SCOTUS ruling misses the point of reading

Literature fuels empathy and conversation. It can foster belonging and it can also fuel productive discourse. But only if you actually read. If you choose to opt out altogether, you only fuel ignorance, which is what the Supreme Court ruling on Mahmoud v. Taylor accomplished. Parents can now opt their children out of instruction that includes LGBTQ+ themes in the name of religious freedom. At the center of this case were nine books included in Maryland's Montgomery County Public Schools English curriculum that positively affirmed LGBTQ+ people. In a joint statement denouncing the SCOTUS ruling, the authors of these books wrote: "All children need to learn how to share their classrooms and communities with people different from themselves. Books can help them understand one another and to treat each other with acceptance, kindness and respect." As authors, they understood the assignment. However, the parents behind the lawsuit, along with six of the United States Supreme Court Justices, completely missed the point of reading diverse literature, and children will suffer for it. My 9-year-old son received a book for Christmas from a friend. It was a graphic novel adaptation of "The Secret Garden." He liked it so much that wanted to read the original classic novel. We read it together. The novel was published in 1911 and contained racist content not included in the updated graphic novel. Did I forbid him from reading it and direct him to read more progressive content? No. Did reading it mean that I endorsed the blatant racism depicted? No. When we read problematic passages, we made time for conversation and I answered his questions. That's my job as a parent. On our recent vacation we also read "This Is Our Rainbow: 16 Stories of Her, Him, Them, and Us," an LGBTQ+ affirming anthology written for middle-grade readers. It prompted conversations about allyship, pronouns and love. As parents we're supposed to support our children's education and be there to help them navigate their personal development. We have to prepare the child for the path, not the path for the child. We do this by building emotional equity and being their safe space that doesn't limit or forbid certain topics of discussion. I should be a trusted resource for my children, especially when topics are controversial. I read with all of my children -- not only in elementary school, but also as they grow. In high school, when my daughter was assigned to read "Anthem" by Ayn Rand, I read that too. Rand's philosophies are contentious and I wanted to be available to discuss what she was reading and support her critical thinking skills. The parents involved in the Supreme Court case had sued because they believed the curriculum undermined their "right to direct the religious upbringing of their children." But by not permitting their children to engage in the curriculum, they miss the opportunity to do just that. Gina Barreca, who holds a doctorate in English literature, is Board of Trustees Distinguished Professor of English at the University of Connecticut. In a column for the Hartford Courant, she wrote, "Only those who understand something and have experience with it can wrestle with it, grapple with it, and if appropriate, undermine the authority of it." If you truly oppose an ideal presented in literature, like I did with "The Secret Garden," isn't it better to engage in the literature in a thoughtful way? Help your child navigate the nuances and complexities while answering questions they may have along the way? Forbidding and opting out of age-appropriate curriculum only serves to shelter the child and stunt their abilities to think through content for themselves. Perhaps this is precisely what these parents want. Perhaps they are afraid of raising children who think for themselves. But parents cannot shelter their children forever. Children grow up, and in adulthood they will encounter people from all walks of life. Grown-ups don't get to avoid and ignore coworkers or everyday people they encounter while living their lives at the bank, grocery or public park. Curriculum limitations only serve to leave your children unprepared for the diverse world we live in. You will not extricate LGBTQ+ people from your children's life. Just like I will not be able to remove homophobic or racist people from mine. Learning alongside your children and being emotionally available for questions is a parenting approach that requires you to be brave and engaged. It means you have to confront your own ignorance, prejudice or discomfort. It also means you allow your child the space to do the same. It does not mean you have to condone an ideology or adopt any particular lifestyle. It simply means you are willing to dip into an unfamiliar world and understand someone else's perspective. The world needs more people who are willing to do just that. Our children are worth the effort and are worth the time it takes to help them navigate all the complex narratives of life. Bonnie Jean Feldkamp is a writer with Creators Syndicate.