Muslim World Report

Censorship at the U.S. Naval Academy: The Case for Academic Freedom

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Mar 30, 2025 9:18 AM | 6 min read | 1235 words

TL;DR: The U.S. Naval Academy’s planned removal of approximately 900 books labeled as “woke” raises significant concerns about academic freedom and critical discourse within military education. This initiative threatens the foundational principles of inquiry and diversity of thought, potentially leading to a more conformist military culture. Advocacy for resistance against such censorship is crucial for preserving educational integrity.

Censorship and Its Consequences: The U.S. Naval Academy’s Review of Library Holdings

The recent directive from the Pentagon and the U.S. Naval Academy to review library holdings with the intention of eliminating what has been labeled “woke” initiatives represents a pivotal moment for American education and the future of intellectual freedom. This initiative has identified approximately 900 books for potential removal based on a verbal edict from the defense secretary, raising significant alarms regarding censorship and the far-reaching repercussions for diversity of thought within military education.

Among those titles are critical works such as:

  • “The Autobiography of Martin Luther King Jr.”
  • “Einstein on Race and Racism”
  • A biography of Jackie Robinson

These texts are essential for understanding America’s complex social dynamics and historical narratives.

This endeavor is emblematic of a broader national trend aimed at suppressing discussions surrounding race, social justice, and historical accountability. Such trends threaten the foundational principles of educational institutions. For example, the framework of Social Dominance Theory posits that individuals with a high Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) tend to support hierarchical structures and resist ideas promoting egalitarianism (Pratto et al., 1994). The Naval Academy’s initiative appears to reflect a narrow ideological framework that prioritizes conformity over critical engagement, thereby undermining essential educational values.

What If Books Are Removed?

Should the Naval Academy proceed with the removal of the identified titles, the immediate effects will be significant:

  • Chilling impact on academic freedom within military institutions, potentially extending to other educational contexts.
  • Future officers may graduate without exposure to pivotal historical narratives, exacerbating a culture of ignorance and reducing operational effectiveness.
  • The absence of these texts may impede the military’s ability to foster leaders capable of navigating complex intergroup relations.

The complications of this censorship extend beyond individual futures; they may contribute to:

  • A societal norm that discourages critical discourse and dissent.
  • Domestic backlash from students, faculty, and the community, possibly leading to protests and legal challenges.

As noted by a historian, “Book banning/burning is never the answer.” This response is likely to foster discussions across various educational institutions.

On the global stage, removing these books could have substantial implications. Allies and adversaries alike watch America navigate discussions of race and justice. Authoritarian regimes might view this trend as an endorsement for their own repressiveness (Turnell, 2011; Ylijoki, 2005). The U.S.’s retreat from its professed values of democracy and free expression could diminish its credibility and alienate nations that prioritize educational integrity.

If such removals become standard, a broader erosion of academic freedom could ensue across the United States. Educational institutions might adopt a culture of self-censorship, where educators avoid contentious topics due to fear of retribution. Such normalization of censorship would impact not only military education but also ripple into public universities and schools, fostering an environment that inhibits critical inquiry and diverse perspectives.

What If Resistance Grows?

Conversely, strong resistance to these censorship efforts from students, faculty, and civil rights organizations could compel the Academy to rethink its stance. Mobilized activists could draw national attention to the issue, framing it as a critical battle for the soul of American education and military integrity. Key outcomes of this resistance might include:

  • National reevaluation of “woke” initiatives.
  • Legislative action aimed at safeguarding academic freedom and institutional autonomy (Haddon, 1988; Gelber, 2009).

If public protests gain momentum, the Naval Academy may be forced to halt or reconsider its decisions regarding book removals. Involvement from civil rights organizations could also be crucial. They could quickly mobilize to protect educational freedoms by forming coalitions with students and academics to amplify their message against censorship. Legal challenges might become essential to secure constitutional rights, while awareness campaigns could inform the public about the implications of these actions.

On the international front, a vigorous resistance in the U.S. could resonate with global initiatives advocating for free expression, highlighting the interconnectedness of struggles against oppression and censorship worldwide. This could renew scrutiny of U.S. foreign policy, particularly when military practices stray from the core values of democracy and established rights.

What If This Becomes Standard Practice?

Should the actions taken at the Naval Academy serve as a template for other military and educational institutions, we may witness widespread erosion of academic freedom across the United States. The push to eliminate “woke” content might expand to public universities and schools, leading to an environment where educators prioritize self-censorship to avoid punitive measures.

This trend threatens to transform American education from a bastion of critical inquiry into a tool of ideological conformity. The military’s operational effectiveness may hinge on the capacity of its officers to engage with and understand diverse perspectives. Censorship curtailing exposure to critical discourse risks leaving officers unacquainted with social issues, potentially impeding unit cohesion and morale.

Internationally, such practices would further alienate the U.S. from allies who value academic freedom and robust civil discourse, irrevocably tarnishing the U.S.’s reputation as a champion of free speech. As authoritarian regimes point to the U.S. as an example of how quickly educational freedoms can be dismantled, the implications for global democracy could be dire.

Strategic Considerations for Stakeholders

In light of these developments, several strategic maneuvers can be proposed for key stakeholders:

For the U.S. Naval Academy and Pentagon:

  • Engage with stakeholders—students, faculty, and civil rights advocates—to establish a transparent dialogue prioritizing academic integrity.
  • Implement a comprehensive review process that incorporates diverse perspectives on criteria for book removals, fostering open discussions about race, history, and social justice.

For Civil Rights Organizations:

  • Mobilize quickly to protect educational freedoms.
  • Build coalitions with students and academics to amplify messages against censorship.
  • Pursue legal challenges to secure constitutional rights and raise public awareness about the implications of censorship.

For the General Public:

  • Remain vigilant and proactive in defending academic freedoms.
  • Encourage grassroots movements advocating for educational integrity.
  • Support organizations focused on academic freedom through donations and volunteer work to create sustained impact.

As we confront the looming threat of censorship, we must ask ourselves: Are we genuinely prepared to become a nation that prioritizes the removal of books rather than engaging with the ideas they embody? The potential consequences of censorship echo beyond the walls of educational institutions and into the fabric of society itself, calling us to reflect on our values and moral obligations in the face of emerging challenges.

References

Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 741-763. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741

Rossuck, J. (1997). Banned Books: A Study of Censorship. The English Journal, 86(2), 91-95. https://doi.org/10.2307/819679

Turnell, S. (2011). Myanmar’s fifty-year authoritarian trap. Journal of International Affairs.

Weeks, T. R. (2001). Religion and Russification: Russian Language in the Catholic Churches of the “Northwest Provinces” after 1863. Kritika. https://doi.org/10.1353/kri.2008.0090

Haddon, P. A. (1988). Academic Freedom and Governance: A Call for Increased Dialogue and Diversity. Texas Law Review.

Gelber, K. (2009). Academic freedom and the ‘intellectual diversity’ movement in Australia. Australian Journal of Human Rights, 15(2), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/1323238x.2009.11910856

Ylijoki, O. H. (2005). Academic nostalgia: A narrative approach to academic work. Human Relations, 58(10), 1249-1271. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726705055963

← Prev Next →