Censorship Makes for Strange Bedfellows
A common method of book challenge is the curricular challenge. A student takes an English class, most often in high school but sometimes junior high, that includes some book a parent finds unacceptable. Most of the time this is probably handled informally with a discussion between the teacher and parent and an alternative text is provided. At times the parent is unsatisfied and seeks to have the book removed from the curriculum altogether by going through a form materials challenge. Sometimes this works, most of the time, in my experience, it does not. Having exhausted the school’s policies the decision to retain the book usually ends the matter. Rarely, however, parents sue to have the book banned. I’ve seen examples using obscenity law, free exercise of religion, and even equal protection and racial discrimination laws. A recent suit, amusingly, attempts to justify censorship through the establishment clause and separation of church and state.
“If Christians were gearing up for war, no reasonably objective observer could blame them.” This line is how John and Robin Coble’s legal complaint begins. The declaration of war was Lake Norman Charter School’s decision to assign Elizabeth Acevedo’s The Poet X to their son’s ninth grade English class. Where teachers saw a book that won numerous major awards that could engage students with poetry, the Cobles saw it is an attack upon religious faith. In both their complaint and argument seeking an injunction the Cobles list a series of isolated quotes in which Xiomara Batista questions the Catholic faith. To the Cobles, “the main idea” of The Poet X “the big picture; the reference point by which all other components of the story must be understood - is diametrically opposed to the most fundamental Christian teaching.” They see this as embracing a “religion of individualism” and as an attempt at social indoctrination into a view that individuals are responsible for their own success and not God. This runs afoul of the Establishment Clause because it is the state disparaging and attacking a religious faith.
This is an amusing argument in large part because the Cobles identify themselves as Baptists and by and large Baptists have not been fans of the separation of church and state. But the law is about winning with whatever argument one can present ethically. Judge Max Cogburn denied the motion for a preliminary injunction. The Cobles argument falls apart for a simple reason: they “did not put forward evidence that the school was endorsing the religious views contained in The Poet X or that their son would be harmed by the school including the book” in the curriculum. As the school explained in an email at the start of the school year and in a teacher’s declaration, nothing about the instruction in the book involves religious values or messages. Cogburn clearly read the book thoroughly and found little to support the Cobles understanding of the message. “These passages are less theology than anthropology, less commentary on religion than comment prompted by the frustrating confrontation of adolescents with parents, sexual desire, religious doubt, and loneliness.” As assigning the book itself was not unconstitutional, Cogburn noted that the school could and did accommodate the Cobles objections by offering an alternative text and the ability to join a different English class to work on that text. This decision allowed the book to be taught this year and the Cobles are currently appealing to the Fourth Circuit.
While this is the obviously correct result, Cogburn’s opinion begins by lecturing the school district saying that he “is troubled by Defendants’ decision to teach a book that is so controversial that they have an established opt-out procedure in place” that several students have used. “Defendants should be mindful that public schools are entrusted with the children of diverse families from diverse religious backgrounds. As such, Defendants have a vital responsibility to ensure that their school is not a divisive environment.” This admonition essentially asserts that the school should reconsider because the Cobles are offended. But this ignores the inherent difficulty of interacting with book challengers. The Cobles assert that The Poet X is a religious text when it is not, that it cannot have any other meaning. Even Cogburn himself does not seriously buy this claim. If schools are held to a standard of avoiding offense to any idiosyncratic parental belief, a curriculum will be nearly impossible. This is why opt-out policies are common. The school did everything correctly here. It provided parents with the syllabus including all readings, required that they sign a notification of receipt, and offered an opt-out that allowed their son to get full instruction in a different book.
This is not sufficient for the Cobles because they believe they have the inherent right to control the curriculum for all students, including the vast majority of parents who had no problem with The Poet X. They speak in terms of neutrality but neutrality seems to mean nothing more than offering tacit support for religious believers by refusing to read anything that even discusses religion, a pretty difficult task. Cogburn’s decision is correct and should be upheld but there are an increasing number of federal judges who seem to agree that a Christian war is coming. I doubt anyone will agree that this is a front in that war but who knows.
