If you add too much cream to a cup of coffee, you won't be able to taste its unique flavor profile. In that same respect, when history is diluted, it no longer reflects the truth about the past. Instead, it becomes propaganda. According to author and philosopher Jason Stanley, "fascist politics cherry-picks the past, avoiding anything that would diminish unreflective celebration of the nation's glory." It's hard to ignore the parallels between Stanley's description and the coordinated effort we've seen over the past few years to limit access to black history in classrooms, libraries, museums, and parks. In January, for instance, the National Park Service removed an exhibit featuring educational information about the country's legacy of slavery. This exhibit at the President's House Museum in Philadelphia allows visitors to learn more about the people enslaved by George Washington. Yet some felt offended by the negative light this history cast on the country.

According to a lawsuit filed last February, the order to remove black historical exhibits mirrored the actions described in George Orwell's dystopian novel 1984. "All history was a palimpsest, scraped clean and reinscribed exactly as often as was necessary. In no case would it have been possible, once the deed was done, to prove that any falsification had taken place." If this whitewashing campaign is successful, few Americans would know much about the experiences of Black people or the contributions they've made. But there is resistance to these efforts. U.S. District Judge Cynthia M. Rufe ordered officials to restore the exhibit removed in Philadelphia, noting in a memorandum that the government lacks the authority "to disassemble historical truths." The Department of the Interior filed an appeal. Yet, these efforts to limit access to black historical narratives have attracted further attention.

District Judge Angel Kelley in Boston, Massachusetts, issued a preliminary injunction on June 12th blocking the administration's efforts to remove exhibits featuring black history, a decision that applies nationwide. Perhaps there's some poetic justice in this announcement taking place a week before Juneteenth, a national holiday, which celebrates the emancipation of enslaved people in Galveston, Texas, held in bondage until federal troops arrived and demanded their release. The order to restore historical exhibits marks a major victory for those who believe the full history of America should be preserved for future generations, including the good, the bad, and the ugly. History includes enslaved Black people building landmarks such as the White House without pay, those who survived the perils of Jim Crow, and who fought tirelessly for the advancement of civil rights. The story of Black Americans shouldn't be watered down to appease the political preferences of some.

While many states passed laws banning "divisive topics," this battle began when President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14253, which triggered the removal of historical presentations deemed "divisive" and harmful to the country's reputation. However, Judge Kelley suggested this was misguided. They noted, "Under the guise of promoting American dignity, this administration seeks to share a limited history by ordering the removal of all signs, displays, and interpretive exhibits at National Parks that do not align with its preferred narrative, thereby telling half-truths… not only does this undermine the integrity of the National Parks; it sets a dangerous precedent of censorship and sanitization." Furthermore, they argued that the government has a responsibility to "present history in full rather than in favored fragments."

Black Americans have made and continue to make significant contributions. When the national narrative is diluted, it cannot provide a reliable basis for shared knowledge. Opinions should be diverse, especially in a nation with people from different racial, ethnic, and national backgrounds. But the government doesn't have the right to censor factual, historical information. From abolitionists such as Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, and Fredrick Douglass to musicians such as Louis Armstrong, Ray Charles, and Ella Baker, to authors such as Toni Morrison, Alice Walker, and Malcolm X, and to poets such as Maya Angelou and Langston Hughes, the history of Black people in America is rich, dynamic, and culturally impactful.

Ironically, efforts to ban black history have sparked renewed public interest. Just as conservationists invest in endangered species, some have responded to censorship efforts by working to preserve these narratives and ensure their availability to the public. Across the country, people have started book clubs and revitalized efforts in schools, churches, and nonprofit organizations to ensure that more Americans have access to black historical narratives. For instance, last year, after reports surfaced that historic artifacts could be removed from the African American History museum, civil rights leaders formed the "Freedom to Learn" campaign and a march. In Common Dreams, Tiffany D. Joseph noted that the Republican Party's attempts to sanitize history will fail, and that "efforts to erase the truth are sparking the opposite effect: a renewed urgency to preserve it." Their response shows that while the goal of those banning black history or removing it from public view is to diminish public access to these narratives and marginalize them, their efforts have triggered further interest in these stories.

Reports of the administration restoring exhibits about slavery and black history will raise public awareness about these topics, which is ironic since the entire point of removing them is to obscure their relevance. On social media, around the water cooler at work, and in the streets, people are talking about the experiences and contributions Black people have made. Turns out, if you pour too much milk into someone else's coffee, they won't just accept it. Some will respond by getting another cup so they can enjoy the depth of flavor in each sip. The censorship movement, while popularized in Republican politics, will likely fail in the long run. When people feel that information is hidden, they tend to seek it out, elevating information that is often obscured into the limelight.

Judge Angel Kelley suggested, "history cannot be faithfully told while excluding the experiences of communities whose contributions, struggles, and achievements form an important part of our Nation's story." When we consider that Black people fighting to be free, to be treated as equally, as citizens, created precedents that are fundamental to American society, such as the 13th Amendment prohibiting slavery, the 14th Amendment guaranteeing "birthright citizenship and equal protection," and the 15th Amendment guaranteeing voting rights, the understanding of American society would be incomplete. We cannot "faithfully" tell the story of this country, with honesty and integrity, when Black history is excluded.