At first glance, the request from parents who don’t want their children to take part in discussions of LGBTQ+-themed picture books in the classroom might not seem so objectionable.
Six parents complained that the content of books like “Pride Puppy,” an alphabet book that follows a family as they temporarily lose their dog in a Pride Day celebration, are inappropriate for younger students. They claimed that the Montgomery (Maryland) County Board of Education outside of Washington, D.C., violated their religious rights by failing to provide an opt-out for their children.
After gaining the support of some religious groups, they took their views to the Supreme Court in April in the case Mahmoud v. Taylor.
Here’s why the parents’ approach is a problem, not just for this school district but for all educators, students and parents.
We know from peer-reviewed science and research that there’s a difference between sex and gender (and that there are more than two of each). We know from research that children become attuned to the societally taught differences between boys and girls as young as age 2 — elementary school is not too early to discuss gender.
But more importantly, we know that there are children with LGBTQ+ families in these classrooms. We know there are LGBTQ+ children in these classrooms, whether they have the language for their identity or not. And representation in books and educational materials leads to better educational outcomes — a win for students, their parents, their school districts and, ultimately, for our society.
Don’t these children deserve to see their families and themselves represented in their curricula, the same as their cisgender and heterosexual classmates?
Of course they do.
Related: A lot goes on in classrooms from kindergarten to high school. Keep up with our free weekly newsletter on K-12 education.
Rudine Sims Bishop, the groundbreaking researcher on multicultural children’s literature, has said that books that serve as “windows, mirrors, and sliding glass doors” build empathy, facilitate understanding and foster a sense of belonging. Books validate identities and feelings, helping children to feel secure about themselves.
Maybe that’s exactly what people who want these books out of the classroom and off the shelves aim to dissuade. Maybe they do not want LGBTQ+ children or children with LGBTQ+ family members to feel like they belong, secure in their identities and communities.
Mahmoud v. Taylor itself isn’t a book-banning case, on the cover. But when you crack it open, it’s easy to see that’s what it would accomplish.
If the Supreme Court agrees with the parents who object to our LGBTQ+ picture books — as they seem poised to do — parents will be allowed to opt their children out of read-aloud lessons that use books they find objectionable.
And this will have a profound effect on the future of LGBTQ+ books everywhere.
By siding with parents, the court would likely codify the idea that LGBTQ+ identities are inappropriate for children, thus excluding, isolating, invalidating and ostracizing children who already identify as LGBTQ+, along with those who are exploring those identities or have LGBTQ+ family members.
After all, in this example, only LGBTQ+ identities are set out as separate, offensive and dangerous. Books depicting heterosexuality, even incidentally, will be codified as the “normal” books, and all others as the “abnormal” books that require opt-out forms sent home.
That won’t just affect LGBTQ+ books. As Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out, parents for years have objected to books about interfaith marriages, divorce and women who have achieved success outside of the home.
The potential of opting multiple students out of each classroom for any reason every day of the school year could create mayhem for schools and teachers.
In this scenario, K-12 teachers will likely choose the safest book options, the ones that are least likely to result in opt-out forms and in more students needing to leave the room for the duration of the read-aloud, discussion or activity.
And these “safe” book options will almost definitely exclude books not only related to LGBTQ+ topics and characters but also those involving female characters, Black people, Latino people, Asian people, indigenous people or disabled people.
Related: The magic pebble and a lazy bull: The book ban movement has a long timeline
Once again, all these groups will be left wondering where their stories are. Every child deserves to see themselves represented on their classroom shelves and in their curricula, even if their existence or their family’s existence does not align with their classmates’ parents’ religious beliefs.
The plaintiffs’ lawyers have been unwilling to specify boundaries to their requested opt-out policy, and with the court seemingly split down ideological lines during oral arguments, we must hope the justices put reasonable limits on opt-outs.
We also hope they do not further marginalize LGBTQ+ children and families or codify the idea that attending a Pride Parade, or learning about pronouns or feeling content in one’s body are inappropriate for young children. Students of all identities have the right to learn about their world and themselves, without being shamed, othered or isolated.
Our readers, our students, our teachers and our classrooms demand it.
Katherine Locke is the author of one of the books in the case, “What Are Your Words? A Book About Pronouns.”
Contact the opinion editor at [email protected] story about Mahmoud v. Taylor was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s weekly newsletter.
