Updated: This story has been updated to include a comment from PragerU CEO Marissa Streit.
A new series of educational videos invites kids to push back against ongoing attempts to ban or remove books in classrooms and libraries across the country.
The videos, from the American Civil Liberties Union, teach kids about the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines, which decided that students maintain some First Amendment rights to free speech in schools. They argue that book bans represent censorship that limit speech and they introduce students to the concept of advocacy groups and nongovernmental organizations.
With colorful animation and a duo of school-age protagonists, and bearing the name “Know Your Rights University,” the shorts evoke another well-known children’s YouTube series—albeit with a very different message.
“To my reading, it’s clearly a response to what PragerU is doing,” said Jonathan Zimmerman, a professor of the history of education at the University of Pennsylvania.
Perhaps the buzziest name in edu-tainment right now, the conservative media company PragerU has spent the last few years trying to break into the school market. Its videos on social studies topics, free to access online, promote what it says are pro-American and Judeo-Christian values. As of this year, according to the company, its content is an approved resource in at least 11 states.
PragerU has stirred controversy, with many historians saying the videos mischaracterize important people and events to argue political points or inculcate conservative values. Videos take right-wing positions on hot-button political issues, for instance, advocating traditional gender roles and looking skeptically on climate change.
The ACLU’s head of marketing channels, Emily Patterson, denied that the new series from the ACLU was a response to PragerU’s content. “Though of course,” she added, “we are aware of their programming.”
Instead, Patterson said, the goal of the videos is to emphasize to students “the power of their own voice.” Kids might watch the videos and then ask questions that would prompt parents to look more closely at a sample ballot or speak out at a school board meeting, she said. Or students might just like listening to the songs.
“All of the above, for us, would be a welcome, hoped-for outcome,” she said, “knowing that you have power and agency, even as a public school student.”
“We’re pleased the ACLU appears to recognize the failure of government schools in teaching the basics,” said PragerU CEO Marissa Streit, in an emailed statement. “We hope its educational materials will be subject to the same level of scrutiny PragerU’s materials have received. If the ACLU might see itself as competing with us, we welcome the competition.”
Videos tackle current events and controversy
It’s not unusual for teachers to turn to YouTube to supplement their lessons.
In a 2024 survey of high school history teachers from the American Historical Association, for example, nearly 4 in 5 said they used Crash Course US History, a YouTube series by the young-adult author John Green. And, like the ACLU videos, some lessons from online history and civics education providers make explicit connections to current events.
But the ACLU’s engagement in the edu-tainment space could reflect a broader shift in strategy among those who would want to counter the influence of PragerU, and other politically conservative organizations, in public schools, said Zimmerman.
“It’s very consistent with what I’ve been saying for a long time, which is: If you don’t like someone’s speech or you don’t like the way they’re inserting themselves into the body politic, don’t tell them to butt out. Butt in.”
The ACLU’s videos are “very pointed,” he continued, “and it’s pointed exactly at the challenges to liberty right now.”
The first of four ACLU videos, released today, explains the implications of Tinker v. Des Moines for students in classrooms today. The two student characters, Aaron and Lisa, turn to their teacher Mr. Charles for answers.
“If your school has a no-hat policy, then it doesn’t matter what style or message, no hats are allowed,” says Mr. Charles in the video. “But if your school allows hats, you have the right to wear a hat of your choice and you can’t be disciplined more harshly for wearing something just because they don’t like it.”
Courts have set some limits on student speech in schools, though, a precedent Mr. Charles references. Schools can prohibit hats, he says, if they’re “disruptive to the learning process or the functioning of the school.”
The other three videos, which will be released sequentially, cover book bans, the three branches of government, and an introduction to advocacy groups as told through the history of the ACLU.
In the book-ban episode, Aaron and Lisa will explore “the impacts of censorship on free speech,” according to promotional materials. Challenges to books in school libraries have soared in recent years according to national data, with opposition to titles related to LGBTQ+ topics and race driving the trend.
Students should know, said Patterson, that they have a right to access books “free from government interference in school.” (Legal precedent on this issue is murky. A federal appeals court ruling last year made it more difficult to challenge book-removal decisions in public and school libraries in at least three states.)
The episode references books that have been challenged in schools across the United States: James and the Giant Peach, To Kill a Mockingbird, Julian is a Mermaid, The Kite Runner, Captain Underpants, Invisible Man, and Beloved.
