Is the School Library Safe?

A roiling controversy in Arkansas may serve to awaken many parents to the reality of what is found in many public school libraries--explicitly sexual material.

This controversy centers in Fayetteville, Arkansas, where Laurie Taylor, a mother of two young teenage girls, complained to the local board of education about three library books that contained explicit descriptions and depictions of sexual activity. Later, Taylor would form a group called Parents Protecting the Minds of Children, and her list of three troubling books would be expanded to dozens of others.

Predictably, national library associations and anti-censorship groups quickly jumped into the fray, charging Mrs. Taylor with launching a crusade to take the Arkansas public schools back to the dark ages.

In response to her concerns, the Fayetteville Board of Education first decided to move the three books in question into a special parents-only section of the school libraries. Nevertheless, the board later rescinded that decision and, by a one-vote margin, decided to return the books to the main collection where they would be accessible to students.

This particular controversy tells us a great deal about how much influence parents can wield over local school boards and the administration of the schools. In a nutshell, this case proves that, even in the heartland of America, parents are denied much influence at all.

I do not know Laurie Taylor, but a quick visit to her organization's web site should be enough to raise the temperature of any concerned parent. The three books of her immediate concern, It's So Amazing, It's Perfectly Normal, and The Teenage Guy's Survival Guide, contain hair-raising material. It's So Amazing, intended for children in kindergarten through the fourth grade, deals with a wide range of sexual issues. It's Perfectly Normal, designed for third through sixth graders, includes cartoon drawings of a couple having sex, of homosexual relationships, and of a boy masturbating. Those readers that require proof of this content can simply visit the group's web site.

The Teenage Guy's Survival Guide encourages the use of pornography as "natural and fine." Backward parents who think otherwise will find themselves isolated by the liberal elite and attacked by advocates for libraries and librarians, who seem to have no concern for what parents believe to be appropriate for their children.

The Little Rock newspaper, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, editorialized against Laurie Taylor's crusade. Referring to the excerpts from offensive books Mrs. Taylor and her group assembled, the paper responded: "They can be shocking. And often on the basis of those inflammatory excerpts, she's rallied support from others with concerns that mirror hers. In the name of protecting her kids from books she finds distasteful, she's unavoidably created obstacles for others who don't feel the way she does." The paper went on to accuse Mrs. Taylor of seeking to ban books and argued that her effort amounts to a form of unconstitutional censorship.

When Mrs. Taylor suggested that parents might decide to "opt out" their children from school libraries, the paper described her proposal as "a curious way to approach education, preventing your kids from using the school library."

One might think that the newspaper would be more concerned with the use of a school library as an environment for indoctrinating children into the sexual revolution. The Little Rock paper suggested that the school district should simply "flag each student's record with parental restrictions on what books their own kids can check out." In other words, parents could decide that they could prevent their children from checking out a specific list of books. Of course, nothing would prevent the children from gaining access to the books while in the library.

Undoubtedly, some persons would assume that this is all about sex education in general. But the books Laurie Taylor and her team have listed are, in the main, not about biology and the "birds and the bees." To the contrary, the books she lists are among some of the most explicit and pornographic to be found anywhere in literature.

Many parents are simply unaware that the category of literature now known as "young adult fiction" is filled with some of the most graphic sexuality to be found in contemporary literature. Many of the titles normalize homosexuality and describe homosexual acts while others cover issues ranging from incest to sexual abuse and matters of heterosexual technique.

Some would undoubtedly be surprised to learn that this controversy is localized in Fayetteville, Arkansas. Nevertheless, as reporter George Archibald of The Washington Times explains, Fayetteville, the home of the University of Arkansas, is marked by "the self-consciously liberal instincts of a college town" but is "surrounded by a conservative, church-going county in the heart of the Bible Belt."

Bobby C. New, the superintendent of Fayetteville's public schools, went so far as to describe the parents' effort to identify sexually explicit books as "almost a cancer that grows within the total body of our school district." Even as he pledged to work with the parents on the issue, he insisted that librarians must make the final decisions. "I will defend our librarians to the bitter end," he said. "They are professional, trained, serious [teachers] who totally, totally have a process of reviewing everything that is ordered, to include reviewing critics, national critics that have been identified by the American Library Association as being credible." [sic]

Therein lies the problem. The American Library Association is hardly a disinterested party to this controversy. As a matter of fact, the ALA takes predictably liberal positions on almost every issue, especially when it comes to matters of pornography and censorship. The ALA steadfastly opposes the use of any internet filters, arguing that such mechanisms represent an unconstitutional form of censorship. The ALA and its associated groups have opposed laws that would protect children from access to sexually explicit material and pornography.

In a June 24, 2005 editorial, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette celebrated the fact that the National Coalition Against Censorship had written a letter to Superintendent New, urging him to resist the efforts of Laurie Taylor and other concerned parents. According to the paper, the NCAC's letter was "so unspeakably reasonable that it should be required reading." With arrogant condescension, the paper continued: "But that would probably bring another objection from the would-be censors, who keep finding more reading material they want kept from impressionable kids. The coalition's arguments against hiding books from the kids makes so much sense they would probably scare the aginners [i.e., people against something] as much as any of those books do."

The paper argued that parents should not be making decisions about which books should be available in public school libraries. "The coalition says the decision about what books belong in a school library is the proper job for librarians and teachers who work with kids. And who should not be making such judgments? Individual parents. That's right, the parents shouldn't be making these decisions. Hold your outrage, mom and dad. Listen to the coalition: 'Parents may be equipped to make reading choices for their own children, but, no matter how well-intentioned, they simply are not equipped to make decisions that address the needs of the entire district's student body.'"

In other words, the paper told the parents to back off and go back home where they belong. According to the editors, "We trust the teachers, teachers' aides, librarians, principals, and even school boards and superintendents to do what's right by all the kids."

That kind of condescension--not to mention liberal arrogance--and the decision by the Fayetteville school board suggests why so many parents are withdrawing their children from the public schools and choosing other options.

While the newspaper's editors are waxing poetic against the dangers of censorship and celebrating the NCAC's open letter to superintendent New, perhaps they should actually make a visit to the NCAC Web site. There they would find a white paper entitled "Identifying What Is Harmful or Inappropriate for Minors." That paper, written by Marjorie Hines, director of the NCAC's "Free Expression Policy Project," claims: "Experts in human sexuality agree that there is no body of scientific evidence establishing that minors are harmed by reading or viewing pornography."

Later, the same paper asserts: "Correlations do not establish causation, but they can be suggestive. Studies have found, for example, an inverse correlation between youthful exposure to pornography and sex offending among adolescents and adults. That is, sex offenders generally have less, not more, exposure to pornography as youths. One possible inference is that sex offending is causally related not to youthful exposure to sexually explicit material but to its opposite: youthful repression, conflict, and guilt."

Let's see the editors of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette cite that passage in an editorial. The NCAC has published a paper suggesting the "possible inference" that shielding adolescent males from explicit pornography can actually lead to "sex offending."

At least one of the paper's columnists, Mike Masterson, had the courage to defend Laurie Taylor. Noting the hatred directed at Mrs. Taylor, Masterson observed, "Her offense? Being a concerned local parent who politely took to the stage to plead for a community with divergent views to unite to mastermind an enlightened plan where each parent's desires for his or her own child's development could be met."

Masterson also informed his readers that it was Laurie Taylor who had asked the Fayetteville school district why Christmas had been left off of the 2004 elementary public school calendar, while Kwanzaa, Ramadan, and Hanukkah were listed. According to Masterson, Mrs. Taylor had even offered to pay for the reprinting of new calendars which would have listed Christmas Day. As he reported, the district's reply was, "No sale."

Many Americans would undoubtedly be shocked to observe that Fayetteville, at least as represented by a majority of its school board and a large number of its politically active citizens, is turning itself into something of a Berkeley in the Ozarks. This controversy should alert parents to look closely at the materials available in their own local school libraries. If you still question what is at stake, simply visit the Parents Protecting the Minds of Children web site. So much for trusting "professionals" to make these decisions for our children.

Your formula would bar some works of Chaucer.

Not everyone who asks to have the filter removed is searching for porn. For example, a patron researching breast cancer would probably be blocked. Also, we have had patrons blocked from employment websites because the words "under 18" were found.

It isn't as simple as you seem to think it could be.

hmm, ideally if a parent objects to this type of literary materials being available to their kids and it's their responsiblity to make sure they don't look at it (how since most schools have a problem with parents coming into the schools now a days) then they should also get to opt out of paying at least the part of their real estate tax that goes to support the local district that they are opting out of because they don't like having sexually explicit materials presented to their children. right? from my yearly notice it isn't really an amount to sneeze at and could help them pay for a private placement or materials to home school.

Yes, there are some who would be offended by certain verses from Chaucer. For example, "And at the windowe out she putte hir hole, and Absolon, him fil no bet ne wers, but with his mouth he kiste her naked ers." It goes on.

Who said library computers should be used for porn? I haven't defended that. I said our computers have filters that adults can ask to have removed, and then I explained why they might request that and the reasons I gave have nothing to do with porn.

It just occurred to me that many parents remain willfully ignorant of what goes on in their schools BECAUSE they think they have no choice.
_________________________________________________________
Don't forget the uninvolved parents who only enter their children's school to enroll them.

Remember the Columbine shooting? The parents didn't even know their kid was making bombs in the garage.

I still think homeschooling is the way to go, if possible.

It just occurred to me that many parents remain willfully ignorant of what goes on in their schools BECAUSE they think they have no choice.

EVERY parent has a choice no matter what, even if their children are in neighborhood schools. My parents chose horrible things like to not have cable TV or buy video game systems or allow us to watch rated R movies. We did things with our friends, but not on school nights. We watched TV, but not until our homework was done. We did things with friends on the weekends, but we also had jobs to do. When we went out with our friends, we were expected to be back at a certain time and to let our parents know we were home. We were expected to learn something in each class, no matter what and to be there and listen. We were expected to respect other adults, including our church leaders, teachers, law enforcement, and such. We were definitely not allowed to disrespect our mother (my sore backside confirmed that fact many a time). We were expected to not drink alcohol or smoke, to NOT take drugs, and to not engage in "too friendly" (hehe--yes we did date) of relations with the opposite gender.
We were allowed to work, have friends, play sports, go to youth group, and all the normal stuff of course. Yes, my parents were fairly strict, but they realized they had the ball in their court and I'm forever grateful they did.

Unfortunately, I am a fool. But God loves me anyway...

HEHE.

At least you're only one kind of fool:). I'm a fool and full of it, not to mention my belly's getting that "full figure" action going on. (yes, I realize that some people pronounce them different:)

The portion you referenced was posted by Izzy Dunne.

My post was under the line. Basically; I said too many parents are uninterested. It seems like their children are little more than an inconvenience to them.

I know they have a choice. They choose to not care. Fortunately for you; your parents cared.

The portion you referenced was posted by Izzy Dunne. My post was under the line. Basically; I said too many parents are uninterested. It seems like their children are little more than an inconvenience to them. I know they have a choice. They choose to not care. Fortunately for you; your parents cared.

That happens to me all the time (someone referencing another person's post assuming it is me). Sorry:).

As someone who has wanted children for many years (I won't go into the details, but I'll just say, other options aren't available now), you have tapped into one of my big pet peeves. I don't like it when people take the privilege of raising kids for granted and complain about things having to do with it. It makes me sad more than mad, but I do wish more people realized what a privilege they do have. If I ever get the opportunity, there won't be a day that goes by that I won't thank the Almighty one for allowing me such a blessing. In the meantime, I work towards having that opportunity and thank God for the many things I am blessed with (especially with recent events). Rather than dwell on my own "things" I try to see how I can serve others and improve myself. One day I will be glad for just the "choice" to have a child.

I indeed did have caring parents and my parents have gotten "smarter" as I've gotten older.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.