“Whitewashing” the curriculum: ACLU takes aim at Department of Defense schools

By: Markus Schmidt – April 15, 2025

This story was originally published in the Virginia Mercury on April 15, 2025.

The American Civil Liberties Union is suing the U.S. Department of Defense over what it calls a sweeping campaign of censorship in public schools run for military families, including one in Virginia, accusing federal officials of banning books and curricula related to race, gender and civil rights in violation of students’ First Amendment rights.

In a lawsuit filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the ACLU National, the ACLU of Kentucky, and the ACLU of Virginia allege that the Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) and Defense Secretary Peter Hegseth have systematically stripped school libraries and classrooms of age-appropriate, award-winning materials. 

These include canonical works about slavery, the civil rights movement, gender identity, and sexual orientation, which were removed following a series of executive orders issued by President Donald Trump earlier this year.

The complaint, filed on behalf of eleven students at DoDEA schools around the world — including two at Crossroads Elementary in Quantico, Virginia — claims these actions have “irreparably harmed” children by denying them access to essential knowledge and perspectives, solely on the basis of “disfavored” political viewpoints.

“The Department of Defense Education Activity is quarantining library books and whitewashing curricula in its civilian schools,” the suit states. “With no regard to how canonical, award-winning, or age-appropriate the material, DoDEA today is scrubbing references to race and gender from its libraries and lessons.”

As of now, the Department of Defense has not responded to the lawsuit. 

The erasure campaign, according to the ACLU, stems directly from a trio of Trump administration executive orders — EOs 14168, 14185, and 14190 — aimed at purging “gender ideology,” “divisive concepts,” and DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) programming from all federal agencies, including the military school system. DoDEA operates 161 schools in the U.S. and overseas, serving more than 67,000 children of military and civilian Defense Department personnel.

While DoDEA says the effort is about safeguarding children from “radical indoctrination,” the plaintiffs argue the opposite is true and that students are being denied the opportunity to learn about foundational elements of American history and society. 

“Learning is a sacred and foundational right that is now being limited for students in DoDEA schools,” said Natalie Tolley, a plaintiff on behalf of her three children. 

“The implementation of these EOs, without any due process or parental or professional input, is a violation of our children’s right to access information that prevents them from learning about their own histories, bodies, and identities,” Tolley said. 

“I have three daughters, and they, like all children, deserve access to books that both mirror their own life experiences and that act as windows that expose them to greater diversity. The administration has now made that verboten in DoDEA schools.” 

In many schools, they say, books were pulled without notice and cultural events like Black History Month and Women’s History Month were abruptly canceled.

Emerson Sykes, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, emphasized that students in Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) schools are entitled to the same constitutional protections as any other young people — regardless of their families’ military ties. “Students in DoDEA schools, though they are members of military families, have the same First Amendment rights as all students,” he said.

Sykes described the current censorship push as particularly offensive, given the diversity and academic excellence of the DoDEA system. 

“Like everyone else, they deserve classrooms where they are free to read, speak, and learn about themselves, their neighbors, and the world around them,” he said, adding that removing books and lessons that reflect the experiences of women, LGBTQ people, and people of color serves only a narrow political agenda. “Our clients deserve better,” Sykes said, “and the First Amendment demands it.”

The suit includes detailed examples of books removed from shelves, including “To Kill a Mockingbird,” “Fahrenheit 451,” “The Kite Runner,” “Well-Read Black Girl,” and “Julian is a Mermaid.” At least one AP Psychology course dropped an entire unit on gender and sexuality. In some cases, parents say they repeatedly requested a list of banned titles but were stonewalled by administrators.

In one particularly revealing memo cited in the complaint, DoDEA officials instructed librarians to remove any books related to “gender ideology” or “discriminatory equity ideology” from student sections and place them into staff-only “professional collections” for further review. 

The result, plaintiffs say, has been a chilling and confusing environment for both students and educators.

“Students’ limited access to disfavored viewpoints will lead to a reduction in diversity of thought and critical thinking skills,” the lawsuit contends. “Defendants’ actions are impairing the ability of students to seek out independent research or self-study opportunities in school libraries.”

The ACLU argues that DoDEA’s censorship campaign violates legal precedent, particularly the Supreme Court’s landmark 1982 decision in Island Trees School District v. Pico, which held that school officials cannot remove books from libraries simply because they disagree with their ideas.

“The First Amendment protects both the right to speak and the right to receive information,” the complaint says. “Defendants’ conduct infringes on students’ right to receive information from DoDEA school books and libraries, free from partisan, political censorship.”

The lawsuit seeks both declaratory and injunctive relief, asking the court to block the implementation of the executive orders as applied to public education, restore removed books and lesson materials, and affirm students’ constitutional rights to access ideas and information.

If successful, the case could reshape how federal agencies implement education policy, especially in schools where military and civilian communities intersect, and where the children of public servants are now at the center of a nationwide debate over who controls classroom content.