Drama in Spring Branch, Texas
Two months ago, Spring Branch ISD, Texas, banned The Breakaways from their elementary schools. They lied and claimed this is because of “sexual content” in the book but as I discussed in a prior post, nearly the only basis for attacking the book was the presence of a trans kid. So when I learned that the district was facing a challenge to Drama by Raina Telgemeier I figured it would make an interesting comparison. As I discussed in an earlier post, Drama is frequently challenged because the cute story about middle schoolers putting on a play has gay kids in it and features two boys kissing on stage during the play. The Texas challenger - not the same one who got The Breakaways removed - pretty much echoes this.
To what do you object: “20+ pgs throughout book: ‘West still doesn’t know if he’s really gay or, I dunno, BI, or whatever.” P. 222
Result of the material: “That young elementary students may start to question their sexual orientation when they don’t even comprehend what it means. Not age appropriate.”
Above is the sole substance of the complaint form. They claim that 20+ pages are objectionable but only provide one specific example, where there is discussion of a kid being unsure if he is gay or bi. This is asserted to be “not age appropriate” because “young elementary students may start to question their sexual orientation when they don’t even comprehend what it means. Not age appropriate.” The simple existence of gay kids in a library work risks infecting “normal” straight kids with gayness. Kids can only be presented with straight stories so they grow up to be straight people. This is standard rhetoric that has been used for decades of challenges to queer-inclusive literature. In fact, it is largely identical to the challenger of The Breakaways who described the presence of trans and queer kids as “inappropriate.”
Above is the sole basis for the decision. Drama was retained in all libraries, elementary and middle school, as consistent with the selection criteria of the library. The letter went on to remind the challenger that if they are unhappy with a book, they have a number of ways to restrict their child’s access and lays out how to do so. The challenger has appealed the decision but that appeal was not released to me, yet. The District is still withholding the notes and other materials from this review pending instruction from the Texas attorney general’s office on whether they are privileged. So I have to speculate a bit on what went into this decision.
To be clear, the decision to retain Drama is absolutely correct. It is a well-reviewed book that kids love to read thus serving one purpose of the school library: to facilitate a love of reading. But I’m left to wonder why it would be retained and not the The Breakaways. The Breakaways was removed because of “mature themes” that they worried kids would encounter. But the only “mature themes” objected to by the challenger was the presence of queer and trans kids. There is no more sexual content there than in Drama with both books showing kids kissing. It appears to be as simple as the committee found a trans kid objectionable where a gay kid wasn’t. Or, slightly more charitably, they thought that it was harder to fight transphobic bigots and sacrificed one book where fighting homophobes is easier. If appeasement was their goal, it is unlikely to work. I also suspect, though again records are being withheld, administrative pressure to remove The Breakaways because of the transphobic nature of Texas state politics where Drama was under the radar - I am unaware of any press attention to this challenge. At least, this last explanation would make me feel better. I’d prefer not to think that school employees, including professional librarians, think that trans kids must be purged from the library as a rule even if they think gay kids should have a place.
