Has a Loss of Community Created a Mental Health Crisis for Today’s Youth?

Zarina Macha () examines the growing mental health crisis among young people and asks whether declining social connection may be part of the problem. Macha explores the effects of smartphones and social media alongside the decline of religion, civic life, and other sources of shared purpose and belonging. She considers what secular society can offer in their place, arguing that young people need meaningful community, structure, and a sense of purpose—not necessarily a return to traditional belief.

“People need community to feel connected to something greater than themselves. We need not return to superstitious beliefs to achieve this. What we need is a philosophy of how to live well, how to treat others, and how to take responsibility for ourselves and our communities — without asking the individual to disappear, and without leaving the individual to invent a whole moral world alone.”

Read the Full Article

Illustration by Anna Broadhurst.

Generation Anxiety: smartphones have created a gen Z mental health crisis – but there are ways to fix it

FAIR Board of Advisors member Jonathan Haidt examines the rise in anxiety, depression, loneliness, and self-harm among young people and the potential role smartphones and social media have played.

Haidt argues that Gen Z was the first generation to experience adolescence with constant access to an online world, contributing to a decline in face-to-face interaction, physical play, and other forms of real-world social connection. He describes this shift as a “Great Rewiring of Childhood” and argues that addressing its effects will require collective action from parents, schools, and communities.

“People don’t get depressed when they face threats collectively; they get depressed when they feel isolated, lonely, or useless…”

Read the Full Article

One Reason People Are Spending So Much Time Alone

As young people face rising levels of loneliness and social isolation, one question is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore: have we designed human connection out of everyday life? In The Atlantic, Gabe Bullard examines how modern conveniences—from delivery services to self-checkout and other frictionless technologies—can quietly eliminate the small, ordinary interactions that once brought people together. His piece offers a broader perspective on the social disconnection explored in Zarina Macha’s essay, asking whether a culture built around convenience and individual choice may also be making community harder to sustain.

“When showing up for others feels hard, some strugglers have lately steeled themselves with a version of this maxim: “Inconvenience is the cost of community.” It’s a reminder, oft-repeated on social media these days, that if you don’t want to be lonely—if you want to have robust relationships—you should occasionally do things that are effortful or even irritating…”

Read the Full Article

Join the FAIR Community

• Join us and become a member of FAIR.

• Become a FAIR volunteer, or join a FAIR chapter.

• Sign up for a Welcome to FAIR Zoom information session to learn more about our mission.

• Share your reviews and incident reports on our FAIR Transparency website.

• View our Many Stories, One Nation curriculum.

• Help fund our work

Dear Friends of FAIR,

For the past four years, FAIR in the Arts has provided grants to 30 artists and arts organizations. Those grants have helped pay for rehearsal space, performers, production costs, marketing, pitch materials, and other practical necessities of making art. But money is only part of the story.

Again and again, grant recipients have told us that FAIR’s support provided something less tangible, and perhaps more consequential: the validation to be an independent artist, to resist conformity, and to trust the work they felt called to create.

It’s no surprise to even the most agreeable artist that our current artistic culture is burdened by fear, conformity, and self-censorship. Artists may have a responsibility to be faithful to their gifts, but fulfilling that responsibility requires courage -- the willingness to take risks, venture beyond what has already been culturally sanctioned, and discover what is authentic and genuinely new. That is why FAIR in the Arts awards Artist Grants.

FAIR believes art should be produced, published, curated, funded, and adjudicated according to the quality and integrity of the work; not according to an artist’s ideological alignment or identity category. Our goal is not to tell artists what they should say. Our aim is to help create a culture in which artists are free to discover what they have to say.

In our upcoming “Artists at Work” series, FAIR in the Arts interim director Karen Howes will explore what that support means in practice. We will introduce artists, disciplines, projects, and stories as we highlight how artistic courage is enabled when someone is willing to stand behind an artist’s work. Courage also surfaced during our September FAIR in Conversation discussion, “Is Woke Dead… or Just on Pause?” At the end of the discussion, participants agreed on a striking conclusion: cultural change ultimately requires individuals willing to resist conformity and act courageously.

Since artists have a particularly important role in that effort, and as we prepare for our 2027 Artist Grant Cycle, “Artists at Work” will demonstrate why FAIR in the Arts’ grants matter and why we need to fund many more. We believe that supporting an artist isn’t simply funding a project. It is helping create the conditions and culture in which artists are free to be courageous, resist conformity, and make the work that only they can make.

FAIR in Film Fundraisers: Launching the 2027 Artist Grant Fundraising Round

You can help make that work possible. We’re launching our 2027 fundraising round for the FAIR Artist Grants and FAIR’s broader mission by featuring three early release film screenings on topics that align with FAIR’s principles. These films are brand new and address today’s most challenging and thought-provoking issues. In each, a filmmaker shares their film and joins a discussion with the FAIR community, and every event raises funds for FAIR, including the Artist Grants program.

• Speechless by Ric Beinstock: Be part of the first U.S. audience to screen this amazing film. Speechless explores campus free speech battles through interviews and cases, including DEI conflicts, discrimination lawsuits, political shifts at colleges, and academic freedom debates across US institutions. Wednesday, October 28, 2026 @ 7 EST.

Registration link: Speechless Screening & Panel Discussion, Wed. 10/28 @ 7 EST

• Generation COVID by Andrew James and Jennifer Sey. While some children fortunately emerged from COVID lockdowns relatively unscathed, school closures had catastrophic effects on many others. The film reminds us of the mistakes we should never repeat. It’s not political. It’s about kids. Wednesday, November 11, 2026 @ 7 EST.

Registration link: Generation COVID Screening & Panel Discussion, Wed. 11/11 @ 7 EST

• White Guilt by Eli Steele: White Guilt is a documentary essay by Eli Steele, drawn from the lifework of his father, Shelby Steele. It is the story of a man who saw the evil that others could not, or would not, and who named it and refused to back off of it for fifty years. Tuesday, December 1, 2026 @ 7 EST.

Registration link: White Guilt Screening & Panel Discussion, Tues. 12/1 @ 7 EST

Each screening offers more than a chance to see a provocative new documentary. It’s an opportunity to engage directly with the filmmakers, explore the ideas and challenges behind their work, and join a community that values artistic courage and independent thought.

Your registration does more than reserve a seat. It helps fund FAIR and the next round of FAIR Artist Grants, giving more community members and artists the resources, encouragement, and freedom to bring their own uncompromising visions to life.

Join us for one or all three of these remarkable films. Registering for a $10 or $25 ticket goes a long way: watch the film, stay for the conversation, and help make the next generation of independent art possible.

With Gratitude,

The FAIR Team

Subscribe now to receive FAIR News weekly in your inbox.

Donate

Help us find your chapter

FAIR in Film presents: An Exclusive Screening of “Speechless”

Private first time screening to a US audience.

Join FAIR for an exclusive screening of Speechless, a provocative documentary exploring the battle over free speech on college campuses and what it means for the future of higher education and democracy.

The film—which is now available to a U.S. audience for the first time—is a gripping investigation into the breakdown of open inquiry in the very institutions meant to protect it, and what happens to a democracy when it loses faith in free speech, honest disagreement, and the hard work of conversation.

The post-film discussion will include several renowned panelists, offering a range of perspectives on the issues explored in the film.

Date: Wednesday, October 28, 2026

Time: 7:00 p.m. ET / 4:00 p.m. PT.

Film: ~120 minute run time + 45 minute discussion

Register Here

Introducing: Arts After Hours

FAIR in the Arts is launching Arts After Hours, a monthly Zoom gathering for FAIR artists, members, and guests to meet one another, exchange ideas, share opportunities, and strengthen the courageous creative community we are building together.

This isn’t a webinar or a formal presentation. It’s a gathering.

Come tell us what you’re working on. Bring an idea you’d like to explore, an opportunity you’d like to share, a question or project for other artists, or simply come to meet writers, actors, filmmakers, musicians, visual artists, and other creative people who believe that art flourishes through curiosity, independence, open inquiry, and the courage to create authentically.

Our first After Hours gathering will be held Wednesday, October 21 at 7:00 PM ET, and we’ll gather thereafter on the third Wednesday of every month.

FAIR in the Arts is becoming more than a place to defend artistic freedom. We want it to be a place where artists can use that freedom to create, connect, collaborate, and help shape the culture around us. I really hope you’ll join us.

Date: Wednesday, October 21, 2026

Time: 7:00 p.m. ET / 4:00 p.m. PT.

Every month on the third Wednesday.

Register Here

Educators Alliance

FAIR is continuing the Educators Alliance for the 2026-2027 school year to equip PK–12 educators with the knowledge, strategies, and community support they need to foster schools that are more enriching and free from bias for students and educators.

We are at a turning point for education—and with the relaunch of FAIR’s Educators Alliance, we have an opportunity to step beyond polarization and create classrooms rooted in curiosity, dignity, and respect.

Each monthly gathering will open with updates and presentations from FAIR staff, fellows, Chapter Leaders, and occasional guest speakers. Together, we’ll explore strategies for supporting educators, communities, and local chapters—and for advancing positive change at the local, regional, and national levels. Following presentations, participants will have space for open forum discussions to connect, seek advice, and coordinate on pressing issues in their schools. Breakout rooms will be divided into PK-6 and 7-12 grade levels with experienced teachers facilitating those conversations.

Educators will also be invited to contribute to a new FAIR in Education newsletter, showcasing stories, strategies, and resources from across the FAIR network.

Whether you are a teacher, paraprofessional, or administrator, join us as we continue the FAIR Educators Alliance and shape the future of education together.

There are 7 meetings to sign up for down below. Scroll up and down below to see all of the sessions!

Oct 1, 2026 07:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada)

Every month on the First Thu, until Apr 1, 2027, 1 hr sessions, 7 occurrences

Register Here

FAIR in Film presents: An Exclusive Screening of Generation Covid

An entire generation of children and families were deeply harmed by the response to Covid, resulting in half of American public schools being closed for nearly two years. The fallout has been a society-destroying scandal that our elected officials are still too afraid to address. Long past the time when adults resumed normalcy, American school children were onerously restricted, locked out of school and other social and developmental activities, kept alone and isolated and forced onto screens – all in spite of clear data showing Covid posed little threat to the young and healthy.

Generation Covid is the story of a forgotten generation who endured the biggest civil rights violations in a century, the largest propaganda campaign in American history and industrial scale censorship in spite of clear, incontrovertible evidence that lockdowns, school closures, vaccine mandates and forced masking were useless and harmful. Politicians and public health officials’ worst authoritarian impulses took hold and the press failed to hold power to account, leaving children voiceless.

Despite clear and incontrovertible real-time evidence of the harms being done, especially to the poor and working class, powerful forces sought to censor, silence and vilify anyone who questioned the efficacy of these unprecedented and unscientific decisions, and our children are still paying the price.

We all are.

Date: Wednesday, November 11, 2026

Time: 7pm EST/4pm PST (until about 10:00pm EST)

Film: ~120 minute run time + 30 minute discussion

Register Here

White Guilt

White Guilt is a documentary essay by Eli Steele, drawn from the lifework of his father, Shelby Steele. It is the story of a man who saw the evil that others could not, or would not, and who named it and refused to back off of it for fifty years.

After the 1960s Civil Rights victories, white America stood accused and were desperate to regain moral authority and escape the stain of racism. That frantic need birthed white guilt, a moral collapse that replaced merit with victimhood, standards with excuses, and individual responsibility with grievance power.

The result: failing schools, dependency programs, racial division, riots, defund-the-police chaos—and now a global wave where Hamas’s October 7 atrocities are called “resistance,” campus antisemitism is tolerated, and anti-Western tribalism gains ground.

Date: December 1, 2026

Time: 7pm EST/4pm PST (until about 10:00pm EST)

Register Here

Note: Despite Zoom’s notice down below, FAIR maintains strict confidentiality of contact information provided.

Note to readers: We have paused the FAIR News podcast. If you prefer listening rather than reading these newsletters, an audio version is available directly on the Substack app. Thank you for tuning in!

Join the FAIR Community

• Join us, and become a member of FAIR.

• Become a FAIR volunteer, or join a FAIR chapter.

• Sign up for a Welcome to FAIR Zoom information session to learn more about our mission.

• Share your reviews and incident reports on our FAIR Transparency website.

• View our Many Stories, One Nation curriculum.
  

It’s no surprise to many that there is a crisis of mental illness sweeping those largely born after 1990. Young people are reporting substantially higher rates of anxiety, depression and suicidal ideation than previous generations. Better reporting, destigmatisation and advances in psychological medicine account for some, but not all of these changes. Declining social connection is the more serious factor at play.

According to the World Health Organisation, one in seven 10-19-year-olds experiences a negative mental health condition. Suicide is the third leading cause of death among those aged 15–29. This is a crisis of disconnected youth, not only of diagnosis.

Mental illness is nothing new. Sylvia Plath, Vincent van Gogh and Virginia Woolf are infamous examples of artists who suffered from mental illness. Anguish existed long before smartphones; what has changed is the scale. In several wealthy countries, rates of poor mental wellbeing rose sharply in the early 2010s, as smartphones became ordinary. The crisis is exacerbated by the breakdown of social order in family, religion and community. Civic life had already been thinning for decades. The phone emerged into a social world weaker than it looked.

One of the ways humans have historically found community is through religion. Belief in a god offered a larger purpose, and a reason to ‘keep showing up’ among similar demographics. As the Western world moves away from traditional religious practice, fewer shared sources of meaning remain. Nietzsche was ahead of his time when he declared that “God is dead.” If a shared story about how to live no longer holds, people are left to invent one alone — a heavy task, especially for the young.

In many ways, we are living in the aftermath of isolationism. People now organise their lives around individual pursuits — personalised technology, social media, ideology — instead of community or a shared moral belief. The problem is not that individuals matter. Individuality inside a community is not the same thing as isolation with a social feed.

It is nearly impossible to navigate life today without a smartphone. Algorithms present polished and unattainable lifestyles, lock people inside political echo chambers, and push them into pointless, vitriolic arguments with strangers. People spend hours trying to be right on Twitter and Reddit rather than working with their fellow humans. While this speech is technically free, it is not collaborative, and so it offers little to any actual community.

Religion provided a framework for how to live well: an ethic, a sense of duty, and an explanation for how the world came to exist. According to the Pew Research Centre, people who attend religious services regularly are more likely to describe themselves as ‘very happy’ than those who are non-religious or only nominally religious. The ‘happiness-gap’ is not proof that metaphysics produces wellbeing. It suggests that practice matters: showing up, being known, and being answerable to other people. If we reject traditional religion, what replaces its social functions? Peer support, discipline, community, mutual accountability and shared values. Alain de Botton seeks to address this in Religion for Atheists.

Religion has also brought real harms. Unscientific belief has often licensed hatred of people deemed “different” or “unholy,” and denominations have fought one another over the “right” interpretation of their holy texts. Such examples include Catholics and Protestants, Hindus and Muslims, or Israelis and Palestinians. The point is not that only religion produces cruelty, as secular ideologies have done the same; rather that a source of belonging can also become a source of exclusion.

As an atheist myself, I appreciate the community-based aspects of religion while remaining concerned by the superstition, dogma and closed-mindedness that come with it. There ought to be a way to enjoy social cohesion and feel purposeful without believing in things that are not scientifically proven. The Ancient Greeks sought eudaimonia, human flourishing, and Confucianism emphasised personal ethics and family loyalty. Both start from the recognition that we cannot be closed off from each other. In a world this interconnected, there is no good future in a life organised only around the self.

What the present, particularly in the West, needs is a philosophy that does not require belief in spirits and deities, but still gives young people structure, stability, purpose and discipline. Secular Alcoholics Anonymous is a practical example. Traditional AA asks participants to surrender their will to a “Higher Power.” Secular meetings, and books such as Jeffrey Munn’s Staying Sober Without God, keep the fellowship and personal accountability without the prayer. The machinery that helped was never only the requirement for prayer.

Loss of religion is not the only reason for this unease. In the past, there were cows to milk, wool to spin and fields to plough. Comfort is not a moral failing. But as Western society has become more comfortable, more of us are free to ponder the meaning of life. That can bring joy — and dread. Affluence did not cause the crisis by itself. It left a space that community used to fill.

Social media then filled that space poorly. Young people have grown up glued to their phones, comparing themselves to filtered lives online. Jean Twenge, Jonathan Haidt and others have shown that adolescent distress rose after smartphones became ubiquitous, and that teens who spend more time on social media and less time in person report worse mental health. The US Surgeon General has called loneliness an epidemic. Among Americans aged 15 to 24, time spent in person with friends fell by nearly 70 percent between 2003 and 2020. A social media feed is not a substitute for reality.

News and culture have fragmented in the same way. People now build personalised information environments, and algorithms show them more of what they already engage with. Political disagreement becomes more hostile when people operate from different (and potentially inaccurate) pictures of reality. Two people of the same age can now inhabit completely different cultural worlds.

I am not in favour of banning social media. That would not only be a serious free-speech violation, but also damage networking and information sharing. YouTube, for example, has personally had a fantastic impact on my life. But it is hard for vulnerable young people to stop doomscrolling, or to avoid material that encourages them to see themselves mainly as victims, or to develop prejudice against those who do not share their worldview. That returns to the lack of a unifying philosophy in the West, and the abundance of divisive political identities.

The strain between young men and women belongs to the same story. A male loneliness epidemic, and Gen Z women decrying a hatred of men, cannot be good for anyone’s wellbeing. When old scripts for courtship and family collapse faster than new ones are built, dating becomes another arena of comparison and withdrawal. A 2022 Demographic Research Study found that parental divorce can have a larger negative impact on a child’s long-term educational attainment than the death of a parent.

What, then, can be done? No single hobby will reverse a cultural shift. A practical place to start is to rebuild the unglamorous thing religion and civic life once supplied: repeated contact with the same people. Meetup groups, sports clubs, book groups, volunteering, congregations or a shared hobby create face-to-face life for people who spend their days on screens. A group that meets once is an event. A group that meets every Tuesday is a community.

Individuals can construct meaning from what they find worthwhile and what requires sustained effort: reading, creative work, loved ones, physical activity, intellectual pursuits. Lives can be meaningful without superstition. That will not happen automatically. The substitutes for religious and civic life will have to be as regular, as demanding and as shared as the things they replace.

People need community to feel connected to something greater than themselves. We need not return to superstitious beliefs to achieve this. What we need is a philosophy of how to live well, how to treat others, and how to take responsibility for ourselves and our communities — without asking the individual to disappear, and without leaving the individual to invent a whole moral world alone. The Society Project has proposed “societism,” which seeks the wellbeing of society without sacrificing the significance of the individual. It illustrates the thinking secular societies will need if they want purpose and belonging after the old sources of those things have faded.

The mental health crisis among the young is not proof that modernity was a mistake. It is proof that a life rich in options and poor in belonging is harder to bear than we pretended.

Share

Donate

We welcome you to share your thoughts on this piece in the comments below. Click here to view our comment section moderation policy.

The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of Fair For All or its employees.

In keeping with our mission to promote a common culture of fairness, understanding, and humanity, we are committed to including a diverse range of voices and to encouraging compassionate, good-faith discourse.

We are actively seeking perspectives on this topic and others. If you’d like to join the conversation, please send completed drafts to submissions@fairforall.org.

“Banned”, Really?

In her latest FAIR in Libraries article, Dr. Anne examines the debate over what qualifies as a “banned” book and argues that the focus on definitions can distract from a broader question: whether public libraries provide readers with access to a range of perspectives. Her article raises questions about viewpoint diversity, collection practices, and readers’ ability to access competing arguments. Mulhern encourages patrons to take an active role in their libraries by examining catalogues, requesting titles that are missing or difficult to access, and reporting concerns to FAIR to help promote transparency and accountability.

“The public libraries are promoting one point of view aggressively, and the other point of view is being hidden from the sight of patrons.”

Read the Full Article

There’s No Such Thing as a Reading Test

In this article, FAIR Board of Advisors member Robert Pondiscio and education scholar E.D. Hirsch argue that reading comprehension depends on more than decoding words and practicing reading strategies; it also requires background knowledge and familiarity with the subject matter. They examine how an emphasis on standardized testing and generalized reading skills can leave students without the knowledge they need to understand what they read. The authors advocate for an approach to literacy that integrates reading instruction with subjects such as science, history, and literature, helping students build the knowledge necessary for deeper comprehension. Their argument highlights the importance of ensuring students have access to a broad, coherent education that equips them to engage with a wide range of ideas and information.

“Rather, too many of our schools labor under fundamental misconceptions about reading comprehension — how it works, how to improve it, and how to test it…The more domain knowledge our children receive, the more capable they will become as readers.”

Read the Full Article

Building Resilient Libraries: Protecting Against Book Bans

In this article, Catherine Hollerbach examines how libraries can defend intellectual freedom amid increasing efforts to challenge and restrict access to books. She outlines the importance of transparent collection-development policies, consistent procedures for reconsidering challenged materials, and legal protections for libraries and their staff. Hollerbach also explores legislative efforts to safeguard access to books and the creation of book sanctuaries that preserve access to challenged titles. Her article emphasizes libraries’ responsibility to serve communities with diverse interests and perspectives while upholding readers’ freedom to choose what they read.

“Customers have the right and responsibility for what they and their children choose to check out, and for reviewing items before their kids check them out, if that is their preference. They do not, however, have the right to dictate what other parents may and may not have access to checking out.”

Read the Full Article

Join the FAIR Community

• Join us and become a member of FAIR.

• Become a FAIR volunteer, or join a FAIR chapter.

• Sign up for a Welcome to FAIR Zoom information session to learn more about our mission.

• Share your reviews and incident reports on our FAIR Transparency website.

• View our Many Stories, One Nation curriculum.

• Help fund our work

Dear Friends of FAIR,

On October 5, the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Justice sent a joint letter to every state attorney general with a straightforward request: help make sure schools follow federal parental rights laws. The letter asks attorneys general to work with school districts on compliance with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA).

FAIR members may recognize the subject. In September, we shared the Department of Education’s annual back-to-school guidance on these same two laws. The joint letter goes a step further by asking state officials to take an active role in enforcement, so districts will likely feel more pressure to get their practices right.

One practice gets particular attention: mental health screenings. According to the Departments, some schools continue to administer these screenings without first getting written permission from parents. Before a student completes a mental health screening or any similar evaluation, the Departments say, schools must notify parents and obtain prior written consent. An opt-out form sent home does not meet that standard.

Under PPRA, which has been federal law for decades, students in programs funded by the U.S. Department of Education cannot be required to take part in a survey, analysis, or evaluation that reveals certain sensitive information without a parent’s prior written consent. The law lists eight protected areas, including political beliefs, mental or psychological problems of the student or family, sexual behavior or attitudes, religious practices, and family income.

The difference between “opt in” and “opt out” may sound like a technicality, but in practice, the two mechanisms can produce very different results.

An opt-out puts the burden on parents because the family has to notice the form, read it, understand what is being asked, and return it before a deadline. A notice buried in a back-to-school packet can easily slip by a busy household. Written consent, by contrast, reverses the burden: nothing happens until a parent has seen what the school plans to ask and said yes.

Students feel the difference, too. When a teacher or counselor hands a child a questionnaire, most children assume they have to fill it out. Asking parents first protects kids who would never think to say no.

PPRA’s requirements vary depending on how a survey is funded and whether participation is required, and the joint letter reflects the Departments’ reading of the statute. Some districts may push back on the details. The goal of asking isn’t to win an argument, but to learn what your school actually does and to get that answer in writing.

FAIR’s FERPA & PPRA Parental Rights Template Letter makes that easy. The letter asks your district to confirm in writing that it obtains written parental consent before administering any sensitive survey or mental health screener, does not keep “unofficial” student records beyond parents’ access rights under FERPA, and makes curriculum available for parent review on request. Download the template letter here.

A few other steps worth taking this fall:

• Find your district’s annual notice. Districts that receive federal funds must notify parents of their FERPA and PPRA rights each year. If you don’t remember seeing one, ask where it was posted.

• Ask to see any survey or screener in advance. You have the right to review these materials before they reach your child.

• Keep a record. Save copies of your requests and the district’s responses.

FAIR approaches this as a civics and transparency issue, not a partisan one. Families of every political view, faith, and background benefit when schools are open about what they ask children and what records they keep. Clear consent rules build trust between parents and educators.

If your school has administered a survey or screening without your written consent, or has denied you access to your child’s records, we want to hear from you. Reach out through your local FAIR Chapter or submit a report through FAIR Incident Reporting.

Resources like this template letter are free to every family because FAIR members and donors make them possible. If this tool helps you or someone you know, please consider making a gift to FAIR today.

With gratitude,

Monica Harris
Executive Director, FAIR

Subscribe now to receive FAIR News weekly in your inbox.

Donate

Help us find your chapter

OTI Conference on Political Bias and Mental Health

Earlier this year, FAIR announced its collaboration with the Open Therapy Institute. Read Here.

FAIR members are invited to join the Open Therapy Institute‘s Conference on Political Bias and Mental Health, October 9–11, in Washington, DC.

The program features a live podcast recording with Rob Henderson and Erica Komisar, a panel with Sally Satel, and more. A total of 9.25 CE credits are available.

Use code OTISPECIALRATE2026 for 50% off.

We hope to see you in DC!

Register Here

FAIR in Film presents: An Exclusive Screening of “Speechless”

Private first time screening to a US audience.

Join FAIR for an exclusive screening of Speechless, a provocative documentary exploring the battle over free speech on college campuses and what it means for the future of higher education and democracy.

The film—which is now available to a U.S. audience for the first time—is a gripping investigation into the breakdown of open inquiry in the very institutions meant to protect it, and what happens to a democracy when it loses faith in free speech, honest disagreement, and the hard work of conversation.

The post-film discussion will include several renowned panelists, offering a range of perspectives on the issues explored in the film.

Date: Wednesday, October 28, 2026

Time: 7:00 p.m. ET / 4:00 p.m. PT.

Film: ~120 minute run time + 45 minute discussion

Register Here

Introducing: Arts After Hours

FAIR in the Arts is launching Arts After Hours, a monthly Zoom gathering for FAIR artists, members, and guests to meet one another, exchange ideas, share opportunities, and strengthen the courageous creative community we are building together.

This isn’t a webinar or a formal presentation. It’s a gathering.

Come tell us what you’re working on. Bring an idea you’d like to explore, an opportunity you’d like to share, a question or project for other artists, or simply come to meet writers, actors, filmmakers, musicians, visual artists, and other creative people who believe that art flourishes through curiosity, independence, open inquiry, and the courage to create authentically.

Our first After Hours gathering will be held Wednesday, October 21 at 7:00 PM ET, and we’ll gather thereafter on the third Wednesday of every month.

FAIR in the Arts is becoming more than a place to defend artistic freedom. We want it to be a place where artists can use that freedom to create, connect, collaborate, and help shape the culture around us. I really hope you’ll join us.

Date: Wednesday, October 21, 2026

Time: 7:00 p.m. ET / 4:00 p.m. PT.

Every month on the third Wednesday.

Register Here

Educators Alliance

FAIR is continuing the Educators Alliance for the 2026-2027 school year to equip PK–12 educators with the knowledge, strategies, and community support they need to foster schools that are more enriching and free from bias for students and educators.

We are at a turning point for education—and with the relaunch of FAIR’s Educators Alliance, we have an opportunity to step beyond polarization and create classrooms rooted in curiosity, dignity, and respect.

Each monthly gathering will open with updates and presentations from FAIR staff, fellows, Chapter Leaders, and occasional guest speakers. Together, we’ll explore strategies for supporting educators, communities, and local chapters—and for advancing positive change at the local, regional, and national levels. Following presentations, participants will have space for open forum discussions to connect, seek advice, and coordinate on pressing issues in their schools. Breakout rooms will be divided into PK-6 and 7-12 grade levels with experienced teachers facilitating those conversations.

Educators will also be invited to contribute to a new FAIR in Education newsletter, showcasing stories, strategies, and resources from across the FAIR network.

Whether you are a teacher, paraprofessional, or administrator, join us as we continue the FAIR Educators Alliance and shape the future of education together.

There are 7 meetings to sign up for down below. Scroll up and down below to see all of the sessions!

Oct 1, 2026 07:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada)

Every month on the First Thu, until Apr 1, 2027, 1 hr sessions, 7 occurrences

Register Here

FAIR in Film presents: An Exclusive Screening of Generation Covid

An entire generation of children and families were deeply harmed by the response to Covid, resulting in half of American public schools being closed for nearly two years. The fallout has been a society-destroying scandal that our elected officials are still too afraid to address. Long past the time when adults resumed normalcy, American school children were onerously restricted, locked out of school and other social and developmental activities, kept alone and isolated and forced onto screens – all in spite of clear data showing Covid posed little threat to the young and healthy.

Generation Covid is the story of a forgotten generation who endured the biggest civil rights violations in a century, the largest propaganda campaign in American history and industrial scale censorship in spite of clear, incontrovertible evidence that lockdowns, school closures, vaccine mandates and forced masking were useless and harmful. Politicians and public health officials’ worst authoritarian impulses took hold and the press failed to hold power to account, leaving children voiceless.

Despite clear and incontrovertible real-time evidence of the harms being done, especially to the poor and working class, powerful forces sought to censor, silence and vilify anyone who questioned the efficacy of these unprecedented and unscientific decisions, and our children are still paying the price.

We all are.

Date: Wednesday, November 11, 2026

Time: 7pm EST/4pm PST (until about 10:00pm EST)

Film: ~120 minute run time + 30 minute discussion

Register Here

Note: Despite Zoom’s notice down below, FAIR maintains strict confidentiality of contact information provided.

Note to readers: We have paused the FAIR News podcast. If you prefer listening rather than reading these newsletters, an audio version is available directly on the Substack app. Thank you for tuning in!

Join the FAIR Community

• Join us, and become a member of FAIR.

• Become a FAIR volunteer, or join a FAIR chapter.

• Sign up for a Welcome to FAIR Zoom information session to learn more about our mission.

• Share your reviews and incident reports on our FAIR Transparency website.

• View our Many Stories, One Nation curriculum.
  

“Words are wise men's counters, they do but reckon by them: but they are the money of fools” – Thomas Hobbes

A few days ago, I walked into my local public library to pick up some books and I saw the seasonal display of so-called “banned” books. I laughed out loud, and then I took photographs so that I would have a record of every book that the library calls “banned”, since none of them are.

Then I went online and I saw the same old tedious argument by redefinition going on around the word “banned”.

There are two competing definitions of this word “banned”, and while the verbal combatants thrust their competing definitions at each other like two hoplite phalanxes in a permanent deadlock, the real problem of ongoing systemic censorship in public libraries is obscured by this relentless rain of verbal chaff.

Here are the definitions:

1. This is the ALA’s definition, which is often the one appealed to. It has an extraordinarily expansive definition of “banned”, which defies common sense.

“A challenge is an attempt to remove or restrict materials, based upon the objections of a person or group. A banning is the removal of those materials. Challenges do not simply involve a person expressing a point of view; rather, they are an attempt to remove material from the curriculum or library, thereby restricting the access of others.”

2. The second definition is a restrictive definition with a common-sense ordinary meaning and no official wording; your best source is probably an older dictionary of reasonable quality. A book is “banned” if the government of a geographic region has made it illegal to possess, sell, or publish a book in that region. This is an excellent definition, because it is common or ordinary, and because it has for centuries been a common practice of governments to ban books in this sense and to cruelly punish those who possess them.

These definitions are mutually exclusive. If a book is “banned” by Definition (1) it cannot be “banned” by Definition (2), and vice-versa. If it is illegal for a person to possess some book (2), no government library will carry it, and so it cannot be removed from that library (1). Hence the argument of definitions.

I prefer using common ordinary words with their common ordinary meaning. Definition (1) is obviously meant to confuse and obfuscate. Definition (2) is precise, clear, and useful. I’m sticking with Definition (2).

Those “banned” (1) books I saw in the library can’t possibly be banned (2), they are in the library!

It seems that those who use this excellent Definition (2), possibly because they are so exhausted by the people endlessly reiterating Definition (1), are not prepared to think further. Having played the word game to what they feel is a tie, they are unwilling to enter the reality game; they are unwilling to acknowledge that it even exists. But the reality game does exist, and it’s just as important as the word game, because it is reality.

The reality is one of systematic bias throughout the publishing industry and in public and school libraries throughout the United States. Rather than describing the many mechanisms of this systematic bias, since there are many articles that cover it, some referenced in my previous article for FAIR, I’ll talk about just one “banned” book in my library’s display of “Banned” books, “The 1619 Project”.

First, the basics. We know this book is not banned, because the library is displaying it. Has someone somewhere objected to its presence in some government run library? I think that’s very likely; it probably is “banned” in the sense of Definition (1). Perhaps it has even been removed from a school library somewhere. I’m unwilling to be distracted by this possibility because what I care about is the extreme political bias displayed in my local public library system’s collection.

It turns out that there are “counterweight” books available, books that seek to counteract the narrative of “The 1619 Project”, but in my local library system of about 35 libraries they are mostly unavailable. The library catalogs throughout my state are dominated by one point of view; the political bias is extreme.

There are 45 copies of “The 1619 Project” in my local public library system, counting every format. This is more than one per library. What about Mary Grabar’s “Debunking the 1619 Project” which offers an explicit counter-narrative? It is available as an audiobook on Hoopla, that is it. What about “The New York Times’ 1619 Project and the Racialist Falsification of History”? There is an ebook on Hoopla that I can check out. “1620” by Peter Wood? I can check it out from Hoopla either as an audiobook or as an ebook. “The 1619 Project Myth” by Philip W. Magness? Hoopla offers it, but my library has removed the book from the list of books it is offering through Hoopla, so it is not available to me. The public libraries are promoting one point of view aggressively, and the other point of view is being hidden from the sight of patrons.

I experience forebodings, because the public libraries are always hinting that they’ll drop Hoopla from their offerings. If my public library drops Hoopla then not one of these books is available to me in any format whatsoever from my local library system; the bias within the system is not just enormous, it is infinite.

Here is my challenge to readers who believe that since they know what a banned book is their work is done. Go into your local library and look at the books in your local library’s “banned” books display. We already know that there will be lots of copies of that book available throughout your library system. Now see if you can think of a book that presents some different point of view. Can you get that book from your local public library system? Likely not, or only with great difficulty.

Be an active patron and citizen and request that your library purchase the book. If it doesn’t, let FAIR know all about the circumstances using the FAIR Incident Report Form, as without evidence there can be no accountability.

Share

We welcome you to share your thoughts on this piece in the comments below. Click here to view our comment section moderation policy.

The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of Fair For All or its employees.

In keeping with our mission to promote a common culture of fairness, understanding, and humanity, we are committed to including a diverse range of voices and to encouraging compassionate, good-faith discourse.

We are actively seeking perspectives on this topic and others. If you’d like to join the conversation, please send completed drafts to submissions@fairforall.org.

Donate

Dear FAIR Community,

This Wednesday marks three years since October 7, 2023, when Hamas terrorists brutally murdered 1,200 Israelis and took more than 250 hostages. For many of you, that day was never distant news. It was a phone call from a relative or friend you will never forget, a name you recognized, and a grief that has not eased with time.

We take this moment to honor the lives taken, the families still mourning, and everyone who carries that day with them. Zichronam livracha. May their memories be a blessing.

In the months after October 7, antisemitism in the United States rose to levels not seen in generations — and by many measures, the climate has worsened. A June AP-NORC poll found that only one in three Jewish Americans feels safe in this country, and 40% are now less likely to wear anything that identifies them as Jewish. The ADL’s 2025 audit recorded 6,274 incidents of antisemitism, which were fewer than the year before but included a record number of physical assaults and three killings.

Each of these numbers represents a person: a student who stopped wearing a Star of David to school, a parent wondering whether to mention an antisemitic slur to a principal, a congregation that now includes armed security in its budget. No community in America should have to live this way, and no one who believes in equal dignity should accept this climate as normal.

Much of today’s antisemitism arises from a simple but corrosive error: treating Jewish Americans as stand-ins for the government of Israel. The ADL found that almost half of all antisemitic incidents in 2025 were related to Israel or Zionism. This conflation has become so prevalent that the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA)’s working definition of antisemitism, adopted by many state and local governments as well as school districts, names it explicitly: holding Jews collectively responsible for the actions of the State of Israel.

The IHRA also states that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.” FAIR believes this distinction matters. The IHRA definition is a tool for identifying harassment and discrimination, not for policing political opinion or freedom of expression. Students and citizens remain free to criticize any government, including Israel’s. What they may not do is target, exclude, or harass a Jewish person because of that government’s actions.

Jewish Americans hold a wide range of views on Israel and its government, just as Americans of every background hold a wide range of views on every government, including their own. Some feel a deep and passionate connection to Israel; others are critical of it; many hold views that are more complicated and nuanced. Yet none of these views is a condition for dignity, safety, or belonging.

No one should have to declare a political position before being welcomed into a classroom, a workplace, or a community. No one should be blamed for the actions of a government they did not elect. A Jewish person should never be pressured to denounce Israel to earn acceptance, nor should they be presumed to speak for it.

FAIR’s answer to hatred has always been the same: see every person as an individual, not as a label or category. This principle asks something of each of us.

Speak up early. Antisemitism rarely begins with violence. It starts with a joke that goes unchallenged, a slur scrawled on a desk, a student excluded from a group project. Naming these moments clearly, before they escalate, is one of the most protective things we can do.

Keep talking across differences. Our membership includes people with very different views on the Middle East. We can disagree vehemently about domestic and foreign policy and still agree that no one should feel unsafe in a classroom, a workplace, or their community because they are Jewish.

When Your Child’s School Falls Short. Schools have a legal duty to protect every student from a hostile learning environment. When a school applies its anti-harassment policies to some students and not others, parents have every right to ask why. If your child’s school is not taking antisemitism seriously, you don’t have to start from a blank page. FAIR has prepared a template letter for addressing antisemitism and a hostile environment in schools. You can adapt it to your situation and send it to your school or district.

We also recommend finding out whether your school district, city, or state has adopted the IHRA definition of antisemitism. If it has formally adopted the IHRA definition, cite that in your letter. A district or municipality that has taken this step has told its community how it recognizes antisemitism, and parents are entitled to ask it to apply that standard and take action.

Federal law also protects students. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, schools that receive federal funds must respond to harassment based on shared ancestry that creates a hostile environment. A clear, measured letter that documents what happened, cites the relevant policy, and asks specific questions often gets a faster and more serious response than a phone call.

Every day, FAIR works to make sure institutions treat all Americans as individuals deserving of equal dignity and respect. We equip parents with tools like the antisemitism template letter, advocate for institutions to apply policies consistently, and develop curricula that teach students to see one another as fellow citizens instead of representatives of a group.

If FAIR’s mission matters to you, please consider making a gift today. Every contribution helps us stand with families confronting antisemitism in schools and beyond.

Three years later, we remember and commit, once again, to a country where no one has to hide who they are to be safe.

With gratitude,

Monica Harris
Executive Director, FAIR

Subscribe now to receive FAIR News weekly in your Inbox.

Donate

Help us find your chapter

Educators Alliance

FAIR is continuing the Educators Alliance for the 2026-2027 school year to equip PK–12 educators with the knowledge, strategies, and community support they need to foster schools that are more enriching and free from bias for students and educators.

We are at a turning point for education—and with the relaunch of FAIR’s Educators Alliance, we have an opportunity to step beyond polarization and create classrooms rooted in curiosity, dignity, and respect.

Each monthly gathering will open with updates and presentations from FAIR staff, fellows, Chapter Leaders, and occasional guest speakers. Together, we’ll explore strategies for supporting educators, communities, and local chapters—and for advancing positive change at the local, regional, and national levels. Following presentations, participants will have space for open forum discussions to connect, seek advice, and coordinate on pressing issues in their schools. Breakout rooms will be divided into PK-6 and 7-12 grade levels with experienced teachers facilitating those conversations.

Educators will also be invited to contribute to a new FAIR in Education newsletter, showcasing stories, strategies, and resources from across the FAIR network.

Whether you are a teacher, paraprofessional, or administrator, join us as we continue the FAIR Educators Alliance and shape the future of education together.

There are 6 meetings left to sign up for down below.

Next Session: Nov 5th, 2026 07:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada)

Every month on the First Thu, until Apr 1, 2027, 1 hr sessions, 7 occurrences

Note: Despite Zoom’s notice, FAIR maintains strict confidentiality of contact information provided.

OTI Conference on Political Bias and Mental Health

Earlier this year FAIR announced its collaboration with the Open Therapy Institute read here.

FAIR members are invited to join the Open Therapy Institute‘s Conference on Political Bias and Mental Health, October 9–11, in Washington, DC.

The program features a live podcast recording with Rob Henderson and Erica Komisar, a panel with Sally Satel, and more. 9.25 CE credits available.

Use code OTISPECIALRATE2026 for 50% off. Register here.

We hope to see you in DC!

Speechless Film Screening

Tickets Now on Sale - See Below

Join FAIR for an exclusive screening of Speechless, a provocative documentary exploring the battle over free speech on college campuses and what it means for the future of higher education and democracy.

The film—which is now available to a U.S. audience for the first time—is a gripping investigation into the breakdown of open inquiry in the very institutions meant to protect it, and what happens to a democracy when it loses faith in free speech, honest disagreement, and the hard work of conversation.

The post-film discussion will include several renowned panelists, offering a range of perspectives on the issues explored in the film.

The 102-minute film will be followed by a 45-minute discussion.

October 28 at 7:00 p.m. ET / 4:00 p.m. PT.

Register Here

Note to readers: We have paused the FAIR News podcast. If you prefer listening, rather than reading these newsletters, an audio version is available directly on the Substack app. Thank you for tuning in!

Join the FAIR Community

• Join us, and become a member of FAIR.

• Become a FAIR volunteer, or join a FAIR chapter.

• Sign up for a Welcome to FAIR Zoom information session to learn more about our mission.

• Share your reviews and incident reports on our FAIR Transparency website.

• View our Many Stories, One Nation curriculum.
  

Let’s Make Every Week “Freedom to Read Week”

In her latest FAIR in Libraries article, Dr. Anne challenges the way we think about censorship and intellectual freedom in public libraries. While Banned Books Week draws attention to books removed from library shelves, Dr. Mulhern asks readers to consider a different question: What about the books that never make it onto the shelves in the first place? Drawing on her experience as a former library trustee and her work documenting library collection practices, she examines how ideological bias can influence purchasing decisions and limit the range of perspectives available to patrons. Dr. Mulhern also introduces FAIR in Libraries’ new Incident Reporting initiative, which allows patrons to document cases where libraries resist clearly expressed community demand for particular books. She argues that making libraries genuinely open to every point of view requires more than celebrating banned books—it requires ensuring readers have access to the books they are asking for.

“When I was a child, it never occurred to me that political biases might determine a library’s purchasing choices. Even as an adult I did not worry much about this, since I assumed that even if there was some bias, it probably would not restrict my reading choices…I have realized that I was wrong to be complacent. There is so much to be concerned about.”

Read the Full Article

Before They Can Read

FAIR Board of Advisors member Robert Pondiscio explores the foundational role picture books play in children's literacy, cultural knowledge, and cognitive development. Rather than limiting children to a handful of recommended titles, Pondiscio argues for exposing young readers to a wide range of stories, subjects, languages, and cultural traditions. Drawing on research into vocabulary development and reading comprehension, he explains how picture books build the background knowledge children need to understand more complex texts later in life. He also makes the case for continuing to read aloud to children long after they can read independently, emphasizing that a rich literary foundation can cultivate curiosity, knowledge, and a lifelong love of reading.

“…the real aim ought to be exposing children to the widest possible range of stories, subjects, and language as possible. Picture books aren’t just charming artifacts of early childhood or a bulwark against a screen-based life. They are the foundation of literacy, cultural knowledge, and cognitive growth.”

Read the Full Article

Books Aren’t Disappearing From Schools

In a recent essay, FAIR Board of Advisors member Robert Pondiscio examines a new RAND report on whole-book reading in secondary English classrooms. While nearly 90 percent of ELA teachers report assigning at least one complete book each year, Pondiscio argues that the findings raise a more troubling question: which students are getting sustained access to books, and how often? Students in high-poverty schools, majority-nonwhite schools, multilingual learners, and students with disabilities appear less likely to encounter whole books. Pondiscio explores how testing, curriculum design, and an increasingly fragmented approach to reading may be contributing to the decline of sustained literary engagement—and makes the case for recovering a richer understanding of reading as an experience of language, knowledge, memory, and thought.

Read the Full Article

Out of Circulation: Expanding Censorship in Public Libraries

As debates over book bans continue, PEN America’s latest report, Out of Circulation: Expanding Censorship in Public Libraries, examines how censorship efforts are affecting public libraries across the country. The report documents not only challenges and removals of books, but also political pressure on librarians, restrictions on displays and programming, and efforts to influence library governance. Together, these developments raise broader questions about who decides what information remains available to the public—and what intellectual freedom means when censorship can extend beyond the removal of a single book.

“Public libraries can be a foundational democratic institution only if they can speak to everyone and only if librarians’ curation decisions can occur free from partisan pressure or restriction. However, ongoing political and public pressures are challenging these very principles.”

Read the Full Report

Join the FAIR Community

• Join us and become a member of FAIR.

• Become a FAIR volunteer, or join a FAIR chapter.

• Sign up for a Welcome to FAIR Zoom information session to learn more about our mission.

• Share your reviews and incident reports on our FAIR Transparency website.

• View our Many Stories, One Nation curriculum.

• Help fund our work

Dear Friends of FAIR,

Every October, Banned Books Week arrives with a familiar script: one side warns that censorship is sweeping the nation, and the other insists nobody is banning anything. Both camps dig in their heels, and the public walks away more confused than before.

This year, Banned Books Week runs October 4–10 and ends with Freedom to Read Day on October 10. FAIR believed this debate deserves better framing. We should ask not only which books are being removed, but which books never reached shelves at all.

When officials pull books from a public library because they dislike the ideas inside, intellectual freedom suffers. But a more insidious form of censorship often happens earlier, when the people choosing books decide certain perspectives simply don’t belong in libraries. As a result, a library can loudly celebrate Banned Books Week while stocking dozens of titles on one side of a contested issue and ignoring the others.

FAIR’s solution is simple: a neutral library that doesn’t tell patrons what to think, offers viewpoint diversity, applies its policies fairly, and trusts readers to decide for themselves. That is the mission of FAIR in Libraries (FiL).

FiL now has its own page on our website. This year, FiL has:

• Released the Neutrality & Viewpoint Diversity Toolkit

• Published a series of Substack articles on library neutrality and collection bias

• Built a collaboration with the Association of Library Professionals

• Developed the Library Watchers Project

Each of these resources gives parents, patrons, librarians, and board members practical tools to keep libraries open to every point of view, and your gift decides how far that work reaches. The Library Neutrality Fund supports FAIR’s library work, from new resources to the Library Watchers Project. If you have ever found your library’s shelves tilted in one direction, help us tip them back toward balance.

Library neutrality succeeds or fails one purchase decision at a time, and sometimes the clearest evidence comes from a single patron who asks. FiL member Dr. Anne Mulhern asked her local public library to add a book her community wanted, and her story — which we shared yesterday — became the seed of a new initiative.

Through our new Incident Reporting page FiL is now collecting cases where a public library excluded a book despite clearly expressed community demand. Reports are welcome from anywhere in North America. Library systems differ by region, and bias can show up in different ways. One story is easy to dismiss, but a documented record of incidents reveals the larger pattern.

For Banned Books Week, the FiL team has also refreshed its Banned Books Week Resources page, which curates perspectives from across the spectrum: PEN America and the ALA, FIRE, Heterodox Libraries, and scholars who question whether “book ban” counts tell the whole story.

Read widely and disagree freely. That’s the essence of library neutrality.

October is also Canadian Library Month, and this year’s theme is “Loud for Libraries.” We agree. Being loud for libraries means showing up at board meetings, requesting the books your community wants, and insisting that book collections reflect the full range of views your neighbors hold.

Few people understand this better than Cathy Simpson, who leads FiL. Cathy plans to submit her application for a seat on her local library board following the October 26th municipal elections in Ontario. Municipal councils are responsible for appointing library board members, typically within a few months of taking office. She will share her experience in an upcoming Substack article. Stay tuned.

This Banned Books Week, be bold. Pick up a book you expect to disagree with. Check whether your library carries it. If not, request it. And if your request goes nowhere, let us know so we can take action.

With gratitude,

Monica Harris
Executive Director, FAIR

Subscribe now to receive FAIR News weekly in your Inbox.

Donate

Help us find your chapter

Educators Alliance

FAIR is continuing the Educators Alliance for the 2026-2027 school year to equip PK–12 educators with the knowledge, strategies, and community support they need to foster schools that are more enriching and free from bias for students and educators.

We are at a turning point for education—and with the relaunch of FAIR’s Educators Alliance, we have an opportunity to step beyond polarization and create classrooms rooted in curiosity, dignity, and respect.

Each monthly gathering will open with updates and presentations from FAIR staff, fellows, Chapter Leaders, and occasional guest speakers. Together, we’ll explore strategies for supporting educators, communities, and local chapters—and for advancing positive change at the local, regional, and national levels. Following presentations, participants will have space for open forum discussions to connect, seek advice, and coordinate on pressing issues in their schools. Breakout rooms will be divided into PK-6 and 7-12 grade levels with experienced teachers facilitating those conversations.

Educators will also be invited to contribute to a new FAIR in Education newsletter, showcasing stories, strategies, and resources from across the FAIR network.

Whether you are a teacher, paraprofessional, or administrator, join us as we continue the FAIR Educators Alliance and shape the future of education together.

There are 6 meetings left to sign up for down below.

Next Session: Nov 5th, 2026 07:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada)

Every month on the First Thu, until Apr 1, 2027, 1 hr sessions, 7 occurrences

Note: Despite Zoom’s notice, FAIR maintains strict confidentiality of contact information provided.

OTI Conference on Political Bias and Mental Health

Earlier this year FAIR announced its collaboration with the Open Therapy Institute read here.

FAIR members are invited to join the Open Therapy Institute‘s Conference on Political Bias and Mental Health, October 9–11, in Washington, DC.

The program features a live podcast recording with Rob Henderson and Erica Komisar, a panel with Sally Satel, and more. 9.25 CE credits available.

Use code OTISPECIALRATE2026 for 50% off. Register here.

We hope to see you in DC!

Speechless Film Screening

Save the Date: October 28, 2026

Join FAIR for an exclusive screening of Speechless, a provocative documentary exploring the battle over free speech on college campuses and what it means for the future of higher education and democracy.

The 102-minute film will be followed by a 45-minute discussion.

October 28 at 7:00 p.m. ET / 4:00 p.m. PT. More details and registration coming soon.

Note to readers: We have paused the FAIR News podcast. If you prefer listening, rather than reading these newsletters, an audio version is available directly on the Substack app. Thank you for tuning in!

Join the FAIR Community

• Join us, and become a member of FAIR.

• Become a FAIR volunteer, or join a FAIR chapter.

• Sign up for a Welcome to FAIR Zoom information session to learn more about our mission.

• Share your reviews and incident reports on our FAIR Transparency website.

• View our Many Stories, One Nation curriculum.
  

If you, like me, are a resident of the United States and visit your local library frequently, you will have noticed that every year your library will do some sort of observance of the American Library Association’s “Banned Books Week”. Likely there will be a display of “banned books” in the library and on its social media. Obviously, the books are not actually banned, since they are on display at your local library. So the point of the exercise seems to be to convey the following message:

What a lucky person, you, our patron, are! You live in a place where everyone, librarians especially, are dedicated warriors in the great ongoing battle against the vile spectre of censorship. Hurray for us (librarians and all other good people) and hurray for you!

Sadly, none of this is true.

When I was a child, it never occurred to me that political biases might determine a library’s purchasing choices. Even as an adult I did not worry much about this, since I assumed that even if there was some bias, it probably would not restrict my reading choices. Having served several years as a library trustee in Massachusetts during the great derangements of the COVID shutdown and ensuing years, I have realized that I was wrong to be complacent. There is so much to be concerned about.

I began writing about this problem more than two years ago, on Substack and for my local online newspaper. One of my articles demonstrated bias in public library collections. I’ve examined library-related legislation in Massachusetts and reported on an incident where library staff were bullied into cancelling a proposed talk at a Massachusetts library. In a previous article for FAIR I examined the dilatory response of public libraries to the suddenly increased demand for Charlie Kirk’s then most recently published book in the weeks after his murder.

And that’s just me! Many others have tried to address the censorship problems, by many means. In contrast to the ALA (American Library Association), the ALP (Association of Library Professionals) takes a clear and unambiguous stance on library neutrality. Others have contributed by examining and challenging the beliefs that undergird this problem of library censorship. An organization in Salado, TX has posted an excellent article about the bias in the entire book selection process of public libraries. A Canadian librarian has examined the extreme bias that public libraries display in their collections in support of gender identity ideology. There are many more examples.

I have also taken action beyond simply examining, documenting, challenging, and reporting: I launched the “Make Every Week Freedom to Read Week” project in October 2024. This project’s goal is to identify books that are not in public library collections but would be if libraries better represented their communities, and to change that situation by purchase requests, repeated as necessary. Last year, I documented the successes and failures of that effort in another Substack article. The project is turning two years old this month. I think every community could use a “Make Every Week Freedom to Read Week” project.

This year, FAIR in Libraries is ready to help make that vision a reality by collecting instances where a library excluded a book from its collection via its Incident Reporting page. We ask that you report instances where a public library has resisted clearly expressed community demand in its purchase decisions.

FAIR in Libraries welcomes incident reports from anywhere in North America. Different regions run their library systems in different ways, so library bias can be made evident in a number of different ways. The digital collections that a library may offer vary; I am familiar with Hoopla Digital and Overdrive/Libby. Here are the mechanisms that I have observed in Massachusetts:

• A library may simply refuse to purchase a physical item even when a library patron has requested it, or may simply ignore a patron’s request. (Some libraries do not have purchase request forms on their websites, in that case, an email to the director is the way to make the purchase request.)

• With Overdrive/Libby the situation is much the same as with physical books in terms of how purchasing is done. Libraries buy (or rent) a specific book from the Overdrive/Libby collection. You can request specifically an Overdrive/Libby copy. In this modern age, some people prefer to read books or listen to audio via a digital service rather than make use of a physical copy, so it is probably correct to view a digital copy as having equal stature with a physical copy. The responsibility for having made the purchase of a particular book is more diffuse with a digital service like Overdrive/Libby and so, where the book is controversial, a library may prefer an Overdrive/Libby purchase. Further, if an item is purchased for its Overdrive/Libby collection by any public library in any of several Massachusetts library consortia, that item becomes available to any patron in any of those consortia, via a sharing arrangement among the consortia. To request an item via Overdrive/Libby you should do the same as with a physical item, and, of course, your request may be ignored or refused. However, the Libby App offers a Notify Me service via its smart tagging system, so, if an item you requested is purchased, you will be notified immediately via the Libby app if you use that.

• With Hoopla Digital, the situation is different again. Hoopla offers its whole catalog to every library that uses its service. The catalogs are not shared among libraries. In recent years, Hoopla has given individual libraries the ability to exclude items in the Hoopla catalog. The default search via the Hoopla app shows only what the library allows you to check out. In the app, you can change the selection from “All Titles in Catalog” to “All hoopla Titles” and you will generally see more items. If you see an item only when you select “All hoopla Titles” then your library has excluded that item according to some rubric of its own. To request an item via Hoopla Digital you should do the same as for a physical item. Hoopla has a “Requests” feature, but there is no reason to believe that libraries monitor your Hoopla Requests. Of course, the library may refuse to unblock the item or ignore your request.

When reporting an incident where a library has refused to purchase, or in the case of Hoopla Digital, unblock an item, it is important to document everything as fully as possible. Most book request facilities are a simple web form; you may not receive any record of your request to keep for your records. So it is important when requesting an item to make a visual record of your request. Modern web browsers generally have good facilities for taking screenshots of your browser window and mobile devices have good facilities for taking screenshots of your whole screen. Save that image in an easy to find place, like a separate, clearly named folder, so you can use it to follow up with your library and if you report an incident to FAIR.

When you are ready to report an incident, use FAIR’s incident reporting portal, making sure to select “Public Library” for the “Type of Institution”. Your “Relationship to Institution” is most likely “patron”. Upload all supporting documents that you have available, including the shot of your original request, with dates. Make sure to include a screenshot demonstrating that for you, a patron, the book is unavailable and does not show up in your search results. This is absolutely essential evidence for requests for digital items, as it is usually impossible for anyone who has not logged in as a patron to see what selection a library is presenting to its patrons.

FAIR in Libraries looks forward to your submissions and thanks you for your contribution to making our public libraries fair for all.

Share

We welcome you to share your thoughts on this piece in the comments below. Click here to view our comment section moderation policy.

The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of Fair For All or its employees.

In keeping with our mission to promote a common culture of fairness, understanding, and humanity, we are committed to including a diverse range of voices and to encouraging compassionate, good-faith discourse.

We are actively seeking perspectives on this topic and others. If you’d like to join the conversation, please send completed drafts to submissions@fairforall.org.

Donate

For the past several years, watching a major entertainment awards show meant watching two events at once. First was the celebration of the actual talent - the performances, writing, directing, design, and hundreds of background artists and craftspeople who turn an idea into an event that connects with millions of people.

And then there was the politics.

Awards ceremonies have increasingly become platforms where artists are expected not merely to thank their collaborators and celebrate their work, but also to use their few minutes at the microphone to address the political issues of the moment and give audiences their passionate opinions.

But Monday night’s Emmy Awards was different. For the most part, the evening was about television. Oddly enough, an awards ceremony honoring television was about television, and the relative absence of partisan politics was conspicuous enough to make us wonder if the arts might be at a turning point. Has the principle at the heart of FAIR’s mission finally begun to catch on?

Art Was in The Spotlight !

Before the ceremony began, host Mariska Hargitay talked about television in a speech that could have been lifted from the website for FAIR in the Arts. Hargitay emphasized community, not ideology or activism. She talked about the remarkable ability of stories to bring people together, explaining that actors, directors, costumers, sound designers, and others participate in creating television that “unites us.”

The idea that art is where people with profoundly different lives and beliefs can join with one another through laughter, tears, a shared investment in a story, and ultimately our common humanity, is part of what makes the arts essential to a flourishing society. It seemed that on Monday night, Hollywood agreed. There was humor, gratitude, and nostalgia. Veteran artists were celebrated alongside newer talent. Writers, directors, and craftspeople behind the screen received recognition. In essence, what was finally being said is ‘it’s the work that matters.’

Politics stayed in the wings.

Stephen Colbert’s win for The Late Show was especially revealing. Few television personalities have been more closely associated with political commentary over the past decade. The cancellation of The Late Show became entangled in political controversy, and President Trump publicly celebrated its demise while repeatedly criticizing Colbert.

Clearly, the opportunity for a political broadside from the Emmy stage was great. But it didn’t happen. Instead, Colbert made a different choice: He thanked his staff, his family, the people who had appeared on the program, and the creative community that made the show possible.

Has Hollywood Changed the Script?

On Monday night Colbert showed that the Emmy Awards was not the place to share his political views with people who just want to know who won best actor in a comedy. This is not to say that artists don’t have the freedom to create political art and speak politically. They certainly do. But freedom of expression also means an artist should not have to adopt a political identity in order to belong to an artistic community, a point made by Pluribus creator, Vince Gilligan when he said “We will never agree on everything, but we can treat each other with respect.”

For much of the past decade, artists across disciplines have found that political assumptions were intertwined with artistic participation. Questions of representation and identity increasingly influenced not merely what artists discussed, but how institutions commissioned work, distributed opportunities, and even evaluated artistic achievement. Those sentiments weren’t evident during the ceremony.

While this year’s nominees reflected considerable racial and ethnic diversity, the winners in the major acting categories were predominantly white. In recent years, that outcome might itself have become a central storyline, measured against expectations for representation. This year, however, the emphasis seemed to remain largely on the individual performances and achievements being honored. Diversity in the pool of nominees suggests that artists from a wide range of backgrounds are being recognized for exceptional work. But genuine equality also leaves room for the results to be unpredictable. If identity should neither qualify nor disqualify an artist, excellence cannot be expected to produce a predetermined demographic outcome.

FAIR in the Arts exists to support a genuinely pluralistic artistic culture in which people who disagree, sometimes profoundly, can still make extraordinary things together. The Emmys presented something close to that ideal: an awards ceremony devoted to craft, writing, performance, and the creative magic that occurs when talented people create something exceptional.

Should we take this year’s Emmys as evidence of a larger cultural shift? Did producers recognize that audiences have grown weary of political speeches? Artists celebrating artists doesn’t seem like a remarkable thing, but right now it is. And if Monday night represented even the beginning of a renewed understanding that art can bring us together without first requiring us to agree, that truly is something worth celebrating.

Share

We welcome you to share your thoughts on this piece in the comments below. Click here to view our comment section moderation policy.

The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of Fair For All or its employees.

In keeping with our mission to promote a common culture of fairness, understanding, and humanity, we are committed to including a diverse range of voices and to encouraging compassionate, good-faith discourse.

We are actively seeking perspectives on this topic and others. If you’d like to join the conversation, please send completed drafts to submissions@fairforall.org.

Donate

The Fall and Rise of Jason Arday

the rise and downfall of Cambridge professor Jason Arday, arguing that his story raises broader questions about merit, accountability, and the institutional culture that helped elevate him. The essay considers what happens when reputation and identity become more important than scrutiny—and the consequences for both individuals and the institutions that champion them.

“There are many still alive who had a hand in this. And they are frantic to re-write his story now: Those who fawned over him. Who deliberately looked away from the many signs and portents signaling that the shaky credentials and the man himself demanded deeper scrutiny. The smug universities that treated him like both an exotic prince and a scalp brought home from the Indian Wars. The Marxists, who cynically turned him from a troubled man into a golden calf.

All of them put this man in the earth.”

Read the Full Article

Merit, Identity, and the Rhetoric of Oppression

FAIR Board of Advisors member Erec Smith examines the relationship between DEI, meritocracy, and the language of oppression. Drawing on his experience testifying before Congress, Smith argues that framing people primarily through narratives of victimhood can limit rather than empower them—and calls for an approach centered on agency, achievement, and open dialogue.

“We can reject the tragic outlook and choose one of triumph, heroism, and empowerment, not as conditions we acquire but as conditions we possess in the first place. There is hope. Scholars like Lindsey Stewart and Badia Ahad-Legardy are doing interesting work that rejects the reduction of black American life to tragedy and trauma.”

Read the Full Article

How Affirmative Action Backfires on Minority Students, and Why Colleges Do It Anyway

Kenny Xu examines the unintended consequences of race-conscious admissions policies, arguing that attempts to increase diversity can ultimately undermine the students those policies are intended to benefit. Xu focuses on the tension between institutional diversity goals and merit-based standards, and asks whether students are truly served when admissions decisions move away from individual achievement.

“When students are admitted to college for reasons other than their own merit, they will soon find themselves struggling to cope with expectations they were not prepared for. The school may score its diversity points, but minority students will often be ill-served.”

Read the Full Article

Join the FAIR Community

• Join us and become a member of FAIR.

• Become a FAIR volunteer, or join a FAIR chapter.

• Sign up for a Welcome to FAIR Zoom information session to learn more about our mission.

• Share your reviews and incident reports on our FAIR Transparency website.

• View our Many Stories, One Nation curriculum.

• Help fund our work

Dear Friends of FAIR,

Accreditation is the most powerful lever in American higher education that almost no one outside of it can name. This month FAIR moved to pull it.

On September 21, FAIR filed a formal comment with the U.S. Department of Education on its proposed overhaul of the rules governing accreditation. Two days later, the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, the federal advisory committee that reviews accreditors, met to consider whether the American Bar Association should keep its authority to accredit the nation’s law schools. FAIR requested time to address the committee and was not among those selected to speak.

Accreditors are private organizations that hold significant public power. A school that loses its accreditation also loses access to federal student aid, which totals more than $100 billion a year. For law schools, the stakes are even higher: nearly every state requires a degree from an ABA-approved school before a graduate may sit for the bar exam. That makes accreditors gatekeepers in the most literal sense, and when a gatekeeper requires institutions to adopt a particular set of beliefs, a function meant to assure educational quality quietly becomes a licensing power over the ideas practitioners must adopt.

It’s worth tracking how this process works, because the power of accreditation is easy to overlook.

First, a requirement is written into an accreditation standard. Schools then rewrite their policies to comply because the alternative is losing their students’ access to financial aid. Those policies in turn shape a school’s hiring, promotion, and curriculum. Eventually students may be compelled to take an ideologically driven course in order to graduate — a requirement set by a governing body they have likely never heard of and to which they have no ability to appeal.

FAIR and its members have seen this process play out again and again, and we seized an opportunity to correct it.

FAIR’s comment letter supports two of the Department’s proposed rules: the first would require accreditors to make decisions that are neutral with respect to viewpoint and ideology, and the second would require them to consider whether the schools they accredit protect academic freedom and intellectual diversity. We also asked the Department to limit its own rule. A requirement that institutions maintain and apply a policy is legitimate. A rule read to require any particular distribution of viewpoints among faculty would be a mandate of exactly the kind this rulemaking is meant to end, pointed in a different direction. FAIR opposes ideological mandates, not merely the ones we happen to disagree with, and we asked the Department to put that limitation in the text of the rule rather than leaving it in the preamble.

Earlier this month, the ABA’s accrediting council repealed Standard 206, which had required law schools to demonstrate “concrete action” toward diversity. While FAIR welcomes this change, we note that council members stated that their vote was aimed at protecting the council’s standing as the nation’s primary law school accreditor. Our concern is that what a council repeals in order to keep its monopoly can be restored once the monopoly is secure.

Had we been given an opportunity to speak before the committee this week, FAIR would have asked it to accept the staff recommendation and deny renewal, or at minimum decline to extend the council’s waiver of the independence requirement. More importantly, we would have urged the Department to recognize additional accreditors of law schools so that schools are not limited to a single accreditor, and students can choose among law schools that genuinely differ. We intend to keep pressing both points.

None of this stops at law schools. The rules FAIR commented on would apply to every recognized accreditor in the country, and the American Psychological Association’s Commission on Accreditation appeared before the same committee this week seeking renewal of its own recognition. Last year, that commission paused, but did not repeal, the diversity requirement in its own standards. Several FAIR members submitted their own comments urging a stricter review of the commission’s recognition.

Federal recognition is a privilege, not a right, and the government should not lend that privilege to a private body doing indirectly what the First Amendment forbids the government to do directly. Viewpoint diversity in all professions begins with structural diversity in those who accredit them.

We will report back on what comes of this. In the meantime, if you are a student, a faculty member, or a clinician who has been required to affirm something you did not believe in order to graduate, to be hired, or to keep your license, we want to hear from you.

But this isn’t work we can do alone. It only happens because people like you make it possible.

Your gift today helps FAIR stay in rooms like this one, where decisions that shape American education are made quietly and with almost no one watching. No matter the size, your donation helps us keep showing up.

Thank you for standing behind this important work!

With gratitude,

Monica Harris
Executive Director, FAIR

Subscribe now to receive FAIR News weekly in your Inbox.

Donate

Help us find your chapter

Educators Alliance

FAIR is continuing the Educators Alliance for the 2026-2027 school year to equip PK–12 educators with the knowledge, strategies, and community support they need to foster schools that are more enriching and free from bias for students and educators.

We are at a turning point for education—and with the relaunch of FAIR’s Educators Alliance, we have an opportunity to step beyond polarization and create classrooms rooted in curiosity, dignity, and respect.

Each monthly gathering will open with updates and presentations from FAIR staff, fellows, Chapter Leaders, and occasional guest speakers. Together, we’ll explore strategies for supporting educators, communities, and local chapters—and for advancing positive change at the local, regional, and national levels. Following presentations, participants will have space for open forum discussions to connect, seek advice, and coordinate on pressing issues in their schools. Breakout rooms will be divided into PK-6 and 7-12 grade levels with experienced teachers facilitating those conversations.

Educators will also be invited to contribute to a new FAIR in Education newsletter, showcasing stories, strategies, and resources from across the FAIR network.

Whether you are a teacher, paraprofessional, or administrator, join us as we continue the FAIR Educators Alliance and shape the future of education together.

There are 7 meetings to sign up for down below. Scroll up and down below to see all of the sessions!

Oct 1, 2026 07:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada)

Every month on the First Thu, until Apr 1, 2027, 1 hr sessions, 7 occurrences

Note: Despite Zoom’s notice down below, FAIR maintains strict confidentiality of contact information provided.

OTI Conference on Political Bias and Mental Health

Earlier this year FAIR announced its collaboration with the Open Therapy Institute read here.

FAIR members are invited to join the Open Therapy Institute‘s Conference on Political Bias and Mental Health, October 9–11, in Washington, DC.

The program features a live podcast recording with Rob Henderson and Erica Komisar, a panel with Sally Satel, and more. 9.25 CE credits available.

Use code OTISPECIALRATE2026 for 50% off. Register here.

We hope to see you in DC!

Note to readers: We have paused the FAIR News podcast. If you prefer listening, rather than reading these newsletters, an audio version is available directly on the Substack app. Thank you for tuning in!

Join the FAIR Community

• Join us, and become a member of FAIR.

• Become a FAIR volunteer, or join a FAIR chapter.

• Sign up for a Welcome to FAIR Zoom information session to learn more about our mission.

• Share your reviews and incident reports on our FAIR Transparency website.

• View our Many Stories, One Nation curriculum.
  

Something Unusual Happened at the Emmys

Is Hollywood moving away from the expectation that major arts events double as political platforms?

FAIR in the Arts Interim Director looks at this year’s Emmy Awards through the lens of FAIR in the Arts, asking whether Hollywood is rediscovering the power of art to bring people together without requiring them to share the same politics. With the ceremony focused on creativity, craft, and the people who make television, the Emmys offered a glimpse of the pluralistic artistic culture FAIR in the Arts seeks to support—one where artists can disagree profoundly and still create something extraordinary together.

“But freedom of expression also means an artist should not have to adopt a political identity in order to belong to an artistic community, a point made by Pluribus creator, Vince Gilligan when he said ‘We will never agree on everything, but we can treat each other with respect.’”

Read the Full Article

What Ballet Is

In this essay for The New Criterion, ballet director and FAIR Board of Advisors member Lincoln Jones considers what happens when artistic spaces become increasingly shaped by political and ideological expectations. Drawing on his experience directing American Contemporary Ballet, Jones argues for preserving art as a space for beauty, expression, and creative freedom—and asks what happens to art when artists no longer feel free to say what they think.

“Our society needs political thought, we need activism, and we need art. We don’t need them—nor can we have the best of them—in a single experience.”

Read the Full Article

Art as Political Discourse

Philosopher Vid Simoniti explores what art can contribute to political conversations that conventional debate cannot. From satire to television, Simoniti argues that different artistic forms can challenge our assumptions, complicate our perspectives, and help us see people beyond political or social categories. His essay offers a complementary perspective to Howes’s look at the Emmys: rather than asking whether art should be political, it considers how artistic expression can create space for more thoughtful and pluralistic public discourse.

“There is no claim here that some distinct know-how or wisdom is acquired, nor that artworks are substitutes for lived experience. Artworks are simply contributions to a public debate. Those that are best at it will leave their audiences with beliefs better attuned to how the world is, in ways that would not have been possible had those audiences engaged in the objective-style debate alone.”

Read the Full Article

Join the FAIR Community

• Join us and become a member of FAIR.

• Become a FAIR volunteer, or join a FAIR chapter.

• Sign up for a Welcome to FAIR Zoom information session to learn more about our mission.

• Share your reviews and incident reports on our FAIR Transparency website.

• View our Many Stories, One Nation curriculum.

• Help fund our work

Dear Friends of FAIR,

Every year, the U.S. Department of Education is required to remind states and school districts of their legal obligations to parents under two federal laws: the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA). This year’s notification, issued August 26, 2026, goes a step beyond a routine reminder. It puts schools on notice about specific practices tied to parental consent and student rights. Here’s what parents, educators, and FAIR members need to know.

FERPA and PPRA are easy to confuse. FERPA governs records and gives parents the right to inspect, review, and seek correction of what a school keeps on file about their child. PPRA, on the other hand, governs data collection and limits what schools can ask students to reveal about themselves, especially on sensitive topics, without parental consent. Both laws have been on the books for decades, but enforcement has historically been uneven.

PPRA requires written parental consent, not just a heads-up, before students are surveyed on sensitive topics like mental health, political or religious beliefs, sexual behavior, or family income. The Department’s letter draws a hard line here: a passive opt-out isn’t sufficient. When an authority figure administers a survey, students rarely feel free to say no, so the responsibility falls on schools to ask parents first, not after the fact.

This matters because a quiet opt-out buried in a handbook is not the same as a parent actively saying yes. Meaningful consent requires transparency up front, not a chance to object later. FAIR has recently updated its opt-out forms to reflect this guidance, giving parents clear and legally grounded tools to understand their rights.

In a notable clarification, the Department states plainly that behavioral and emotional health screeners fall under PPRA’s protected “mental or psychological problems” category. That means schools using these tools, which are increasingly common in classrooms, must secure written parental consent beforehand. This addresses a gray area that has allowed some schools to treat mental health screening as routine, rather than as the sensitive inquiry it is, and provides clear guidelines for parents, educators, and administrators to work together as an educational team for every child.

The notification also addresses a practice FAIR has long been concerned about: schools maintaining separate records and informal files outside a student’s official record, specifically to shield them from parental review. The Department’s position is unambiguous: FERPA does not recognize a distinction between “official” and “unofficial” records. If a school maintains information directly related to a student, it is an education record, and parents have the right to inspect and review it.

Lastly, the Department’s reminder flags continued concern that schools may be limiting parents’ ability to inspect instructional materials, a core PPRA right. Schools are required to make curriculum available for review upon request, and the Department signals this will be an enforcement priority going forward. Districts don’t need a special reason to say yes to a curriculum review request because the right exists regardless of the subject matter or grade level of the student.

It’s easy to assume the Department’s guidance only matters if a parent suspects their school is doing something wrong, but these protections exist for every family, in every district, whether or not anything has gone wrong yet. Knowing what your school can ask your child, what you’re entitled to see, and what “consent” actually has to look like is what makes parents genuine partners in their child’s education. FAIR believes clear consent requirements and open access to records and curriculum benefits families across the political spectrum are a civics and transparency issue, not a partisan one.

This notification is a reminder that the law is already on parents’ side. The challenge has been enforcement and awareness. Knowing what your school is required to disclose only helps if you know the process and have the right tools to use it. FAIR has a template letter you can send to your district requesting written confirmation that it obtains affirmative written consent before any sensitive survey or mental health screener; does not maintain hidden or “unofficial” student records outside your FERPA access rights; and makes curriculum available for parent review on request. Communication with your district now is essential to a productive school year.

Here are a few practical steps every parent can take now:

• Ask for your district’s annual notification. Every district receiving federal funds is required to notify parents of their FERPA and PPRA rights at the start of the school year. If you didn’t receive a notification, ask your school directly where and when it was provided.

• Request a copy of any survey or screener before it’s administered. Confirm whether it touches on any of PPRA’s protected categories.

• Ask how your district defines an “education record.” If the answer is vague, that’s worth following up on.

• Use FAIR’s template letter. Request written confirmation from your district that it obtains affirmative written consent before any sensitive survey or mental health screener is administered, does not maintain hidden or “unofficial” student records outside your FERPA access rights, and makes curricula available for parent review on request.

FAIR will continue to track how states and districts respond to the Department’s guidance via our Chapter Network & FAIR Incident Reporting, support parents seeking to exercise their inspection and consent rights, and advocate for clear and proactive notification policies at the local level.

If your school has denied you access to your child’s records or administered a survey or screening without your written consent, we want to hear from you. Reach out through our Chapter Network or contact us directly at FAIR Incident Reporting.

Work like this — reviewing federal guidance, updating template letters and opt-out forms, and supporting parents through our Chapter Network — depends on FAIR members. If you find this kind of resource useful, please consider making a donation to help us keep producing them.

With gratitude,

Monica Harris
Executive Director, FAIR

Subscribe now to receive FAIR News weekly in your Inbox

Donate

Help us find your chapter

FAIR in Conversation is Back!

Is Woke Dead… or Just on Pause?

Have we actually turned the corner and are now walking away from Woke policies? What about Critical Race Theory – is it already so institutionalized that we don’t recognize it?

DEI offices are closing. Corporations seem to be abandoning once-mandated initiatives. Universities are retreating from some of their most controversial policies.

It’s hard to believe that a sweeping political movement built on strong, activist ideas would simply vanish overnight, and that Woke-ism, CRT and DEI have suddenly lost their popularity and influence. So, is it true that Woke-ism is over? Or is it possible that the Woke agenda has become less visible while quietly building strength and devising new tactics to reshape our institutions and culture?

This month’s FAIR In Conversation will look beyond headlines and political talking points to examine what has actually changed, and what hasn’t.

Join us for a thoughtful, evidence-based discussion as we ask the questions many are wondering, but few have carefully examined.

Sessions will run monthly through September 23rd. We hope you’ll join us!

Register Here

Note to readers: We have paused the FAIR News podcast. If you prefer listening, rather than reading these newsletters, an audio version is available directly on the Substack app. Thank you for tuning in!

Join the FAIR Community

• Join us, and become a member of FAIR.

• Become a FAIR volunteer, or join a FAIR chapter.

• Sign up for a Welcome to FAIR Zoom information session to learn more about our mission.

• Share your reviews and incident reports on our FAIR Transparency website.

• View our Many Stories, One Nation curriculum.
  

Jason Arday, the Cambridge professor considered a darling of academia and recently exposed for his many lies, plagiarism and fraud, is dead.

With this recent turn of events, we must turn our attention to the system that birthed, incubated and suckled his peculiar psychology to the degree that, in the end, he could not live with the public revelation of his true self. Or at least, of a self that differed too greatly from the mask he presented to the public to be endured.

Much is unknown as to the facts of Arday’s death at this time.

Here, though, are a few things we do know to be true: A man with a desperation for admiration and a propensity for lies was promoted unquestioningly to heights he was incapable of maintaining. An airless elevation that, when all the scrutiny missing from his early days was brought to bear, caused his tragic fall.

But the end of Arday’s story was written in its first paragraphs.

Arday had all the markers of the ideal symbol adored by the white intellectual academic left: He was handsome, charming, articulate, heroic, slightly feminine, and, with those locs, just a little bit dangerous.

He was perfect. Arday fit the Leftists’ bill, and they fit his. Thus a transactional relationship of mutual exploitation was born.

Academia adopted its favorite son. And its culture, specifically as defined by DEI policies, prohibited initial critical assessment, prevented scrutiny over time, and propelled Arday into scenarios where his con, his masquerade, his song-and-dance, had to continue at full speed.

We can ask ourselves who was playing the tune, but if we looked closely, we’d see Cambridge, its hangers-on and Arday at the instruments. This wasn’t a lone fabulist dreaming in an attic; this was a uni don, carried on the shoulders of dozens. Hundreds. A folie à beaucoup, performing hymns and anthems to the man.

The 21st Century tarantella went on, until it didn’t: Once Arday was found out, the music came to a screeching halt, and he was the only one left on the dance floor.

And there in the silence, Arday must have known–despite the university crowd that shot him, with his enthusiastic aid, to the topmost of its ivory towers–that he was now alone, exposed, and would never, ever be the lauded unicorn he had been again.

Nor would his former admirers come to his rescue.

That ballroom was empty, and echoing.

Something about that broke him.

Arday, it seems to me, was a full partner in his demise, just as he co-authored his best-selling life before he committed suicide.

And that’s a damn shame, and as sad as any death on a hot Friday in August can be.

But there is an inevitability to Arday’s end, set as it was from the start by who he was, and what academia and some ideologies are. And in some sense, it may prove to be his beginning.

There are many still alive who had a hand in this. And they are frantic to re-write his story now: Those who fawned over him. Who deliberately looked away from the many signs and portents signaling that the shaky credentials and the man himself demanded deeper scrutiny. The smug universities that treated him like both an exotic prince and a scalp brought home from the Indian Wars. The Marxists, who cynically turned him from a troubled man into a golden calf.

All of them put this man in the earth.

Arday himself, of course, conspired in this folly. But he is no longer his biographer.

As quickly as Brezhnev airbrushed Khrushchev out of the picture, Arday, both real and fake, is being removed from this moment, and replaced with a man fallen to racism, rabid right-wing politics, a ravening press. In this he will come to resemble George Floyd, Alex Pretti, Luigi Mangione.

To an extent, this ploy will work. But it shouldn’t.

Arday, and thousands of others like him, exist in our universities, companies, non-profits, everywhere from airlines to zoology departments, without the internal makeup or external accreditation required of the work. Hired to tick a box that has nothing to do with merit, this is as cruel to them as it is harmful to the businesses and the people they serve.

Downstream from this is a deluge of dangerous decisions, consumer loss of faith, lost profit, fraud, and death. DEI hiring practice is a wolf in feel-good sheep’s clothing, gnawing at America’s foundations. And in the ruin lie the men and women fetishized, pushed past their limits, and ultimately betrayed.

So, no. It wasn’t racism that killed Jason Arday. Not the kind now being offered as an excuse by some politics, anyway.

Now, once again, we will shake our heads, trying to bring the world into focus: We thought we had a reasonable idea of Arday’s story, and now down is up. He hasn’t fallen; he is quickly becoming a risen saint.

We must resist this temptation. The elements of this story are as stark as a Greek myth, and as enduring. A man riddled with hubris and a mental state we will never understand, slathered his wings with waxen lies, and with the aid of those who did not hire Arday on merit, was catapulted skyward.

Then the heat of revelation slowed his arc upwards, and brought him down.

Earth, with its relentless gravity and light, left Arday as naked and lonely and terrified as Adam.

Grounded, he gave up.

We have to leave him there, where he fell. And we have to watch carefully for those slipping away from the gathered crowd into the shadows, there to concoct the alternate fable for the fabulist.

Arday was no saint. But he had help.

We must hew to what is real, we must stand on character and merit. We must wrest this story, and all the stories they are writing now, from the hands of liars, and write a true one.

Telling Arday’s story plainly is where we can begin.

Attention must be paid.

Share

We welcome you to share your thoughts on this piece in the comments below. Click here to view our comment section moderation policy.

The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of Fair For All or its employees.

In keeping with our mission to promote a common culture of fairness, understanding, and humanity, we are committed to including a diverse range of voices and to encouraging compassionate, good-faith discourse.

We are actively seeking perspectives on this topic and others. If you’d like to join the conversation, please send completed drafts to submissions@fairforall.org.

Donate

What Are Libraries Including in Their “Inclusion” Policies?

examines the competing meanings of “inclusion” within the library profession, asking whether efforts to promote diversity and inclusion can sometimes come at the expense of intellectual freedom. Drawing on library policies and recent controversies involving books, speakers, and public events, Dudley explores the tension between creating welcoming spaces for everyone and adopting ideological approaches that may exclude certain ideas or perspectives. He argues that libraries must carefully consider what they mean by “inclusion” if they are to uphold their commitments to neutrality, equal access, and the freedom to read.

“These examples illustrate how “inclusive” policies can result, ironically, in a form of exclusion. In applying this social justice lens to library policy, librarians can end up imposing their own world views onto the craft and seeking to champion diversity and inclusion through the removal of ideas they view as harmful. All other things being equal, however, holding unpopular views–even those some find offensive–is not grounds for censorship.”

Read the Full Article

Narratives and Reality with Wilfred Reilly

In this episode of FAIR Perspectives, political scientist and FAIR Advisor Wilfred Reilly examines the gap between popular narratives and objective reality. Reilly discusses how political and cultural narratives can persist despite contradictory evidence, the role of data and expertise in challenging prevailing assumptions, and the consequences of ignoring uncomfortable facts. The conversation also explores censorship, ideological conformity, and the importance of confronting reality—even when doing so challenges deeply held beliefs.

“So the focus of censorship today, and I would actually suspect the focus of censorship throughout history, is not on removing false information, it's on removing true information that powerful people don't like.”

Watch the Full Episode

Misunderstandings of Intellectual Humility

Psychologist Todd B. Kashdan examines intellectual humility and challenges the idea that it is simply an individual trait. Drawing on psychological research, Kashdan argues that humility, curiosity, and openness to new ideas are also shaped by the social environments we create. He explores how groups and institutions can cultivate cultures that encourage questioning, perspective-taking, and a willingness to revise our beliefs in light of new evidence.

“It’s about how we, as a group, create an environment that encourages humility, that values questioning and curiosity, and that isn’t afraid to say, “I am definitely not the smartest person in the room, so where is my thinking off?”

This idea is in line with some of the latest psychological research. There’s a growing recognition that traits we usually think of as individual—like implicit bias or a growth mindset—might be better understood as a product of our social environments than about us as individuals.”

Read the Full Article

Join the FAIR Community

• Join us and become a member of FAIR.

• Become a FAIR volunteer, or join a FAIR chapter.

• Sign up for a Welcome to FAIR Zoom information session to learn more about our mission.

• Share your reviews and incident reports on our FAIR Transparency website.

• View our Many Stories, One Nation curriculum.

• Help fund our work

Dear Friends of FAIR,

I am pleased to announce the launch of FAIR’s California Chapter, spearheaded by Bay Area Chapter leader Sunil Wijeyesekera.

California writes much of the country’s education and civil rights policy before any other state does. Legislation that begins in Sacramento often reappears in Denver, Minneapolis and Springfield within a session or two. This makes FAIR’s presence in California critical to our ongoing efforts to promote a common culture of fairness and equality nationwide.

FAIR is not new to California. We’ve had city-based Chapters in the Bay Area and Los Angeles, and they have done good work in their communities. But a Chapter rooted in metropolitan areas can only do so much for members in Fresno, Bakersfield, or Redding. Because many of the challenges our California members face are initiated at the state level, our response should be organized at that level too. FAIR California gives members across the state one place to pool information, share resources, and act together.

Many of you have followed FAIR’s petition opposing the University of California’s proposed admissions mandate, which would have made a high school liberated Ethnic Studies course a prerequisite for entry into the UC system. FAIR joined other organizations in challenging this requirement, and the proposal was stopped.

The UC mandate was, in fact, worse than AB 101, California’s statewide Ethnic Studies requirement, because it would have superseded local control. Districts that had developed their own thoughtful course content would have had to conform to UC’s content standards or watch their graduates lose ground in admissions. Had the mandate passed, FAIR’s Many Stories, One Nation curriculum would have had no realistic path in California.

FAIR’s California Chapter was born out of an event at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, attended by Sunil and other Chapter members. It was there that they met Richard Sander, the UCLA professor who proposed a committee to counter the mandate. FAIR member George Maurer wrote the petition, and two other FAIR members served on the committee that carried it forward. This is precisely why FAIR’s Chapters matter. We put ourselves in the rooms where decisions are made.

Since FAIR’s California Chapter launched last month, the inquiries have not stopped. A radio host in Paso Robles has invited FAIR to discuss Ethnic Studies and what parents should look for in a curriculum. This presents a valuable opportunity to introduce Many Stories, One Nation to listeners on the Central Coast, a part of the state well outside the orbit of FAIR’s Los Angeles and Bay Area Chapters. The California Family Council has invited FAIR to join the statewide parental rights coalition it chairs. We’ve also received outreach from a local branch of Heterodox Academy, a prosecutor concerned about the California Racial Justice Act, a journalist reporting on community-building efforts in Marin County, and the International Foundation for Therapeutic and Counseling Choice.

All of this has happened since the beginning of August, and it highlights the power of our Chapter members to put FAIR on the map for groups that would otherwise have no reason to know we exist.

Our new California Chapter also gives us standing. The state’s legislature frequently introduces bills that run counter to FAIR’s principles and constitutional law. While Sunil has testified against several of them as a private citizen, it will be far more impactful if he and other FAIR members can state: “I represent FAIR, a civil rights organization with approximately 3,500 members in California with members from every corner of the state.”

The California Chapter’s first priority will be its Substack, modeled on FAIR Colorado’s, which has been one of our best examples of building a local presence. The opening articles will cover California legislation, Ethnic Studies, and state-specific parental opt-out templates. The goal is to publish one article per week, and 10 members have already volunteered to write, edit, or review. A monthly chapter Zoom will run alongside the Substack.

The Chapter has added 15 new members and a number of followers in its first weeks, along with its first paid subscribers. If you live in California, we invite you to subscribe to the California Chapter Substack, join the monthly call with members, and consider coming to Sacramento with other FAIR members in the next session. If you’re interested in writing, Sunil would love to hear from you. And if you live elsewhere, you might want to follow along, anyway — because whatever California does, your state may be doing next.

With gratitude,

Monica Harris
Executive Director, FAIR

Subscribe now to receive FAIR News weekly in your Inbox

Donate

Help us find your chapter

How Colorado and Other States Are Testing Parental Authority, Free Speech, Child Welfare, and Clinical Professions

This will be the first in a two part series intended to highlight new laws that breach our Constitutional rights. Colorado has passed a series of laws that many parents, clinicians, and citizens believe undermine parental authority, chill free speech, place children at risk, and degrade the mental health and medical professions. In this first webinar of the Constitutional Rights Series, four leaders on the front lines will examine how these policies are playing out in real time—and what is at stake for families and free expression.

Featured speakers:

• State Representative Brandi Bradley will discuss the steady erosion of parental rights in Colorado and the legislation she has championed to restore them.

• Dr. Travis Morrell, Senior Fellow at Do No Harm, sees first-hand how bad medicine morphs into laws that impinge on civil rights.

• Dr. Eddie Waldrep, clinical psychologist, will address how therapists are increasingly pressured into self-censorship and why the practice of therapy itself is at risk.

• Erin Lee, co-founder of Protect Kids Colorado, will outline three ballot initiatives appearing before Colorado voters this November that offer a direct opportunity to strengthen protections for children’s well-being.

Join us for a clear-eyed look at the legislative landscape and the concrete paths still available to defend the rights of all Coloradans and Americans as we use one state as a case study of what to do when the state and federal laws conflict with each other.

Date: September 15, 2026

Time: 7:00 EST

Register Here

Practical Paths for Citizens Defending their Constitutional Rights

When state statutes clash with the U.S. Constitution and federal law, ordinary citizens are left asking a practical question: What can we actually do? This second webinar in the Constitutional Rights Series moves from diagnosis to action, examining both the legal roots of the problem and the lawful tools available to protect individual rights.

Featured speakers:

• James Kerwin of the Center for Individual Rights will explain how Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act has become the legal foundation for recent laws that elevate group identity over individual rights and free speech.

• Leigh Ann O’Neill of America First Policy Institute will walk through concrete, practical steps citizens can take to safeguard their constitutional protections when state policy conflicts with higher law.

• Monica Harris

This session is designed for parents, professionals, and engaged Coloradans and all Americans who want clarity on the legal terrain and realistic next steps for defending their rights.

Date: September 17, 2026

Time: 7:00 EST

Register Here

FAIR in Conversation is Back!

Is Woke Dead… or Just on Pause?

Have we actually turned the corner and are now walking away from Woke policies? What about Critical Race Theory – is it already so institutionalized that we don’t recognize it?

DEI offices are closing. Corporations seem to be abandoning once-mandated initiatives. Universities are retreating from some of their most controversial policies.

It’s hard to believe that a sweeping political movement built on strong, activist ideas would simply vanish overnight, and that Woke-ism, CRT and DEI have suddenly lost their popularity and influence. So, is it true that Woke-ism is over? Or is it possible that the Woke agenda has become less visible while quietly building strength and devising new tactics to reshape our institutions and culture?

This month’s FAIR In Conversation will look beyond headlines and political talking points to examine what has actually changed, and what hasn’t.

Join us for a thoughtful, evidence-based discussion as we ask the questions many are wondering, but few have carefully examined.

Sessions will run monthly through September 23rd. We hope you’ll join us!

Register Here

Note to readers: We have paused the FAIR News podcast. If you prefer listening, rather than reading these newsletters, an audio version is available directly on the Substack app. Thank you for tuning in!

Join the FAIR Community

• Join us, and become a member of FAIR.

• Become a FAIR volunteer, or join a FAIR chapter.

• Sign up for a Welcome to FAIR Zoom information session to learn more about our mission.

• Share your reviews and incident reports on our FAIR Transparency website.

• View our Many Stories, One Nation curriculum.
  

Check out the mission statement or strategic plan of most public or academic libraries, and you will swiftly encounter the near-universal assertion that libraries should strive to “create an inclusive environment.” For example, the Strategic Plan of the Brantford (Ontario) Public Library declares that “[a]n inclusive environment, where diverse backgrounds, identities and perspectives are valued” is essential to its role in the community. Some libraries have gone further and developed entire “inclusion policy statements,” such as the “Diversity and Inclusion Policy” of Hamilton (Ontario) Public Library. The library literature is similarly replete with commitments to inclusion, often in the context of providing equal opportunities for persons experiencing a disability, meeting diverse needs in facility design, welcoming seniors and integrating new immigrants.

These forms of inclusion are very positive and necessary. Most library professionals—and indeed the vast majority of the library-using public—will surely see nothing objectionable in such declarations. After all, who could oppose including all members of the public in publicly-funded libraries? If this is all the term “inclusion” means, then there should be no problem in championing it as a core professional value.

However, what few people understand is that the term inclusion is being used in professional and academic contexts to justify two rather different objectives. James Lindsay, writing at the New Discourses website, articulates the distinction between the two interpretations of inclusion as “not exclud[ing] anybody” on the one hand, and on the other a critical social justice commitment to welcoming marginalized groups by “silencing certain ideas like conservatism, meritocracy, or support for freedom of speech.” The first interpretation is integral to the mission of the public library; the second represents a potential conflict with laws governing free speech and the principle of intellectual freedom.

The first sense—being welcoming to everyone—has long been a core commitment of librarianship, and we see it articulated in the American Library Association’s 1939 Library Bill of Rights. The bill states that “A person’s right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views.” Over the decades this recognition has expanded to removing barriers to accessibility, and ensuring that libraries are inclusive of persons with disabilities.

This historic view of inclusion contrasts with that espoused over the past couple of decades by critical and radical librarianship—which advocates for broadening the scope of inclusion to encompass matters of race, sexuality and gender identity in pursuit of social justice. This version of inclusion fuels a more activist approach to librarianship. For example, the Inclusion Policy of the Oakville (Ontario) Public Library vows to “actively challenge and break down systemic oppression,” while the Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Policy of the London (Ontario) Public Library, commits to “apply[ing] an anti-racism and anti-oppression lens to our purpose, values [and] strategic plan…”

These opposing views constitute what Stephen Macdonald calls a “Values War” in librarianship between neutrality and interventionism. To establish the nature of this “war,” Macdonald cites a 2022 article I co-wrote with John Wright, in which we articulate two distinct definitions of neutrality: a mistaken ontological belief that libraries are neutral, and a normative ethical commitment that the library worker should strive to carry out their duties in a neutral fashion. Furthermore, we specified that neutrality referred to personal and institutional values, the library’s stakeholders, transparent processes, and respect for the goals of the user. It is this latter version that we recommended, arguing that in diverse, multicultural, and multifaith societies such as ours, activism on the part of the library worker to advance their favored socio-political cause or group risks alienating at least some of those diverse constituencies.

This sense of neutrality and universality is reflected in the Canadian Federation of Library Associations’ “Position Statement on Diversity and Inclusion” which asserts that “Libraries act to ensure that people can enjoy services free from any attempt by others to impose values, customs or beliefs.” However, the critical social justice version of inclusion risks excluding books or speakers to which favored groups might object, and adjudicating rights claims unequally.

Such was the case in an incident at the Mary L. Stephens Davis Library in Davis, California (a branch of the Yolo County Library) in August of 2023: A young woman defending women-only sports and sex-based rights (also known as gender-critical feminism) as part of a program entitled “Forum on Fair and Safe Sport for Girls” (a Moms for Liberty event) was ejected from the program room by the library’s regional director for referring to trans-identified athletes as “males” and “biological men.” The incident sparked a lawsuit filed by the Alliance Defending Freedom, resulting in the library agreeing to change their policy and allow Moms for Liberty to hold their event. Additionally, the library paid the claimants $70,000 in damages and legal fees. Earlier that same year, the London (Ontario) Public Library system cancelled an event sponsored by the Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship (SAFS) because their speaker Dr. Joanna Williams was to deliver a free public talk entitled “Sex, Gender, and the Limits of Free Speech on Campus.” The Library claimed (with no small irony) that the subject matter would violate their commitment to “anti-oppression” and so the Society was forced to move the event to another venue.

Furthermore, (and as I’ve previously written at Heterodoxy in the Stacks), some librarians have been practicing “shadow banning” of works they find objectionable by refusing to purchase them at all or in sufficient numbers to meet demand. Academic librarians in particular have, in large numbers, publicly disavowed efforts to represent gender-critical perspectives in libraries, whether through adult collections (e.g., purchasing copies of Abigail Shrier’s Irreversible Damage) or public speaking events (e.g., Toronto Public Library hosting Meghan Murphy in 2019). I have therefore argued that

[a]cting with such prejudice towards a particular point of view risks our social license as professionals, the permission granted by the public to act in their interest. For…members of the public, shadow-banning controversial materials concerning gender ideology results in a situation where—as fired Niagara-on-the-Lake Public Library CEO Cathy Simpson argues—the “‘freedom to read’ has come to mean the freedom to read what certain librarians have decided you should have the freedom to read.”

These examples illustrate how “inclusive” policies can result, ironically, in a form of exclusion. In applying this social justice lens to library policy, librarians can end up imposing their own world views onto the craft and seeking to champion diversity and inclusion through the removal of ideas they view as harmful. All other things being equal, however, holding unpopular views–even those some find offensive–is not grounds for censorship.

The public library as an institution has always embraced and trained its workers to expect and accommodate conflicting views. As the Canadian Federation of Library Associations acknowledges, “an acceptance of differences can place individual and collective values in conflict.” For this reason, institutions like public libraries simply cannot embrace a particular political agenda or adopt and champion the grievances of one group, while at the same professing to provide a welcoming environment to diverse, multicultural, multiethnic, and multifaith communities–who will (inevitably) not universally share those priorities.

The problem is not that some public libraries are explicitly positioning their inclusion policies as either “neutral” or “interventionist,” but rather that this distinction isn’t widely recognized. As a result, it’s not difficult to imagine a public library inclusion policy stating both that it strives to be “welcoming to everyone” while also adopting an explicitly “anti-oppression” lens in order to “dismantle systems of oppression,” while not realizing how incompatible these approaches can be in practice.

To be clear, these do not, in policy terms, represent distinctly-articulated and mutually-exclusive approaches, but rather positions existing on a spectrum, whereby an institution leans either in the direction of neutrality or interventionist radicalism. For example, a library espousing neutrality is still capable of recognizing that not all users or user communities come from the same backgrounds, economic capacities, or abilities, and may require extra attention in terms of policies or facilities so that all are afforded equal opportunities to access information. At the other end of the spectrum, political favoritism for one constituency can end up excluding the interests of other groups, resulting in library spaces not only lacking in diversity of ideas but in actually physically removing people from the library for espousing those ideas.

The rights which librarians have always professed to defend, including the freedom to read and the commitment to securing the intellectual freedom of our users, stand jeopardized. If “inclusion” actually means excluding books, ideas, and legal speech that we believe one group may find offensive–or which we personally oppose for ideological reasons–then librarianship as a publicly-trusted profession risks becoming delegitimized in the eyes of the tax-paying public. If public libraries are to promote equal opportunities for users while avoiding being drawn into identitarian conflicts, it matters a great deal what principles libraries choose to include in their definition of “inclusion.” How these centers of knowledge and community understand inclusion can determine which worldviews are allowed to remain, and which are unduly silenced.

Share

We welcome you to share your thoughts on this piece in the comments below. Click here to view our comment section moderation policy.

The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of Fair For All or its employees.

In keeping with our mission to promote a common culture of fairness, understanding, and humanity, we are committed to including a diverse range of voices and to encouraging compassionate, good-faith discourse.

We are actively seeking perspectives on this topic and others. If you’d like to join the conversation, please send completed drafts to submissions@fairforall.org.

Donate

The Artist’s Obligation is to the Work

By KJP Howes, Interim Director of FAIR in Arts, reflects on what FAIR has come to mean to her as an artist and why spaces that protect artistic freedom are increasingly important. Howes describes FAIR as a community where people can disagree, question, and debate while maintaining civility, mutual respect, and a shared commitment to art for art’s sake. She argues that artists should be free to follow their ideas wherever they lead, explore complexity, and tell the truth as they see it without having to make their work politically useful or conform to prevailing cultural expectations.

“There is enormous pressure today for artists to become activists and for works of art to affirm particular social or political perspectives. But activism is not the artist’s obligation.

The artist’s obligation is to the work. To follow an idea wherever it leads. To tell the truth as the artist sees it. To illuminate contradictions rather than conceal them. To explore the complexity of human beings rather than reduce them to categories. I believe that is the kind of art that needs to be protected and supported.”

Read the Full Article

AGAINST SELF CENSORSHIP IN THE ARTS

Heather Shayne Blakeslee examines how cultural and political pressures can cause artists to censor themselves before their work is even made. Through her conversation with painter Charles Browning, Blakeslee explores how concerns over identity, representation, and who is “allowed” to tell certain stories can leave artists questioning whether they should create at all. She argues that artists need the freedom to follow their creative instincts, take risks, and explore unfamiliar territory without being constrained by the expectations of the moment.

“In the ’90s, Browning felt that he’d become stuck as an artist, and that maybe no one needed his voice, thinking to himself, “White men have had plenty of space to speak,” he told me. Other white male artists I’ve spoken with have also become so absorbed in a certain kind of progressive worldview about whose voice should be lifted and whose we don’t need to hear from that they considered not making art anymore. I find this a troubling phenomenon, not least of which because the amount of art that should be made is not finite, nor is there a finite number of souls who deserve to make it.”

Read the Full Article

THE CASUALTIES OF THE CULTURE WAR

Angel Eduardo explores what happens to art when everything is expected to serve a political purpose. Eduardo argues that artists need the freedom to create work that is strange, challenging, beautiful, or simply human—not art designed to “further the cause.” When ideological conformity becomes the standard by which art is judged, we risk losing the experimentation, complexity, and dissent that make art valuable in the first place.

“We also need institutions that are viewpoint neutral, so that the rebels, nonconformists, oddballs, kooks, and contrarians have the chance to contribute something without having to tick identity boxes or fulfill ideological requirements. We need works that stir something in us, that cause us to stop and think, that get us roaring with laughter and seething with rage. It’s all valuable. It’s all necessary. It’s all human.”

Read the Full Article

Join the FAIR Community

• Join us and become a member of FAIR.

• Become a FAIR volunteer, or join a FAIR chapter.

• Sign up for a Welcome to FAIR Zoom information session to learn more about our mission.

• Share your reviews and incident reports on our FAIR Transparency website.

• View our Many Stories, One Nation curriculum.

• Help fund our work