I walk the halls of Merrimack Valley High School confidently as a queer man. I am an
academically-focused student who values my education. The only piece of literature offered throughout my entire education that tackles LGBTQ+ experiences is being removed for being “pornography disguised as children’s literature.” Is this exposure to such serious struggles not important enough to teach to the next generation? Should public school curriculum adhere to texts that lack depth, and instead only address what readers already know?
When I read how a single complaint challenged “The Perks of Being a Wallflower” and its use as a possible reading for English 10 classes, I lost a piece of that confidence I had spent four years building in this school. Merrmimack Valley has always fostered a welcoming environment. I had only been mocked for my voice and style enough to count on one hand, something I know queer students at other schools don’t find relatable. It’s impossible to ignore that part of this acceptance is rooted in our inclusive curriculum.
What baffles me is how our school can simply surrender part of what makes it so great: its acceptance. The complaint about “Perks” argues that content including abortion, sexual assault and gay relationships is inappropriate. While it’s true that these topics are jarring, they are far from exaggerated. These topics will affect students directly in schools everywhere.
I question why these topics cannot be discussed in a safe and educational environment, as that is the perfect place where such conversations should be had. If parents fear for their child’s purity as they are nearing adulthood, when will these conversations be brought up?
Sophomore year is when students turn 16, the legal age of consent in New Hampshire. Understandably, parents may not encourage their children to participate in sexual activity, but the importance of literary mentions of sexual acts, along with the importance of consent, mirrors the topics discussed in our freshmen year health class. Where’s the removal of that curriculum?
In “Perks,” abortion, assaults and meeting with strangers for sex are in no way endorsed. The novel’s perspective is that of a sheltered boy, coincidentally turning 16, experiencing these foreign topics, a perspective that young adults should read, especially those sheltered by their parents.
The committee that made this decision has obviously disappointed me, but it is the lack of respect for educators that I question. Why is it that we value a parent’s opinion over numerous educators, certified in teaching literary elements and their importance?
Of course, a parent has the right to choose what media their child is exposed to. But why has the class of 2028 lost the privilege to ground themselves in the “real world” they already live in? As a student with parents accepting of my sexuality, I am given the privilege to educate myself in topics they may be unfamiliar with. But with the removal of “Perks,” I am shown a mindset in which avoiding the uncomfortable becomes the new status quo.
I am open with my sexuality to anyone who asks in the hallways of Merrimack Valley, which leads me to wonder: Should I be removed from the school if parents find the topics I speak about inappropriate? Is this removal of a LGBTQ+ narrative in the school a way to keep students “pure,” or a way to ensure those who feel morally superior retain absolute control?
Nathan Baylus is a senior at Merrimack Valley High School who has been in the school districthis entire life as a Loudon resident.