Hegseth purged two of my books on race. Did he actually read them?

Los Angeles Times - Apr 21st, 2025

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has ordered the removal of 381 books from the U.S. Naval Academy's library, citing their focus on diversity, equity, or inclusion (DEI) as the reason for their removal. This decision has sparked controversy, highlighting a simplistic approach to censoring educational materials. Among the removed books are influential works like Ibram X. Kendi's 'How to Be an Antiracist' and Michael Eric Dyson's 'Tears We Cannot Stop,' both of which offer complex perspectives on race and society. Critics argue that the removal of these books reflects a misunderstanding of their content, which often critiques prevailing notions and advocates for a comprehensive examination of race, class, sex, and gender.

The broader implications of this book removal are significant, as it reflects ongoing tensions in the U.S. over discussions of race and diversity. The incident is part of a larger trend where efforts to combat 'wokeness' are seen as suppressing intellectual freedom and diversity of thought. The move by the Defense Department has been interpreted as an attempt to stifle dissent and control narratives around race and identity, which could have far-reaching effects on democratic discourse and education. The controversy underscores the need for open-minded engagement with diverse perspectives to uphold democratic values and resist authoritarian tendencies. The incident also calls for creative responses, such as establishing alternative educational platforms to ensure diverse voices continue to be heard and valued in American society.

Pete Hegseth Censorship Defense Department Diversity, Equity, Inclusion U.S. Naval Academy Ibram X. Kendi Book Removal Michael Eric Dyson

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

5.4

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article presents a compelling critique of the removal of books from the U.S. Naval Academy library, framing it as an attack on intellectual freedom and democratic values. Its strengths lie in its clear narrative and engagement with timely cultural debates, making it relevant and thought-provoking. However, the article's accuracy and balance are compromised by a lack of verifiable sources and perspectives from those supporting the removals. This affects its credibility and limits its potential impact. Overall, while the article raises important issues, its effectiveness is hindered by a lack of transparency and balance, which could have strengthened its arguments and broadened its appeal.

Accuracy

The article makes several factual claims about the removal of books from the U.S. Naval Academy library, attributing this action to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. While it accurately reports the number of books removed and the involvement of Hegseth's office, it lacks direct citations or official statements confirming these actions. The claim about the removal of Ibram X. Kendi's book and the author's own works is specific, but again, lacks direct evidence or confirmation from official sources. The article also discusses broader themes, such as the impact on democracy and intellectual freedom, which are more interpretative and less verifiable. Overall, while the article's claims are plausible and align with known actions of the Trump administration, specific verifiable evidence for some claims is missing, affecting its overall accuracy.

Balance

The article primarily presents a critical perspective on the book removals, focusing on the perceived negative implications for democracy and intellectual freedom. It strongly critiques the actions as censorship and ties them to a broader political agenda against 'wokeness.' However, it does not provide a balanced view by including perspectives from those who support or justify the removals, such as statements from Hegseth or the Department of Defense. This lack of balance suggests a bias towards the author's viewpoint, without adequately addressing alternative perspectives or the rationale behind the removals.

Clarity

The article is written in a clear and engaging style, with a strong narrative that effectively conveys the author's perspective. The language is accessible, and the arguments are logically structured, making it easy for readers to follow the author's critique. However, the strong tone and emotive language may affect the perceived neutrality of the piece, as it leans heavily into advocacy rather than objective reporting.

Source quality

The article does not cite specific sources or provide direct quotes from involved parties, such as the Department of Defense or Pete Hegseth. It relies heavily on the author's interpretation and critique without attributing information to credible sources or documents. The lack of diverse and authoritative sources undermines the reliability of the claims made, as the reader is asked to accept the author's assertions without supporting evidence from independent or official sources.

Transparency

The article lacks transparency in its sourcing and methodology. It does not disclose how the information was obtained or whether any attempts were made to verify claims with official sources. The author's personal connection to the story, as one of the affected authors, is clear, but there is no discussion of potential biases or conflicts of interest. This lack of transparency makes it difficult for readers to assess the impartiality and reliability of the information presented.