Don’t Close the Book

| Photo by Krists Luhaer on Unsplash

In the world of education, few debates evoke as much passion and division as the discussion surrounding what children should be allowed to read and learn. This issue strikes at the heart of parental rights, authority, and the role of schools in shaping young minds. It’s a tug-of-war between what parents deem appropriate for their children and what educators believe fosters a well-rounded education.

Imagine this scenario: a parent discovers that a novel assigned in their child’s class contains themes of sexual content, violence, or discussions around gender and sexuality. They raise an alarm, questioning why such material is being presented to their child, asking, “Why is my child exposed to this?” On the other hand, educators and librarians stand firm, countering with an equally important question: “Should one family’s objections dictate what every other child can read?”

At the core of this conflict lies a fundamental tension between censorship and parental rights. Both sides hold valid viewpoints. Parents have a deep-seated responsibility to guide their children in line with their beliefs, values, and understanding of their children’s maturity. Conversely, schools hold a vital responsibility to provide students with a comprehensive education that mirrors the diverse society in which we live. However, things become complicated when the authority of one family extends over the choices available to all families.

Understanding this distinction is crucial: while parental choice is a fundamental right, it crosses into censorship when it limits others’ options. Restricting one child’s reading narrows choices for everyone.

It is essential to recognize that parents should never feel like outsiders in their child’s educational journey. They know their children better than anyone—understanding their maturity level, beliefs, experiences, and sensitivities. Schools, in response, must communicate effectively about their curricula and provide parents with clear, accessible information on instructional materials. This transparency not only fosters trust but also encourages constructive dialogue. Schools should be open to listening to parents’ concerns and have established procedures for reviewing curriculum that respect these objections.

Looking at legal foundations, both the Philippines and the United States provide frameworks that balance parental rights with public education responsibilities. In the Philippines, Article XIV of the 1987 Constitution mandates that the state must provide quality education while also recognizing the “natural right of parents to rear their children.” This highlights that education is a public obligation, yet it acknowledges that children remain part of their families even within the school system.

Similarly, in the U.S., recent legal cases, such as *Mahmoud v. Taylor*, illustrate this tension. The Supreme Court, in a June 2025 ruling, sided with parents who challenged a Maryland school board’s decision to include LGBTQ+-inclusive storybooks in elementary classrooms without allowing religious opt-outs. The court ruled in favor of parents, citing that mandatory participation could infringe upon their religious liberties. This case underscores the significance of parental rights in education and demonstrates that they cannot simply be dismissed as intolerance.

However, recognizing parental rights raises an even more complex question: How far do these rights extend? 

Consider this scenario: a parent finds a particular novel unsuitable for their 13-year-old. Allowing them to request an alternative reading assignment for their child seems reasonable; it respects their parental authority without imposing on others. But what happens when those same parents demand that the book be removed from the school library to ensure that no other child has access to it? 

These two actions are fundamentally different. The former respects the individuality of parenting, while the latter seeks to impose one household’s values on an entire community. This distinction is crucial as we witness an uptick in book challenges across the United States. PEN America reported a staggering 6,870 school book bans during the 2024–2025 school year alone, covering 3,752 unique titles within 87 public school districts across 23 states. Since July 2021, they’ve tracked 22,810 cases of book bans across 45 states and 451 districts.

This pattern highlights a concerning trend in censorship, in which the pressures come not solely from individual parents but also from organized groups and government entities. The American Library Association corroborates this climate of suppression, reporting 821 attempts to censor library books in 2024. Alarmingly, 72% of these demands were initiated by pressure groups or government entities, with parents accounting for only 16%. This complexity reveals that the narrative of censorship based purely on parental concerns does not fully capture the reality—there are organized efforts targeting entire collections of literature, aiming to control what communities can access.

Moreover, defenders of intellectual freedom must avoid a simplistic approach that labels every restriction as a form of book banning. Schools inherently make decisions regarding age-appropriate content. A kindergarten classroom will not stock the same books as a high school library, and educators make thoughtful selections based on reading levels, educational relevance, and maturity. This process of selection doesn’t always equate to censorship.

Consider a school that chooses to remove a particular book from a library due to violent themes. This decision, while potentially contentious, is a judgment call based on what is deemed appropriate for a specific age group. It raises questions about how we determine such standards and who is involved in making those determinations.

In defending both parental rights and the principles of education, it is imperative to reach a middle ground. Schools should not shy away from engaging in dialogue with families, creating a culture of transparency and cooperation. At the same time, families need to understand that education serves a broader purpose: preparing children for a diverse society where they will encounter a range of realities, viewpoints, and experiences.

The challenge is to create a system that respects parental authority while upholding schools’ responsibilities to offer a rich, varied curriculum. One possible solution involves establishing advisory committees that include parents, educators, and community members. These committees could review curriculum materials and address concerns collaboratively, ensuring that diverse voices are heard without allowing one perspective to drown out others.

Ultimately, it’s about balance. Education should be a space where students are encouraged to think critically, explore different perspectives, and engage with the complexities of the world around them. Allowing parental input while protecting all students’ right to access a diverse array of literature is essential to fostering an inclusive educational environment.

The conversation around censorship, parental rights, and educational content is delicate. It requires us to honor parents’ roles as guardians while also recognizing that schools serve a broader function within society. As we navigate this landscape, let’s strive for constructive dialogue, understanding, and a commitment to ensuring that all students can learn and grow within a framework of intellectual freedom and respect for diverse viewpoints. Closing the book on certain topics may shield some children, but it restricts the growth and understanding of an entire generation. Let’s choose to keep the pages open and encourage discussions that promote learning, growth, and a more informed society.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR – Johjoh Demol Jenae is a Mathematics and literacy teacher at Bronx International High School, a teacher trainer and curriculum writer, and a graduate with a Doctor of Philosophy in Development Administration, a Doctor of Education in Educational Management, and a Post-Doctorate in Strategic Management and Leadership.