In June 2024, South Carolina Superintendent of Education Ellen Weaver introduced a new regulation regarding the availability of books in schools. Local educators and school boards shall now determine if materials are “Age or Developmentally Appropriate,” with additional language stating that instructional material is not “Age or Developmentally Appropriate” for any age group of children if it includes descriptions or visual depictions of “sexual conduct” as defined by state law (the description of which is too long to fit in this article).

The Department of Education’s new law gains inspiration from groups like Moms for Liberty, which advocates for more parental rights in education, and backlash against books that teach children about topics such as Critical Race Theory or lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer (LGBTQIA+) issues.

While instituting a rule that would make such books unavailable to children is understandable given its appropriateness, the policy will likely have unintended negative consequences for the future of education in South Carolina, like government censorship often does, and we should oppose it.

The law is ironically contradictory in the name of discretion for appropriateness. It states that local educators and boards shall determine whether the material is age- and development-appropriate, but then the rule removes this autonomy by including the element of “sexual conduct” and limits local policymakers’ discretion.

Books containing descriptions or depictions of sexual conduct are now illicit because it is inappropriate, yet schools will still teach sexual education. It does not make sense to have classroom instruction on a topic while banning certain books that depict it. Parents already get to decide if their child can take sexual education classes, so the new rule is actually more detrimental to parental rights.

Weaver touts this law as a victory for parental rights, but these rights cannot be won with a blanket censorship law. Instead, we have parental rights for those who support this state policy rather than local jurisdiction, so each parent can better ensure their concerns are heard and their children’s education more closely aligns with their values.

Assuming that the regulation is not a violation of the First Amendment (an argument often made by proponents of the law), primary concerns lie in its vague descriptions. Obviously, graphic depictions of sexual conduct should not be available to children in elementary school, but the law is too broad.

One may argue that the law will not lead to these consequences and that I am being alarmist. They would be wrong, as there are many examples throughout the country of barring certain books from school libraries that would draw the ire of the average person.

The moral of this story is that regardless of culture, Utah or California, Republican or Democrat, Christian or Atheist, once you give others the power to regulate your privileges and rights, it will almost certainly be used against you at some point. This story is especially true given that government officials are terrible at drafting meaningful laws. When it comes to government educational reforms, you should be careful what you wish for.

While the intent to protect children is commendable, the broad and vague nature of the regulations could lead to the banning of critical literary works. It is crucial to find a balance that protects children without stifling their educational growth and exposure to classic literature.

Local districts should be able to have autonomy with these policies, and local committees with diverse opinions should work. Local committees allow you to choose how your tax dollars are spent and how your child is educated. Freedom works, and you will find that liberty is the best path to progress.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

Commenting Guidelines

Please read our commenting guidelines before commenting.

Please agree to the guidelines before proceeding.