By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Karen Cahall, a long-time New Richmond Exempted Village Schools teacher, is suing the district for a three-day unpaid suspension stemming from four LGBTQ+-themed books in her classroom. The district, citing a vaguely worded policy on “controversial issues,” deemed the books unacceptable despite their non-obscene content and Cahall’s non-instructional use of them. The lawsuit alleges the policy is unconstitutionally vague and that the district engaged in viewpoint discrimination, violating Cahall’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Cahall claims economic loss due to the unjust suspension.
Read the original article here
A longtime Ohio teacher, Karen Cahall, is suing her school district, the New Richmond Exempted Village Schools, after being disciplined for possessing four books featuring LGBTQ+ characters in her classroom. The lawsuit contends that the suspension was unwarranted, arguing that the books, which included titles like “Ana On The Edge,” “The Fabulous Zed Watson,” “Hazel Bly and the Deep Blue Sea,” and “Too Bright to See,” were simply part of a larger collection of approximately one hundred books and were not prominently displayed. Crucially, the lawsuit emphasizes that Cahall neither taught from these books nor required students to read them.
The school district’s actions appear to stem from its interpretation of Board Policy 2240, which defines a “controversial issue” as a topic likely to incite both support and opposition within the community. The lawsuit argues this definition is overly broad and has been applied discriminatorily against Cahall, amounting to content- and viewpoint-based discrimination. This policy, critics argue, could be applied to almost any book, effectively chilling free expression and access to diverse literature.
The superintendent’s response to Cahall’s actions, which included a warning that further such behavior could lead to termination, has drawn significant criticism. The language used, described by many as condescending and authoritarian, is more reminiscent of a parent scolding a child than a supervisor addressing a tenured professional. This reflects a broader concern about the increasingly punitive and controlling environment facing teachers, particularly those who attempt to offer students access to inclusive and diverse reading material.
Many see this incident as part of a larger trend of book censorship in schools driven by conservative viewpoints. The focus on these specific books, with their LGBTQ+ themes, highlights concerns about the suppression of diverse narratives and the potential to limit students’ exposure to perspectives different from their own. The irony is not lost on many that those who frequently champion “free speech” are often the loudest voices in these censorship efforts. The hypocrisy seems particularly glaring given the professed commitment to individual liberties often espoused by these groups.
The fact that the books in question are not considered obscene or offensive, and contain no explicit sexual content, further strengthens the argument that the discipline was unwarranted and based solely on the content’s subject matter. The books are described as exploring the experiences of LGBTQ+ characters grappling with their identities, a topic some find inherently objectionable, despite the lack of explicit material.
The incident has sparked outrage among many, including fellow educators and advocates for intellectual freedom. The comments highlight the broader struggle faced by educators who seek to create inclusive and engaging classrooms. Teachers face increasing pressure to conform to narrow ideological viewpoints, often at the expense of their own professional judgment and their students’ exposure to a wide range of perspectives. This incident underscores the challenges of navigating the complex interplay between school policies, parental concerns, and the fundamental right to access diverse literature.
Furthermore, the financial implications of this legal battle are significant, with the cost of defending the lawsuit falling on the school district’s budget. This means that resources intended for student education and teacher support are being diverted to fight a lawsuit stemming from what many see as an arbitrary and discriminatory application of school policy. The potential for staff reductions, larger class sizes, and wage freezes only serves to exacerbate the already precarious position of teachers and their ability to provide quality education.
In essence, this lawsuit is not merely a dispute over four books; it’s a broader fight against book banning and censorship in schools and a reflection of the broader political and social tensions playing out in many communities. The outcome of this case will have significant implications for teachers’ rights, students’ access to diverse literature, and the future of education in Ohio and beyond. The implications of this type of overly zealous censorship extend far beyond individual cases, creating an atmosphere of fear and self-censorship amongst educators nationwide.