To the Editor: In Defense of Senate Bill 656, Notification of Sexually Explicit Content | Opinions

Why is informing parents about what students are studying at school controversial? We have to sign permission slips for PG-13 movies but not be told about explicit material in the classroom? How can that mean anything?

Discussions finished Senate Bill 656 demonstrate many of the problems of the public education system: political indoctrination and a lack of reading comprehension and critical thinking ability. Somehow, opponents of SB656 – including a recent FCPS1 high school graduate – have twisted the requirement for schools to notify parents that sexually explicit material is being used in the classroom in some way. something that denies the representation of LGTBQ people and a safe environment. The degree of political indoctrination and lack of reading comprehension and critical thinking displayed in this position is shocking. The legal definition of sexually explicit material in Virginia is “any depiction or visual depiction of sexual bestiality, lewd display of nudity, sexual arousal, sadomasochistic sexual conduct or abuse, coprophilia , urophilia or fetishism”. What opponents of SB656 imply is that LGBTQ perspectives in the books require explicit descriptions of oral or anal sex. This idea is patently and patently wrong; The FCPS1 libraries include dozens, if not hundreds, of books that include LGBTQ issues and characters that do not include lewd sex acts. SB565 has nothing to do with LGBTQ representation and saying so is political propaganda. Adults should know the difference between debating a fact-based issue and political misinformation, even if students haven’t been educated enough to do so.

The author is the treasurer of the local group Moms 4 Liberty.


Send letters to the editor to [email protected]. Please include a phone number for verification purposes. Letters may be slightly edited for clarity.

Norman D. Briggs