Battle of the Books

School libraries — previously known for their quiet, studious atmosphere — are now becoming contentious, cultural hotspots.

Recently, a Michigan circuit court weighed in on a library book-ban dispute between Parents and Taxpayers Against Pornography (the “Organization”) and Rockford Public Schools (the “District”). Parents and Taxpayers Against Pornography in Rockford Public Schools v Rockford Public Schools, Case No. 23-08510-AW, opinion and order of the 17th Circuit Court of Michigan (October 25, 2023).

In this case, the Organization filed several complaints against the District alleging that it provided harmful, sexually explicit books to minors. The complaint listed 14 books in total: A Court of Mist and Fury, A Court of Frost and Starlight, Breathless, Out of Darkness, Crank, Ask the Passengers, Kite Runner, All Boys Aren’t Blue, Gender Queer, Beyond Magenta, The Bluest Eye, Looking for Alaska, Lawn Boy, and Fun Home.

In response, the District filed a successful motion asking the court to dismiss the case. In the court’s lengthy opinion, three key insights stood out: (1) private citizens cannot pursue criminal complaints on their own; (2) books are “harmful to minors” if a reasonable person would find that the book, as a whole, lacks literary, educational, artistic, political, or scientific value; and (3) sexually explicit materials are not necessarily sex education materials under the Revised School Code.

Criminal Complaints

Michigan does not recognize private prosecutions. Despite this legal prerequisite, the Organization’s complaint alleged that the District violated the Dissemination to Minors Act — a criminal statute. An individual violates the Dissemination to Minors Act when they knowingly disseminate sexually explicit material to minors. Ordinarily, the prosecutor’s office, along with police agencies, handle criminal charges. A private citizen may only initiate a criminal complaint if the complaint is either filed with the prosecutor’s written approval or security for costs is filed with the court.

Because the Organization filed a criminal complaint against the District without receiving either a prosecutor’s written approval or filing security for costs with the court, the complaint was invalid. Despite that, the court still addressed the complaint on its merits.

“Harmful to Minors”

Although the court admitted to having some cause for concern, it held that the Organization did not prove that the books were harmful to minors. In Michigan, it is a felony to disseminate harmful, sexually explicit material to a minor. Material is harmful to minors when: (1) considered as a whole, it appeals to the prurient interests of minors as determined by contemporary local community standards; (2) it is patently offensive to contemporary localcommunity standards of adults as to what is suitable for minors; and considered as a whole, it lacks serious literary, artistic, political, education, and scientific value for minors.

Based on the third element, the court held that the District did not disseminate sexually explicit material to minors because the Organization failed to prove that the books lacked value. The court noted, “every book identified by [the Organization] has either received accolades or been on best seller lists.”

Before concluding its analysis on the criminal complaints, the court pointed out that, had the criminal complaints been properly filed, the District would still be exempt from the Dissemination to Minors Act for two reasons. First, teachers, administrators, and librarians employed by a public school are exempt from criminal prosecution under that law if the sexually explicit material is disseminated in a matter permitted by law and pursuant to their employment. Second, the District did not actively disseminate the books; the books were merely available at the library.

Sex Education Materials

The Organization also alleged that the District violated the Revised School Code because it did not comply with the requirements for providing students with sex education materials. Under the Revised School Code, if material is used for sex education, the District is tasked with a number of responsibilities, including providing parents with proper notice.

Not all sexually explicit material falls under the umbrella of “sex education” for purposes of the Revised School Code. To explain the difference, the court stressed what the books are not: “They are not required in any course curriculum. They are not required reading. They are not instructive materials.” Merely because a book contains some sexual content does not mean that the book is for “sex education.” Because the books at issue in this case were not for sex education, the District did not violate the Revised School Code.

Moving Forward

As modern literature continues to kindle the flames of the book-ban debate, schools should ensure that they are properly equipped to handle the fire. One way in which schools can best prepare themselves is to verify that their policies are up to date. Thrun Policy Subscribers should review Policy 5407, which includes optional language regarding challenges to school library materials.