What Educators Say About Censorship, Fear, and the Fight to Teach the Truth

Survey Findings and Methodology

Executive Summary

Across the United States, educators are confronting what may be the most sweeping attack on the freedom to teach and learn since the McCarthy era. Teachers are being pressured over what they can teach, what books students can read, which histories can be discussed, and whose identities can be affirmed in school. Public attention has understandably focused on the most visible forms of repression: banned books, prohibited lessons, restrictive legislation, attacks on diversity initiatives, and educators disciplined for what they say or display in their classrooms.

Previous national research has already documented the reach of the chilling effect through multiple measures. A 2024 RAND study found that 65 percent of teachers nationally reported deciding on their own to limit classroom discussions of political and social issues. Other RAND research found that about one-quarter of teachers said limitations on race- or gender-related topics were influencing their curriculum choices or instructional practices, including educators working in states without formal restrictions.

The Zinn Education Project’s Freedom to Teach and Learn Survey builds on and updates those findings by documenting, in educators’ own words, how the chilling effect is unfolding in schools today and how teachers are resisting. More than 610 educators from at least 43 states and Washington, D.C. responded to the survey. They described second-guessing lessons, choosing less “controversial” books, softening discussions of race and gender, worrying that students might report them to parents or political authorities, and calculating whether teaching honestly could threaten their jobs. In some cases, educators described leaving schools, subjects, or entire states because they no longer felt able to teach with integrity.

The survey also challenges the idea that educational censorship is only a problem in Southern states. Educators in California, Illinois, Vermont, Connecticut, and other states described growing fear, administrative caution, hostile local politics, and self-censorship. Federal pressure, school-board campaigns, parent complaints, and highly publicized attacks on individual teachers can produce a chilling effect even where state law formally protects the freedom to teach. The chilling effect travels not only through laws but through example: educators see teachers attacked elsewhere and begin calculating whether similar consequences could reach their own classrooms.

Respondents identified race, Black history, gender, LGBTQIA+ issues, immigration, Palestine, and movements for social justice as subjects that increasingly carry professional risk. The survey suggests that attacks on LGBTQIA+ education are often inseparable from attacks on LGBTQIA+ students themselves. It also shows how repression around Palestine has pushed the attack on social justice teaching into places where the anti-CRT campaigns of 2021 often failed to gain the same foothold. In cities and districts where educators had previously been supported for teaching honestly about racism, some now describe new scrutiny, restrictions, and backlash when the subject turns to Palestine.

The survey also reveals consequences that conventional measures of censorship can easily miss. A law can be counted. A banned book can often be counted. A teacher who is publicly disciplined can sometimes be counted. But it is much harder to count the book a teacher quietly decides not to assign, the lesson that is softened before anyone complains, the discussion that never occurs, or the educator who transfers subjects, changes schools, or leaves a state rather than continue teaching under mounting political pressure.

At the same time, the survey documents substantial resistance. Educators described colleagues organizing together, unions defending teachers, administrators supporting honest curriculum, districts protecting books, and teachers making explicit commitments to continue teaching despite political intimidation. These responses point toward one of the report’s central findings: fear is more powerful when educators are isolated, while collective support can expand the space in which teachers are willing to defend the freedom to teach and students’ freedom to learn.

Educational censorship, then, cannot be measured only by counting banned books, enacted laws, or educators formally disciplined. It also operates through anticipation, uncertainty, and self-censorship. The National Freedom to Teach and Learn Survey helps make those less-visible effects visible — while also documenting the collective resistance educators are building in response.

The chilling effect is real. So is the resistance.

Purpose and Context

The Zinn Education Project created the Freedom to Teach and Learn Survey to better understand how the rapidly changing political environment is affecting educators and students in their daily lives.

In recent years, state legislatures, school boards, political organizations, and federal officials have intensified efforts to restrict teaching about racism, gender, sexuality, inequality, and social movements. Books have been challenged or removed, diversity programs attacked, and educators subjected to political scrutiny over subjects that have long been part of their curricula.

Those developments are visible and, to some extent, countable. But they raised another question for the Zinn Education Project: What happens before a book is formally banned or a teacher is officially disciplined?

A teacher may remove a lesson because they expect a complaint. An educator may choose a safer novel because they do not believe administrators will defend them. A teacher may avoid discussing a current event because a student could record a fragment of the discussion and circulate it online. A student may remain silent because a topic affecting their family or identity has become politically dangerous.

None of those decisions necessarily generates an official censorship record.

The survey was designed to document these less-visible effects and to hear directly from educators about the pressures they are experiencing, the impact on students, and the ways teachers and school communities are responding.

Methodology

The Freedom to Teach and Learn Survey gathered responses from more than 600 educators representing at least 43 states and Washington, D.C. Respondents included classroom teachers and educators working in teacher education and other educational roles. They worked across elementary, middle, high school, and higher education settings and represented subjects including social studies, history, English language arts, science, mathematics, ethnic studies, psychology, and others.

Survey period: May 8, 2025 to August 31, 2026

Recruitment: The series of three surveys were distributed via the emails to the Zinn Education Project mailing list, Teaching for Black Lives study group members, and social media

Eligibility: pre-K to 12 classroom teachers, other school staff, and teacher educators were invited to respond

Geographic representation: 43 states and the District of Columbia

The survey was voluntary and should not be interpreted as a statistically representative sample of all educators in the United States. Respondents who chose to participate may differ in important ways from educators nationally, including in their familiarity with or concern about attacks on the freedom to teach.

The purpose of the survey is therefore not to determine the precise percentage of American educators who are experiencing censorship or self-censorship. Its value lies elsewhere: it provides a national collection of firsthand testimony that helps illuminate how political intimidation operates inside educational institutions, including effects that are difficult to identify through counts of legislation, book bans, or disciplinary actions.

Use of Quotations

Quotations in this report are drawn directly from survey responses. They may be excerpted for length but are not paraphrased. Locations and educator roles were included where provided. 

Respondents were assured that their comments would remain anonymous unless they gave explicit permission to be named in a follow-up request.

Personally identifying information, including home addresses, email addresses, phone numbers, and other private contact information, is not published.

Key Findings

1. The Chilling Effect Extends Beyond Formal Censorship

One of the strongest patterns in the survey is that censorship can alter classroom practice without anyone explicitly ordering a teacher to stop teaching a particular subject.

A high school social studies teacher in Arkansas described how political uncertainty changed their decisions:

I have found myself second-guessing lesson plans and removing materials that might be considered ‘controversial,’ not because they are inaccurate, but because I fear professional repercussions or backlash from parents and community members.

The respondent described “a constant pressure to self-censor” and said the result was “a narrowing of curriculum and a dilution of historical truth.”

A veteran government teacher described a similar dilemma:

I teach government and I feel as if I have to bite my tongue teaching about the executive orders being presented and state laws enacted.

After more than 20 years of teaching, the educator said there had previously been no hesitation about questioning government legislation. Now, they worried “that some students may take my comments and report to their parents or some authority.” The respondent emphasized the contradiction directly: “I only speak of what is going on in government, it is a government class.”

Another educator described the effect on classroom texts:

Teachers are quietly choosing less ‘controversial’ books to teach with because they don’t want to deal with any potential push back.

The educator explained that these choices produce “a less diverse collection – silencing the voice and representation of a broad swath of the human experience.”

These responses illustrate a form of censorship that leaves little official record. A school board may never vote to remove a book, and an administrator may never explicitly prohibit a lesson. Instead, educators learn to anticipate what might trigger conflict and adjust beforehand.

2. LGBTQIA+ Students and Curriculum Are Targets 

Survey respondents described pressure not only to avoid teaching about gender and LGBTQIA+ history, but also to retreat from affirming LGBTQIA+ students themselves. That distinction matters because the censorship of curriculum and the political targeting of students are reinforcing one another.

One California educator described how quickly a sense of security had begun to disappear:

My students and I felt smugly impervious since we live in California, but that smugness is disappearing.

The educator described transgender students watching federal attacks on their rights and identities unfold. One student responded:

Well, I guess we don’t exist anymore.

Other respondents described becoming increasingly cautious about discussing LGBTQ+ issues in class, removing or renaming programs associated with diversity and inclusion, and worrying that affirming students could itself become politically controversial.

The effect reaches beyond what appears in a lesson plan. When schools become afraid to acknowledge LGBTQIA+ identities or histories, students receive a message about whose lives are considered safe to recognize publicly. The attack on LGBTQIA+ education is therefore inseparable from the attack on LGBTQIA+ students’ ability to feel that they belong in school.

3. Educational Censorship Is Not Confined to “Red States” or the South

The survey complicates the idea that attacks on honest education are mainly a problem in the South or in states with the most prominent anti-history laws. Educators in California, Illinois, Vermont, Connecticut, and other states often thought they were relatively protected — until they began experiencing pressure themselves.

A California educator described how quickly that sense of security began to disappear:

My students and I felt smugly impervious since we live in California, but that smugness is disappearing.

An educator in Illinois made a similar point:

While I am in a ‘blue state,’ I am in a very conservative part of the state.

The respondent explained that state law provided some protection, but parents had challenged what they taught and the administration was not supportive:

My administration doesn’t support me, so I have had to learn the state laws and standards to protect myself.

A middle school teacher in Vermont described a quieter form of censorship:

Teachers are quietly choosing less ‘controversial’ books to teach with because they don’t want to deal with any potential push back.

The educator warned that the result was a less diverse curriculum, “silencing the voice and representation of a broad swath of the human experience.”

These responses show why looking only at state legislation can be misleading. Federal pressure, local school-board politics, organized parent campaigns, administrative caution, and highly publicized attacks on individual teachers can produce a chilling effect even where state law formally protects educators.

The geography of educational censorship is therefore broader than the map of anti-history legislation. A teacher does not have to live in Florida, Texas, or Arkansas to wonder whether an honest lesson on racism, gender, immigration, or Palestine could trigger a complaint, an investigation, or professional retaliation.

The chilling effect crosses state lines.

4. Immigration Enforcement Is Interfering With Students’ Ability to Learn

Several of the most disturbing responses concern the impact of immigration enforcement on students and school communities.

A middle school teacher in New Haven, Connecticut, described how taking attendance had acquired a new meaning:

There are many days where a student isn’t in school and, more often than not recently, my mindset has gone from ‘oh, they must be sick, I hope they get well soon’ to ‘oh my god, I hope they are still here.’

The teacher added:

I teach 11 and 12 year olds, this is not a fear I should ever have based on a government’s actions.

Another educator described a fourth-grade student from Peru who repeatedly wrote an emergency phone number on her arm so she would know whom to call if she returned home and her parents were gone. The educator later wrote:

Today she informed me her family will be deported. Out of fear of separation, today will be her last day at school.

Another respondent described the connection between immigration enforcement and education in particularly stark terms:

Because of the current laws around immigration, many of my students have simply stopped coming to class out of fear of ICE. I believe the connection to censorship is my students are censoring themselves right out of their own education.

These accounts broaden the meaning of the freedom to learn. Access to curriculum is meaningless if students are too afraid to attend school.

5. Palestine Has Become a Flashpoint for Academic Freedom

Palestine emerged as a subject educators believe can carry unusual professional or institutional risk. A California substitute teacher wrote:

We are not able to freely discuss the genocide occurring in Palestine.

A Philadelphia high school social studies teacher said that although the district generally defended the freedom to learn:

there have been some repressive actions in response to Palestinian activism.

That matters because repression around Palestine has pushed the attack on social justice teaching into places where the anti-CRT campaigns of 2021 often failed to gain the same foothold. In cities such as Philadelphia and Seattle, educators who had previously found institutional support for teaching honestly about racism and inequality have faced new scrutiny and backlash when the subject turns to Palestine. The result is an expansion of the censorship campaign into districts and communities that had once seemed comparatively resistant to the attacks on honest history.

An educator at UNLV raised similar concerns about higher education, saying that during the university’s handling of pro-Palestine activism:

student voices have reportedly been silenced

and asking:

whose speech is truly protected.

The educator warned that the university could be moving toward:

a more cautious and, at times, suppressive stance.

These responses suggest that Palestine has become a critical test of academic freedom. The same educators and institutions that may defend teaching about racism in the United States can still retreat when confronted with Palestine, exposing how unevenly the freedom to teach is protected and how quickly the boundaries of acceptable dissent can contract.

6. Political “Neutrality” Is Not Experienced as Neutral

Some respondents described a pronounced asymmetry in what schools classify as political.

One educator reported colleagues self-censoring to avoid complaints while Marine ROTC instructors who were strong Trump supporters had: “gotten much bolder in pushing their agenda.”

Another educator at a school outside Chicago wrote:

Personally I was reprimanded for telling students that college kids were being illegally swept off the streets and sent to super max prisons in other countries. They said it was political, I said it was human rights.

The same respondent reported that other educators were permitted to “show PragerU content,” and described a teacher who had portraits of presidents on the wall but “completely skipped Bidens picture.” The respondent concluded:

The school is in Illinois outside of Chicago so we are pretty safe but these little lies and omissions are how it starts.

These accounts raise an important question about the current censorship campaign: whether its purpose is truly to remove politics from education, or to determine which political viewpoints are regarded as acceptable.

7. Censorship Is Contributing to Educators Leaving Schools, Subjects, and States

For some respondents, the pressure was significant enough to influence decisions about where or whether to continue teaching.

A Georgia AP Psychology teacher wrote:

I’m leaving my school. This is the school that I graduated from. This is the school I wanted to retire from. Statistically, no one will ever count me as a teacher who left because of Georgia’s divisive concept law, formally called the Protect Students First Act. Yet, that’s why I left.

The educator added:

Most likely, thousands like me have left because their values and personality have become divisive concepts.

An Arizona educator wrote:

I teach truth every day in my classroom. Therefore, I have decided to leave Arizona for the upcoming school year to a progressive state (Colorado) where the governor is fighting Trump.

Another educator wrote, “I am transferring to an ELA position,” and explained elsewhere: “I am changing jobs and schools.”

These departures take different forms. One educator leaves a school, another a state, another a subject area. They may never appear in a database of teachers formally disciplined for violating censorship rules, but they illustrate another potential consequence of political intimidation.

Educational censorship can reshape the profession itself by pushing out educators committed to critical thinking and honest history and replacing professional autonomy with fear, compliance, and a narrowed curriculum.

8. Institutional and Collective Support Make Resistance More Possible

The survey does not document only fear and retreat. Respondents also repeatedly described circumstances that helped them continue teaching honestly.

One educator wrote, “I’m proud to say our district is trying to stand up for the freedom to learn.” The respondent added, “It’s not easy, but knowing we’re not alone makes a big difference.”

Another teacher described efforts to ban books at school board meetings:

We have had haters come to our School Board Meetings trying to ban books from our libraries, but we as teachers and a district have stood strong to keep books available to all.

The educator added:

Our school district is defending the freedom to learn. We are not caving by removing DEI from our teaching.

An Idaho educator described supportive administrators, colleagues, and union leadership and made this commitment:

I have made a promise to myself that I will teach the full truth of history in my classroom until I am fired for it.

A Virginia educator wrote:

I will not be deterred, even if it costs me my job.

And the Connecticut middle school teacher who worried that absent students might have been taken by immigration authorities declared:

The president and his cronies can come and get me if they have a problem with that. My kids deserve the truth, and that is what they will get in my class every day.

The pattern is significant. Courage is not simply an individual personality trait. Educators describe becoming more willing to resist when colleagues, unions, administrators, districts, and communities demonstrate that they will not have to resist alone.

Educators in Their Own Words

The survey contains far more testimony than can be included in an essay or summary of findings. The excerpts below offer a broader picture of educators’ experiences.

On Self-Censorship

There’s a growing sense of uncertainty among teachers — many of us are second-guessing what we say or what materials we use, especially when it comes to topics like race, gender, or parts of history that might be considered ‘controversial.’

While we are not experiencing overt censorship, there is a clear chilling effect — teachers are more cautious, and open dialogue is sometimes stifled out of fear of repercussions.

Faculty are increasingly cautious about the language they use, the texts they assign, and the topics they address, particularly when discussing structural racism, LGBTQ+ rights, or historical injustices.

On History and Curriculum

One educator reported seeing curriculum changes affecting:

Kristallnacht, the systematic alienation of the Jews, Emmitt Till, The Ocoee and Tulsa Massacres and the zoot suit riots

but added:

I, however, still teach these concepts as part of each unit to ensure an accurate depiction of history.

Another wrote:

I refuse to stop teaching truth to my students because I believe it is important for our students to have a fuller understanding of our history.

On Immigration

Students are afraid to come to school or leave home in fear of ICE.

I have had students traumatized by their parents being picked up by ICE and deported – students who are kind, respectful, and hard-working.

On Resistance

An Oregon educator wrote:

I’m seeing a lot of educators who weren’t necessarily passionate about racial justice, economic justice, or civil liberties REALLY stepping up for the first time. I think this is many ways a moment of great opportunity.

Another respondent wrote:

We must teach the truth to our students so that they can be brave in the face of tyranny.

A Florida history teacher and Air Force veteran wrote:

I took an oath to defend the very freedoms that our state claims to support.

After describing being forced to discard a classroom library, the educator concluded:

We should do whatever we can to resist the rise of fascism in our state and nation.

Recommendations 

The survey suggests that the strongest defense against the chilling effect is collective action. Educators are more able to teach honestly when they know that colleagues, unions, administrators, families, and community organizations will stand with them. The following steps can help protect and expand the freedom to teach and learn.

1. School districts, administrators, and school boards should establish and enforce clear protections for academic freedom, books, and curriculum. Ambiguity itself can produce self-censorship. Educators need to know that accurate, standards-aligned instruction — including teaching about racism, gender, inequality, immigration, Palestine, and contemporary social movements — will be defended when complaints arise. Districts should also adopt transparent procedures for challenges to books and curriculum so that small numbers of politically motivated complainants cannot determine what entire communities of students are allowed to read or learn.
   
2. Educator unions should make the defense of curricular freedom a collective issue. Teachers are less vulnerable when challenges to books, lessons, or classroom speech are treated as attacks on professional rights rather than private conflicts an individual educator must navigate alone. Unions can bargain for academic-freedom protections, defend targeted educators, and organize members to respond collectively when censorship occurs.
   
3. Schools should protect immigrant, transgender, and other targeted students from intimidation and exclusion. The freedom to learn requires more than access to curriculum. Students need to be able to enter school without fearing that their family, identity, or existence has made them a political target. Defending students should be understood as inseparable from defending the freedom to teach.
4. Schools and unions should explicitly defend the freedom to teach and discuss Palestine. The survey suggests that Palestine has become a particularly important test of institutional commitments to academic freedom. Educators should be able to teach Palestinian history, the history of Israel and Palestine, U.S. foreign policy, and contemporary events without facing a different standard of political scrutiny than applies to other subjects. This is especially important in districts that have defended teaching about racism and other forms of oppression but have become more restrictive when educators or students address Palestine.
5. Educators should form study groups around subjects that are being censored or restricted. Isolation makes censorship more effective. Educators can organize study groups on Black history, LGBTQIA+ history, Palestine, immigration, Indigenous history, climate justice, labor history, and other targeted subjects. These groups can help teachers deepen their knowledge, share curriculum, prepare for challenges, and develop the confidence that comes from knowing they are part of a community committed to teaching honestly.
6. Build and expand the Teach Truth movement through visible community organizing. Defending individual teachers and books is necessary, but responding case by case will never be enough. Educators, students, families, unions, and community organizations need a visible national movement that connects local struggles — from challenged books and school-board fights to attacks on Black history, LGBTQIA+ education, immigrant students, and Palestine — into a broader defense of honest education.

What began with an annual Teach Truth Day of Action can continue growing into year-round organizing. Teach Truth signs, shirts, rallies, school-board testimony, study groups, union resolutions, petitions, and public actions can make clear that censorship campaigns do not speak for entire communities. They can also send an essential message to targeted educators: you are not alone.

These recommendations share a common principle: the answer to the chilling effect cannot simply be asking individual teachers to be more courageous. Teachers should not have to become heroic martyrs in order to teach honestly. The task is to build institutions, unions, networks, study groups, and movements strong enough that educators know they will not stand alone.

Conclusion

The National Freedom to Teach and Learn Survey reveals an educational landscape shaped by much more than formal bans.

Teachers describe making hundreds of small decisions about what feels safe to teach. Students experience political attacks on their communities as part of their educational lives. Some educators decide they can no longer remain in their schools, subjects, or states. Others decide they will continue teaching honestly even if doing so carries personal risk.

Taken together, these accounts pose a fundamental question about what schools are for. Will education equip young people to examine history, question power, encounter perspectives beyond their own, and understand how ordinary people have struggled to change the world? Or will teachers and students learn that certain histories, identities, and questions are simply too dangerous to raise?

The survey suggests that educational censorship is most powerful when educators believe they are isolated. It also points toward the strongest answer to that fear: solidarity. When teachers organize with colleagues, when unions defend their members, when administrators refuse to capitulate, when school boards protect books and curricula, and when communities publicly defend the freedom to learn, educators have more room to teach honestly.

The chilling effect is real. So is the resistance.

Appendix: Survey Questions  

In addition to the standard questions about name, grade level, subject, city, and state — below are the narrative question(s) for the three companion surveys. 

Freedom to Teach and Learn Survey 

Conducted from 5/8/2025 to 9/3/2026 with 258 responses. This survey was launched in May of 2025 as part of the 2025 Teach Truth Day of Action.

• How are the laws, executive orders, and/or the chilling effect impacting your school or school district at this time? If so, how? For example, is it leading to censorship? Or is the school district defending the freedom to learn? Provide at least a full paragraph, detailed response.
• Would you consider speaking with the media about the impact of the anti-history education laws? We would only refer trusted media contacts and we would check with you first before we did since your availability might change based on the timing and nature of the request.

Teach Truth About the American Revolution

Conducted from 11/30/2025 to 9/14/2026 with 180 responses. This survey was shared along with resources to teach about the American Revolution on the 250th anniversary of the founding of the United States.

• Please describe the resources you plan to use and/or activities you plan to engage your students in.
• Is there a particular time of year you plan to address the American Revolution? (multiple choice with the four quarters of the school year)
• What challenges might you face? For example, with anti-history education legislation.

Voting Rights and the Constitution

Conducted from 8/12/2026 to 9/16/2026 with 172 responses as part of a call to action to teach about voting rights in advance of the mid-term elections.

• Describe your goals and plans to teach about the fall elections and/or the Constitution. What resources do you plan to use? (Please take at least one paragraph to respond.)
• What outcomes are you aiming for? Why is this focus important at this time for your school and community? (Please take at least one paragraph to respond.)
• When teaching about elections and the Constitution, what obstacles (if any) might you face due to anti-history education laws, related restrictions, and/or the chilling effect in your school district/state?