If you read Alberta’s new
to keep images of full-frontal, legs-akimbo sex out of school libraries, the rules are decently simple. And yet, multiple news outlets got them wrong in their initial reports on Thursday, giving the rest of the country the false impression that Alberta’s schools are so strictly puritan that they no longer allow Disney cartoons.
The actual directive on library stocking, which kicks in Oct. 1, is as follows: barred from all school libraries are depictions of “explicit sexual content,” which, according to the order, includes masturbation, penetrative sex, non-penetrative sex, ejaculation and sex-toy use.
Permitted in all school libraries are depictions of body parts and people that are “not sexual in nature”: kissing, hand-holding, non-sexual aspects of romantic relationships, medical imagery, biological functions and processes (such as puberty, menstruation, pregnancy and breastfeeding), informational depictions of sex in reference books and “indirect references to sexual acts or the implication or suggestion that sexual acts have occurred or are occurring.” Religious texts are also universally allowed.
In between the above two categories is a grey zone for the high schoolers: books that depict what the government calls “non-explicit sexual content.” These include depictions of any “sexual act that is not detailed or clear.” Think lights-off lovemaking without any details of emitted fluids and engorged body parts. Access to these books will be limited to Grade 10 and up, as long as they’re “developmentally appropriate for the student accessing the material.”
The order explains that, “ ‘developmentally appropriate’ means appropriate for the age, grade and ability level and the cognitive, physical, emotional and intellectual development of the child or student.” It’s an instruction to use common sense, which most education professionals already do.
There is room for confusion. Pedants can argue about the nuances of “developmentally appropriate” for days. There may be librarians wondering what to do with history books depicting the endowment of Priapus and the curious street art of Pompeii (even if they clearly count as informational). The task of sifting through a high school library’s adult fiction section (“Game of Thrones,” anyone?) for sexual content is sure to be tedious.
That said, the rules aren’t extreme, and neither is the administrative burden. Schools will be required to review their books regularly (at intervals of their choice), which is likely already happening. They’ll have to have someone supervising access to library books, which is what librarians already do. An inventory of the collection must be made available to parents, which can take the form of an online database, a PDF list or even a binder accessible to parents in the school office.
As for the work of actually limiting access to restricted materials, Education Minister Demetrios Nicolaides told the Post, it can be as easy as “A librarian, a teacher, an educational assistant or other type of supervisor, just ensuring that students in Grades 9 and under are not checking out any material that might contain really graphic depictions of sexual acts.”
The news elsewhere initially said otherwise. The Toronto Star
a Canadian Press story (which has since been updated): Alberta Bans Explicit Sex Books in Schools, Limits Who Reads About Kissing, Hugging. Which, simply, wasn’t true, as hugging and kissing are allowed in all school libraries.
Global News, using the same wire story as the Star, made the
: “Students in Grade 9 and younger will not be allowed to read about puberty, menstruation and breastfeeding but religious texts, such as the Bible, will be allowed on the shelves,” read one excerpt. It later issued a correction and deleted an
social media post.
The Globe and Mail’s report
that, “Libraries will also no longer be able to provide students in Grade 9 and below with any material that contains non-explicit sexual content, such as the depiction of bodies with references to genitalia, menstruation, puberty or romantic relationships, including handholding and kissing.” It wasn’t true, but it sparked
online.
“There must be some misunderstanding or misinterpretation there,” said Nicolaides. “We’ve clearly provided a definition in the ministerial order that says those types of things — depictions of bodies, biological functions, menstruation, pregnancy, breastfeeding, kissing, hand-holding — are all non-sexual in nature, and there are no restrictions related to that material.”
Nevertheless, the first impression of the rules, false as they were, reverberated online. Mount Royal University professor and media commentator Duane Bratt
the falsity in a still-public tweet that, as of Friday morning, reached 18 times the audience of his
.
Globe and Mail columnist Doug Saunders made a similar post and deleted it when he realized it was wrong; however, he went on to write that Alberta had initially banned all books depicting menstruation, puberty and romantic relationships, claiming that, “Alberta
to the language” and “
in response.” That was plain wrong: Alberta’s ministerial order hadn’t changed; it was the news outlets that had to revise their stories in light of their errors.
Can the rules still deliver absurd outcomes? Sure: there is a risk that paranoid, risk-averse school administrators will interpret the rules in the most cumbersome, laborious way possible, pulling umpteen young adult romance novels from shelves just to be safe.
But, applied reasonably, they’re just a province-wide expectation with some baseline administrative provisions that schools should already have in place. Don’t let kids see depictions of strap-on fellatio and pants-free child molestation,
, and they’ll be fine.
National Post
