Get the Facts About Books in Public Schools.

Adapted from Free to Read Rochester. Learn even more by visiting Book Riot’s Guide to Addressing Misinformation and Book Challenges.

“Pornography” in the Library.

Claim: Public school libraries are housing and peddling “obscene” “pornography” that is illegal to “distribute to minors.”

Fact: False. Nothing in the school libraries meets the legal definition of obscenity as established by the Supreme Court in Miller v. California, 1973. Those making this claim often will cite isolated passages of text or a few panels of a graphic novel as proof that the work is “obscene” and therefore illegal to distribute. However, the “Miller Test,” as it is known, has three criteria and a text must meet all three criteria in order to be considered pornographic legally. One of those criteria is that the work must be taken as a whole when considering whether or not is obscene. That determination cannot be made by referencing only certain passages. Furthermore, according to the Miller Test, to be considered obscene, a text “taken as a whole, [must lack] serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” Similarly, a “pornographic” work has no purpose other than sexual stimulation.

Many of the texts challenged across Michigan and the nation are award-winning books and/or are considered classics and often appear on the Advanced Placement Literature and Composition test. Those using the rhetoric that the schools are peddling “pornography” are, whether knowingly or not, spreading political propaganda meant to inflame outrage against public schools.

Sexually Explicit Content.

Claim: These books are too sexually explicit for minors.

Fact: Mostly False. Some of the books that have been challenged have only what could be considered “PG-13” sexual content. But some of the books do contain sexually explicit or graphically violent passages or both. The most graphic passages often depict sexual assault, and, yes, some of these passages may be inappropriate for some minors, or even difficult for some adults to read. However, for others, these books may be a lifeline. We know that “[n]ationally, about 8% or 10 million girls and 0.7% or 791,000 boys under the age of 18 have experienced either rape or attempted rape” and that “One in 9 girls and 1 in 53 boys under the age of 18 experience sexual abuse or assault at the hands of an adult.” Although these assaults have catastrophic negative effects on the victims, we also know that very few actually report them: “In a representative national study of college women who had experienced rape or attempted rape, few (5%) reported the incident to law enforcement.” While it may make adults feel more comfortable to believe that they are shielding minors from this harsh reality, it can, in fact, be dangerous to teens. No, not all teens want to nor will read a book depicting sexual assaults. But some do. They may read such a book because they have suffered sexual assault or abuse and it just helps them feel understood and know that they are not alone. If they have been assaulted but did not report it, reading about another’s experience may encourage them to come forward. Or perhaps the reader felt not just shame, but guilt, and learns that what happened to them was an assault and not their fault.

In addition, although many of those calling to remove books say they have nothing against LGBTQ+ content, nationally, these bans disproportionally affect books with LGBTQ+ characters and by LGBTQ+ authors. Some books seem to have been challenged only because they discuss gender issues or contain LGBTQ+ content. This is especially worrisome as “[o]nly 26 percent [of LGBTQ+ teens] say they always feel safe in their school classrooms -- and just five percent say all of their teachers and school staff are supportive of LGBTQ people.” Certainly, a small but vocal segment of the community asking to have books representing LGBTQ+ authors and characters removed from the school will not improve these students’ feelings of safety or support.

Finally, most of the challenged books were written specifically for young adult readers (14- to 18-year-olds). It is no secret that this age group is interested in sex, as they are biologically programed to be. Sex in itself is not inappropriate for young adults, who have a legitimate and healthy interest in relationships and sexuality. Reading about characters who have healthy curiosity or positive experiences around sex is not prurient or dangerous, but can be a safe and reassuring way to consider these topics.

No Transparency

Claim: Schools are “hiding” what they are teaching and what materials they make available. Parents don’t know and can’t find out what books are in the library or are being taught, nor can they find the curricula for classes.

Fact: False. Modern libraries use electronic catalogs that can be accessed remotely. Parents can almost certainly access the library database to see what is in each school’s collection through the school’s website. Details about the curriculum are generally also available on the website, including the major texts that may be used in classes. In addition, teachers provide a general overview of their units and usually major texts used on course syllabi, which are either distributed to students, available online, or, most often, both. For a detailed list of each curriculum standard in each discipline, parents can reference the Common Core State Standards for Michigan, which were adopted in 2010 by the State of Michigan and, therefore, the core curriculum for all public schools.

In addition, parents can attend Curriculum Night and parent-teacher conferences. They can also contact their child’s teachers or the principal of their child’s school directly to ask questions or raise a concern. If they raise a concern that is not addressed to their satisfaction at the classroom or school level, they can file an official curriculum review request.

Instruction v. Indoctrination

Claim: Librarians are actively promoting these books and teachers are teaching these books in class in an attempt to indoctrinate our children.

Fact: False. Most books challenged in school libraries are not used for instruction. Librarians, media specialists, and information literacy specialists are not “teaching” these books nor are they promoting them widely to all students, although some titles may be on display with other books to promote a specific theme or a librarian may recommend a book among others to a specific student if the student asks for recommendations. Aggressively promoting titles to students is not really part of the job of a school media specialist. In addition, if a teacher has a classroom library and if the teacher has one of the challenged books in their classroom library, it is only available should an individual student want to read it. Reading this book would be the student’s choice.

However, even if one of the texts were being “taught” in class, implying that it would be used to “indoctrinate” students into one particular mindset fundamentally misunderstands how any text is used in a middle school or high school English class. In short, teachers don’t teach the text. Teachers use the text to teach the curriculum standards. As mentioned above, Michigan public schools use the Common Core standards. The standards for reading literature in high school are focused on analysis of the text, including using textual evidence to support an inference, determining themes, analyzing characters, analyzing literary techniques and author’s craft, analyzing text structure, etc. That is what teachers teach in class. They teach students how to notice and identify aspects of language and text structure, how to think through an analysis of those features, and how to use textual support for the analysis. They teach critical reading and thinking about texts. For example, The Catcher in the Rye is a common classroom text. At one point in the book, the 16-year-old main character, Holden, uses a pimp to solicit a prostitute. That doesn’t mean that the teachers are encouraging students in any way to go out and solicit a prostitute themselves. No teacher is going to ask students questions like, “Explain the process Holden used to solicit the prostitute. How could he have improved this process so that he didn’t end up getting beat up by the pimp?” to make sure students have a thorough understanding of how to solicit a prostitute. If the scene comes up at all, it would be brought up by a student and used as textual support for some analysis of character or theme.

Parental Rights and Political Propaganda

Claim: I am just a parent who wants to exercise my right to guide my own child’s education, and that right is being denied.

Fact: False. A parent’s right to guide the education of their child in a public school has been guaranteed by the Michigan constitution since the 1990s. A parent speaking against books has yet to explain why opting out their own child is not enough.

Furthermore, many people who are speaking in favor of removing books from school libraries do not even have children in those schools. Some of the advocates of censorship do not have children currently in the district at all. Some have children in the district but not in the schools that have received book challenges. And the Michigan constitution “specifies that parents and legal guardians are permitted to review curriculum, textbooks, and teaching materials of the school in which the pupil is enrolled at a reasonable time and place” (emphasis added).

In most cases, advocates of censorship are not becoming aware of certain books because their children are bringing them home or reading them in school. Instead, they are learning about the books – and being told which parts are “pornographic” and guided in how to protest these books at school board meetings – by outside, hyper-partisan political groups. PEN America recently released a report of a comprehensive study of the scope and nature of recent book challenges and bans. They found:

The momentum behind this wave of book banning is not only local. As many news outlets have reported, book bans have become a favorite tool for state-wide and national political mobilization, departing from prior patterns whereby such bans tended to originate locally and spontaneously. Local chapters of Moms for Liberty have collated and shared lists of books to be challenged on Facebook, and pressed their case to responsive school authorities. No Left Turn in Education and Parents Defending Education have curated lists of “radical” books that they view as “indoctrination,” and have actively sought to mobilize disaffected parents under the banner of “parents’ rights.”

Indeed, a website affiliated with Moms for Liberty called BookLook.info publishes “book reports” on books the group finds objectionable, including extensive excerpted passages from the book. They also publish a “Plan of Action” instructing people how to protest such books at school board meetings. The “plan” advises parents to slowly release these book reports on their social media in order to get “people engaged with outrage” and in order to put “pressure on schools to at least consider a book that is challenged before the school board can even ask the individual schools to look at the books.” They also point out that “[i]t is a possibility that the book will be pulled, even temporarily, by the librarian speeding up the goal of permanent removal.” After releasing the “book reports” on social media to stir up “outrage,” they instruct their readers to go to school board meetings and read passages aloud, being sure to pick a passage that has “a high level of ‘pornographic’ [sic] content,” and then “ask if the board thinks this is OK for minors.” They also assure their readers this is just the beginning: “First, we are going after porn [sic] in the school libraries, but the book report is designed to document any controversial/inappropriate material for future use or as a parental resource.” (emphasis added) The last step in the action plan is to “vote them out” if school board members don’t comply with the demands, at which point, according to a Moms for Liberty founder, “parents are going to get in [the school boards] and they’re going to want to fire everyone.”

These are not just “concerned parents” challenging local book selections. This is wholesale politicizing of our public schools and public school boards, both of which are supposed to be non-partisan.

Banning Books

Claim: No one is trying to “ban” books because the books are still available elsewhere if someone wants them.

Fact: False. The American Library Association defines book challenges and book banning this way: “A challenge is an attempt to remove or restrict materials, based upon the objections of a person or group. A banning is the removal of those materials.” If a book is removed from the school library shelves, it is banned in that school for the students who no longer have access to it. Furthermore, the information from BookLook.info (see above) clearly indicates that their overall political plan is to get books removed, or banned, hopefully by circumventing the proper review processes and policies by pressuring school officials to pull the books from the shelves before or without any review. Finally, PEN America found that these groups are finding plenty of elected officials to support them. One of PEN’s findings is “[o]f all bans listed in the Index, 41% (644 individual bans) are tied to directives from state officials or elected lawmakers to investigate or remove books in schools.” That is censorship by the government.

The claim that those challenging the books are just concerned with schools and, therefore, they are not trying to ban books is disingenuous at best. One of the books challenged in Rochester Community Schools, for example, was also challenged at the Rochester Hills Public Library. Michigan made national news when the Patmos Library was defunded because it would not remove LGBTQ+ books. And in Virginia, two lawmakers recently attempted to restrict Barnes & Noble from selling two books they considered obscene to minors.

The First Amendment in Schools

Claim: It is perfectly within the rights of local school officials to remove books from school libraries because they or others are concerned about the content of those books.

Fact: False. In Pico v. Island Trees School District, 1982, the Supreme Court ruled that school libraries have a different function in the school than courses do, so school district officials do not have “absolute discretion” over the content of those libraries. In summary:

The Supreme Court ruled in the students’ favor on First Amendment grounds, holding that the right to read is implied by the First Amendment. The government—in this case, a public school—cannot restrict speech because it does not agree with the content of that speech. The decisions called libraries places for “voluntary inquiry” and concluded that the school board’s “absolute discretion” over the classroom did not extend to the library for that reason.

In short, if school officials remove books from library shelves, either with or without a formal review, simply because they disagree with the content of those books, they are violating their student’s First Amendment Rights and would be open to legal challenges on that grounds.

Minority or Majority?

Claim: We represent what most parents are thinking and want.

Fact: False. Louder does not mean more. In most districts, a relatively small number of the same parents and community members have been speaking at board meetings against books. But does the silence of the majority of parents mean they support one side or the other? Not necessarily. Let’s face it. Most people with kids in the schools are not paying attention to what’s happening at board meetings and don’t know about the book challenges, much less so general voters. Furthermore, people who are happy with what is happening in their kids’ schools don’t tend to show up just to tell the board so. And many voters are not overly concerned with board of education goings-on, in general.

But it isn’t just lack of engagement that is keeping people from speaking out against censorship and banning efforts. It is also fear of being derided or harassed or worse. And the people who are most vulnerable to this are the same ones who are most passionate about making sure all kids have access to books that are right for them--librarians and teachers. A former Librarian of the Year in Louisiana had her photo and name used in a meme accusing her of “teaching anal sex to 11-year-olds” and also received death threats after speaking out at her local public library board meeting against censorship. A public librarian in Idaho resigned after armed protesters showed up at her library to object to books the library did not even carry. Police have shown up at school libraries in Missouri and Texas to “investigate” books after receiving complaints, and criminal complaints against books, especially LGBTQ+ books, have been filed from Wyoming to Texas to South Carolina to right here in Dearborn, Michigan. In Oklahoma, a teacher was put on leave and then resigned after she shared a QR code to the Brooklyn Public Library with her students. In Rochester, Michigan, a teacher was secretly recorded in class and the recording was posted and criticized online, and simple comments on their personal social media by teachers about what they are teaching have instigated public records requests. It is no wonder people are reluctant to speak out.

There is no way of knowing for sure how this silent majority of teachers, parents and voters feels about removing books from the school libraries. But national statistics would suggest that a majority of them would be against it. In a survey of voters earlier this year, The American Library Association found broad support for libraries of all kinds, including school libraries. They found, “Three quarters of parents of public school children (74%) express a high degree of confidence in school librarians to make good decisions about which books to make available to children, and when asked about specific types of books that have been a focus of local debates, large majorities say for each that they should be available in school libraries on an age-appropriate basis.”