This Article Includes Sexually Explicit Content Available to Children in School
Dear Representative Tanner,
I wanted to send you an email to ask you about the Op-Ed you wrote in the NH Union Leader:
In your article you reference Governor Sununu’s withdrawal of his nominee for State Librarian. You also mentioned attempts to “target books” like the Diary of Anne Frank, To Kill a Mockingbird, and others. I have been in contact with parents around New Hampshire who have been challenging some books in their school library based on explicit pornographic content. I have not encountered parents who want the books you mentioned removed from libraries.
If this candidate for state librarian had been more supportive of solutions and parental rights, she might not have been withdrawn.
.
Related: The ‘Grok’s “Unfair” Coverage of Melinda “Mindy” Atwood
The parents I’ve assisted have brought me books available in school libraries that they considered adult content because of the explicit sexual content or pictures like Gender Queer:
I think it’s important to distinguish some of the books you listed, and a book like Gender Queer that you left off of your list.
Anne Frank is an excellent book and one my daughter read in school. However, I wouldn’t have wanted her to read it at a very young age. She is an avid reader and is very interested in the historical events of the Holocaust. As a parent, I knew when she was capable of learning and reading about one of the most horrific and evil events in history. At a very young age, she would have been horrified, and it could have caused her a great deal of emotional harm.
A book that depicts boys engaged in oral sex is very different.
From my experience as a parental rights advocate in New Hampshire, these are the kinds of books that parents have been discovering in their child’s library. Some parents see this as a way of sexualizing children. If my young child was at a neighbor’s house, and he handed her a book on Anne Frank, that wouldn’t cause me suspicion. If he handed her a book with explicit pornographic content, I would never allow her to be around him again.
Stopitnow.org, is a website dedicated to stopping the sexual abuse of children. As you can see here, they make a very direct statement saying, “Showing pornographic pictures to a child is considered sexual abuse. Child sexual abuse can include non-touching behaviors.” You failed to leave this important distinction out of your article.
It took several years of working with legislators to enact a law that allows parents to replace objectionable materials assigned to their children in school. At that time, Democrats largely stood against this important law. Today, teachers are free to assign books, and parents who object have the ability to replace that book, if it’s not appropriate for their child. We found a solution that does not disrupt an entire class.
Had a teacher assigned Anne Frank to my daughter at the age of 8, I would have exercised my right to replace that book. Had that book been assigned to her in middle or high school, she would have been free to read it. I believe she would have been mature enough to start to understand the brutality that victims of the Holocaust faced. This shows respect towards parents who know their child best.
Now we face a bigger challenge. Some of these books include content that pushes sex. New Hampshire law states: Only persons aged 16 and older can give consent to sexual contact with adults under New Hampshire law unless the two parties are legally married. So why would such graphic content be available to children under the age of 16?
This issue requires mature adults coming up with a solution that respects the role of parents, but does not put a child in a vulnerable position. Since I would not trust my neighbor providing this explicit content to my child, it now makes many parents suspicious of the intent from those working in our local public schools. This in turn will cause some families to seek an alternative school for their children. Is it the goal to drive families out of public schools? Or should we be looking for ways to find a solution?
My hope is that legislators will take an honest look at this issue, draw distinct differences between the books available to children, and come up with some solutions.
There are some ways to address this issue:
1) Provide a list of books available to children in the school library on the school website.
2) Note which books have explicit sexual content.
3) Make sure parents have the ability to read, and prevent their child from accessing books that they do not believe are appropriate for their children.
4) Books that include explicit sexual content or pictures should not be available to children under the age of 16.
5) Make sure that parents are aware that explicit sexual content is available to children 16-18, and that they have options.
As legislators, sometimes you have to come up with a compromised solution. If you have parents who no longer trust the people working in the school because they are providing pornographic content to children, why would you not seek a solution to that problem? Why would you not find ways to keep tax-paying families in the local public school?
On one hand you do not want these families withdrawing, and using school choice options. On the other hand, you want to force policies that drive families out of the public schools.
Forcing parents to conform to something they believe is harmful to their children is not the solution. It would be nice if Democrats looked for reasonable solutions. I am always available to anyone willing to work towards this goal.
Ann Marie Banfield
TRUST REQUIRES TRANSPARENCY
