Recently, state officials and local school districts have launched inquiries into books related to sexuality, race and other controversial topics. Keller ISD has gone so far as to bam certain titles from its libraries. We fear this movement could spread to Boswell and even all schools in the state of Texas.

Banning and removing books from students can be harmful, and should be prevented.

These initiatives were spurred after reports from parents about a sexually explicit scene within the book “Gender Queer: A Memoir,” by Maia Kobabe, with some going so far as to label the book as pornography.

The distribution of sexually explicit material to minors is a serious legal issue, and concern over the presence of this type of material in schools’ libraries has caused officials to start looking at an ever-increasing list of book titles. School districts are being asked to answer for any titles included on a list of some 850 books compiled by state Rep. Matt Krause, R-Fort Worth.

This raises numerous questions to young adult minds. Is censoring or removing literature from children harmful? How is censoring these books preparing students for the real world, and does this investigation have an effect that could violate the first amendment rights of students?

Through the typical high school career students are expected to take four language arts credits. These courses continuously preach the importance of reading diverse material, the aspects of different genres, and how to dissect and discern figurative language and the devices employed by authors.

By sophomore year, most every student will have read “Fahrenheit 451” as a required part of the curriculum. This classic piece of fiction follows the life of a member of a dystopian society that destroys literature under the guise that books are themselves dangerous. The main character, Montag, ultimately explains the consequences of sheltering children, adults, and society from them.

This book is universally praised by educators and has become an indispensable tool in teaching students the importance of books and how valuable the right to read them can be. If such a lesson is so universally supported and taught, then why limit their access and freedom to read them?

Looking to the origin of the Keller investigation, it is apparent that the concern for books such as “Gender Queer” originated with the parents and not the students. The student discomfort that parents are claiming they want to avoid looks to be, in actuality, their own. Perhaps the real concern is that their child might be reading books that make the parents personally uncomfortable or that their child might be curious about the content inside.

Of course, parents do have rights regarding how their children are educated under the Texas Education Code. It is also worth remembering that depending on how explicit a book may be, the distribution of certain titles can lead to serious criminal consequences to those involved.

On the opposite side of this legal spectrum, it has to be asked if the possible removal of books is a violation of the first amendment rights of students? The United States Supreme Court has weighed in, to a degree, but the question has not been resolved. The Court did rule in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District that students do not lose their First Amendment rights to self-expression by walking on campus. So what is the right balance?

People worry about history repeating. Luckily we have textbooks, journals, and primary sources to teach the lessons learned from the past. Many of the books being investigated relate to topics that should be talked about in high school. Topics such as race and sexuality are certainly ideas that students will encounter in everyday life. Students need to be able to learn and explore these topics, particularly while in a place where they have resources and guidance, since the real world will not shelter them from being exposed.

To be a functioning member of society, high school students need to learn about such hot button topics as sex, how it works, how to be safe, and to make educated decisions.

Sexual material seems to be a common theme in these most recent concerns about school libraries, but sex is something that is certainly not hidden even in traditional literature. Just look at the works of Shakespeare, a literary giant, and you can see that sex is not hushed but rather it is glorified. Yet, how is it these works are no longer the subject of criticism?
As much as parents may wish to deny it, sexuality is something students are absolutely exploring as students emerge into the adult world and form their identities. Wouldn’t it be desirable to have books that help them navigate their feelings?

Further, students are already exposed to this content, whether or not parents wish to ignore this fact. Why deny their ability to further discover and learn about something so central to the human condition?

Students should also be free to explore issues surrounding race, since in the 2020s racial injustice has been a constant on every news station. Our current curriculum addresses this with titles like “To Kill a Mockingbird” and “The Watsons Go to Birmingham,” but somehow these books are now being brought into question because of some undefined amount of student discomfort. This seems odd, as we would be reversing course on these titles.

This suggests that something less than a legitimate interest in enforcing standards is motivating certain people who think larger bans are a good idea.

High school is a crucial time to introduce and understand these critical topics.If students emerge clueless and overwhelmed when they face them in the real world, high schools are failing their students.

“Students” is the key word. Our primary concern is to add children to the equation. Ultimately we are altering current and future students’ lives, schools, and “real world “experiences.

The committees who reread and study the challenged books are composed of adults, but no students. The simple fact is students are being left out of the equation.

Instead of widespread bans, we propose a few alternative ideas.

Schools should recruit a group of students, have them read the books that have raised concern and get feedback on them. It is the students using the library after all, and students should have the choice whether to check them out or not.

Another possibility would be to possibly give libraries the option to develop mature sections for students who are 18 to check out.

Districts should explore both of these solutions before sending books straight to the chopping block. It is foolish to leave students out of the investigation when the investigation is primarily focused on the students in the first place.

If students want to choose what books we can read and what we can learn, then we must express this now through our protected First Amendment rights.