Letitia James Threatens Schools That Ban Classroom Materials on 'Pretext' of Obscenity, Lewdness

 

New York Attorney General Letitia James speaks during a press conference in New York, on Sept. 21, 2022. 

New guidance on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) announced by New York Attorney General Letitia James warns schools not to ban any curriculum components from classrooms on the "pretext" of obscenity or lewdness—or face the prospect of legal action.

Ms. James and New York State Education Department Commissioner Betty Rosa have jointly released guidance reminding New York public schools that they have a legal obligation to promote DEI to schoolchildren.

In general, the guidance (pdf) warns schools not to ban certain books; not to remove curriculum components under the "pretext" that they are inappropriate, lewd or obscene; not to stop students who are transgender or nonbinary from using single-gender facilities or programs that don't match their biological sex.

“As states such as Texas, Florida, and Missouri are banning books and canceling classes, New York is making clear that diversity, equity, and inclusion will always be protected and central to our children’s education," Ms. James said in a statement.

Parents in a number of states—with Florida and Texas being at the forefront of such efforts—have raised objections to their children being exposed to what they say are sexually inappropriate, explicit, or outright pornographic materials and have been fighting to get such materials banned.

In the guidelines, Ms. James and Ms. Rosa told schools that New York State’s Dignity for All Students Act (Dignity Act) and the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) contain anti-discrimination provisions that prohibit a district from adopting a curriculum that "excludes" people or their histories because of race, color, national origin, sexual orientation, and gender—including gender identity.

Schools could be in violation of these laws if they decide to adopt an "exclusive" curriculum on an impermissible basis (like race or gender identity) or if the curriculum "causes or contributes to race- or gender-based harassment."

One notable example of an action that could cause a school to run afoul of the two laws is "using a pretext of inappropriateness or lewdness to systemically remove diverse perspectives from the classroom."

Another action that the guidelines oppose is schools prohibiting classroom discussions on issues related to "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, nonbinary and gender expansive people, or diverse family structures and identities using a pretext of inappropriateness or obscenity."

Still another example is "prohibiting a transgender, gender expansive, or nonbinary person from using the single-gender extracurricular program or facility most closely aligned with their gender identity."

Announcement of the guidelines was met with critical reactions on social media.

"So 'diverse perspectives' is now code for porn targeting children, I guess," wrote one user in a post on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter.

Another user wrote: "'... most closely aligned with their gender identity'. So the women's bathrooms are for women, womenish, girls, girlish, demigirls, almostwomen, girl-this-week, fluids, halfwomen, werewolfs, catladies and heifers?"

Parental Backlash

It comes as parents in schools across the country have raised objections to their children being exposed to books and classroom materials that contain sexually inappropriate or explicit material and are fighting to have such materials removed.

For example, Florida adopted a law that prohibits K-3 students from receiving any type of teaching or classroom materials that deal with sexual orientation or gender identity.

Florida Citizens Alliance, a group that has been pushing for the removal of sexually explicit materials from schools, provided a sample list of objectionable materials in its "porn in schools" report and argued that all the books listed at the very least "violate common decency for age-appropriate material and undermine Judeo-Christian and traditional family values."

"We urge parents to be extremely vigilant on what their kids are reading," the group wrote in the report.

Content that parents might find disturbing in books often found in school libraries is detailed in reports on an independent review site called BookLooks. That organization says it aims to help parents "find out what objectionable content may be in your child's book before they do."

In another example of pushback against the availability of objectionable materials in schools, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed a bill into law in June that restricts the availability of sexually-themed content in public schools and affirms that parents are the main decision-makers on what materials their children are exposed to.

"Some school libraries have books with sexually explicit and vulgar materials," Mr. Abbott said at a signing ceremony on June 12. "I'm signing a law that gets that trash out of our schools."

By contrast, some organizations, like civil liberties advocacy group PEN America, have expressed alarm over book bans, portraying moves to ban books and other classroom content as censorship and as discriminatory, and in some cases premised on a shaky legal foundation.

For example, PEN America wrote in a note that the crux of the "porn in schools" report by the Florida Citizens Alliance is the claim that the books on the list violate Florida laws because of alleged sexually explicit content, "characterized as 'indecent,' 'inappropriate,' 'pornographic,' and 'obscene.'"

"These allegations do not appear to adhere to legal definitions nor take into account relevant federal jurisprudence, resulting in a lack of foundational integrity of the report," the group argued.

PEN America said in its Index of School Book Bans that there have been nearly 1,500 instances of book banning in schools in the first half of the 2022/2023 school year, a nearly 30 percent increase over the prior year.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/letitia-james-threatens-schools-that-ban-classroom-materials-on-pretext-of-obscenity-lewdness-5477788