In 2025, an attorney for a government school district is able to make it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court defending exposing children as young as three years old to books about sexuality. Imagine going back in time to any pointâeven just a few years agoâand explaining that this is considered a serious argument.
What I find most remarkable about the exchange is the attorneyâs acknowledgment that their intent is to âinfluenceâ children. He begins to explain that the goal is to install âcivility,â which is the ânatural consequence of being exposed toââ before he is cut off. Was he going to say that âcivilityâ results from exposure to sexual content at a very young age? What could âcivilityâ possibly mean here?
MR. SCHOENFELD: Pride Puppy was the book that was used for the pre-kindergarten curriculum. Thatâs no longer in the curriculum.
JUSTICE GORSUCH: Thatâs the one where theyâre supposed to look for the leather and thingsâbondage, things like that, right?
MR. SCHOENFELD: Itâs not bondage. Itâs a woman in a leatherâ
JUSTICE GORSUCH: Sex worker, right?
MR. SCHOENFELD: No. Thatâs not correct. No.
JUSTICE GORSUCH: I thoughtâgosh, I read it.
JUSTICE BARRETT: Itâs a drag queen in drag.
JUSTICE GORSUCH: Drag queen inâdrag queen?
MR. SCHOENFELD: So, correct. The leather that they’re pointing to is a woman in a leather jacket, and one of the words is drag queen in thisâ
JUSTICE GORSUCH: And theyâre supposed to look for those?
MR. SCHOENFELD: It is an option at the end of the book, correct.
JUSTICE GORSUCH: Yeah. Okay. And you’ve included these in the English language curriculum rather than the human sexuality curriculum to influence students, is that fair? Thatâs what the district court found. Do you agree with that?
MR. SCHOENFELD: I think, to the extent the district court found that it was to influence, it was to influence them towards civility, the natural consequence of being exposed toâ
JUSTICE GORSUCH: Whatever, but to influence them.
MR. SCHOENFELD: In the manner that I just mentioned, yes.