Most books pulled from Naval Academy library are back on the shelves in latest DEI turn

All but a few of the nearly 400 books that the U.S. Naval Academy removed from its library because they dealt with anti-racism and gender issues are back on the shelves after the newest Pentagon-ordered review — the latest turn in a dizzying effort to rid the military of materials related to diversity, equity and inclusion programs.
Based on the new review, about 20 books from the academy's library are being pulled aside to be checked, but that number includes some that weren't identified or removed in last month's initial purge of 381 books, defense officials told The Associated Press.
A few dozen books at the Air Force libraries — including at the Air Force Academy — also have been pulled out for review, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the process is still ongoing.
The back-and-forth on book removals reflects a persistent problem in the early months of the Trump administration, as initial orders and demands for an array of policy changes have been forced to be reworked, fine-tuned and reissued because they were vague, badly defined or problematic.
The reviews and changes at military libraries and to websites, social media accounts and more are part of the Trump administration's far-reaching efforts to purge so-called DEI content from federal agencies.
The Pentagon earlier this month issued a detailed directive to all military leaders and commands to pull and review all library books addressing diversity, anti-racism or gender issues by Wednesday. The order contained more specific search words than earlier guidance and verbal orders from Defense Department leaders, and officials said it resulted in dramatically fewer banned books than initially thought.
The Navy said in a statement Wednesday that it reviewed the library collections at all of its educational institutions to ensure compliance with the directives, noting that materials have been 'identified and sequestered.' The Army and Air Force also have reviewed their collections.
All of the services' libraries had to provide their new lists of books to Pentagon leaders. Now additional guidance will be given on how to cull those lists, if needed, and determine what should be permanently removed. The review also will 'determine an appropriate ultimate disposition' for those materials, according to a Defense Department memo.
The May 9 memo — signed by Timothy Dill, who is performing the duties of the deputy defense undersecretary for personnel — did not say what will happen to the books or whether they will be stored away or destroyed.
The libraries at the military academies and those at other schools and commands had to remove educational materials 'promoting divisive concepts and gender ideology' because they are incompatible with the Defense Department's core mission, the memo said.
A temporary Academic Libraries Committee set up by the department is overseeing the process, and it provided a list of search terms to use to determine which books to pull and review.
Those search terms included: affirmative action, anti-racism, critical race theory, discrimination, diversity, gender dysphoria, gender identity and transition, transgender and white privilege.
The U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, removed 381 books from its library in early April after being told by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's office to get rid of those that promote DEI.
The purge led to the removal of books on the Holocaust, histories of feminism, civil rights and racism, and Maya Angelou's famous autobiography, 'I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings.'
Others included 'Memorializing the Holocaust,' which deals with Holocaust memorials; 'Half American,' about African Americans in World War II; 'A Respectable Woman,' about the public roles of African American women in 19th century New York; and 'Pursuing Trayvon Martin,' about the 2012 shooting of a Black 17-year-old in Florida that raised questions about racial profiling.
The Navy on Wednesday could not confirm which books have been returned to the library or if Angelou's book or the others will remain pulled from shelves.
About two weeks after the Naval Academy purge was ordered, the Army and Air Force libraries were told to go through their stacks to find and remove books related to DEI.
Throughout the process, leaders of the military services sought more detailed guidance on which books had to go because the initial order to the Naval Academy was verbal and vague. Dill's memo provided that additional guidance.
Similarly, directives to reenlist troops forced out for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine and to remove transgender service members from the military have had to be clarified over time.
Defense leaders have had to provide additional guidance and wording to address questions from the services on how to legally and accurately implement the orders. And in several cases, orders had to be refined and reissued.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Guardian

24 minutes ago

• The Guardian

header

Fifa is facing new questions over the increasingly fraught World Cup next year, with the issue of how to treat Iran while the country is involved in a conflict with the co-host the US. There are no provisions within Fifa's regulations to prevent Iran from playing their group matches in the US, despite the country being subject to military action by the Trump administration and Iranian citizens being under a travel ban that prevents them from entering the country. The ban contains an exemption that could apply to players, staff or associated families with teams at the 2026 Fifa World Cup. Iran, who faced USA in the group stage of the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, qualified in March for their fourth consecutive World Cup. Although 2026 is also being hosted by Canada and Mexico, only by being given a specific slot in group A could Iran avoid playing in the US, with their matches then taking place in Mexico. If Iran won that group they would stay in Mexico for their last-32 game and any last-16 match. Should they go further – and they have never reached a World Cup knockout game – they would then play in the US. Fifa did not respond on Monday to a request for comment from the Guardian and will likely be considering its options before the World Cup draw, which is due to take place in December. The decision will be a difficult one for its president, Gianni Infantino, who has associated himself closely with President Donald Trump, who authorised the use of US bombs on Iranian nuclear sites last weekend. Infantino and the Fifa Council will have the final say on inclusion in the competition and the makeup of the draw, but the organising committee for Fifa competitions will be expected to have input. The committee has members from Canada, Mexico and Iran, and its chair is Uefa's president, Aleksander Ceferin. In 2022, his organisation announced that Ukraine and Belarus would be kept apart in Uefa competition draws, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and his action may provide an example for Fifa to follow. Before the World Cup draw in Qatar, the agreed draw constraints included limitations on where teams could be selected but this related only to a 'general principle' that no more than one team from each confederation (excluding Europe) should appear in a given group.

Reuters

25 minutes ago

• Reuters

Senate parliamentarian faults Republicans' plan to limit judges' power

June 23 (Reuters) - A U.S. Senate official has concluded that a Republican-drafted provision in President Donald Trump's massive tax and spending bill that would restrict the ability of judges to block government policies violates budgetary rules. The Senate's parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, advised over the weekend that the provision ran afoul of a Senate rule governing what can be included in budget reconciliation legislation that can be passed with a simple-majority vote and would instead need to be subject to a 60-vote threshold if it remained in the bill. Republicans, who control the Senate 53-47, intend to use complex budget rules to pass the so-called "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" with a simple majority vote. The parliamentarian is a nonpartisan referee. Her decision could spell doom for the provision's inclusion in the ultimate legislation Congress passes because it would allow Democrats to challenge the vote on the floor and require Republicans to muster 60 votes to pass it. Congressional leaders hope to enact the overall bill in the coming days so Trump can sign it into law before July 4. The courts-related provision in the Senate version of the bill would limit the ability of judges to issue preliminary injunctions blocking federal policies unless the party suing posts a bond to cover the government's costs if the ruling is later overturned. The bond requirement differs from one tucked into the version of the bill the Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed in May that would curb courts' power by curtailing the ability of judges to hold officials in contempt if they violate injunctions. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on Sunday hailed the parliamentarian's assessment, saying Republicans had tried to "write Donald Trump's contempt for the courts into law — gutting judicial enforcement, defying the Constitution, and bulldozing the very rule of law that forms our democracy." The provision was drafted by Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is led by Senator Chuck Grassley. He had argued the provision would ensure judges enforce an existing requirement that parties seeking a preliminary injunction provide a security bond to cover costs incurred by a defendant if a judge's ruling is later overturned. Judges rarely require such bonds when a lawsuit is not pitting two private parties against each other but instead challenging an alleged unlawful or unconstitutional government action. Several judges have denied the Trump administration's requests for bonds or issued nominal ones. Grassley in a statement on Sunday said Republicans are committed to using all available avenues to "ensure courts operate according to lawful and constitutional standards." Congressional Republicans have called for banning or curtailing nationwide injunctions blocking government policies after key parts of Trump's agenda have been stymied by such court rulings. The House in April voted 219-213 largely along party lines in favor of the No Rogue Rulings Act to do so, but the Senate has not yet taken up the measure. A White House memo in March directed heads of government agencies to request that plaintiffs post bonds if they are seeking an injunction against an agency policy. Such bonds can make obtaining an injunction a cost-prohibitive option in cases concerning multi-billion-dollar agenda items. Read more: US Senate Republicans seek to limit judges' power via Trump's tax-cut bill

Reuters

26 minutes ago

• Reuters

US court says worker's COVID safety concerns covered by labor law

June 23 (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Monday agreed with the National Labor Relations Board that a Pennsylvania factory worker's critical comments about the plant remaining open in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic were protected by federal labor law. A unanimous three-judge panel of the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected claims by Miller Plastic Products that the worker, Ronald Vincer, was not acting for the benefit of other employees when he made the comments at a 2020 meeting. "Vincer's statements and conduct reveal a belief that shutting down the facility, or alternatively implementing more stringent quarantine protocols if it remained open, was necessary to ensure employee safety. Thus, he raised concerns to improve conditions of employment," Circuit Judge Theodore McKee wrote. But the court said the NLRB, which in 2023 used the case to expand the type of worker conduct that it considers concerted activity and thus protected by federal labor law, must reconsider whether Miller fired Vincer about a week after the meeting because of his comments or for other, legitimate reasons. The five-member NLRB already had two vacancies when President Donald Trump took office in January and now lacks a quorum to decide cases after Trump fired Democratic Member Gwynne Wilcox, who is challenging her removal. An NLRB spokesman and lawyers for Miller and Vincer did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Miller claimed that Vincer was fired for performance issues and not because of his comments about keeping the plant open. But the company had also argued that Vincer's comments were not protected by the National Labor Relations Act because he was expressing concerns about his personal safety and not advocating on behalf of his coworkers. The board disagreed and also said that the test that a Republican majority had adopted in the 2019 case Alstate Maintenance to determine when conduct is concerted was flawed. That ruling said raising concerns in a group setting is not necessarily protected activity, and required workers to show evidence of prior group discussions on a topic to prove their conduct was protected. The board said that instead, it would consider the "totality of the circumstances" on a case-by-case basis to determine whether a worker had engaged in concerted activity. Miller appealed, arguing that it was unreasonable for the board to overturn the Alstate decision and that under that standard, Vincer's comments were not protected. The 3rd Circuit disagreed on both counts on Monday. McKee, an appointee of Democratic President Bill Clinton, wrote that the standard announced by the board was not entirely new and was instead a refinement of a series of rulings released since the 1980s. But the board did not adequately explain why it concluded that Vincer's termination resulted directly from his comments at the meeting, the panel found. McKee said the board should take another look at that claim while considering the credibility of workers who testified and the fact that three other employees were fired around the same time as Vincer. The panel included Circuit Judges D. Brooks Smith, an appointee of Republican President George W. Bush, and Luis Restrepo, who was appointed by Democratic President Barack Obama. The case is NLRB v. Miller Plastic Products, 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 23-2689. For Miller: Robert Bracken of Bracken Law Firm For the NLRB: Jared Cantor Read more: NLRB restores broader test for determining when labor law protects workers US judges question NLRB's broad protections for worker conduct US Supreme Court lets Trump keep labor board members sidelined for now