“Parental rights” has often been used as the justification for passing book bans.  Legally, there have been many court cases that address parental rights and parental responsibilities. Parental rights and responsibilities are also included in the Texas Education Code (see here).

There is no single definition of “parental rights.” The core principles include the right to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children, without interference from the government — unless a parent fails to meet their responsibility to their child by denying a child’s right to care and safety.

Book banners have used this undefined phrase to argue that books should be pulled off the shelves and made inaccessible for all children if just one parent does not want their child to read or access it. This twisted interpretation of “parental rights” can also manifest in the mandatory outing of LGBTQ+ youth in potentially unsafe situations. For example, some districts now force teachers to disclose when a child is expressing a change in identity expression, pronouns, or even reading a book discussing these topics — even when a child is not ready to share that information.

Book banners also rarely acknowledge that parents have responsibilities to their children. Parents have the responsibility to care for their children, including educating them and protecting their rights as students.

While parental rights in this context are somewhat murky and undefined, it is important to remember the existence of Student Rights. The Supreme Court established in Tinker v. Des Moines School Dist. (1969) that students of every age have First Amendment rights and that schools cannot censor student speech as long as it does not disrupt the educational process. You can remind book banners that students have the right to read freely, and that no one parent has the right to make educational decisions for every student in a community. 

Students also have the right to take legal action when their discussions or questions about identity or choice of reading are stifled. Students and their parents can file a complaint with the Office of Civil Rights if you feel that a student’s right to learn in a safe and nondiscriminatory environment has been threatened .

Obscenity is a legal term that comes from the Supreme Court case Miller v. California. This case established the “Miller Test” to determine whether material is obscene. The Miller Test is also used to define obscenity in the Texas Penal Code.

Obscene material is defined by the Miller Test in federal and state law. The Supreme Court decided that there are three factors to determine if a material is obscene: (1) whether the average person applying contemporary community standards would find that work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (2) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (3) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Material must meet all three conditions of the Miller Test to be considered obscene.

Similarly used terms include:  

• Pervasively Vulgar: This comes from the Supreme Court case Island Trees School District v Pico (see also: Educationally Unsuitable). Pervasively vulgar was not defined by the Supreme Court, but it also implies that a material must be judged in its full context.
• Sexually Relevant/Sexually Explicit: These are the terms used in HB 900 that book vendors would have had to use to rate books. The court decided that book vendors do not have to rate books at this time. The court also decided that these terms themselves are likely unconstitutional “because they are created out of whole cloth by the Legislature, are confusing, and have no basis in existing law.” A district should not use them to try to rate books.
• Harmful Materials:  This originally comes from the Texas Penal Code and is defined as: “material whose dominant theme taken as a whole: (A) appeals to the prurient interest of a minor in sex, nudity, or excretion; (B) is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable for minors; and (C) is utterly without redeeming social value for minors.” Note that this definition, like “obscenity”, requires a material to meet all three conditions, be considered in its full context, and examine the larger social value of a book. Book banners have also argued that any discussion of race or sexuality qualifies as “harmful”, even though students report the value of these materials.

Arguments for book bans often revolve around keeping students from allegedly explicit or pornographic material. In reality, book banners often cherry-pick a single passage with sexual content without considering the context of the book as a whole. For example, scenes with sexual violence are often read aloud and called obscene by book banners. But these scenes are not intended as pornography. In the context of the whole book, these scenes are the lived reality of too many young Texans who have experienced sexual violence. These books can provide a lifeline and an opportunity for students to learn more about difficult topics in a safe way.

Other phrases that often get misrepresented are ‘community standards’ and ‘patently offensive.’ This leads to books to be labeled as obscene or explicit if they have any instance of sex that may be offensive or upsetting to some. The standards that are being used to judge the material are often not representative of the entire community’s standards, and it is usually one small group determining for all others what is considered offensive.

Make sure that you are aware of the content of the books being questioned and be informed as to why they would be taught in a classroom. Two great resources to look at are Frank Strong’s context sheets and United Against Book Bans’ book resumes. One of the most important parts of the legal code when defining obscenity is ‘whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value’.  Request an explanation for what grounds the book is being pulled and educate yourself on the educational, social, and emotional value of the book and books like it. Defend the book at your local school board meeting.

The concept of “educational suitability” originally comes from the Supreme Court case Island Trees School District v Pico, which was decided in 1982 and remains the only Supreme Court case to ever directly address book removals. The HB 900 school library collection development standards prohibit the possession, acquisition, and purchase of “educationally unsuitable” library materials.

The takeaway from Pico is that it is unconstitutional for school boards to ban books “for the purpose of restricting access to the political ideas or social perspectives discussed in them, when that action is motivated simply by the officials’ disapproval of the ideas involved.” The Supreme Court decided that it is constitutional for school boards to ban school library books if they are “educationally unsuitable.” However, the Court did not define “educationally unsuitable.” HB 900 does not define it either.

Because there is no formal definition of “educationally unsuitable,” this phrase is often used by book banners as an excuse to ban hundreds of books. Calling a book “educationally unsuitable” often allows book banners to avoid naming their real purpose to discriminate against Black, Brown, and LGBTQ+ students and stories.

As our friends at Texas Freedom to Read Project remind us, research shows that “reading the types of books being banned across Texas led students to higher reading scores, deeper engagement in school, reduced propensity for risky behavior, and stronger connections with classmates and family members.” In other words, these books are educationally suitable because reading them improves students’ academic, social, and emotional outcomes. Learn more here.

BookLooks is a website that provides politicized book content reviews. It was created by Moms for Liberty, a conservative nonprofit group founded in Florida that is responsible for book challenges and bans across the country. Their rating system is based on the book containing instances of what they describe as ‘controversial or objectionable material.  This includes themes of “racism, hate, nudity, sexual activity, and alternative gender ideology and sexuality.” Learn more from BookRiot here.

The site was created to make it easier for Moms for Liberty to ban books, but it often inaccurately gets cited as an objective and reliable resource. Book banners may cite it in book challenges and school board testimony. They may also push your district to adopt this book rating system in your libraries, ignoring that such book rating systems imposed by the government may in fact be unconstitutional. The site inaccurately uses many of the other terms defined in this guide. It only includes cherry-picked excerpts from the book while ignoring the context of the full book.

Make sure your district, teachers, and librarians know that this site was created by Moms for Liberty to make it easier to ban books. It is not a neutral or reliable resource. Make it clear that your community does not share Moms for Liberty’s bias against Black, Brown, and LGBTQ+ students.

Critical race theory (CRT) is an academic and legal framework that explores the ways racism is systemically embedded in our laws and institutions. It was first used in the 1980s by Dr. Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw. Starting in 2021, some far right activists and politicians started to misuse the term to apply broadly to any conversation about race, racism, and racial inequity.

Simply put, critical race theory “holds that racism goes far beyond just individually held prejudices, and that it is in fact a systemic phenomenon woven into the laws and institutions of this nation.” For example, critical race theorists would look at disproportionate discipline rates against Black students and consider how school policies reproduce this inequitable outcome. Learn more from our friends at the NAACP here.

Some far right activists and politicians began fearmongering about critical race theory in 2020 to silence conversations about race and racism in the U.S. and to ban teaching the truth about U.S. history. As part of this trend, Texas politicians passed SB 3 in 2021 to “ban critical race theory” from K-12 schools. In fact, SB 3 goes far beyond its stated intent to make it easier to censor classroom instruction about race, gender, and inequity (just like HB 900). You can learn more about SB 3 from our partners at IDRA here. Some book banners have inappropriately challenged children’s books about race, racism, or that feature characters of color because “CRT is banned in Texas.” It’s important to note that SB 3 does not apply to library books or classroom libraries, and that none of the books that have been challenged contain CRT anyway.

Remind your district that SB 3 does not apply to library books or classroom libraries. Many if not all of the books that have been challenged for “containing CRT” are literally just children’s or YA books featuring Black characters or discussing characters’ experience with racism. These book challenges must go through the regular challenge process and legally cannot be removed simply because of the personal background of the characters or author.