Mental Health, Parental Rights, and Explicit Content in Public Schools

Why explicit literature in educational settings raises urgent questions about parental rights and child welfare

Image Credit: Shutterstock

In recent years, the national discourse surrounding education has become increasingly polarized, with terms like “book banners” and “groomers” dominating the conversation. This rhetoric, however, often obscures critical local discussions about age appropriateness in school curricula, parental rights, and the essential question of how we effectively educate our children to navigate the complexities of modern social environments. In this climate, parents who raise genuine concerns about the material presented to their children in schools are frequently labeled as extremists, thereby deflecting any meaningful examination of the issues at hand.

As a parent in Darien, Connecticut, I have witnessed firsthand how such conversations are overshadowed by national narratives. Many parents may be unaware of the explicit content that is accessible to students in local school libraries. The items in question include graphic depictions of sexual acts among minors and discussions that normalize unhealthy and inappropriate behaviors. For example, students can find books that include scenes of young children engaging in sexual acts, conversations about masturbation, and even depictions of minors involved in explicit situations. This raises an urgent question: How do educational leaders justify such a dramatic shift in what is deemed acceptable material for young readers?

The answer, troublingly, seems to hinge on a vague notion of "mental health." In Darien, when concerned parents voice their objections to such content, educational officials often respond with platitudes about the importance of mental health and inclusivity, without directly addressing the explicit nature of the material. They argue that these narratives are necessary for representation, claiming that the inclusion of diverse experiences justifies the presence of sexually explicit content. However, the connection between increased inclusivity and graphic depictions of children engaging in sexual acts is tenuous at best.

It is vital to recognize that the appropriateness of literature in school libraries should not be determined by the sexual orientation or gender identity of the characters involved. Literature has a responsibility to reflect society, but it should do so in a manner that is age-appropriate and educational—not one that exploits the vulnerability of children. Books in school libraries need not illustrate or reflect every inner thought a child or adolescent might have, especially with regard to sexual desires or behaviors typically practiced in private. Paradoxically, the books in question perpetuate the most extreme stereotypes of groups they allege to protect and empower.

While it is crucial to provide support for children grappling with mental health challenges, we must be careful not to normalize harmful thoughts and behaviors. Initiatives that pathologize normal childhood experiences in favor of sensationalized narratives can have detrimental effects. Children who face issues like suicidal ideation or a history of abuse require professional assistance, not graphic literature that lacks parental or professional guidance. School libraries should serve as safe spaces for learning and growth, not as repositories for sexualized content that could confuse or distress young minds.

The weaponization of mental health in this context is alarming. By suggesting that parents who object to explicit materials are indifferent to their children's mental well-being, school officials create a hostile environment for open dialogue. This tactic not only stifles parental involvement but also undermines the very fabric of community engagement that is vital for effective education.

School administrators often cite endorsements from mental health “experts” to defend their choices, yet these claims frequently lack rigorous evidence. Parents have every right to demand transparency in educational policies that affect their children. Trusting “the science” without verifiable data is a strategy that dismisses parental concerns. In matters involving children, the voices of parents should hold more weight than the assertions of self-proclaimed experts. Effectively, by insisting that wildly inappropriate material is necessary to prevent anxiety, depression, and suicide, Darien officials are suggesting that parents who find this content objectionable are indifferent to students’ mental health. School libraries are not psychiatric clinics, and increased access to graphic depictions of children performing sexual acts is not a viable strategy for enhancing mental wellness.

School officials have an obligation to present well-designed studies, assuming they are conducted ethically and comply with existing laws that protect children from sexually explicit materials. Such studies should also demonstrate meaningful outcomes and disclose the identity of the “experts” who endorse the materials. At a minimum, schools should not rely on studies generated exclusively by individuals and organizations that are professionally and financially invested in experiential learning programs. Science is a collaborative process, not a demand for blind loyalty. Parents should not be expected to needlessly “trust the science” when questionable practices are implemented in secrecy.

The broader movement known as Social Emotional Learning (SEL) seeks to improve student mental health, yet it raises critical questions about the boundaries between education and psychological treatment. SEL has burgeoned into a billion-dollar industry, often prioritizing political agendas over genuine educational needs. In Connecticut, proposed legislation aims to prevent local school boards from removing any book related to human sexuality, further marginalizing parental input. While public school curricula should maintain a nonpartisan and areligious stance, they must not stray into the realm of amorality.

SB 1271 would significantly restrict the ability of parents and community members to challenge books in school and public libraries that they find vulgar or sexually explicit. Under this bill, if one parent challenges a specific book, no other parents would be permitted to challenge that same book for a period of three years, effectively stifling ongoing discussions about the appropriateness of certain materials. Additionally, only parents with children enrolled in the school would have the right to challenge books, excluding community members, grandparents, and other relatives from participating in these discussions. This limitation would silence important voices within the community and diminish the collective ability to advocate for families and children. SB 1271 violates constitutional rights, including the right to petition the government and the right to free speech, which are essential for democratic engagement and public discourse.

CASEL, the most prominent driver of SEL nationally, aims to “redistribut[e] power to more fully engage young people and adults in working toward just and equitable schools and communities” by integrating SEL into all aspects of a school district's operations. Despite concerns that “redistributing power” and political activism aren’t suitable objectives for a public school, SEL has spread like wildfire, even inspiring wearable technology that provides a “minute-by-minute record” of a child’s physiological and emotional state.

Currently, the process for challenging contentious library materials in Darien culminates in a ruling by the Superintendent’s Review Committee (SRC), which lacks genuine representation of parental values. This committee’s composition—predominantly comprised of education officials and a handful of randomly selected parents—fails to reflect the diverse opinions within the community. To foster greater transparency and parental involvement, we must reform this process.

First, we need to establish a clear consensus on what constitutes pornography and sexually gratuitous content. Engaging a nonpartisan organization to gauge parental opinions on these issues through polling could provide valuable insights into community values. Second, we must revise the book challenge process to ensure that school boards have a more significant role, reducing the influence of unaccountable committees.

Finally, we should initiate a public discussion to delineate the responsibilities of schools regarding mental health support and clinical psychology. If substantive evidence exists that exposure to certain types of content improves youth mental health, it should be presented openly and ethically, considering parental oversight.

Results, not intentions, will matter when such content is presented in a public forum. Purported efforts to advocate for “mental health” do not justify the dramatic reduction in standards designed to shield minors from sexually explicit content. School officials should not make determinations about pornographic and gratuitous content behind closed doors. The public school system shouldn’t be the arbiter of mental health without input from parents and families, especially when educators and administrators champion potentially harmful content as vehicles for personal empowerment. The push for inclusivity and mental health awareness in schools must not come at the expense of our children's innocence or well-being.

We welcome you to share your thoughts on this piece in the comments below. Click here to view our comment section moderation policy.

The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism or its employees.

In keeping with our mission to promote a common culture of fairness, understanding, and humanity, we are committed to including a diversity of voices and encouraging compassionate and good-faith discourse.

We are actively seeking other perspectives on this topic and others. If you’d like to join the conversation, please send drafts to submissions@fairforall.org.