club. I got a superintendency without having to go through the traditional process of doing it.” Indeed, he had not been a school principal, administrator, or classroom teacher.

That lack of process was a major problem for the state Board of Education, which in August gave the district notice it was not in compliance with Idaho law, a determination that jeopardized tax dollars critical for funding the schools. A letter sent to Rutledge, the chair at the time, cited budget irregularities, missed school bus inspections, concerns about discipline rates of special education students, and the failure to file forms to access federal funds. But the main issue, the state’s board said, was the district’s “decision to employ a non-certified individual as superintendent.” Durst had sought emergency certification but was rebuffed by the state.

All of the uncertainty and division grew so dire that teachers found themselves struggling to carry on, leaving many no choice but to give notice. “It breaks my heart that I had to leave,” Steph Eldore, a fixture at Priest Lake Elementary School for 26 years, told me over tears in late August. With her daughter starting high school, Eldore and her husband, Ken, who had been director of facilities and capital improvements for 16 years, quit the district, finding jobs and enrolling their daughter elsewhere.

By the end of summer, 27 teachers had retired or resigned, along with 19 other staff members, including the director of special education, a school principal, and three counselors. Families followed. By fall, school district enrollment was down to 1,005 students, 100 less than projected. Even McLain, the police chief, had rented a place in Sandpoint, about half an hour from Priest River, and enrolled his two high school–aged children there. “We call ourselves the Priest River refugees,” he said. Sergeant Chris Davis, the district’s school resource officer, similarly said his daughter has opted to finish high school online. All in all, the Lake Pend Oreille School District in Sandpoint, whose permanent levy offers steady funding, reported 43 student transfers from West Bonner County School District.

All of the uncertainty and division grew so dire that teachers found themselves struggling to carry on, leaving many no choice but to give notice. “It breaks my heart that I had to leave,” Steph Eldore, a fixture at Priest Lake Elementary School for 26 years, told me over tears in late August. With her daughter starting high school, Eldore and her husband, Ken, who had been director of facilities and capital improvements for 16 years, quit the district, finding jobs and enrolling their daughter elsewhere.

By the end of summer, 27 teachers had retired or resigned, along with 19 other staff members, including the director of special education, a school principal, and three counselors. Families followed. By fall, school district enrollment was down to 1,005 students, 100 less than projected. Even McLain, the police chief, had rented a place in Sandpoint, about half an hour from Priest River, and enrolled his two high school–aged children there. “We call ourselves the Priest River refugees,” he said. Sergeant Chris Davis, the district’s school resource officer, similarly said his daughter has opted to finish high school online. All in all, the Lake Pend Oreille School District in Sandpoint, whose permanent levy offers steady funding, reported 43 student transfers from West Bonner County School District.

Others, of course, remained. As the school year began, the West Bonner County School District 83 (“Strive for Greatness”) Facebook page was active with notices of cross-country races, soccer games, and picture day. But behind the sheen of normalcy were problems. A shortage of bus drivers led the district to cancel or combine routes. Many students’ commute times doubled, upsetting parents whose young children got home after dark, while other students had no bus transportation at all. There were also issues with school cleanliness. Kylie Hoepfer, a mom of a fourth grader, took on cleaning mouse turds on the bleachers at her daughter’s volleyball game. “I had heard about the mice problem but sweeping it all up was pretty gross,” she recalled.

The biggest hurt for families, however, was the loss of seasoned teachers. The district hired new ones, but a number of them soon quit. Trinity Duquette, a 1997 graduate of the high school, said her 8th-grade daughter “is on her third language arts teacher this year,” each with different styles and expectations. “They have been assigned essays and had a turnover in the midst of the assignment.”

For Paul and Jessica Turco, who built strong bonds with their son’s special education teachers who have since left the district, the loss “was like breaking up a family.” They said it was weeks into the school year before the new teachers read their son’s Individualized Education Program, the written plan outlining his learning needs. “It was like he was starting from the very beginning rather than a stepping stone from where he left off the prior year,” said Jessica. And it’s showing. “We have been dealing with constant outbursts,” she added, and “when he comes home from school, he doesn’t want to talk about his day.”

While watching the disruption, Hutchins, the new mom whose soft features belie a fierce frankness, made a decision: She and her husband were moving to Spokane, Washington. “I’m not going to raise my daughter here,” she said, curling into a leather chair at her family’s resort. Hutchins’s brother is gay. Watching his experience in school had been painful, and the hostility toward LGBTQ+ students seemed to be growing worse. “This is horrible to say,” Hutchins said after Durst’s hiring, “but the right-wing extremists, they are taking over our community.”

She wasn’t the only one thinking that—but not everyone was in a position to leave. Rogers, the mom of three who was on the curriculum committee, and her husband had recently built a home with sweeping views of Chase Lake. There was no moving away. So, she got involved at the school, first as a volunteer, then as a paraprofessional, and, more recently, teaching technology. Initially, she hadn’t wanted to get political, but soon, it no longer felt like a choice.

Back in late 2022, after the school board rescinded the McGraw Hill curriculum and voted for a four-day week, parents like Paul and Jessica Turco reached out to Turner, the retired elementary school teacher, who dialed up Douglas, the Election Day poll-watcher. “I called Dana and said, ‘The kids want some help,’” Turner recalled.

Although Douglas grew up over the state line in Newport, Washington, she married her high school sweetheart from Priest River and now bled Spartan orange. They had built a thriving family business, sent two children through the local schools, and had grandchildren enrolled. She understood that what she saw happening was at odds with what she stood for.

“I am a Republican. I am a Christian conservative,” said Douglas. “But I am 100% pro–public education, and I am pro–every child, and I will do anything for this community to embrace everyone and to love everyone.”

She, Turner, and others, including Hutchins, Rogers, and the Turcos, began meeting. How to take back the district? It started with the school board and, said Douglas, included a notion that should seem obvious: “getting people who value public education” to serve.

By the summer of 2023, they had collected signatures for a recall vote of Rutledge and Brown, the board’s chair and vice chair respectively. The group’s slogan—“Recall, Replace, Rebuild”—blossomed on signs in downtown storefronts, in yards, and banners posted in fields. The group collected endorsements, video testimonials, and built a website. By the time they were days out from the August 29 vote, their numbers had swelled. Over 125 people gathered in the wood-beamed great room at the Priest Lake Event Center for what was part rally, part check-in: Who could pick up “WBCSD Strong” T-shirts? Who would hold signs at key spots ahead of the vote?

Recalls usually fail. But in West Bonner County, the result was resounding. With a 60.9% turnout, Rutledge and Brown were recalled by a wide margin. But then, after the election but before votes were officially certified, Rutledge and Brown posted notice of a board meeting for Friday, September 1, at 5 p.m., just before Labor Day weekend. The top agenda items—“Dissolve Current Board of Trustees” and “Turn Meeting Over to the Superintendent”—raised alarms.

“I read the agenda and I was irate,” said Katie Elsaesser, a mom of two and a lawyer whose office is near the school district office. “I immediately started calling people.” She texted her husband that she would miss their son’s soccer game, then drafted a complaint, finishing at 2 a.m. In the morning, she drove to the district court in Sandpoint. One hour and fifteen minutes before the meeting was to take place, Elsaesser got a ruling to halt it. McLain delivered the news to the crowd in the high school cafeteria. “You would think I scored a touchdown,” he said.

In another strange twist after the recall, the board could not hold several meetings because Reinbold failed to show. Without a quorum, which required three present members, business halted. Finally, after a former school board chair alerted county officials, the sheriff agreed to investigate. Reinbold reappeared, and in mid-October, the board finally filled the vacant seats with two people who supported the recall.

With his options running thin, on September 25, 2023, Durst announced plans for “an amicable and fair exit.” For the fourth time in less than two years—since a longtime superintendent retired in June 2022—the district was again seeking a new leader. Hall reached out to Joseph Kren, a former principal at the high school who had also served as superintendent in a nearby district. Kren was enjoying retirement—he got Hall’s call at 9:30 p.m. before he was to wake at 3:30 a.m. to go elk hunting. He would agree to a 90-day contract (the four-day week means it runs through March).

His appointment was greeted with relief. Kren, a serious-faced former wrestler, is religious but not ideological. On the sixth day of his new job, occupying the same spot Durst had just vacated, Kren showed me the silver-colored crucifix he had hung above his desk. Kren was clear that his faith “has guided [him]” but has “never gotten in the way.”

Growing up with a brother who was deaf, Kren said, has made him attuned to matters of inclusion and accommodation, which he called “a legal and moral responsibility.” His only agenda was to put things right. By Thanksgiving, he told me, the district had corrected state compliance issues, and he was working to add bus drivers. With so many turnovers, he acknowledged “disruptions can and do occur.” But his plan, he said, was steady: to “roll up [his] sleeves and work alongside” staff and to make “firm, consistent, morally sound decisions based in fact and the law.”

The November 2023 election would be pivotal. With the two school board replacements set—picked by the recall supporters who lived in the two school zones that had been represented by Rutledge and Brown—the other three zones’ seats were on the ballot. The pro-recall crowd wanted to boot Reinbold and reelect Hall and Barton. The election, in essence, would decide which side had a majority.

But each had challengers. Hall faced Alan Galloway, a sharp-jawed army veteran and cattle rancher who opposed “transgenderism,” efforts “to impose the outlawed teaching of CRT through SEL or any other ‘trojan horse’ scheme,” and a levy. He circulated a controversial letter with inflammatory claims, including that Hall had “failed our children by delaying action related to bullying, dress codes and Pornography within our schools.”

Barton faced Kathy Nash, who had pushed to rescind the curriculum, was treasurer of the Bonner County Republican Central Committee, and connected to far-right figures at the state level. Two of the far-right candidates shared a campaign treasurer and campaign finance reports show some of the same people donating to the three far-right candidates.

In other words, there were teams. Jim Kelly,Nash’s campaign manager, said Nash would bring scrutiny to school finances—and provide representation to those wounded by the recall. Kelly told me, “The big concern for Kathy, and for a lot of us, is that the school board is going to be 100% lopsided,” if the candidates he backed, whom many would consider far-right, were not elected. “People are objecting that there will not be a conservative voice.”

And yet, Nash’s opponent, Barton, was a conservative Christian. As was Reinbold’s challenger, Elizabeth Glazier, whose website described her as a “Proud Republican & Conservative Christian” who opposed the four-day week and the hiring of Durst. The race was not conservatives against liberals or Republicans against Democrats. It was, as locals told me, a referendum casting those who cared that students had books, buses, and teachers with a decent wage, against those who embraced extremist rhetoric.

At various polling places on Election Day, far-right campaign volunteers were overheard promising that Nash and Reinbold would keep boys out of girls’ bathrooms.

For parents who rely on the public schools, this kind of allegation was maddening. “It’s just paranoid bull honkey,” said Jacob Sateren, a father of eight (six in the schools). We met at a coffee shop across from the junior high on Election Day shortly after he had voted. Sateren, who’d turned a challenging childhood into a successful adulthood building pole barns, laughs when people call him “a woke liberal.” (His Facebook profile features an American flag emblazoned with the Second Amendment, he pointed out.)

He finds charges that schools are “indoctrinating” children absurd. “I haven’t had any of my kids come home and talk about any crazy weird stuff. And even if they did, if you are an involved parent, it doesn’t really matter. If teachers at the school are teaching my kids something I disagree with, it’s my job to be paying enough attention to catch it,” he said. “I don’t know why people get worked up. There is always going to be stuff you disagree with.”

On the day before the vote, under steady rainfall, Hutchins, Rogers, and another volunteer placed signs along Route 57 across from Priest Lake Elementary School, a polling station. Rogers’s youngest daughter skipped while twirling a child-sized umbrella. “A lot of people are very confident of Margy winning—we are not,” said Rogers, referring to Hall by her nickname.

There was good reason for concern. In the end, Hall did best Galloway by a 60-40 margin. But as Douglas and Turner had feared, Nash defeated Barton, and Reinbold won over Glazier. Retaking the district would not be quick or easy. Yet having a majority on the board offered relief. “We can rebuild,” said Douglas.

Hall, however, was concerned about the division that had eroded support for public education in the first place. The question on her mind was how to bring calm. On the eve of the election, she had made a soup with red lentils, ginger, and coconut milk, which she ladled into small ceramic bowls. As she sat at her dining table talking and eating, she rose periodically to let her dog, Cinco, outdoors, accompanying him with a flashlight. Because of a defect at birth, he now has only three legs; there were cougars and a pride of mountain lions in the dark woods.

Between trips, she shared her idea of creating random seating assignments at the round tables in the high school cafeteria where school board meetings were now held, a strategy for encouraging residents on each side to sit together and actually converse. “How tired are people of the fighting and name-calling and bashing?” There was much work to do—a new levy needed, a curriculum people agreed on, teacher contracts, luring families back—but she told me it started with “trying to work as a team, to balance perspectives.”

The day after the election, with the reality of the mixed board clear, Hall offered a sober assessment. “My work,” she said, “is definitely cut out for me.”

This story about West Bonner was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter. Laura Pappano is the author of School Moms: Parent Activism, Partisan Politics and the Battle for Public Education, to be published by Beacon Press in January 2024.

Leslie Postal of the Orlando Sentinel reported the list of banned books.

Please scan the list and let me know which you think should never be banned. Are there any on the list that you think should not be in any 3-8 classroom? Any that should not be available in high school?

Here is a list of the 673 books removed from teachers’ classroom shelves in Orange County for fear they might violate state law and rules on “sexual conduct:” Some might be returned to shelves after further review.

“In the Belly of the Beast,” Jack Henry Abbott
“The Pool Was Empty,” Gilles Abier
“The Poet X,” Elizabeth Acevedo
“With the Fire on High,” Elizabeth Acevedo
“Call Me By Your Name,” Andre Aciman
“Things You Shouldn’t Say Past Midnight,” Peter Ackerman
“Half of a Yellow Sun,” Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie
“Changes,” Ama Ata Aidoo
“River of Darkness,” Rennie Airth
“Say You’re One of Them,” Uwem Akpan
“Simon Vs. The Homo Sapiens Agenda,” Becky Albertalli
“The Upside of Unrequited,” Becky Albertalli
“The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian,” Sherman Alexie
“The House of the Spirits,” Isabel Allende
“In the Midst of Winter,” Isabel Allende
“The Blood of Flowers,” Anita Amirrezvani
“Wintergirls,” Laurie Halse Anderson
“Me and Earl and the Dying Girl,” Jesse Andrews
“The Haters,” Jesse Andrews
“I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings,” Maya Angelou
“Singin’ and Swingin’ and Gettin’ Merry Like Christmas,” Maya Angelou
“Lucy in the Sky,” Anonymous
“And Eternity,” Piers Anthony
“On a Pale Horse,” Piers Anthony
“Four Plays,” Aristophanes
“From Blood and Ash,” Jennifer L. Armentrout
“Storm and Fury,” Jennifer L. Armentrout
“City of the Lost,” Kelley Armstrong
“Mosquitoland,” David Arnold
“Damsel,” Elana K. Arnold
“Infandous,” Elana K. Arnold
“Red Hood,” Elana K. Arnold
“What Girls Are Made Of,” Elana K. Arnold
“Oryx and Crake,” Margaret Atwood
“The Handmaid’s Tale,” Margaret Atwood
“The Handmaid’s Tale: The Graphic Novel,” Margaret Atwood
“The Testaments,” Margaret Atwood
“Alias Grace,” Margaret Atwood
“Hag-Seed,” Margaret Atwood
“Madd Addam Trilogy,” Margaret Atwood
“The Blind Assassin,” Margaret Atwood
“The Clan of the Cave Bear,” Jean M. Auel
“The Clan of the Cave Bear, The Valley of Horses, The Mammoth Hunters
(Earth’s Children, #1-3),” Jean M. Auel
“The Tale of John Barleycorn: From Barley to Beer,” Mary Azarian
“My Friend Dahmer,” John “Derf” Backderf
“Six of Crows,” Leigh Bardugo
“Dance Nation,” Clare Barron
“Wise Young Fool,” Sean Beaudoin
“Herzog,” Saul Bellow
“The Color Master,” Aimee Bender
“The Seven Rays,” Jessica Bendinger
“Glimpse,” Stacey Wallace Benefiel
“The History Boys,” Alan Bennett
“Mr. Darcy Takes a Wife,” Linda Berdoll

“Best in Show,” Laurien Berenson
“Dark Eye,” William Bernhardt
“Friday Night Lights: A Town A Team And A Dream,” H.G. Bissinger
“Geektastic,” Holly Black
“Red Glove,” Holly Black
“I Was a Teenage Fairy,” Francesca Lia Block
“Sex on the Brain,” Deborah Blum
“Forever…,” Judy Blume
“Midwives: A Novel,” Chris Bohjalian
“Bronxwood,” Coe Booth
“The Best American Short Stories 2015,” T.C. Boyle
“The Road to Wellville,” T.C. Boyle
“The Darkest Minds,” Alexandra Bracken
“The Dark Garden,” Eden Bradley
“The Mists of Avalon,” Marion Zimmer Bradley
“Forever in Blue: The Fourth Summer of the Sisterhood,” Ann Brashares
“The Last Summer of You and Me,” Ann Brashares
“The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants,” Ann Brashares
“Electric Girl,” Michael Brennan
“The Demon’s Surrender,” Sarah Rees Brennan
“Monkey Man,” Steve Brewer
“Over the Edge,” Suzanne Brockmann
“Candy,” Kevin Brooks
“Angels & Demons,” Dan Brown
“The Bridges of Madison County (musical),” Jason Robert Brown
“A Secret Splendor,” Sandra Brown
“Above and Beyond,” Sandra Brown
“In a Class by Itself,” Sandra Brown
“Lethal,” Sandra Brown
“Seduction by Design,” Sandra Brown
“Send No Flowers,” Sandra Brown
“Unspeakable,” Sandra Brown
“Doing It,” Melvin Burgess
“The Neon Rain,” James Lee Burke
“The Glister,” John Burnside
“Running with Scissors,” Augusten Burroughs
“Summer and the City,” Candace Bushnell
“The Carrie Diaries,” Candace Bushnell
“Kindred,” Octavia E. Butler
“Kindred: A Graphic Novel Adaptation,” Octavia E. Butler
“El Gigante Solitario,” Mary Cappellini
“Xenocide,” Orson Scott Card
“How Beautiful the Ordinary: Twelve Stories of Identity,” Michael Cart
“The Bloody Chamber and Other Stories,” Angela Carter
“Kisses From Hell,” Kristin Cast
“Chosen,” P.C. Cast
“Marked,” P.C. Cast
“The Big Sleep,” Raymond Chandler
“The Big Sleep; The High Window; The Lady in the Lake; The Long
Goodbye; Playback; Farewell, My Lovely,” Raymond Chandler
“Stories and Early Novels: Pulp Stories / The Big Sleep / Farewell My
Lovely / The High Window,” Raymond Chandler
“The Year of Living Awkwardly,” Emma Chastain
“Pieces,” Stephen Chbosky
“The Perks of Being a Wallflower,” Stephen Chbosky
“The Perks of Being a Wallflower YA edition,” Stephen Chbosky
“The Lady and the Unicorn,” Tracy Chevalier
“My Wicked Wicked Ways,” Sandra Cisneros
“The Tesla Testament,” Eugene Ciurana
“Chain Of Iron,” Cassandra Clare
“Chain Of Thorns,” Cassandra Clare
“Queen of Air and Darkness,” Cassandra Clare
“The Red Scrolls Of Magic,” Cassandra Clare
“Little Bee,” Chris Cleave
“The Girls,” Emma Cline
“Ready Player One,” Ernest Cline
“Scooter Girl,” Chynna Clugston-Flores
“Disgrace,” J.M. Coetzee
“Naomi and Ely’s No Kiss List,” Rachel Cohn
“Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist,” Rachel Cohn
“Finding Yvonne,” Brandy Colbert
“The Goats,” Brock Cole
“American Gangster,” Max Allan Collins
“Brules: A Novel,” Harry Combs
“The Lords of Discipline,” Pat Conroy
“Captain Marvel,” Gerry Conway
“Coma: A Novel,” Robin Cook
“Leviathan Wakes,” James S.A. Corey
“Heroes,” Robert Cormier
“Scarpetta,” Patricia Cornwell
“Three Complete Novels: Postmortem, Body Of Evidence, All That
Remains,” Patricia Cornwell
“Postmortem,” Patricia Cornwell
“Nearly Gone,” Elle Cosimano
“A Veil Removed,” Michelle Cox
“The Bondwoman’s Narrative,” Hannah Crafts
“First Semester,” Cecil R. Cross II
“Running Loose,” Chris Crutcher
“Balzac and the Little Chinese Seamstress,” Sijie Dai
“Esperanza Rising,” Julie Danneberg
“Cendrillon,” Luc Darbois
“Sir Apropos of Nothing,” Peter David
“The Westing Game,” Beatrice G. Davis
“Never Cry Werewolf,” Heather Davis
“Corelli’s Mandolin,” Louis de Bernieres
“Gates of Paradise,” Melissa de la Cruz
“Sunset Boulevard,” Zoey Dean
“Tall Cool One,” Zoey Dean
“American Beauty,” Zoey Dean
“The Feeling of Falling in Love,” Mason Deaver
“The Girl Before,” J.P. Delaney
“The Inheritance Of Loss,” Kiran Desai
“This Lullaby,” Sarah Dessen
“The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao,” Junot Díaz
“Blade Runner (do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep),” Philip K. Dick
“Don’t Get Caught,” Kurt Dinan
“Strangers She Knows,” Christina Dodd
“These Shallow Graves,” Jennifer Donnelly
“Room,” Emma Donoghue
“The Cases that Haunt Us,” John E. Douglas
“November Blues,” Sharon M. Draper
“Panic,” Sharon M. Draper
“House of Sand and Fog,” Andre Dubus III
“A Stolen Life: A Memoir,” Jaycee Dugard
“Submarine,” Joe Dunthorne
“Paso a Paso,” José Antonio Echeverria
“The Circle,” Dave Eggers
“Perfect Chemistry,” Simone Elkeles
“The Authority,” Warren Ellis
“Invisible Man,” Ralph Ellison
“The Gathering,” Anne Enright
“The Painter from Shanghai,” Jennifer Cody Epstein
“The Round House,” Louise Erdrich
“Sophomore Undercover,” Ben Esch
“Like Water For Chocolate,” Laura Esquivel
“Middlesex,” Jefferey Eugenides
“The Horse Whisperer,” Nicholas Evans
“Sleepless,” Thomas Fahy
“Ask the Dust,” John Fante
“Bad Days In History,” Michael Farquhar
“The Comedy Writer,” Peter Farrelly
“White Oleander,” Janet Fitch
“Madame Bovary,” Gustave Flaubert
“Dark Places,” Gillian Flynn
“Sharp Objects,” Gillian Flynn
“Separation of Power,” Vince Flynn
“Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close,” Jonathan Safran Foer
“The Carnival at Bray,” Jessie Ann Foley
“The Guest List,” Lucy Foley
“The Pillars of the Earth,” Ken Follett
“World Without End,” Ken Follett
“Come Back,” Claire Fontaine
“If I Stay,” Gayle Forman
“Just One Day,” Gayle Forman
“The Jane Austen Book Club,” Karen Fowler
“Joy Special of the Day,” Elaine Fox
“You Hear Me?,” Betsy Franco
“Palo Alto,” James Franco
“Dime,” E. R. Frank
“Cold Mountain,” Charles Frazier
“The Likeness,” Tana French
“Anansi Boys,” Neil Gaiman
“The House of Bernarda Alba,” Federico García Lorca
“Chronicle of a Death Foretold,” Gabriel García Márquez
“Love in the Time of Cholera,” Gabriel García Márquez
“Annie on My Mind,” Nancy Garden
“Killjoy,” Julie Garwood
“Eat, Pray, Love,” Elizabeth Gilbert
“Howl and Other Poems,” Allen Ginsberg
“Girl in Pieces,” Kathleen Glasgow
“Fat Kid Rules the World,” Kelly L. Going
“Bee Season,” Myla Goldberg
“Kenang-Kenangan Seorang Geisha (Memoirs of a Geisha),” Arthur Golden
“Memoirs of a Geisha,” Arthur Golden
“Sister Mischief,” Laura Goode
“A Reliable Wife,” Robert Goolrick
“Forever for a Year,” B.T. Gottfred
“The Handsome Girl & Her Beautiful Boy,” B.T. Gottfred
“The Nerdy and the Dirty,” B.T. Gottfred
“Tomorrow Girls,” Eva Gray
“An Abundance of Katherines,” John Green
“Looking for Alaska,” John Green
“Will,” John Grayson
“Paper Towns,” John Green
“Sex Plus: Learning, Loving and Enjoying Your Body,” Laci Green
“The Quiet American,” Graham Greene
“None Of The Above,” I.W. Gregorio
“Changeling,” Philippa Gregory
“The Other Boleyn Girl,” Philippa Gregory
“A Time to Kill,” John Grisham
“The Firm,” John Grisham
“John Grisham Value Collection: A Time to Kill, The Firm, The Client,”
John Grisham
“From Where I Watch You,” Shannon Grogan
“Water For Elephants,” Sara Gruen
“The Freedom Writers Diary,” Erin Gruwell
“Snow Falling On Cedars,” David Guterson
“A Map of the World,” Jane Hamilton
“We’ll Always Have Summer,” Jenny Han
“The World’s Strongest Librarian,” Joshua Hanagarne
“Fly Away,” Kristin Hannah
“The Art of Fielding,” Chad Harbach
“Jude the Obscure,” Thomas Hardy
“Chocolat,” Joanne Harris
“The Lollipop Shoes,” Joanne Harris
“The Silent Wife,” A.S.A. Harrison
“Plainsong,” Kent Haruf
“The Best 100 Poems of Gwen Harwood,” Gwen Harwood
“Necropolis,” Jordan L. Hawk
“Second Skin,” John Hawkes
“The Girl on the Train,” Paula Hawkins
“Catch-22,” Joseph Heller

“The Collected Plays,” Lillian Hellman
“Demian the Story of Emil Sinclairs Youth,” Hermann Hesse
“Demian. Die Geschichte von Emil Sinclairs Jugend.,” Hermann Hesse
“Siddhartha (Dual-Language),” Hermann Hesse
“Siddhartha: A Novel,” Hermann Hesse
“Skin Tight,” Carl Hiaasen
“The Island,” Elin Hilderbrand
“Rethinking Normal: A Memoir in Transition,” Katie Rain Hill
“Here Comes Santa Claus,” Sandra Hill
“Royal Assassin,” Robin Hobb
“The Dress Lodger,” Sheri Holman
“Watch Me,” A.J. Holt
“November 9,” Colleen Hoover
“Heart Bones,” Colleen Hoover
“Hopeless,” Colleen Hoover
“It Ends With Us,” Colleen Hoover
“It Starts With Us,” Colleen Hoover
“Layla,” Colleen Hoover
“Losing Hope,” Colleen Hoover
“Regretting You,” Colleen Hoover
“Verity,” Colleen Hoover
“Confess,” Colleen Hoover
“Ugly Love,” Colleen Hoover
“Impulse,” Ellen Hopkins
“Burned,” Ellen Hopkins
“Collateral,” Ellen Hopkins
“Crank,” Ellen Hopkins
“Fallout,” Ellen Hopkins
“Identical,” Ellen Hopkins
“Love Lies Beneath,” Ellen Hopkins
“People Kill People,” Ellen Hopkins
“Perfect,” Ellen Hopkins
“Tilt,” Ellen Hopkins
“Tricks,” Ellen Hopkins
“I Never,” Laura Hopper
“The Changeling,” Kate Horsley
“The Kite Runner,” Khaled Hosseini
“A Thousand Splendid Suns,” Khaled Hosseini
“Taken at Dusk,” C.C. Hunter
“Brave New World,” Aldous Huxley
“M Butterfly,” David Henry Hwang
“Icy Sparks,” Gwyn Hyman Rubio
“A Widow for One Year: A Novel,” John Irving
“The World According to Garp,” John Irving
“Never Let Me Go,” Kazuo Ishiguro
“Bit of a Blur,” Alex James
“Fifty Shades Series,” E.L. James
“Green River Killer: A True Detective Story,” Jeff Jensen
“No One to Trust,” Iris Johansen
“All Boys Aren’t Blue,” George M. Johnson
“Truly Devious 3-Book Box Set,” Maureen Johnson
“The Graduate,” Terry Johnson
“Choice Words,” Peter H. Johnston
“The Recognition of Sakuntala,” Arthur William Ryder Kalidasa
“Scent of Danger,” Andrea Kane
“Confessions of a Not It Girl,” Melissa Kantor
“The Big Bad Wolf Tells All,” Donna Kauffman
“Milk and Honey,” Rupi Kaur
“The Sun and Her Flowers,” Rupi Kaur
“Summer in the City of Roses,” Michelle Ruiz Keil
“Street Dreams,” Faye Kellerman
“Mr. Ding’s Chicken Feet,” Gillian Kendall
“The DUFF: Designated Ugly Fat Friend,” Kody Keplinger
“YOU: A Nove,” Caroline Kepnes
“On The Road,” Jack Kerouac
“The Book of Longings,” Sue Monk Kidd
“Four Past Midnight,” Stephen King
“Dolores Claiborne,” Stephen King
“Lisey’s Story,” Stephen King
“Night Shift,” Stephen King
“The Drawing of the Three,” Stephen King
“The Wastelands,” Stephen King
“Under the Dome,” Stephen King
“Prodigal Summer: A Novel,” Barbara Kingsolver
“Confessions of a Shopaholic,” Sophie Kinsella
“Shopaholic and Baby,” Sophie Kinsella
“Fear the Hunters,” Robert Kirkman
“Miles Behind Us,” Robert Kirkman
“Don’t Say a Word,” Andrew Klavan
“Primary Colors,” Joe Klein
“Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs,” Chuck Klosterman
“Gender Queer: A Memoir,” Maia Kobabe
“City of Night,” Dean Koontz
“Twilight Eyes,” Dean Koontz
“The Bear Went Over the Mountain,” William Kotzwinkle
“Born on the Fourth of July,” Ron Kovic
“The Pirate,” Jayne Ann Krentz
“The Poppy War,” R F. Kuang
“Dark Triumph,” Robin La Fevers
“Grave Mercy,” Robin La Fevers
“The Namesake,” Jhumpa Lahiri
“I Know This Much Is True,” Wally Lamb
“Search for Safety,” Paul Langan
“Survivor,” Paul Langan
“Liar,” Justine Larbalestier
“My Sister Rosa,” Justine Larbalestier
“The Splendid and the Vile,” Erik Larson
“Recipe Box,” Sandra Lee
“Furyborn,” Claire Legrand
“Mystic River,” Dennis Lehane
“The Grass Is Singing,” Doris Lessing
“Another Day,” David Levithan
“Dexter Is Delicious,” Jeff Lindsay
“Last Night at the Telegraph Club,” Malinda Lo
“The Dirt on Sex,” Justin Lookadoo
“Character, Driven,” David Lubar
“The Bourne Identity,” Robert Ludlum
“The Robert Ludlum Value Collection: The Bourne Identity, The Bourne
Supremacy, The Bourne Ultimatum,” Robert Ludlum
“Brave New Girl,” Louisa Luna
“Game,” Barry Lyga
“I Hunt Killers,” Barry Lyga
“Boy Toy,” Barry Lyga
“A Court of Frost and Starlight,” Sarah J. Maas
“A Court of Mist and Fury,” Sarah J. Maas
“A Court of of Wings and Ruin,” Sarah J. Maas
“A Court of Silver Flames,” Sarah J. Maas
“A Court of Wings and Ruin,” Sarah J. Maas
“House of Earth and Blood,” Sarah J. Maas
“A Court of Thorns and Roses,” Sarah J. Maas
“Fall on Your Knees,” Ann-Marie MacDonald
“Easter Rising,” Michael Patrick MacDonald
“Guyaholic,” Carolyn Mackler
“The Hike,” Drew Magary
“Son of a Witch,” Gregor Maguire
“Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West,” Gregory Maguire
“Wicked: Memorias de una bruja mala,” Gregory Maguire
“The Natural,” Bernard Malamud
“Nectar in a Sieve,” Kamala Markandaya
“Slightly Single,” Wendy Markham
“Blue is the Warmest Color,” Jul Maroh
“A Game of Thrones,” George R.R. Martin
“A Dance with Dragons,” George R.R. Martin
“A Feast for Crows,” George R.R. Martin
“A Storm of Swords,” George R.R. Martin
“The Mystery Knight,” George R.R. Martin
“The Official A Game of Thrones Coloring Book,” George R.R. Martin
“A Clash of Kings,” George R.R. Martin
“Jackie “The Joke Man” Martling’s Disgustingly Dirty Joke Book,” Jackie Martling
“Paper Dollhouse,” Lisa M. Masterson
“Strange Intimacy,” Anne Mather
“Amy & Roger’s Epic Detour,” Morgan Matson
“The Secret Diary of Anne Boleyn,” Robin Maxwell
“The Good Lord Bird,” James McBride
“Perfect Fifths,” Megan McCafferty
“Second Helpings,” Megan McCafferty
“Freedom’s Choice,” Anne McCaffrey
“All the Pretty Horses,” Cormac McCarthy
“No Country for Old Men,” Cormac McCarthy
“Outer Dark,” Cormac McCarthy
“Man o’ War,” Cory McCarthy
“Sold,” Patricia McCormick
“The Revolution of Little Girls,” Blanche McCrary Boyd
“The Beauty Queen of Leenane,” Martin McDonagh
“Sophomore Switch,” Abby McDonald
“Amsterdam,” Ian McEwan
“Atonement,” Ian McEwan
“On Chesil Beach,” Ian McEwan
“Duquesa by Default,” Maura McGiveny
“Beautiful Disaster,” Jamie McGuire
“The Memory of Running,” Ron McLarty
“Lonesome Dove,” Larry McMurtry
“Everything You Want Me to Be,” Mindy Mejia
“Talking in the Dark,” Billy Merrell
“Life and Death: Twilight Reimagined,” Stephenie Meyer
“Pretty Woman,” Fern Michaels
“The Real Deal,” Fern Michaels
“The Authority,” Mark Millar
“Circe,” Madeline Miller
“The Song of Achilles: A Novel,” Madeline Miller
“Paradise Lost and Paradise Regained (The Signet Classic Poetry
Series),” John Milton
“Paradise Lost,” John Milton
“Let’s Talk About It: The Teen’s Guide to Sex, Relationships, and
Being a Human (A Graphic Novel),” Erika Moen
“All My Friends Are Dead,” Avery Monsen
“Watchmen,” Alan Moore
“Camp Confidential,” Melissa J. Morgan
“The Year of Secret Assignments,” Jaclyn Moriarty
“The Center of Everything,” Laura Moriarty
“Seikai 1,” Hiroyuki Morioka
“The Bluest Eye,” Toni Morrison
“Beloved,” Toni Morrison
“Paradise,” Toni Morrison
“Song of Solomon,” Toni Morrison
“Kafka on the Shore,” Haruki Murakami
“Heart of Stone,” C.E. Murphy
“Dead End,” Jason Myers
“Street Love,” Walter Dean Myers
“Peace, Love, and Baby Ducks,” Lauren Myracle
“Rhymes with Witches,” Lauren Myracle
“Shine,” Lauren Myracle
“L8R G8R,” Lauren Myracle
“The Infinite Moment of Us,” Lauren Myracle
“ttfn,” Lauren Myracle
“TTYL,” Lauren Myracle
“yolo,” Lauren Myracle
“The Art of Hana-Kimi,” Hisaya Nakajo
“Skin,” Donna Jo Napoli
“Linden Hills,” Gloria Naylor
“The Men of Brewster Place,” Gloria Naylor
“The Women of Brewster Place,” Gloria Naylor
“Like a Love Story,” Abdi Nazemian
“Getting Somewhere,” Beth Neff
“On the Volcano,” James Nelson
“Suite Francaise,” Irene Nemirovsky
“The Sympathizer,” Viet Thanh Nguyen
“We Are All Made of Molecules,” Susin Nielsen-Fernlund
“Holding Up the Universe,” Jennifer Niven
“Breathless,” Jennifer Niven
“Everlasting,” Alyson Noël
“Evermore,” Alyson Noël
“Night Star,” Alyson Noël
“Where I end and You Begin,” Preston Norton
“Sweat,” Lynn Nottage
“Plague in the Mirror,” Deborah Noyes
“Back Roads,” Tawni O’Dell
“Beasts,” Joyce Carol Oates
“The Assignation: Stories,” Joyce Carol Oates
“We Were the Mulvaneys,” Joyce Carol Oates
“Panic,” Lauren Oliver
“Before I Fall,” Lauren Oliver
“When the Emperor was Divine,” Julie Otsuka
“Ars Amatoria,” Ovid
“Metamorphoses,” Ovid
“Where the Crawdads Sing,” Delia Owens
“Choke,” Chuck Palahniuk
“Invisible Monsters Remix,” Chuck Palahniuk
“Lullaby,” Chuck Palahniuk
“In Order to Live,” Yeonmi Park
“The Dogs of Babel,” Carolyn Parkhurst
“Learning Tree,” Gordon Parks
“Bel Canto,” Ann Patchett
“The Patron Saint of Liars,” Ann Patchett
“Honeymoon,” James Patterson
“Private,” James Patterson
“Sail,” James Patterson
“Sam’s Letters to Jennifer,” James Patterson
“Sideways,” Alexander Payne
“A Day No Pigs Would Die,” Robert Newton Peck
“The Leftovers,” Tom Perrotta
“Out Stealing Horses,” Per Petterson
“Prague,” Arthur Phillips
“Fishtailing,” Wendy Phillips
“A Spark of Light,” Jodi Picoult
“Handle with Care,” Jodi Picoult
“Picture Perfect,” Jodi Picoult
“The Pact: A Love Story,” Jodi Picoult
“The Storyteller,” Jodi Picoult
“The Tenth Circle,” Jodi Picoult
“Nineteen Minutes,” Jodi Picoult
“A Year and a Day,” Leslie Pietrzyk
“Thirst No. 1,” Christopher Pike
“Thirst No. 2,” Christopher Pike
“Thirst No. 4,” Christopher Pike
“Thirst No. 5,” Christopher Pike
“Into White,” Randi Pink
“It Doesn’t Have to Be Awkward: Dealing with Relationships, Consent,
and Other Hard-to-Talk-About Stuff,” Drew Pinsky
“Yes Please,” Amy Poehler
“Tinisima,” Elena Poniatowska
“Behind the Shadows,” Patricia Potter
“The Whistling Toilets,” Randy Powell
“The Cabin,” Natasha Preston
“The Cellar,” Natasha Preston
“Caves Graves,” Natalie Prior
“Jane Swann’s Way,” Marcel Proust
“La Belle Sauvage,” Philip Pullman
“Burning Glass,” Kathryn Purdie
“The Family,” Mario Puzo
“Gabi, a Girl in Pieces,” Isabel Quintero
“The Elegant Gathering of White Snows,” Kris Radish
“The Fountainhead,” Ayn Rand
“Modern Love,” Andrew Rannells
“Punkzilla,” Adam Rapp
“Beautiful,” Amy Reed
“The Cute Girl Network,” M.K. Reed
“Such a Fun Age,” Kiley Reid
“The Seven Husbands of Evelyn Hugo,” Taylor Jenkins Reid
“Stop in the Name of Pants!,” Louise Rennison
“Stone Fox,” John Reynolder
“Wide Sargasso Sea,” Jean Rhys
“The Vampire Armand,” Anne Rice
“The Witching Hour,” Anne Rice
“Life,” Keith Richards
“Juliet Takes a Breath,” Gabby Rivera
“Redeeming Love,” Francine Rivers
“The Atonement Child,” Francine Rivers
“Gulp: Adventures on the Alimentary Canal,” Mary Roach
“Birthright,” Nora Roberts
“The True and Outstanding Adventures of the Hunt Sisters,” Elisabeth Robinson
“Normal People,” Sally Rooney
“Jack of Hearts (and other parts),” L.C. Rosen
“Portnoy’s Complaint,” Philip Roth
“The Casual Vacancy,” J.K. Rowling
“The God of Small Things,” Arundhati Roy
“All of Us with Wings,” Michelle Ruiz Keil
“Elegies for Angels Punks and Raging Queens,” Bill Russell
“The Dead-Tossed Waves,” Carrie Ryan
“Leviathan Wakes,” James S.A. Corey
“And They Lived …,” Steven Salvatore
“Bait,” Alex Sanchez
“Once a King, Always a King,” Reymundo Sanchez
“Option B,” Sheryl Sandberg
“The Fool’s Run,” John Sandford
“Vampire, Interupted,” Lynsay Sands
“Push,” Sapphire
“Blindness,” José Saramago
“Jesus Land: A Memoir,” Julia Scheeres
“Uses for Boys,” Erica Lorraine Scheidt
“The Reader,” Bernard Schlink
“The Beginning of Everything,” Robyn Schneider
“Bully,” Jim Schutze
“The Invisible Life of Addie La Rue,” V.E. Schwab
“The Gift of Forgiveness,” Katherine Schwarzenegger Pratt
“Living Dead Girl: A Novel,” Elizabeth Scott
“Lucky,” Alice Sebold
“The Lovely Bones,” Alice Sebold
“Naked,” David Sedaris
“Peony in Love,” Lisa See
“Writing My Wrongs,” Shaka Senghor
“Equus,” Peter Shaffer
“Skin and Bones,” Sherry Shahan
“Demon Apocalypse,” Darren Shan
“Forbidden Knowledge,” Roger Shattuck
“Tweak,” Nic Sheff
“The Stone Diaries,” Carol Shields
“Sea Glass: A Novel,” Anita Shreve
“Alichino,” Kouyu Shurei
“The Food Chain,” Nicky Silver
“If I Was Your Girl,” Ni-Ni Simone
“Wilder,” Andrew Simonet
“The Straight Girl’s Guide to Sleeping with Chicks,” Jen Sincero
“The Silence and the Roar,” Nihad Sirees
“The Primal Blueprint,” Mark Sisson
“Prep: A Novel,” Curtis Sittenfeld
“You Think It, I’ll Say It,” Curtis Sittenfeld
“Stay In Line,” Teddy Slaterguess
“A Thousand Acres,” Jane Smiley
“The Way I used to Be,” Amber Smith
“Joy in the Morning,” Betty Smith
“Tree Grows In Brooklyn,” Betty Smith
“The Geography of Girlhood,” Kirsten Smith
“Betwixt,” Tara Bray Smith
“Anatomy of a Boyfriend,” Daria Snadowsky
“Sadar’s Keep,” Midori Snyder
“No Visible Bruises,” Rachel Louise Snyder
“MARS,” Fuyumi Soryo
“Summer on Wheels,” Gary Soto
“The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie,” Muriel Spark
“It Happened to Nancy,” Beatrice Sparks
“At First Sight,” Nicholas Sparks
“Message in a Bottle,” Nicholas Sparks
“Nights in Rodanthe,” Nicholas Sparks
“The Guardian,” Nicholas Sparks
“The Rescue,” Nicholas Sparks
“The Wedding,” Nicholas Sparks
“Small Town Girl,” Lavyrle Spencer
“Everyone likes Eggs,” Jerry Spinelli
“Star (French Edition),” Danielle Steel
“The Gift,” Danielle Steel
“East of Eden,” John Steinbeck
“Still Missing,” Chevy Stevens
“Earth (the book) A Visitors Guide to the Human Race,” Jon Stewart
“Every Last Word,” Tamara Ireland Stone
“Marcelo in the Real World,” Francisco X. Stork
“Until the Twelfth of Never,” Bella Stumbo
“Sophie’s Choice,” William Styron
“We Should Hang Out Sometime,” Josh Sundquist
“The Kitchen God’s Wife,” Amy Tan
“The Valley of Amazement,” Amy Tan
“American Colonies,” Alan Taylor
“Just Friends,” Billy Taylor
“The Spectacular Now,” Tim Tharp
“Concrete Rose,” Angie Thomas
“The Loners,” Lex Thomas
“Picking Cotton,” Jennifer Thompson-Cannino
“Blankets,” Craig Thompson
“First Time,” Meg Tilly
“Sigh, Gone,” Phuc Tran
“Milk Glass Moon,” Adriana Trigiani
“Stuck in Neutral,” Terry Trueman
“The RattleRat,” Janwillem Van de Wetering
“Red Thunder,” John Varley
“Sia Martinez and the Moonlit Beginning of Everything,” Raquel Vasquez Gilliland
“Y: The Last Man,” Brian K. Vaughan
“When We Make It,” Elisabet Velasquez
“The Covenant of Water,” Abraham Verghese
“Shojo Beat,” Viz Media
“Dicey’s Song,” Cynthia Voight
“All I Want is Everything,” Cecily Von Ziegesar
“Don’t You Forget about Me,” Cecily Von Ziegesar
“Tempted,” Cecily Von Ziegesar
“You Know You Love Me,” Cecily Von Ziegesar
“It Had To Be You,” Cecily Von Ziegesar
“Slaughterhouse-Five,” Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
“Slaughterhouse-Five: The Graphic Novel,” Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
“The Color Purple,” Alice Walker
“Black White and Jewish,” Rebecca Walker
“We All Looked Up,” Tommy Wallach
“A Thousand Country Roads: An Epilogue to The Bridges of Madison
County,” Robert James Waller
“The Bridges of Madison County,” Robert James Waller
“The Glass Castle,” Jeannette Walls
“Stargazing,” Jen Wang
“Salvage the Bones,” Jesmyn Ward
“Numbers,” Rachel Ward
“Something Worth Saving,” Sandi Ward
“The Graduate,” Charles Webb
“Girl Boy Etc,” Michael Weinreb
“Chasing Harry Winston,” Lauren Weisberger
“Little Altars Everywhere: A Novel,” Rebecca Wells
“A Certain Slant of Light,” Laura Whitcomb
“The Professor and the Madman,” Simon Winchester
“Happiness Sold Separately,” Lolly Winston
“A Man in Full,” Tom Wolfe
“The Interestings,” Meg Wolitzer
“Turkish Delight,” Jan Wolkers
“Brighter than Gold,” Cynthia Wright
“Native Son,” Richard Wright
“Blu’s Hanging,” Lois-Ann Yamanaka
“Revolutionary Road,” Richard Yates
“Armageddon Summer,” Jane Yolen
“The Sun Is Also a Star,” Nicola Yoon
“Everything, Everything,” Nicola Yoon
“Nothing But Your Ski,” Cathy Ytak

Compiled by staff writer Richard Tribou. Source: List obtained by the Florida Freedom to Read Project and confirmed by Orange County Public Schools.

Leslie Postal of the Orlando Sentinel reported the banned books list in Orange County. I haven’t read most of them, but several of the banned books that I had read were very surprising to me.

The next post will identify all the books on the list.

Postal wrote:

A total of 673 books, from classics to best-sellers, have been removed from Orange County classrooms this year for fear they violate new state rules that ban making “sexual conduct” available to public school students.

The list of rejected books, which the district began compiling during the summer, will get another review from Orange County Public Schools staff, so some could eventually be put back on shelves. But for now, teachers who had them in their classrooms have been told to take them home or put them away so students cannot access them.

The books run the gamut, from John Milton’s 17th-century epic poem “Paradise Lost” to John Grisham’s 1991 New York Times bestseller “The Firm.” John Steinbeck’s “East of Eden” and John Irving’s “The World According to Garp” made the list, too.

The list also includes popular novels by Stephen King, Sue Monk Kidd and Jodi Picoult, classics like “A Tree Grows in Brooklyn,” “Jude the Obscure,” and “Madame Bovary,” and award-winning books like “A Thousand Acres,” “Beloved,” and “Love in the Time of Cholera.”

The books that surprised me most were:

PARADISE LOST

A TREE GROWS IN BROOKLYN

MADAME BOVARY

BRAVE NEW WORLD

Do you think teenagers will rush to read Milton’s Paradise Lost or Flaubert’s Madame Bovary now that they are banned?

The next post will have the full list.