Image – Getty: DiFielding
By Porter Anderson, Editor-in-Chief | @Porter_Anderson
‘A Book for Every Reader’
As oral arguments were about to begin at the United States Supreme Court this morning (April 22), three major publishing entities announced that they had filed an amicus brief in the case.
Penguin Random House, the Authors Guild, and the nonprofit Educational Book and Media Association have filed an amicus brief in the case of Mahmoud v. Taylor in which the state of Maryland’s Montgomery County is defending a challenge to its school curriculum from parents who object to classroom use of children’s books relative to LGBTQ+ related stories.
The case has several distinctions from a typical book-banning demand to remove certain books.
The public school district in Maryland’s Montgomery County—this is in the area of Washington DC—has approved the use of books that feature LGBTQ characters in various classroom lessons for elementary-level students. A group of parents who say they’re religiously opposed to their children’s exposure to this content would like to be able to have their children excused from such lessons.
The school district, however, says that this 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.
Among more interesting elements here is the fact that, as noted by CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig in his reporting today, 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.”
What’s more, as outlined, the parents aren’t demanding that the books they find inappropriate be removed. Instead, they want a way to opt their students out of lessons based on those books.
Among the books cited in the case are: My Rainbow by DeShanna and Trinity Neal, illustrated by Art Twink, and published by Kokila, a Penguin Random House imprint, and Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope by Jodie Patterson, illustrated by Charnelle Pinkney Barlow, published by Penguin Random House’s Crown Books for Young Readers.
Another is Daniel Haack and illustrator Stevie Lewis’ Prince and Knight, from the independent press Little Bee Books.
In their amicus brief, PRH, the Authors Guild, and the Educational Book and Media Association assert that a ruling in the plaintiffs’ favor would “chill the incentive to create books that do not conform to religious orthodoxies, narrowing the range of literature available to students.”
The brief also argues that that allowing parents to opt out of books based on religious objections would also restrict students’ access to diverse perspectives and experiences.
Dan Novack
Dan Novack, Penguin Random House, associate general counsel, says, “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.”
Mary Rasenberger
And Mary Rasenberger, CEO of the Authors Guild, says, “Reading about different people doesn’t indoctrinate children any more than reading about space exploration makes a child an astronaut, or reading biographies makes them adopt the exact life choices of historical figures.
“These stories don’t override a child’s own beliefs—they prepare them for the reality that they’ll share in classrooms, communities, and workplaces with people from all walks of life.
“That’s not indoctrination—it’s essential education.”
Several Passages From the Amicus Brief
- “As authors and publishers, [the brief’s] amici seek to ensure that their works are broadly available to all students: ‘a book for every reader.’ A rule requiring schools to accommodate the objections to some books for some readers based on religious objections raised by some parents necessarily chills the incentive to create books that do not conform to religious orthodoxies. If the petitioners’ requested relief is granted, fewer students will be able to find the books that reflect their lived experiences, because books will be created in order to fit within a more narrow range so as to be found unobjectionable. The world presented to students through the storybooks they read and listen to in school will be smaller and less representative.”
- “Books give other students insight into the experiences of their peers, and foster empathy, compassion, and community-building. If the Storybooks that petitioners seek to avoid have one common message, it is that members of the LGBTQ community are people too, and therefore deserving of respect. One need not condone homosexuality to be a good classmate or teammate of their gay neighbors. Research shows that children from all backgrounds who are taught these important life tools not only perform better in school but lead more successful lives as adults.”
- “The mere inclusion of a book in a public school’s curriculum cannot be, on its face, coercive. For example, it is perfectly appropriate for a high school history teacher to assign students to read Mein Kampf and write a rebuttal, but not to demand a defense of it. Context matters. It also defies logic to assert that simply reading a storybook is tantamount to conversion to the author’s values. Reading the Communist Manifesto does not require one to become a Marxist. And, no matter the epic poet Homer’s timeless brilliance, reading The Iliad does not compel worship of Zeus. Similarly, reading the storybooks does not compel anyone to adopt their perspectives if their personal conscience dictates otherwise. Love, Violet does not compel anyone to adopt or endorse its perspective on the intensity of friendships between young girls. And reading Born Ready does not compel adoption or endorsement of its characters’ views on gender identity.”
The trio of amicus brief-filing parties write, “These books remain the speech of their authors, not the government. Any theory that mistakes mere exposure to ideas with forced indoctrination is inconsistent with the First Amendment’s free-speech guarantee.
“Anyone—including children—can read about characters and events beyond their experiences, even if they disagree with the themes or characters in the story.”
Despite the efforts of the entities behind the amicus brief, many analysts appear to believe that the parents making the objections in the case will win find favor with a six-to-three majority on the Supreme Court, falling along the conservative-liberal lines of the court today.
As Lawrence Hurley writes for NBC News, “Members of the six-three conservative majority, which often backs religious rights, seemed sympathetic during the lively two-and-a-half-hour oral argument toward the claims made by the parents that the Montgomery County Board of Education violated their religious rights by failing to provide an opt-out for their children.”
As Hurley also points out, the parents “are not challenging the curriculum itself, just the lack of an opt-out.
And as John Fritze, writing for CNN today, notes, one of the Christian parents suing the school district, has put it, “We have no hate for anyone. We’re saying that we, as parents, do not want our children to be exposed to these ideas at this age because they’re not ready for it.”
More from Publishing Perspectives on book bannings is here, more on censorship in the broader context is here, more on the freedom to publish and freedom of expression is here, and more on the United States book industry is here.