Oregon lawmakers made an active effort to listen to and protect student voices after the efforts to ban books in Canby and across the state. SB 1583 was introduced as a common-sense bill that would protect students from discriminatory censorship and book bans within educational settings, prohibiting censorship based on race, sex, gender identity, religion and other identity-based factors.
Senator Lew Frederick (D-Portland) introduced the bill hoping to minimize the legal arguments that can be made for book bans.
In an interview with OPB, he said, “What we’re really dealing with is people trying to discriminate. And if we can point out that that’s not allowed, then we can move along and, frankly, get past all of the culture war nonsense that’s been involved in this.”
According to PEN America, book bans rose by nearly 900 instances within the 2022-2023 school year compared to the previous year. In one instance, a textbook omitted references to race when discussing Rosa Parks’ contributions to the Civil Rights movement to win widespread approval from Florida school officials.
In Oregon alone, 93 books were challenged on the grounds of removal from public and school libraries, the highest ever recorded.
The bill would also specifically block school boards and other school officials from removing books due to the content of the books, with many school boards facing growing challenges on this front from “Parents’ rights” groups.
The Senate passed the bill along a 17-12 margin, but the bill died in the Oregon House.
Although SB 1583 received considerable attention from civil rights organizations, youth rights groups and BIPOC organizations, it faced equal opposition from right-wing organizations focused on preserving parental control over educational content.
Monica Carroll submitted written testimony against the bill, writing, “I oppose this bill, we do not want more racist and LGBTQ information shoved into the faces of our kids.”
It is important to note that this bill would not force people to read any material, and parents can still control the educational material of their own children if they wish, but they can not control it for other people’s children.
This rhetoric of adding more diverse voices was mentioned throughout the opposing statements, however, it’s important to note that these stories have historically existed but have been excluded from educational spaces, and by adding these resources for students, it simply creates an accurate representation of media.
The main complaint noted through the spoken and written testimonies was the lack of influence parents had over the educational curriculum provided by the school and the school’s push for an alleged political agenda through the curriculum — a point that was taken and spread among many Republicans to go against material that spread positive portrayals of minority voices.
The argument for parent rights, however, has never been used to promote educational material that is more reflective of the student body, although many parents want to see that in the school system. This exact point shows a split, creating a reactionary group opposing a democratic educational system and banning stories and narratives.
The myth of “Parent rights” undermines the validity of a student’s right, which has historically been undervalued. A student has the right to the First Amendment, which protects material from government censorship over books, magazines and newspapers, no matter what fringe groups of parents might argue for.
Trevor Hoagland submitted testimony against this bill on behalf of parents, stating, “I oppose this as it is authoritarian.”
Ironically, this proves the importance of banning book bans and keeping the fundamentals of the Constitution alive within the schools because, arguably, banning the narratives that threaten your perspective of life is nothing short of an authoritarian attack.
