Defending Public Education from the Self-Righteous Martyr

Georgia’s Cobb County School Board voted 4-3 along partisan lines to terminate Katherine Rinderle’s employment in their district for reading Scott Stuart’s My Shadow is Purple to her fifth grade classroom. Last week, MSNBC lent Rinderle its platform to claim in an op-ed that she is a casualty of an anti-LGBTQ+ and right-wing crusade that threatens “democracy at its core.” Her bid to be a martyr for woke progressivism is well written and poorly argued. The latter isn’t her fault, really; it is her actions and those of teachers like her that imperil the enlightened principles of liberal democratic society.

I’ve read My Shadow is Purple and it’s unapologetically propaganda for progressive gender politics. The message of the book is that a child is not necessarily a boy or a girl but can be both or neither. Its publisher, Larrikin House, tells customers that the book, which it markets to preschool and kindergarten grade level children, is a “heartwarming and inspiring book about being true to yourself and moving beyond the gender binary.” That the book advances the pseudoscientific notion that a human beings can move beyond the gender binary is certainly a problem; it’s the responsibility of public school teachers to accurately convey the natural history of our species—or avoid the subject altogether. But Rinderle’s actions go well beyond disseminating misinformation in a public school classroom (disinformation given what any reasonably intelligent person can be expected to know about our species). Rinderle took advantage of her position to indoctrinate children in her political beliefs.

Parents are of course free to read My Shadow is Purple to their children at home if they wish, but reading this book to fifth graders with the intent clearly expressed by Rinderle is the equivalent of reading Scientology’s central text Dianetics to school children with the goal to positively convey the message contained therein (see Dianetics in Our Schools; Ideology in Our Public Schools). Even if the intent were to be critical of the pseudoscientific claims the book makes, which would be impossible in the current political climate without accusations of bigotry and transphobia, the book would still be inappropriate for a fifth grade classroom for the same reason that it would inappropriate for a teacher to tell children that God isn’t real. It’s simply not the place of teachers to engage in irreligious criticism with children that young. The proper response of a teacher when asked by a student if God is real is to tell them to discuss that with their parents. The same is true if a boy asks his teacher if he can be a girl.

Is keeping My Shadow is Purple (or Stuart’s other book My Shadow is Pink) out of public schools censorship? Censorship refers to the act of controlling, prohibiting, or suppressing access to or distribution of certain forms of expression, ideas, or information. With respect to children, censorship is sometimes used to maintain societal standards and protect what is deemed culturally or moral appropriate. Censorship can involve excluding or suppressing content that is considered irrelevant, obscene, offensive, sexually explicit, or traumatizing. Censorship measures may be put in place to shield children and minors from harmful or age-inappropriate content, including explicit material, such as drug use, nudity, sexual activity, or violence. Censorship may also cover the transmission of ideas that advance a particular cultural, ideological, political, or religious agenda. So, yes, the restrictions placed on Stuart’s book constitutes censorship. The question is whether it is wrong to censor Stuart’s book.

Censoring information in public schools is also necessary to prevent the exploitation of situations where captive or vulnerable populations may become subject to indoctrination in a particular standpoint. Public schools are allowed to teach about religion in a neutral and objective manner. In discussing religious systems, teachers can include information about the history of various religions, as well as their beliefs and practices, as part of a well-rounded education. However, they must avoid promoting or endorsing any religious belief. Likewise, public schools are allowed to teach about political ideology in a neutral and objective manner in academically-relevant settings. Teachers can present various ideologies and political viewpoints, fostering critical thinking and even developing civics understanding, while allowing students to voice their opinions regarding such matters. But public schools cannot engage in partisan political activity. Teachers are restricted from advocating for a particular candidate, political party, or ideology. Public schools must maintain a politically neutral environment and refrain from endorsing or opposing specific political viewpoints.

The primary purpose of education is to promote critical thinking, the development of intellectual skills, and the transmission of reliable knowledge. Education aims to empower individuals to think independently and objectively analyze information in order to make informed decisions. A proper education encourages curiosity, exploration, questioning, and a well-rounded understanding of various perspectives and subjects. I know it’s cliché, but education is not necessarily about teaching children what to think but rather how to think. In contrast, indoctrination is part of a project to instill in others a set of beliefs, ideologies, and values that advance a particular agenda. Indoctrination involves a one-sided and systematic approach to dissemination of information aimed at shaping people’s feelings and opinions in a specific way. The goal of indoctrination is to teach children what to think.

Rinderle is an authority figure whose utterances in a classroom are received uncritically by most fifth graders. Even more than this, her teachings are received by them as accurate and prescriptive. She is their teacher. They trust her. They look up to her. This makes her actions exploitative. She knows that the children in her classroom are not equipped to challenge the book’s clearly pseudoscientific premise. How can she not know that it is not her role to socialize children in her ideology of gender identity anymore than it is for her to socialize children in her religious beliefs—whatever they are? Rinderle knowingly violated a rule emplaced to stop the indoctrination of children in the public school system. Indoctrination is not education and Rinderle failed not only in following the law but in the standards of her profession. Surely she was educated to know that the academic freedom she asserts in her op-ed does not cover indoctrination of children in movement ideologies or religious beliefs. Indeed, academic freedom asserts the opposite. The classroom is not her pulpit. The children are not there for her. She is there for them.

But she thinks all this is about her. Her essay suggests that she read this book as an act of civil disobedience. She believes her cause is righteous. Maybe so. However, it is therefore useful to remind people like her that Martin Luther King, Jr. told his followers that an act of civil disobedience is an action that violates the law, warning them that righteous violations of the law do not excuse one from the consequences of her actions. There is no constitutional right to break laws without consequences because the Rinderles of the world think laws safeguarding children are unjust or wrong. Even if we suppose Rinderle’s actions were righteous (they are not), she still has to suffer the consequences. There is no constitutional right to propagandize children in the course of one’s duties as a school teacher. Rinderle is not a victim. She is not a martyr. She is an activists who got caught exploiting a situation to push her political-ideological agenda.

Indoctrination relies on emotional manipulation, repetition, and pressure to conform. Indoctrination seeks to create unquestioning adherence to a particular set of beliefs or ideologies. Indoctrination rejects or demonizes alternative views, portraying them as forbidden or unacceptable—as bigoted or heretical. Indoctrination involves coercion, manipulation, or social pressure to conform to a particular belief system, sometimes without regard for an individual’s free choice. Indoctrination violates the child’s civil and human rights. Rinderle was not teaching her students. She was indoctrinating them. Her op-ed is that of a recalcitrant ideologue. May she never be allowed in a public school classroom again.