The 'Book Banners' Speak | Opinion

Over the past two years, parents in school districts across America have spoken out against the presence of sexually explicit books in school libraries. By and large, these parents have been derided by the media as "book banners," labeled "anti-LGBTQ," or cast as "ultra-MAGA."

But the parents who showed up to a school board meeting last week in Dearborn, Michigan certainly defied these stilted stereotypes. At the behest of Imam Sayyid Hassan al-Qazwini of the Islamic Institute of America, hundreds of Muslim-Americans packed the venue. The debate that unfolded over three hours of public comment bore little resemblance to the politicized tropes commonly reported by the media.

Several of the parents were not shy about describing the content that they objected to. "2022, it's been a real interesting year," began Cliff Alawy. "I really was not expecting to stand here. I'm an avid reader. ...You'll find my family with books, curled up in any corner, always reading. I never thought I'd stand to boycott or ban books, but here I am. I read one of the books, and I was very surprised to find a graphic novel of children gathering to masturbate—excuse my language, everybody—to masturbate into a bottle, and the person who does not participate must drink from that bottle. ...I'm a 43-year-old man and I'm embarrassed to say this stuff, and yet you say that this is okay to be in the hands of children. Shame on you."

Two parents objected to a book that contained, as Nagi Almudghi related, "actual reviews about Grindr, saying how good it is. 'I have used Grindr. The advantages are you can get what you want quickly.' This is from the book. 'I've met a variety of interesting people through sex apps. They're predominantly used for sex, though. They're sold to us as social networking apps. But we all know what they're really for. I don't have a problem with that aspect of it, if people want casual sex, then something like Grindr is a must.'" Turning his attention to the school board, Nagi said, "We read that to you last month. And you looked at us like we were some kind of crazy people."

Muhammed Musa quoted the same passage and said, "The author then continues to talk about a variety of apps that children and students can use to meet up with strangers and have sex with them. Would you want your children to read this type of book? Would you want your children to download these types of apps? Would you want your child to meet up with a stranger and have sex with them? If not, then listen to the community."

Mustapha Mourtada expressed the extreme discomfort he felt when his fourth-grade son saw a sexually inappropriate image in a book in his classroom and asked him about it. Sixth-grader Sami Mahedi said, "Most of us students go to the library as a safe haven. Just knowing that these books are in our environment is disturbing."

But the books also had their defenders. Jane Mazza, president of the local teachers' unions, declared that "no parent should be allowed to tell another parent what their child is allowed or not allowed to read," and suggested that the Dearborn community was "being intentionally divided by political players whose agenda revolves around [being] anti-public schools. ...[The] love and concern that every parent has for their child is being exploited."

Other speakers took umbrage at the notion that these parents were political pawns. Stephanie Butler declared that it was "slander and libel" to "turn thousands of Arab-American Muslims into white Christian nationalists who are being led off a cliff like sheep, insinuating that these people, some [of whom] graduated [from] Harvard, can't think for themselves."

Many speakers were also acutely conscious of the allegation that their objections were being labeled "anti-LGBTQ." Matthew Reperno said he was "fascinated by what I'm watching tonight. ...Many people stand here and say we want to protect their parental rights, and they say we are not opposing LGBTQ rights, and yet other people come up here to support the books solely for the purpose of LGBTQ rights."

"[I]t is a false narrative," declared Kristina Karamo, "that parents who do not want their children exposed to graphic sex acts somehow hate somebody. That is nonsense." Abdullah Ahmed said, "We don't care whether the pornographic photos and erotica are homosexual, lesbian, or straight. If there's pornography in any books available to kids and teens, we want that out." He continued, "Why are we split in the first place? Does the LGBT community show porn to their kids growing up? I don't think so."

"The issue," declared Albert Abbas, "is not a religious one. Nor is it an attack against the LGBT community. It is an issue of age-appropriateness. It is an issue of sexually obscene, lewd content. Many of us here don't care about your sexual preference, nor do we want to argue about gender identity or whether men can get pregnant. ...When our children are under your watch, it is your duty to protect them from erotica, or overly provocative words, or graphic porn. ...History will remember us in a positive way."

Time will tell whether Abbas is correct. So much of a debate that truly is about age-appropriateness and obscene content has instead been cast by the media as a right-wing backlash against the "LGBTQ community." The Muslim-Americans in Dearborn possessed sufficient social capital and moral certitude to show up in force, and may well succeed in changing their school district's policies. However, whether the common sense of parents can prevail over politically correct dogma in other school districts across America, or whether obscenity will be normalized in the name of "inclusivity," very much remains to be seen.

Max Eden is a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.