ACLJ Files Three Crucial Briefs To Protect Children and To Block Teachers Unions and School Administrators From Forcing Pornographic Material Into School Libraries

The ACLJ just filed three crucial briefs in our case to protect children from exposure to pornography in a school library in New York. As we previously explained, we filed a petition in New York state court, seeking to overturn a decision of the New York Commissioner of Education affirming the mistaken decision of the Clyde-Savannah Central School District and holding that the First Amendment required the inclusion of sexually explicit books in school libraries.

In our petition, we reiterate that both federal and state law emphasize the important role and compelling interest of public schools in protecting children from inappropriate content. Parents should be able to trust that the books selected by their children’s librarians do not contain pornography or sexually explicit material. Reinstating sexually explicit books flies in the face of this duty.

As we explained in our previous post:

To be sure, this case is not about a book ban. Nor is it about stifling diverse views on politics or cultural or social issues. There are hundreds of other age-appropriate books representing diverse viewpoints that do not contain pornography. Why can’t those books be included in the school library instead of the pornographic ones?

A 12-year-old can’t just walk into a movie theater and watch an R-rated movie without parental permission, so why should it be controversial to apply the same standard in a school library?

Here is a breakdown of the three crucial briefs we just filed in this case. First, the New York State United Teachers Union (“NYSUT”) has filed a motion to intervene in this case, claiming that teachers and librarians’ constitutional rights will be violated if they aren’t allowed to stock sexually explicit books in school libraries. NYSUT claims this case is about “book banning” and “censorship.” We have filed a brief thoroughly dismantling these claims, showing that there is no evidence to demonstrate any intent to ban books. Further, courts have repeatedly rejected the notion that librarians or teachers possess a First Amendment right to expose students to vulgar or obscene content in public school libraries, or to prevent a board of education from removing books, especially when they contain obscene or sexually explicit content.

In our brief, we also highlight the political motivations behind NYSUT’s motion. Their attempt at intervention appears to be a coordinated effort by special interests to complicate and delay a straightforward case about protecting students from inappropriate content. The union’s political disagreement with parents’ rights to protect their children does not create a legal right to join the lawsuit.

Our second and third briefs respond to the arguments of the school board and of the Education Commissioner. (The Commissioner is represented by New York Attorney General Letitia James.) In these briefs, we have thoroughly addressed the crucial legal issues in this case. The First Amendment doesn’t require schools to subject students to pornography. On the contrary, courts have regularly recognized the authority of school boards to protect students from inappropriate material. The other side’s briefs repeatedly relied on cases about adult materials, but schools do have the authority to protect students. The courts have consistently upheld school boards’ authority to remove inappropriate books from libraries, recognizing schools’ vital role in protecting children from vulgar and offensive material.

In our briefs we demonstrate that the Commissioner ignored case precedent and erroneously applied the adult obscenity test (used for commercial distribution to adults). This test does not apply to the distribution of such content to children in schools.

The Supreme Court has consistently recognized that schools have a duty to protect children from vulgar and sexually explicit content. As stated in Bethel School District v. Fraser, “[I]t is a highly appropriate function of public school education to prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive terms in public discourse.”

When the school board, in our case, thought that it had an obligation to put obscene books back on library shelves, it acted contrary to well-established law. It had an obligation to do the opposite and to protect its students from inappropriate materials. The Commissioner ignored key board policies requiring that books be age-appropriate and enrich and support the curriculum. The Commissioner ignored the fact that two of the sexually explicit books were rated for “adult” audiences.

This case represents a crucial battle to protect our children from inappropriate sexual content in schools. We’re asking the court to overturn the Commissioner’s flawed decision and restore the school board’s original vote to remove these inappropriate materials. Parents, not bureaucrats, should have the final say in protecting children from explicit content in schools. We will continue fighting to ensure our education system upholds appropriate boundaries for our children.