Events in the news these days cause me to question the thinking, the rationale of others, especially on topics related to education. I see so much irony and hypocrisy that I cringe.
In 2022 Indiana lawmakers sought to ban divisive topics and harmful materials from public school classrooms. This year the Senate passed SB 12, which would punish school employees for making available materials considered harmful. Should it pass the House and be signed into law, school employees would face a Level 6 felony, which carries a maximum of 2.5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine (the same penalty for auto theft, criminal stalking, and strangulation). Signed into law, SB 12 would take away from schools and their employees the eligibility “for a specified defense to criminal prosecution” for disseminating material harmful to minors or presenting a performance harmful to minors. The educational value argument would be removed for any material subjectively labeled “inappropriate.”
During debate on the Senate floor one of the authors of the SB12, Sen. Tomes (R-Wadesville), explained the bill was in response to parent complaints that pornography is “rampant in schools.” When asked for evidence, Tomes could not provide specifics. (He obviously forgot that he was taught an argument requires evidence.) The irony here is that current law already makes it illegal to provide minors harmful or obscene material. The proposed law would make it criminal and remove a safety net defense for public schools and their employees.
If the complaints warranting the writing of SB 12 have been about pornography existing in schools, why does the legislation allow parents to file complaints about “inappropriate” materials instead of “pornographic” materials? Can you attach a more vague label to classroom materials than “inappropriate”?
Because school librarians and teachers may fear that a certain book could be labeled as “inappropriate” by some parents, they may avoid stocking school or classroom libraries with or including in their curriculum texts dealing with historical issues like slavery, Jim Crow laws, and the Holocaust. And because we live in a world dealing with tough issues like racism, sexism, death and dying, mental illness, suicide, gender identity, assault, and domestic terrorism, there will be those who deem such topics as “inappropriate” for discussion or for reading in the classroom. The result — educational professionals will steer clear of housing books exploring such topics in libraries.
At Adams Central and Norwell, I had an extensive classroom library that grew every year until I ventured into administration in 2007. I shudder to think how that collection would have dwindled had I removed every book that someone might have felt “inappropriate” because it exposed realities that might be uncomfortable for some.
I believe a strong democracy depends on critical thinking and access to information needed to shape our nation for generations. I believe responsible citizenship results when students can access diverse texts, have the freedom to ask questions and search for answers, and develop the “agency to engage in an education unlimited by censorship” (IndyReads Op-Ed, 13 March 2023). I believe it’s dangerous to deny students reading materials that might validate their own experience, introduce them to empathy and compassion for people different from themselves, and give them language to use as they develop ways of navigating in such a diverse world.
History reveals that “when societies do not cultivate empathy, compassion, and acceptance, horrific things happen to those deemed inappropriate” (IndyReads Op-Ed, 13 March 2023). One need only consider the slaughter and displacement of Native American tribes beginning in the 15th century; the treatment of black slaves in America prior to the Emancipation Proclamation; the murder of Jews, gypsies, mentally and physically disabled individuals, Catholics, and dissidents who disagreed with the Nazi regime during World War II; the internment of Japanese Americans, also during WWII; and today’s failure to embrace individuals of different religions, races, ethnic backgrounds, sexual orientation, and political persuasions.
I am wholly in favor of parents having a voice in their children’s education. I am not aware of a school corporation in my realm of experiences that hasn’t adopted a policy or a procedure for parents to lodge complaints regarding materials used in the classroom or housed in school libraries.
I am not in favor of a law that tells a librarian or teacher “if you don’t get rid of those books I don’t like, I’m going to see that you get put in jail and pay a hefty fine.” I don’t know a single educational professional that would willingly traumatize a student with literature or discussion of it. Given today’s climate and legislation, is it any wonder that educators are leaving the profession in droves?
Here’s the Thing: Why is it that so many people consider themselves experts in teaching, curriculum, and educational psychology? Is it because those people have been a second grader, a middle schooler, and a high school student that they believe they know what best practices are and what material is best suited for a given student? Is there another profession where such simplistic thinking is applied? And here’s a glaring hypocrisy. While many think that librarians, media specialists, and teachers cannot be trusted to select materials for stu
