Let’s start here: I am a journalist who is married to a librarian. When it comes to First Amendment issues, we are old-school liberals. However, there are times when — in debates involving public schools, tax dollars and parental rights (without “scare quotes”) — there are First Amendment tensions that cannot be denied.
Week after week, I keep reading angry mainstream-press reports covering battles about removing LGBTQ-audience books from the libraries of schools in various red zip codes across America.
I confess that I am confused about what is happening in many of these debates. I assume that the content of proposed legislation is different in various states, but it’s hard to know the details in the news coverage. In particular, it’s hard to know if books are being removed from (a) mandatory classroom assignments, (b) recommended sex-education lists promoted to students or (c) library bookshelves — period.
Also, I am having trouble understanding the specifics of why parents are upset (and these concerns may vary from case to case). Most news reports stress that conservative (read “traditional” religious believers, either Christian, Jewish or Muslim) parents are upset about all LGBTQ content.
However, if and when journalists deem to quote parents, the parents seem upset about visual images and graphic stories that they consider to be pornographic or not age-appropriate for their children. Are their concerns valid? It’s hard to make judgements about that — since news reports never describe the details of their concerns, perhaps because the content is too strong for publication in newspapers.
With these questions in mind, let’s look at a recent Associated Press report that ran with this headline: “School library book bans are seen as targeting LGBTQ content.” Note that the headline seems to assume that books are banned from library shelves and that’s that. Here is the overture:
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Teri Patrick bristles at the idea she wants to ban books about LGBTQ issues in Iowa schools, arguing her only goal is ridding schools of sexually explicit material.
Sara Hayden Parris says that whatever you want to call it, it’s wrong for some parents to think a book shouldn’t be readily available to any child if it isn’t right for their own child.
The viewpoints of the two mothers from suburban Des Moines underscore a divide over LGBTQ content in books as Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds pushes an especially sweeping crackdown on content in Iowa school libraries. The bill she’s backing could result in the removal of books from school libraries in all of the state’s 327 districts if they’re successfully challenged in any one of them.
School boards and legislatures nationwide also are facing questions about books and considering making it easier to limit access.
This AP report (#hurrah) does contain quite a bit of material from parents on both sides of this issue. The “expert” quotes tend to lean to the moral and cultural left.
Let’s search this story for information that helps clarify what’s happening. It’s also important to know that, in some cases, these debates have broadened to include legislation that would funnel state funds, via tax deductions or other methods, to parents who want to send their children to secular or religious private schools.
Here is a typical summary paragraph:
Longstanding disagreements about content in school libraries often focus this year on books with LGBTQ themes as policymakers nationwide also consider limiting or banning gender-affirming care and drag shows, allowing the deadnaming of transgender students or adults in the workplace, and other measures targeting LGBTQ people.
The big question, of course, is the meaning of this phrase — “LGBTQ themes.” Do those words have the same meaning in all of these complex disputes? What are parents complaining about when they contact public officials or make appearances in school-board meetings?
“Themes”? Does that word let readers know what is going on? It’s also interesting that AP has adopted the activist term “deadnaming” with no attempt to explain its content.
Here is another chunk of summary material:
In Louisiana, activists fear a push by Republican Attorney General Jeff Landry to investigate sexually explicit materials in public libraries — and recently proposed legislation that could restrict children and teens’ access to those books — is being used to target and censor LGBTQ content.
Landry, who is running for governor, launched a statewide tip line in November to field complaints about librarians, teachers, and school and library personnel. Landry released a report in February that listed nine books his office considers “sexually explicit” or inappropriate for children. Seven have LGBTQ storylines.
OK, I will ask: What is the definition of “sexually explicit,” as opposed to mere “LGBTQ content”?
If all LGBTQ content is considered “sexually explicit,” why are there NINE books on the “inappropriate for children” list? What are the actual issues that are under debate, in this case? What are parents saying is wrong with these specific books, as opposed to LGBTQ books, in general?
Here is another typical summary, this time focusing on a rising GOP superstar:
The reviews have drawn widespread attention, with images of empty bookshelves ricocheting across social media, and are often accompanied by criticism of Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican expected to run for president.
The state’s training materials direct the reviews to target sexually explicit materials but also say that schools should “err on the side of caution” when selecting reading materials and that principals are responsible for compliance. …
DeSantis said the state has not instructed schools to empty libraries or cover books. He said 175 books have been removed from 23 school districts, with 87% of the books identified as pornographic, violent or inappropriate for their grade level.
This time around, I would like to know more about the phrase “selecting reading materials.” Are these assignments of some kind, or endorsements, by by school leaders?
As I said earlier, are we talking about (a) use in classroom assignments, (b) recommended sex-education lists handed to students or (c) books on library bookshelves?
It appears that many journalists are assuming that these issues are all the same. Let’s say that a school library contains a Bible. Is that the same thing as teachers making assignments that require students to read and comment on the Bible, with teachers promoting specific “themes”?
Let’s end with a passage, way down in the story, in which AP lets a conservative parent talk. Read this carefully:
“The parents are the governing authority in how their child is educated, period,” said Sen. Amy Sinclair. “Parents are responsible for their child’s upbringing, period.”
Patrick, a mother of two, expressed befuddlement about why anyone would want to make sexually explicit books available to children.
“I have to believe that there are books that cater to the LGBTQ community that don’t have to have such graphic sexual content in them,” said Patrick, a member of a local chapter of Moms for Liberty, a conservative group that has gained national influence for its efforts to influence school curriculum and classroom learning. “There are very few books that have ever been banned and what we’re saying is, in a public school setting, with taxpayer-funding money, should these books really be available to kids?”
Is this parent seeking a ban on all books representing the “LGBTQ community”? Why is she seeking limitations on the use of “very few books,” claiming that she is opposed to “graphic sexual content”?
Can readers understand these controversies without knowing more about, well, the details of these individual controversies?
What is the journalistic rationale for assuming that all of these laws, and all of these books, are alike?
Why keep readers in the dark about the actual questions that parents are asking?
FIRST IMAGE: One of the milder screen shots from the award-winning graphic novel “Gender Queer,” published for readers 12-18 — one of several books that are currently causing controversies in public schools. Posted on many social-media websites, including The American Conservative.