by Dick Hall-Sizemore
The General Assembly has passed legislation (SB 656, Dunnavant, R-Henrico) that would require schools to notify parents of “any instructional material that includes sexually explicit content” and permit parents to review such instructional material. Furthermore, the instructor would be required to “provide, as an alternative, nonexplicit instructional material and related academic activities to any student whose parent so requests.” This legislation has the potential to cause much controversy and problems for teachers.
The problems will arise from the meaning of the term “sexually explicit material.” The legislation specifically refers to an existing Code section, Sec. 2.2-2827, which defines the term as follows:
Sexually explicit content” means (i) any description of or (ii) any picture, photograph, drawing, motion picture film, digital image or similar visual representation depicting sexual bestiality, a lewd exhibition of nudity, as nudity is defined in § 18.2-390, sexual excitement, sexual conduct or sadomasochistic abuse, as also defined in § 18.2-390, coprophilia, urophilia, or fetishism.
Under the provisions of the SB 656, the Department of Education (DOE) is supposed to develop model policies, which each local school board is to use in developing its policy to implement this legislation. Under this policy, teachers would have to notify parents of any instructional material that depicts or mentions sexual excitement, such as masturbation, or sexual conduct. That would cover a wide range of literature and activities, from kissing to rape, including married couples being in bed together.
Here are some classic works by award-winning authors that have been objected to in various parts of the country due to their depiction of sexual conduct.
- Beloved—Toni Morrison
- Song of Solomon—Toni Morrison
- The Bluest Eye—Toni Morrison
- Catcher in the Rye—J.D. Salinger
- To Kill a Mockingbird—Harper Lee
- The Color Purple—Alice Walker
- Brave New World—Aldous Huxley
- Their Eyes were Watching God—Zora Neale Thurston
- Native Son—Richard Wright
- In Cold Blood—Truman Capote
- Sophie’s Choice—William Stryon
- Rabbit, Run—John Updike
- As I Lay Dying—William Faulkner
Some of Pat Conroy’s novels have sex scenes. Walt Whitman in Leaves of Grass describes sexual activities. The Notebook by Nicholas Sparks describes sex scenes between a married couple. Then there is the The Great Gatsby, Madame Bovary, among others. Many teachers, just to be safe, might choose to notify parents of every work that was being assigned.
In addition to these questions of content, there are some practical issues. Under current law, schools must provide “comprehensive, sequential family life education curriculum in grades kindergarten through 12”, which includes human sexuality and human reproduction. There is a provision that gives parents the right to review all materials included in the family life curriculum and “to excuse their child from all or part of family life education instruction.” However, the current legislation, SB 656, says that a parent has the right to review any material that is “sexually explicit” and the school must “provide, as an alternative, nonexplicit instructional material and related academic activities to any student whose parent so requests.” How does one teach sex education using “nonexplicit” material?
Another problem that DOE and local school boards must address is the means whereby a teacher notifies parents that sexually explicit material will be part of the curriculum. Would a notification sent home via the student be sufficient? The legislation requires that the notification directly identify “the specific instructional material and sexually explicit subjects.” Does that mean that the notification must include a novel that includes a sex scene or people talking about sex, although “explicit sex” is not the “subject” of the book?
Finally, there are a couple of philosophical issues. First, if the goal of this administration is to enhance the role of the parents in the education of their children, why should it be the duty of the teacher to notify the parents as to what is being assigned to students? Why shouldn’t the burden be upon parents to be aware of what their children are doing and reading in school?
Second, what is the purpose of this legislation? Is it to enable parents to protect their children from reading or being exposed to ideas and concepts they find objectionable? Don’t most folks understand that adults labelling something off-limits to kids is just an incentive for kids to read it or try it out?
One last point: Although the bill has this self-serving clause: “ 4. That the provisions of this act shall not be construed as requiring or providing for the censoring of books in public elementary and secondary schools,” it could very well have that effect as teachers self-censor their reading lists just to avoid the hassle of a few complaining parents or school boards prohibit including some works on reading lists. For members of the General Assembly wondering why there is a shortage of teachers, legislation like this is a prime example of some of the reason.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.