Books referred to in ‘Mahmoud v. Taylor’
By Porter Anderson, Editor-in-Chief | @Porter_Anderson
See also:
Penguin Random House Leads Amicus Brief in LGBTQ+ Books Case
Book Banning: A US Court Issues a Reversal in Texas
IPA on Reported Moscow Arrests: ‘The Risks Publishers Now Face in Russia’
In the case, the US state of Maryland’s Montgomery County—a suburb to Washington, DC—was defending a challenge to its school curriculum from parents who objected to classroom use of children’s books relative to LGBTQ+ related stories. That amicus brief asserted that ruling in favor of the parent-plaintiffs would “chill the incentive to create books that do not conform to religious orthodoxies, narrowing the range of literature available to students.”
Montgomery County is reported to have more than 160,000 students in its school system.
In an interesting point about Mahmoud v. Taylor, CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig noted that the parents challenging the school district make up “a group from various religions. There are Muslim parents, Catholic parents, and Ukrainian Orthodox parents. They’re arguing it violates the First Amendment right of free exercise of religion ‘to have our students have to be exposed to these things that we don’t agree with religiously.'” Those parents wanted to be able to have their kids excused when LGBTQ+ related stories were part of a day’s lesson plans.
Dan Novack
Dan Novack, Penguin Random House associate general counsel, said in April, “We are proud to publish a wide range of books reflecting many viewpoints, and we stand with our authors. We ask the Supreme Court to recognize the expertise of professional educators and allow students to see themselves and their neighbors in books.”
The school district objected that the parent’s request would be too much for the schools’ administrators—alerting parents when such lessons were coming on various topics that parents may say are problematic for them.
Nevertheless, when Friday’s (June 27) ruling from the Supreme Court was handed down, the conservative-heavy court had gone six-t0-three in favor of the Maryland parents. The three liberal justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson—were the ones in dissent. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion, including this line: “We reject this chilling vision of the power of the state to strip away the critical right of parents to guide the religious development of their children.”
Update: Since our original publication of this article, Penguin Random House has issued this statement:
“This ruling is a devastating setback for public education and the right to read. As Justice Sotomayor powerfully wrote in dissent, the decision ‘guts our free exercise precedent and strikes at the core premise of public schools.’
“Allowing individuals to opt out of reading certain materials erases marginalized voices and forces teachers to manage restrictions that lead to silent censorship. Reading a book does not require agreement—only openness to engaging with different experiences.
“Penguin Random House stands with the teachers, librarians, and students now facing even greater barriers to building classrooms that reflect the world around them.”
Elly Brinkley: ‘A More Narrow Orthodoxy’
In one of the most robust condemnations of the Supreme Court’s decision, PEN America‘s Free Expression Program staff attorney Elly Brinkley writes, “This ruling is a deeply disappointing blow to the right to read under the First Amendment.
“It’s a fundamental betrayal of public schools’ duty to prepare students to live in a diverse and pluralistic society.
Elly Brinkley
“By allowing parents to pull their children out of classrooms when they object to particular content, the justices are laying the foundation for a new frontier in the assault on books of all kinds in schools.
“In practice, opt-outs for religious objections will chill what is taught in schools and usher in a more narrow orthodoxy as fear of offending any ideology or sensibility takes hold. Opt-outs required under the broad ruling of the court are unworkable and will potentially lead schools to sweep out all kinds of books to avoid the challenge altogether.
“LGBTQ+-themed books have already been the main casualties among the 16,000 books banned” in the United States “since 2021. This will exacerbate that devastating trend.”
Mark Sherman, writing for the Associated Press—which the Trump White House has blocked from coverage access to certain events—points out that Uncle Bobby’s Wedding,’ one of the books objected to, prompted Alito to write, “The book has a clear message, and a lot of people think it’s a good message, and maybe it is a good message, but it’s a message that a lot of people who hold on to traditional religious beliefs don’t agree with.”
‘An Increasingly Hostile Climate’
One thing PEN America has followed the decision with is a response from authors and illustrators whose work is named in Mahmoud v. Taylor. In a coordinated statement, the group says, “We created our books for all children. We believe young people need to see themselves and families like theirs in the books they read; this is especially true for LGBTQ+ children and LGBTQ+ families. And all children need to learn how to share their classrooms and communities with people different from themselves. Books can help them understand one another and learn to treat each other with acceptance, kindness and respect.”
The list of those authors and illustrators and their books brought into controversy in the case:
- Sarah Brannen, author of Uncle Bobby’s Wedding
- Chris Case, illustrator of Jacob’s Room to Choose
- Charlene Chua, illustrator of Love, Violet
- LaToya Council, author of IntersectionAllies: We Make Room For All
- Daniel Haack, author of Prince & Knight
- Ian Hoffman, author of Jacob’s Room to Choose
- Sarah Hoffman, author of Jacob’s Room to Choose
- Stevie Lewis, illustrator of Prince & Knight
- Katherine Locke, author of What Are Your Words?
- Julie McLaughlin, illustrator of Pride Puppy
- DeShanna Neal, author of My Rainbow
- Andy Passchier, illustrator of What Are Your Words?
- Jodie Patterson, author of Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope
- Chelsea Johnson Rabb, author of IntersectionAllies: We Make Room For All
- Ashley Seil Smith, illustrator of IntersectionAllies: We Make Room For All
- Robin Stevenson, author of Pride Puppy
- Art Twink, illustrator of My Rainbow
- Charlotte Sullivan Wild, author of Love, Violet
The court’s decision does not constitute book banning, although some seek to characterize it as such. It’s not an agency of government or otherwise demanding the removal of a book from public access. In theory the books in question will still be in play and will be taught when teachers choose, but with a notice to parents that such a lesson is coming and that they can opt their children out of it.
However, this does represent a form of a restrictive framework that may, as many say, cause publishers, authors, and others to engage in self-censorship And it sends a signal of state disapproval of a class of literature. There are many types of censorship, and to many, this will appear as one of them.
And in her assessment of the Supreme Court decision, PEN America’s Brinkley goes on to write:
“The court’s conservative majority failed to even consider the fundamental free speech principles also at issue here, instead handing down a ruling that could have a broad chilling effect and open the door to censorship and discrimination.
“This risks significant harm for millions of children who may no longer see themselves or their families reflected in stories read in classrooms, while others will be denied the chance to build understanding and empathy for those different from themselves. The decision will allow any parents to object to any subject, with the potential to sow chaos in schools, and impact students, parents, educators, authors, and publishers. With rising polarization, xenophobia, and the targeting of vulnerable populations, we need schools that open students’ minds, not [schools that] betray education by closing them off from the real world.”
More from Publishing Perspectives on censorship in the broader context is here, more on the freedom to publish and freedom of expression is here, more on the freedom to read is here, and more on the United States book industry is here.