Interesting. Should be said that the Christian Bible is in school libraries in every South Carolina district I've studied, and that the language of this regulation could certainly be used to challenge it on the grounds that it contains "depictions of sexual conduct" as described in state law. (In fact, that's exactly what happened after Utah passed a law with similar language, and in fact the Bible was briefly removed from Utah schools after it was challenged by a community member.) I don't know how this Board would handle that, given that they are not currently allowed to consider artistic, literary, or poetic merit (which the Bible obviously has, both for believers and non-believers).
You raise an important point, and I genuinely appreciate that you are engaging this topic with nuance. I think we actually agree on more than it might seem at first glance—particularly on the need for clarity and consistency in how laws around school library content are written and applied.
That said, I do think there is a meaningful distinction to be made when comparing the Bible to some of the books currently being challenged under these regulations. While it is true that the Bible includes references to sexual conduct—sometimes even disturbing ones—those passages are framed within a broader moral, theological, and historical context. They are not presented to entice or provoke but rather to confront sin, highlight consequences, or reflect the brokenness of humanity in need of redemption. In other words, the intent behind the depiction matters.
By contrast, many of the books that have raised concern in recent years do not include sexual content for purposes of moral instruction or reflection, but instead present it graphically, sometimes even in ways that border on celebratory or instructional for minors. That is a different category altogether—and one that understandably raises questions for parents and communities about age-appropriate material.
You are also right to point out that the language of these laws needs to be crafted carefully.
If a law is written so broadly that it could be used in bad faith to target foundational texts like the Bible, then it probably needs refinement. That happened briefly in Utah, as you mentioned, though I would argue that particular incident was more of a political stunt than a genuine community concern. Still, it reminds us that the law must be precise enough to uphold community standards without inadvertently discarding works with enduring literary, historical, or moral value.
Ultimately, I think the goal here is not to single out any particular ideology or belief system, but to ensure that children are not being exposed to sexually explicit material that lacks educational merit or moral grounding.
The Bible, for believers and non-believers alike, has been recognized for centuries as a text with profound literary, cultural, and moral significance. That should not be overlooked.
Thanks again for raising this—seriously. Conversations like this are exactly what we need to ensure these policies are guided by both wisdom and fairness.
I don't disagree with you on the context, but the SC regulation does not allow for context. Sexual conduct is framed in very blunt and specific terms (a list of acts that constitute sexual conduct no matter the context). While the section of SC law cited in the regulation does contain a "Miller Test," to allow for the presence of sexual content without automatically labeling it as "obscenity," the regulation does not cite this passage. I certainly don't want to ban the Bible, but I also don't want government employees deciding which books have "merit" and which don't-- that's a better job for librarians and communities.
I don't believe there is evidence that any of the books challenged in SC have been used to help to "groom" students; if there is, no one has produced it during any of the many public hearings on the regulation or the books. On the other hand, many South Carolinians (including teachers, librarians, students, victims of sexual assault, and experts in sexual assault trauma) have repeatedly testified that having access to books that, for example, deal thoughtfully with the issue of sexual assault, allowed them to heal from and process their own assaults, allowed them to better recognize toxic and abusive behavior in their own relationships, and made them feel less alone.
And obviously parents usually (I say usually, because family members are also statistically the most likely to be the perpetrators in crimes of physical and sexual abuse against children) are the people best placed to make individual decisions for and with individual students.
And we could call what happened in Utah a political stunt-- I think that's reasonable-- or we could call it (also reasonably) an an act of civil engagement that forced people across the country to consider the ramifications of handing book-banning powers to government entities without the guardrails put in place by the Courts (the "Miller test" was developed by the US Supreme Court in the 1970s to avoid just the issues you're describing).
In any case, stunt or not, I think the best way to protect the Bible and other important works is to avoid handing over the decision-making process to (in the case of South Carolina) unelected bureaucrats (Board members are appointed, but Board staff members, who likely wrote the regulation in the first place and who have demonstrated ideological biases, are making the actual recommendations to remove, which the Board has generally rubber-stamped until this week). In the case of the SC reg, it supplanted local rules like those used by Beaufort County-- where committees of parents, librarians, and other members of the local community actually read the books (something this Board has explicitly said it is not required to do), discussed them thoughtfully, and then chose to retain most of them.
This process has undone all that work by allowing that same parent to re-litigate those book challenges, but without the team of experts, parents, and invested community members.
Soooo proud of my friend Tayler Simon!!!!!
Tayler’s testimony was powerful!
Not directly related to South Carolina, but, following along a similar vein:
https://thequillandmusket.substack.com/p/jenny-donovan-and-the-hypocrisy-of?r=4xypjp
Interesting. Should be said that the Christian Bible is in school libraries in every South Carolina district I've studied, and that the language of this regulation could certainly be used to challenge it on the grounds that it contains "depictions of sexual conduct" as described in state law. (In fact, that's exactly what happened after Utah passed a law with similar language, and in fact the Bible was briefly removed from Utah schools after it was challenged by a community member.) I don't know how this Board would handle that, given that they are not currently allowed to consider artistic, literary, or poetic merit (which the Bible obviously has, both for believers and non-believers).
You raise an important point, and I genuinely appreciate that you are engaging this topic with nuance. I think we actually agree on more than it might seem at first glance—particularly on the need for clarity and consistency in how laws around school library content are written and applied.
That said, I do think there is a meaningful distinction to be made when comparing the Bible to some of the books currently being challenged under these regulations. While it is true that the Bible includes references to sexual conduct—sometimes even disturbing ones—those passages are framed within a broader moral, theological, and historical context. They are not presented to entice or provoke but rather to confront sin, highlight consequences, or reflect the brokenness of humanity in need of redemption. In other words, the intent behind the depiction matters.
By contrast, many of the books that have raised concern in recent years do not include sexual content for purposes of moral instruction or reflection, but instead present it graphically, sometimes even in ways that border on celebratory or instructional for minors. That is a different category altogether—and one that understandably raises questions for parents and communities about age-appropriate material.
You are also right to point out that the language of these laws needs to be crafted carefully.
If a law is written so broadly that it could be used in bad faith to target foundational texts like the Bible, then it probably needs refinement. That happened briefly in Utah, as you mentioned, though I would argue that particular incident was more of a political stunt than a genuine community concern. Still, it reminds us that the law must be precise enough to uphold community standards without inadvertently discarding works with enduring literary, historical, or moral value.
Ultimately, I think the goal here is not to single out any particular ideology or belief system, but to ensure that children are not being exposed to sexually explicit material that lacks educational merit or moral grounding.
The Bible, for believers and non-believers alike, has been recognized for centuries as a text with profound literary, cultural, and moral significance. That should not be overlooked.
Thanks again for raising this—seriously. Conversations like this are exactly what we need to ensure these policies are guided by both wisdom and fairness.
I don't disagree with you on the context, but the SC regulation does not allow for context. Sexual conduct is framed in very blunt and specific terms (a list of acts that constitute sexual conduct no matter the context). While the section of SC law cited in the regulation does contain a "Miller Test," to allow for the presence of sexual content without automatically labeling it as "obscenity," the regulation does not cite this passage. I certainly don't want to ban the Bible, but I also don't want government employees deciding which books have "merit" and which don't-- that's a better job for librarians and communities.
I don't believe there is evidence that any of the books challenged in SC have been used to help to "groom" students; if there is, no one has produced it during any of the many public hearings on the regulation or the books. On the other hand, many South Carolinians (including teachers, librarians, students, victims of sexual assault, and experts in sexual assault trauma) have repeatedly testified that having access to books that, for example, deal thoughtfully with the issue of sexual assault, allowed them to heal from and process their own assaults, allowed them to better recognize toxic and abusive behavior in their own relationships, and made them feel less alone.
And obviously parents usually (I say usually, because family members are also statistically the most likely to be the perpetrators in crimes of physical and sexual abuse against children) are the people best placed to make individual decisions for and with individual students.
And we could call what happened in Utah a political stunt-- I think that's reasonable-- or we could call it (also reasonably) an an act of civil engagement that forced people across the country to consider the ramifications of handing book-banning powers to government entities without the guardrails put in place by the Courts (the "Miller test" was developed by the US Supreme Court in the 1970s to avoid just the issues you're describing).
In any case, stunt or not, I think the best way to protect the Bible and other important works is to avoid handing over the decision-making process to (in the case of South Carolina) unelected bureaucrats (Board members are appointed, but Board staff members, who likely wrote the regulation in the first place and who have demonstrated ideological biases, are making the actual recommendations to remove, which the Board has generally rubber-stamped until this week). In the case of the SC reg, it supplanted local rules like those used by Beaufort County-- where committees of parents, librarians, and other members of the local community actually read the books (something this Board has explicitly said it is not required to do), discussed them thoughtfully, and then chose to retain most of them.
This process has undone all that work by allowing that same parent to re-litigate those book challenges, but without the team of experts, parents, and invested community members.