In May, the Texas legislature approved Senate Bill 13—legislation that would give parents and school boards greater control over what students are allowed to read in their public school libraries. The bill, which was signed into law by Republican Governor Greg Abbott at the end of June, also establishes new parent advisory councils that have the authority to determine which books are removed from school library shelves. For students across Texas, this law means increased censorship and decreased access to reading materials in our libraries and classrooms.
Under S.B. 13, local school boards have the final say over which materials are removed from school libraries and classrooms based on whether a book can be classified as harmful or indecent based on Texas law. The vague wording of the law also makes it so that classics such as The Catcher in the Rye and Romeo and Juliet could potentially fall under the definition of “harmful content.” While the law does exempt works that are included in instructional material (including state-mandated curriculum as well as Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate curriculum), it may exacerbate the lack of representation of marginalized stories already pertinent in the state curriculum.
Furthermore, instead of school librarians choosing their yearly book orders, the law will give school boards jurisdiction over book approvals and removals. S.B. 13 also allows for the book orders to be delegated to local advisory councils made up of parents. Depending on which amount is fewer, fifty parents or 10 percent of the parents in a district can sign a petition to create an advisory council in their district.
As a high school student, entering my school library is a daily adventure. Perusing the bookshelves for my next read and deciding whether I’m in the mood for a classic, a fantasy, or a historical novel is consistently one of the most exhilarating parts of my week. Reading is a passion, and the thought that it can be limited by broad definitions of “harmful” dictated by a few parents is both scary and heartbreaking.
As a low-income student, my books often come from my school library because they are easily accessible. In turn, taking books off our shelves becomes an issue of removing access to diverse viewpoints, and S.B. 13 is an attack on accessibility, which largely affects low-income students.
For me, the issue with restricting and banning books also stems from the inherent bias of the process. A small group of parents can dictate what is harmful—and end up controlling what all students in the district can read. Book bans are direct attacks on knowledge. They ensure that we are restricted from learning about new ideas and adding new perspectives to old ones. In trying to erase what is harmful for students, our legislators are erasing nuance and our ability to seek out knowledge.
Dhruva Ambati, a high school rising sophomore from Richmond, Texas, agrees. “[S.B. 13] risks turning our libraries into echo chambers where only certain viewpoints are allowed, which undermines the purpose of education and intellectual growth,” she tells me. “Banning books denies students the opportunity to explore different cultures, ideas, and histories.”
This law is reinforced by a flurry of recent legislation in Texas that works to ban books, limit student knowledge, and push restrictive ideas of morality onto public school students. In April, a Texas school board voted to redact all chapters in state-approved textbooks that alluded to “vaccines and diversity” because they were considered “inappropriate.” Decisions like these make me lose trust in school boards and parents to decide what inappropriate means.
Pete Biddle, my school librarian at the Young Women’s STEAM Research and Preparatory Academy, tells me that he feels nervous about allowing a small group of parents to decide what is considered harmful.
“I get that parents are protective of their children. But what are their qualifications, besides being a parent?” Biddle says. “If you don’t let your child read that book, that’s fine, but you can’t make a decision for every parent and every child.”
S.B. 13 also requires all approved books to follow “local community values.” For students who live in smaller towns, content that contrasts with the political opinion of parents may be removed, leaving students uninformed.
“There are smaller districts, more in the Bible Belt of Texas, where you get some very radical fundamentalist religious groups running for [school board seats],” Biddle says. “They get voted in because they have a lot of people following them. They are now the board, and the board has a lot of power for the schools.”
In my social studies and language arts classrooms, S.B. 13 could also mean expanded censorship of curriculum and reading materials. I worry that my teachers will face greater fear when teaching with books that explore systemic injustices, such as Born a Crime by Trevor Noah or We Should All Be Feminists by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, because the school board may deem them inappropriate.
Biddle says teachers may start to steer clear of certain books to avoid trouble from school boards: “It will change the way teachers look at what is safe to teach.”
Ava Diesch, a high school senior from Rockwall, Texas, tells me that S.B. 13 raises many fears for her as a small-town student.
“When we enable a group of people to be the ones deciding what is and isn’t appropriate for students to be reading, we allow room for bias to sway perception,” she says. “There is nothing that I enjoy about having my education threatened by legislation with an agenda to silence diverse viewpoints.”