Moral Panic in Tennessee Threatens Free Speech and Our Children’s Intellectual Development
Education and free expression are under attack from frenzied parents and authoritarian legislators in red states around the country. Here's what's happening in the Volunteer State.
In the 1980s and early 1990s, a wave of moral panic and conspiracy theories emerged, alleging the existence of a widespread Satanic cult network involved in ritual abuse, child molestation, and other heinous crimes. Sensationalized media stories, both national and local, fueled irrational fears by positing that a growing contingent of America, especially young people, were being tricked into becoming devil worshippers due to hidden occultist symbolism in books, music, artwork, and even in games like Dungeons & Dragons.
While the “Satanic panic” dwindled after the Justice Department thoroughly debunked claims about cults and ritual abuse, its effects still linger. For instance, today’s Qanon conspiracy theorists believe that the Democrats, Hollywood, and other “elites” are all part of a secret cabal of pedophiles. But overblown fears about malicious attempts to influence our children are growing among regular people and concerned parents, fueled by intellectually dishonest brokers of misinformation.
Many people, egged on by right-wing public officials and commentators, are becoming increasingly concerned that public schools are “grooming” their children, “priming” them for sexual abuse by exposing them to discussions about sexuality, gender identity, and sexual orientation. They also believe that schools have become leftist indoctrination camps where children are made to feel guilty about their race and coerced into adopting ideas like critical race theory.
Despite a lack of evidence that these things are happening, fear and paranoia have prompted red states like Tennessee to enact overly broad, vague, and speech-chilling legislation to “protect the children” from being exposed to “inappropriate” ideas in library books and classrooms. And while we certainly don’t want children, especially those in elementary school, exposed to pornographic images or graphic discussions of sexual acts, these laws are often poorly written, duplicative of existing laws banning obscenity, and create an environment that is counterproductive for a child’s education.
Parents Capitalize on “Divisive Concepts” Law
Much of the media focus has been on laws passed in Florida, such as the Don’t Say Gay law and Stop WOKE Act. This emphasis is due to Florida’s Governor Ron Desantis running for president. However, Tennessee has also attempted to stifle classroom discussion of certain topics and remove unsavory books from school libraries.
In May 2021, Tennessee passed a law that would withhold funding from public or charter schools that teach about white privilege or critical race theory (CRT). The law prohibits the instruction of all of the following topics, largely based on the Trump Administration’s executive order on “divisive concepts”:
It’s undoubtedly true that all of these ideas are divisive and morally abhorrent. Teachers obviously shouldn’t advocate for the violent overthrow of the U.S. Government, for example. But it’s also worth noting that, as The Tennessean points out, advocates of the bill failed to cite any specific examples of schools teaching either CRT or any of these concepts.
While no one advocates for these concepts to be taught in schools, one need not ponder long to think of beneficial lessons that might fall within the boundaries of a discussion related to at least one or more of these topics. Some of these concepts are so vague that they will no doubt create a chilling effect as teachers may be fearful even to address topics tangentially related to them. For instance, teachers may feel as though they can’t even discuss the idea or concept of racism without running afoul of the law.
In On Liberty, John Stuart Mill argues that even if a false or wrong idea is suppressed, individuals will be deprived of “the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth produced by its collision with error.” Should educators, especially in higher grade levels, not be allowed to pose thought experiments to students where they might entertain wrong ideas to gain a better understanding of virtue or morality?
Meanwhile, some parents immediately pointed to number (6) from the list above, saying their kids were feeling “discomfort, guilt, anguish, or another form of psychological distress” because of certain lessons. After the law passed, a conservative parents group that originated in Florida called Moms for Liberty mobilized in Williamson County to challenge the curriculum and reading materials, which they argued violated the new law because it included “anti-American, anti-White and anti-Mexican teaching.” The group flagged content in multiple books, including:
Ruby Bridges Goes to School — a book about a 6-year-old who integrated into a New Orleans elementary school in 1960. The book contained a famous Norman Rockwell painting of Ruby surrounded by U.S. Marshals protecting her from an angry segregationist crowd. The Moms for Liberty group argued that “[t]here’s no need to emphasize” the painting.
Separate Is Never Equal — a picture book about integrating schools in southern California and the landmark legal case that led to that victory. Moms for Liberty argued that the book should not be taught because it contained derogatory quotes from White segregationists in court about Mexican-Americans. One mom argued that second graders are “just not ready” to learn about this side of history and will learn the wrong lessons.
Moms for Liberty also targeted Martin Luther King, Jr. and the March on Washington as another “divisive” book. At a Williamson County School Board meeting, Moms for Liberty argued that a book showing how seahorses mate was too racy for kids. They also tried to get a Johnny Appleseed book removed because it was “sad and dark.” In an email to the Daily Beast, Moms for Liberty said,
“There are 31 books that our parents have expressed concern about [ . . . ] Some books should be removed entirely. Some books are objectionable only because of how they are presented via the accompanying teacher's manual. And yes, some books would be better suited to a higher grade level due to their age inappropriate content.”
These parent groups are not just using the law to target hateful or divisive lessons; they are using it to whitewash history, deny reality, and leave children in the dark.
Moms for Liberty also believe their kids are under attack from the LGBTQ+ agenda. In September 2021, the group posted a photo and video of a homecoming parade float sponsored by Indy Pride at Independence High School in Williamson County. A Tweet claimed that the float featured “two girls kissing & groping” in front of kindergarteners. Another Tweet questioned whether Indy Pride members were “recruiting” young children by handing out flyers about National Biweek.
These troubling events in Williamson County are a microcosm of what’s happening across the entire state and the country. In January 2022, a school board in McMinn County voted unanimously to ban Maus, a Pulitzer Prize-winning graphic novel about the Holocaust, from being taught in its classrooms because the book contains material that board members said was inappropriate for students.
The GOP-controlled Tennessee General Assembly has capitalized on the hysteria to codify more laws to “protect” kids from being exposed to “indoctrination” and “discomfort.”
Moral Panic Causes Chaos in Libraries and Classrooms
In 2022, the state legislature passed the Age-Appropriate Materials Act, which mandated that public schools catalog and create a policy for reviewing materials in both libraries and classrooms. Teachers were shocked to discover that they would be required to catalog all the books in their classroom, creating a burdensome process that would necessitate work during their personal time. Democratic legislators have tried to clarify the law to exempt teachers’ classrooms from the bill.
Teachers in the state have also reported wholesale bans on books until they can be reviewed. As one teacher described the process:
First, teachers must catalog the title and author of each and every book currently in their classroom library — of which some teachers have hundreds, if not thousands.
That catalog then gets passed along to the school librarian, who checks that list against a list of approved books. The librarian then lets the teacher know which of their books is not on the approved list.
The teacher is then required to go through their library all over again and remove those books. Meanwhile, a list of those removed books is sent along to “someone higher up,” says Rawls — “probably someone that’s never been in a classroom, that’s never taught children.”
Those “higher-ups” then review the list, and they determine if those books are “appropriate or not appropriate.” They then send that feedback back to the school — requiring the teacher to, once again, go through their library.
After that, teachers must post online the final list of books in their library for parents’ review, allowing them the opportunity to “chime in” about books in their classroom.
Until all of these steps are completed, children in Rawls’s classroom are not allowed to read any of her books — no matter how much they beg.
The chilling effect created by laws like this can also lead to preemptive removals of books before they are even challenged, such as in Missouri, where one school librarian began removing almost everything out of fear while others shut down their libraries completely.
To make matters worse, the Tennessee legislature also created a politically-appointed committee that could review appeals from parents, school employees, or others who want to challenge the decisions of local officials on whether books should be removed due to appropriateness standards. According to PEN America, decisions from this committee could potentially ban certain books statewide.
This year, Tennessee also passed a new law to prosecute book publishers, distributors, and sellers who provide “obscene matter” to K-12 schools. Those found guilty under this law could be fined up to $100,000 or face up to six years in prison.
The farce of these pushes from groups like Moms for Liberty is that there’s simply no legal need for them in the first place. They are not only a solution in search of a problem, but all 50 states, including Tennessee, already prohibit distributing obscene materials to children. Furthermore, bill sponsor Rep. Susan Lynn, R - Mt. Juliet, declined to provide any example of a specific book that would cause distributors to be prosecuted. This law, therefore, will only serve to further empower groups like Moms for Liberty to call for banning books and other materials in Tennessee schools that should not be banned.
Are Public Colleges Next?
In 2022, the Tennessee legislature also passed a bill targeting state colleges using the same “divisive concepts” language. However, it did not wholesale ban discussions or lectures on those topics since college students and instructors have more First Amendment protections. Instead, the law banned mandatory training and incentives to teach those topics. It also allows college students and employees to seek legal remedies if they feel compelled to accept “divisive concepts” and requires colleges to
“conduct a biennial survey of the institution's students and employees to assess the campus climate with regard to diversity of thought and the respondents' comfort level in speaking freely on campus, regardless of political affiliation or ideology. The institution shall publish the results of the biennial survey on the institution's website.”
While not as far-reaching as the K-12 laws, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) found several issues with this bill, including:
“The legislation prohibits the use of state funds to incentivize any of the listed “divisive concepts,” but by singling out those ideas, it seemingly allows state funds to be used to promote or incentivize the teaching of a host of other viewpoint-based concepts. This viewpoint-based denial of state funds for a specific purpose is contrary to longstanding protections for academic freedom.
[ . . . ]
“Our second concern comes from language in the bill that bans “divisive concepts” in mandatory university trainings, but defines “Training” to include “seminars, workshops, trainings, and orientations.” Legislatures have substantial latitude to regulate how a state institution speaks for itself in such programs as non-credit-earning trainings. However, since the law’s definition of “training” includes “seminars” — and this term is often used to describe small, intensive for-credit courses — the provision could be read to prohibit the teaching of “divisive concepts” in higher education classrooms.”
Conclusion: How Will This End?
More legislation targeting curriculum and books will likely be introduced in future legislative sessions, but given the broad and vague language of the current slate of laws, there will no doubt be challenges in the courts. Fortunately, legal precedents could knock down many of these laws.
On book bans, in Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico, the Supreme Court held that school boards could not remove books from library shelves solely based on disapproval of the ideas they express. The Court emphasized that allowing viewpoint-based restrictions on books “hardly teaches children to respect the diversity of ideas that is fundamental to the American system.”
In fairness, the court did recognize the need to curtail offensive and obscene materials from being available to students. But there are two significant problems with how Tennessee has gone about this process. First, many of the books being challenged could hardly be described as obscene, especially those that parents argue make their children feel “discomfort.” Feeling uncomfortable about a complex idea or a dark period of history is part and parcel of educational growth. Second, the state has adopted a radical, precautionary approach to reviewing materials, which has caused preemptive restrictions on books before they are challenged or reviewed. This has created unnecessary burdens on school districts and denied children access to acceptable materials.
On curriculum bans, the legal case is more challenging. In 2006, the Court ruled in Garcetti v. Ceballos that public employees do not have First Amendment speech protections when carrying out their official duties. Therefore, in theory, if the state sets a particular curriculum, then a public school teacher would have to abide by those rules. But, as legal scholar Frank Lamonte argues, some federal courts have found that students have a First Amendment right to receive information. This argument was successful in a federal court decision overturning a prohibition on teaching ethnic studies in Arizona.
Regardless, the current situation is dire for teachers in Tennessee and other red states nationwide. Meanwhile, conservative politicians and commentators are attempting to create more moral panic over critical race theory and the “LGBTQ+ agenda” with feigned outrage over corporate campaigns from companies like Bud Light and Target, which will only generate more fear and paranoia among parents about the safety of their children.
But the actual cost of these laws will be felt by our children for decades in the lessons they will and will not learn. They will learn that certain ideas and concepts are not worthy of discussion and that they can avoid ideas that make them feel discomfort or guilt. They will also learn that they can call upon state power to banish viewpoints they don’t like.
Their development of critical thinking skills will be delayed as more laws deny younger children exposure to ideas that challenge their preconceived notions. They will not learn how different groups of people felt during trying times and what that means for our current societal issues. Hiding away topics or ideas that might create discomfort will ultimately prevent kids from becoming well-rounded citizens in our democracy.
It’s okay to want to protect kids from being exposed to inappropriate things. But the threats to freedom of speech, the freedom to read, and the freedom to learn in our state go far beyond that objective. They will ultimately leave our kids intellectually stunted, uncurious about the world, ignorant of history, and prone to authoritarian impulses.
Justin Hayes is a communications professional and a resident of Nashville, TN.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International.