So far, the debate between religious freedom and gay and transgender rights has largely played out in court. But now it’s coming to a classroom near you — at least, if you live in Virginia.
The latest controversy has erupted in Loudoun County, in light of the school district’s decision to expand its collections of books to increase “diversity.” Backlash has largely centered around the roughly 5% of the new books that depict or discuss gay, lesbian, and transgender people. The Washington Post reported on the controversy, which has starkly divided parents. Some call the additions “sexual propaganda” and others decry such criticisms as the attempted censorship of valuable, identity-affirming educational material.
Two things can be true at once: Parents do have some degree of authority to set the bounds of what they want their children exposed to, and religious opposition isn’t enough justification to bar otherwise age-appropriate, unobjectionable material from secular public schools.
The Virginia chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union has condemned the calls to remove certain books as censorship, and arguing that “Passing judgments, applying labels, and red-flagging educational materials that might prompt uncomfortable but insightful discussions are activities that do not belong in our public schools.”
This is sometimes true in the abstract, but it doesn’t end the debate. Parents, to use an extreme example, obviously have the right to “pass judgment” or “red flag” material if say, pornographic books are put into kindergarten classrooms. Of course, we don’t want them censoring everything they happen to disagree with but liberal critics still must admit that parents do have some right to control what their children are exposed to. Anything else is madness.
In this case, it may be that some of these books may just not be age-appropriate. For instance, one parent cited a book called Georgia Peaches and Other Forbidden Fruit, which depicts a teen romance between two girls, and, according to the parent, features sexually explicit content. Parents are well within their rights to object to their children being exposed to pornographic material.
However, the rules should be consistent. If sexually explicit books depicting same-sex couples must go, the same standard should apply to other teen romance novels as well. And if non-sexual romantic fiction with heterosexual characters is to be allowed, so too should at least some depicting homosexual characters. Some families will believe that homosexuality is wrong, but it is not the place of public schools to enforce religious standards of morality in their curriculum.
Critics who decry books such as Heather Has Two Mommies are calling for religious censorship in public schools of books that merely depict real situations they may come across. In 2019, some children actually will have two moms. Parents have the right to shelter their children from reality at home or pass on their religious values concerning sexual morality to their children. They don’t, however, have the right to enforce their personal religious views as the law-of-the-land in public schools.
In an ideal world, we would give people greater opportunities to seek individualized educations for their children according to their own moral standards. We would expand school choice programs, including private tuition vouchers so that all parents could decide what kind of educational environment they want their child exposed to. This would allow religious parents with strong objections to this sort of material to raise their children in environments they prefer and introduce them to the facts of life without forcing their views onto others.
In the meantime, it’s perhaps best for districts to follow Loudoun County’s example in making the books and material available, but not part of any mandatory curriculum. There is utility to having educational content available in our public schools that deals with issues of homosexuality or transgenderism, and it can be done without anything that anyone could reasonably claim to be indoctrination.
For example, one mother spoke to the Post about her son, who nearly had a mental breakdown coming to grips with his sexuality: “If he had been able to read a story, or 10, of how other people had come out and their lives didn’t end … it would have normalized his identity, his sexuality, in a way that would have made this not so stressful.”
Public schools in Virginia and across the country will have to reach a balance between allowing this content in schools and shielding children from content that is not age-appropriate. It won’t be easy, but it’s something we must get right — and that will require both sides to compromise.
