logo
'Class Disrupted': Students weigh in on the contentions book ban debate in new series

'Class Disrupted': Students weigh in on the contentions book ban debate in new series

Yahoo16-02-2025
Not too long ago, most education discussions centered around budgets and test scores. But today it can feel like the public school system has been pulled to the center of all the nation's most contentious debates. During the pandemic, districts grappled with whether to require masks — and whether to offer in-person school at all. In the years since, those intense disputes have spiraled to encompass a widening array of topics.
Debates about education are inherently emotional. They're about the future of the country because they're about its children. But adults often don't give those kids the chance to weigh in on how all this is affecting them. In 2025, The Tennessean will take a close look at key issues facing the U.S. education system — and how students feel about them — through our new series "Class Disrupted."
First up, education reporter Rachel Wegner joined First Amendment reporter Angele Latham to learn more about how Tennessee districts are implementing book bans. Check out their coverage below.
Over the course of this year, The Tennessean will undertake similarly ambitious projects on a range of education topics. In each chapter of the "Class Disrupted" series, journalists will prioritize the voices of the students whose days are directly affected by these issues. Please let us know what you think our reporting should include going forward. You can reach education reporter Rachel Wegner at rawegner@gannett.com and city editor Liz Schubauer at lschubauer@tennessean.com.
High school students with a variety of backgrounds and political stances weigh in on why book removals do — or don't — matter. Their points of view converged in some surprising ways. Plus, this story is a good reminder of how articulate high schoolers can be when given a platform, something they are often denied:
Members of the Young Republicans and Young Democrats at Mt. Juliet High gathered to discuss book bans after their district, Wilson County Schools, banned the second-most titles in the state last year at 425. Watch them share their nuanced takes on the topic, and learn about the group text that keeps them engaged with each other:
To learn which school districts in Tennessee are removing the most books from shelves, The Tennessean sent more than 100 requests for records to those districts and then spent weeks sorting through the data they provided. The result is a one-of-a-kind, comprehensive, sortable list of the 1,155 titles removed across Tennessee in 2024:
When studying the list of books removed in Tennessee, themes emerged. Books on topics like LGBTQ+ identities, race, the Holocaust and even, ironically, book bans have been pulled from shelves. And some titles were banned more often than others:
This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: The Tennessean's 'Class Disrupted': Inside heated education debates
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Paramount's shameful CBS settlement with Trump deserves congressional scrutiny
Paramount's shameful CBS settlement with Trump deserves congressional scrutiny

USA Today

timean hour ago

  • USA Today

Paramount's shameful CBS settlement with Trump deserves congressional scrutiny

Shari Redstone and anyone at Paramount Global who backed this $16 million settlement should be ashamed – and pay for that cowardice. The Columbia Broadcasting System, known as CBS, has long been one of America's most admired media brands, from Edward R. Murrow's radio reports during World War II while bombs fell around him in England to the investigative invention of the televised news magazine "60 Minutes." Now, with American media under constant attack from a presidency eager to tip toward tyranny, there's good reason a recent Broadway revival of a show named after Murrow's famous sign-off line – "Good night, and good luck" – was greeted with such acclaim. The people in charge at Paramount Global, the parent company of CBS, have no inspirational words to offer Americans these days. If they had a sign-off line, it would be more like "Give in, and pay up." That's just what Paramount did on July 2, Wednesday, agreeing to pay $16 million to settle a meritless lawsuit from President Donald Trump, who had first demanded $10 billion and then upped that to $20 billion while siccing federal regulators on CBS. Opinion: Trump and Musk renew their feud. Will Elon drop an Epstein 'bomb' again? Trump's CBS lawsuit was an affront to the First Amendment Trump's beef: CBS News twice aired an interview during the 2024 presidential campaign with Kamala Harris, then the vice president and Democratic nominee, that had been edited for two shows, "60 Minutes" and "Face the Nation." His real problem was the constant state of victimhood his seething narcissism forces him to seek. The lawsuit was derided as a blatant assault on the First Amendment protections for free speech in America. Don't take my word for it on that. Consider what CBS News reported Wednesday while announcing the settlement. "First Amendment scholars and constitutional experts largely view the lawsuit as a frivolous misapplication of the law," the network reported, while noting that Trump's lawyers had specifically filed the case in a federal court district in Texas with one judge, who was appointed by Trump in 2019. Trump would have lost this case, either at trial or on appeal. But Paramount has something to lose, too. The company is seeking the Federal Communications Commission's approval for an $8.4 billion merger with Skydance Media. Trump, who appointed Brendan Carr to head the FCC after winning a second term, has used social media posts to demand punishment for CBS News for the terrible crime of … journalism that didn't say exactly what he wanted to hear. So this settlement is not about the journalism or ethics at CBS News. It's a payoff from Paramount Chair Shari Redstone so she and a band of very wealthy executives at the top of their corporation can get even richer. Paramount made some feeble attempts, in announcing the settlement, to dodge the shame of that cash-driven capitulation, noting that Trump will not receive an apology and that the $16 million will go to his future presidential library, not to him directly. Pathetic stuff. And certainly not the end of this scandal for Paramount, for two reasons. Trump will always be a bully, but Congress could turn over First, Trump is now and always has been a bully willing to use bogus lawsuits to harass his perceived enemies. And second, control of Congress could well tip to the Democratic Party in the 2026 midterm elections, which means Paramount's merger could be the subject of well-deserved legislative oversight. Opinion: Trump's policies on immigration, economy and trade are unpopular with Americans On the bullying, Paramount was so driven by the merger that it missed the lesson from Trump's assault on the journalists at ABC News. That network's parent company, Walt Disney Co., tried to mollify Trump with a $15 million settlement in December for a tantrum-based lawsuit he filed in March 2024. Carr, over at the FCC, launched a federal investigation of Disney and ABC several months after the settlement to see if their efforts at employing a diverse workforce broke the law. Giving in to a bully guarantees more bullying in the future. Over in Congress, U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon, took to social media to accuse Paramount of bribing Trump, vowing to press for federal charges if his party takes control of his chamber after the 2026 elections. Wyden and two Senate colleagues, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, in May wrote to Redstone to announce their intentions to investigate "potentially illegal conduct" as talk of a settlement circulated. Redstone and anyone at Paramount who backed this settlement should be ashamed, though I expect they're more focused on profits from the merger than the lasting damage they did to their reputations and the legacy of a once-proud institution of journalism. They should pay for that cowardice. Trump, the voracious bully, will want more. Democrats, if they win back Congress, should use their powers of oversight to expose every angle of this embarrassing fiasco. Follow USA TODAY columnist Chris Brennan on X, formerly known as Twitter: @ByChrisBrennan. Sign up for his weekly newsletter, Translating Politics, here.

New Minnesota law sets guardrails for children of content creators featured in monetized videos
New Minnesota law sets guardrails for children of content creators featured in monetized videos

CBS News

time7 hours ago

  • CBS News

New Minnesota law sets guardrails for children of content creators featured in monetized videos

Parents who make a profit from online videos featuring their children may have to think twice before posting them because of a unique Minnesota law that took effect Tuesday. The statute puts guardrails around "content creation" and how minors are compensated for appearing in monetized videos on social media. Children 13 and younger are now prohibited from participating in those specific posts, and older teenagers who are featured — or make their own videos — must be paid revenues from that content into a trust account available to them when they turn 18. "They set it up as almost a child labor law. It's not about what you can say. It's about kids needing to be able to be paid for work that they do," said William McGeveran, dean of the University of Minnesota Law School, whose scholarship focuses on the First Amendment, data privacy and technology. "And if they're 13 and under, kids can't work in the ice cream shop and they can't work in their parents' content creation either. That's the way the law looks at it." The law defines a content creator as a person who creates "video content performed in Minnesota in exchange for compensation." The rules kick in about minors if they are included in at least 30% of that paid video content produced within a 30-day period. The law also empowers individuals featured in videos as children to demand that content is removed from platforms when they're older. McGeveran said other states have similar policies, like California, where state legislators recently expanded the law designed to protect the earnings of child actors to include content creators. But Minnesota is the only state to go so far as to set an age limit, he said. Fourteen is the general minimum age to work most jobs, with some exceptions. "There's a formula about how much you have to make, but if you're making any kind of serious money from the content you're posting as a parental influencer, then you're covered by this law," he explained. "But the ordinary person who just posts photos of their kids on Instagram or talks about them is not covered because they're not doing it for profit." State Sen. Erin Maye Quade, a Democrat who authored the law, said she and others in the Legislature tried to strike a balance between what she described as "low-level" versus "professionalized" content featuring children, which is highly orchestrated. The latter was the focus when they put the bill together, she said. She also noted that not all content parents' post generates enough money to hit the threshold in the law, which is $0.01 or greater for every view. "It doesn't mean people can't use their kids in non-monetized content. It doesn't mean that folks can't use their kid in monetized content for fewer days and hours. It just means that a kid's whole life can't be working for any industry, including this one," Maye Quade told WCCO. "Why would we make an exception here when we haven't for all the other kinds of work that I'm sure people would love kids to do, but it's not appropriate for kids to do?" Jenna Greer, who described herself as a content creator focusing on motherhood, documents her life as a parent on TikTok and Instagram to more than 460,000 people across both platforms. Many of those videos feature her three children under the age of 6. "The whole goal of me starting [the accounts] was the intention of being able to stay home with my kids and make a financial contribution to my family, and it has turned into that and so much more, which has been a blessing," she said in an interview. She explained that she makes some money through those platforms' creator funds, but the majority of the income she makes comes from paid partnerships with brands and that content may feature her kids. The new law will likely change what that looks like for her, but she said she understands and supports the goal of protecting children and ensuring they are fairly compensated. "It will be a learning curve. It could potentially affect us in just the way that we go about communicating with brands to secure those deals," Greer said. "If I have to come up front and say, 'My kids can't be in this,' we might lose that on specific kid-focused brand deals. So there is a chance that changes our income. I don't think it will be severe, but it will affect [it]."

Paramount to pay Trump $16 million to settle '60 Minutes' lawsuit
Paramount to pay Trump $16 million to settle '60 Minutes' lawsuit

Boston Globe

time13 hours ago

  • Boston Globe

Paramount to pay Trump $16 million to settle '60 Minutes' lawsuit

The deal is the clearest sign yet that Trump's ability to intimidate major American institutions extends to the media industry. Many lawyers had dismissed Trump's lawsuit as baseless and believed CBS would have ultimately prevailed in court, in part because the network did not report anything factually inaccurate, and the First Amendment gives publishers wide leeway to determine how to present information. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up But Shari Redstone, the chair and controlling shareholder of Paramount, told her board that she favored exploring a settlement with Trump. Some executives at the company viewed the president's lawsuit as a potential hurdle to completing a multibillion-dollar sale of the company to the Hollywood studio Skydance, which requires the Trump administration's approval. Advertisement After weeks of negotiations with a mediator, lawyers for Paramount and Trump worked through the weekend to reach a deal before a court deadline that would have required both sides to begin producing internal documents for discovery, according to two people familiar with the negotiations. Another deadline loomed: Paramount was planning to make changes to its board of directors this week that could have complicated the settlement negotiations. Advertisement A spokesperson for Trump's legal team said in a statement that the settlement was 'another win for the American people' delivered by the president, who was holding 'the fake news media accountable.' 'CBS and Paramount Global realized the strength of this historic case and had no choice but to settle,' the spokesperson said. The size of the settlement, $16 million, is the same sum that ABC News agreed to pay in December to settle a defamation case filed by Trump against the network and one of its anchors, George Stephanopoulos. Paramount's board was concerned that paying a higher amount to settle the case could increase the company's exposure to potential legal actions from shareholders accusing it of bribery. The sale of Paramount would end the Redstone family's decades-long control of CBS News and Paramount Pictures and put it in the hands of David Ellison, the son of Larry Ellison, a tech billionaire who has backed Trump. Brendan Carr, the chair of the Federal Communications Commission, has said that the president's lawsuit against Paramount was not linked to the FCC's review of the company's merger with Skydance. Paramount has also said that the two issues were unrelated. Trump sued Paramount for $10 billion last year, claiming that '60 Minutes' deceptively edited an interview with former vice president Kamala Harris in order to interfere with the election. The transcript of the interview showed that Harris gave a lengthy answer to a question about Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister. About 21 seconds of that answer aired in a preview of the interview on 'Face the Nation,' another CBS News show. A different seven-second part of the answer aired the next day in a prime-time episode of '60 Minutes.' Advertisement Trump said in his lawsuit that CBS's actions amounted to 'news distortion' that was aimed at tipping the scales in favor of the Democratic Party. Paramount disputed that characterization. Even before its resolution, Trump's lawsuit — and Redstone's apparent willingness to entertain a settlement — had engulfed CBS News in turmoil. Tensions within the network over how to handle the president's legal attacks contributed to the resignation of the '60 Minutes' executive producer, Bill Owens; the CBS News president, Wendy McMahon, was later forced out. Watching the case with Trump unfold, many CBS journalists believed the long-term credibility of '60 Minutes' was at stake. Scott Pelley, the veteran '60 Minutes' correspondent, said last month that any settlement would be 'very damaging to CBS, to Paramount, to the reputation of those companies.' Executives at CBS and Paramount applied more scrutiny than usual to segments on '60 Minutes' that could be construed as critical of the Trump administration. CBS News has not killed a story because of the pressure, but Owens, when he resigned in April, said he 'would not be allowed' to make independent journalistic decisions. McMahon said when she left that it had 'become clear the company and I do not agree on the path forward.' Redstone told the board she was recusing herself from its discussions of how to handle the Trump suit, given that her financial stake in the pending Skydance deal is so much greater than the stakes of other shareholders, whose interests the directors are expected to represent. This spring, she was diagnosed with thyroid cancer and has recently been receiving treatment. Advertisement Even before her diagnosis, though, she told board members that she wanted the company to explore a settlement with Trump. Redstone has said she wants to avoid a protracted legal war with the president that could cost hundreds of millions of dollars and jeopardize other divisions that have business with the government. Redstone has also told confidants that she harbors concerns about the editorial judgment of CBS News. She has acknowledged being troubled by some of her network's news coverage and on occasion has raised those concerns publicly and spoken to corporate leadership. Senators, such as Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, have warned that any payment by Paramount to Trump could be construed as a bribe, and stated that they would consider holding a congressional hearing on the matter. This article originally appeared in

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store