Reading Restrictions Open Can of Worms

A federal court in Tennessee recently ruled that requiring students to read books that violate “sincerely held religious beliefs” is unconstitutional.

Under the controversial ruling, a teacher must excuse students from a lesson in which an objectionable text is used. Parents must then teach reading at home. The decision only applies to the students involved, but should the decision be upheld in higher courts, it is likely that such practices will become commonplace.

Already the Escondido Union High School District has in place what is called a “controversial issues” policy. The policy requires teachers to provide an “alternative” assignment when parents or students object to an assignment because it is offensive to their religious or political beliefs.

The policy arose when a student refused to write a so-called “doomsday” essay because it was offensive to her religious beliefs. The teacher involved did not want to provide an alternative assignment and ended up filing a grievance when the board forced her to do so.

Supporters of the Tennessee case and the Escondido policy believe that the policy protects parents from having their children exposed to ideas that are repugnant to their religious and political views. School officials want to demonstrate tolerance of minority religious beliefs and think such policies accomplish this objective.

To some extent, the courts agree with this philosophy. Court decisions have prevented schools from requiring students to salute the flag, say the Pledge of Allegiance or participate in holiday celebrations that are of a religious nature. In these cases, students had been compelled to participate and, in a sense, adopt philosophies with which they might have disagreed.

But reading books about racial, religious and sexual equality is something much different. Students are merely exposed to certain values. They are not forced to adopt them. Reading about Adolf Hitler and his philosophies is repugnant to most everyone. However, no one is asked to adopt his ideas. But, perhaps through the study of the Holocaust and Hitler, we learn the dangers of racism and stupidity.

Unfortunately, there are some who object to their children reading about equality of the races and the sexes. Such a notion offends their religious and political beliefs.

Under the Tennessee case and the Escondido policy, supporters would argue that their children should not have to read such things. School officials say they want to accommodate the religious and political beliefs of students and parents. However, they are concerned that some parents--especially those with extreme religious or political views--may abuse the policy by forbidding their children to read books that are generally not considered controversial but deal with commonly accepted values, such as equality.

The presence of policies such as the one in Escondido has a chilling effect on free speech. Teachers will not give certain assignments or use certain books for fear that parents will deem them “offensive” and will demand alternatives. Thus, students suffer because they are not exposed to controversial ideas.

One can easily see the dilemma for our teachers. For example, in choosing a reading text, if a female character is a working mother and executive, some would find it offensive that she is not at home performing the traditional full-time duties of being a mother and wife. If the teacher chooses a text where a central female character occupies a traditional female role, others will claim that the book is sexist and offensive to their beliefs.

The difficulty with the Tennessee case and the Escondido policy is that they are antithetical to the purpose of education: developing critical minds through exposure to ideas.

The Supreme Court has already provided an alternative to parents who don’t want their children exposed to certain ideas--private schools.

By placing “private” education into the public schools, making school boards create individualized curriculum for each student, we create an unmanageable task for our schools.

It would be better for Johnny and those attending public schools if Johnny were placed in a school where he would not be asked to read or write what he will not read or write.