(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column of those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Augusta Press.)
It seems that a discussion has emerged in the community about what literature is appropriate for schools, with “To Kill a Mockingbird” taking front and center of this discussion. It seems a striking coincidence, however, that the challenge for this novel happened to be made public only days after a list of obscene and sexual books in CCSD media centers (along with screen shots proving their existence) was provided to the community and received attention. Additionally, this is the first book challenge (to my knowledge) that has ever been made public before the completion of the review process.
The attention that this book challenge has received from both Dr. Flynt and local press has unfortunately directed the community conversation towards the controversy of banning classics – successfully drawing it away from the recently emerged conversation of how obscenity laws and parental informed consent laws are being applied inconsistently in our schools. This is unfortunate because I cannot imagine a conversation more important to a community than one discussing whether or not school libraries should be providing obscene and sexual content to minor children.
[adrotate banner=”71″]
As much as raising concerns about books with graphic obscenity is being framed as a “book banning” issue, it is actually a legal one. It is inconsistent to have a law that defines obscenity and states that adults who provide it to children will be criminally charged… except if it is provided to children in a school library. Obscenity is obscenity, and the Supreme Court has ruled that it is not protected speech. Therefore, it defies logic to believe that the location of providing material should have any bearing on the criminal consequences associated with it. For sexual content, the same inconsistency applies. Georgia law requires that sexual education be taught in school, but it also requires that parents are informed and provide consent given that the content is deemed sensitive and subjective to family values. Once again, it defies logic for schools to require notification and consent before giving children sexually themed materials in sex ed, but that standard does not apply if the materials are provided outside of sex ed. Again, the location does not change the content of the material and therefore should have no bearing on whether or not the law is applied. It also gives the expectation to parents that they will be notified of all sexual content, yet they are not when it comes to library materials. One could even argue that schools not providing equal notification for sexual library materials is an oversight bordering on negligence. Lastly, it should be noted that what parents allow their children to access on phones and internet should equally have no bearing on when and how these laws are applied.
While parents will likely always disagree on how to best raise children, hopefully we can all agree that laws protecting children should be enforced in all contexts. (Note: Information and examples of sexual content in CCSD libraries can be found at www.refocusoneducation.com).
Katie Allen
Columbia County
