Controversy is an inescapable part of our world. Every story’s plot is driven by it; every news outlet obsesses over it; every social media post causes it; and everyone is thinking about it. It only makes sense that controversy — something synonymous with humanity — would be a part of learning. Students cannot be prepared for the world while also being sheltered from it. The issue with this, however, arises when we consider the political problem.
Controversy is almost always labeled as political because that is what politics are: the different opinions different groups have on different issues. Inherently, any topic taught in school that is considered controversial will also be considered political. In that lens, the Sioux Falls School District’s (SFSD’s) goal of teaching the controversial can seem less noble. While a controversial topic is a discussion starter, a political topic sounds taboo to even mention in the context of a classroom. With politics in schools, we inherently think of other words — bias, prejudice, indoctrination — that depart from teaching students to think independently and to think instead like their instructor. That fear of indoctrination creates a stigma, one that the SFSD recognizes.
“[It is the right of the student] to study under competent instructors in an objective atmosphere free from bias and prejudice. The instructor will provide resources, materials, or sources of information on as many aspects of the issue as he/she can in order that all students may reach individual conclusions with regard to the particular issue.”
However, this policy does not prevent pushback when those “particular” issues become points of political polarization.
In wake of the Black Lives Matter movement, the book “All American Boys,” a novel by Jason Reynolds about two Black teenagers dealing with police brutality and racial profiling, was taken out of English I and Accelerated English I and put into English II and Acc English II as an optional piece. As immigration came to the forefront of politics in early 2025, the text “Citizen Illegal,” a poem by José Olivarez questioning the status of the children of illegal immigrants, was taken out of usage in English III. In September of 2025, “Brujería” by Angelica Mercado-Ford, a poem about overcoming adversity related to identity and sexual orientation, was restricted from being used in tests in English I.
When issues in our world become more controversial and politicized, it doesn’t mean that students should be protected from them because school is a “safe” space. Schools are safe in that they can be neutral, objective and truthful places to learn about heated issues. These texts provide insights into lives and experiences that can be very similar and very different from students’ and help develop a wider understanding and empathy — one that can’t be made in constant agreement but needs to be challenged and tested so it can strengthen and adapt.
“One of the most important goals of education is to help young people understand the diversity of viewpoints, religions, and cultures in the world.” – SFSD Policies and Regulations section K.
But this issue doesn’t end with students. While they are the ones who experience the effects of pushback, teachers suffer the brunt of it — or don’t.
When parents have concerns about class material, the SFSD’s policies and regulations section KEC-R states they can “meet with the teacher, the principal, and/or the department chair” and request “alternative instructional materials” for their child. But in the case of “Citizen Illegal” and “Brujería,” this procedure was bypassed. The parents went around the teachers and instead took their complaint directly to the district. The district then moved “Citizen Illegal” and “Brujería” from being full class readings to being optional readings, meaning teachers no longer could use them for class-wide assignments. This is a well-intentioned and diplomatic solution that allows some students to still read these pieces, but it puts the literature in a limbo state where it is unlikely it will ever be taught. What teacher would teach a piece when it has a stigma of pushback, a parent who wants it out and they are the one who will be put under the light if there is pushback? That responsibility should not be placed on the teacher, but rather the curriculum board and the district. It is the policy of the district that controversial issues be taught, and as such, it ought to be at that level that it is defended at.
But this whole quandary would never exist if parents followed the simplest and easiest solution to this problem: to request “alternative instructional materials.” Individual parents have the right to decide what their child learns, but circumventing the simple process laid out to accommodate that right is changing the education of every student. If a parent truly feels the need to have course materials removed from the curriculum entirely, they can follow the procedure outlined in the SFSD’s policies and regulations section KEC-R.
Fear of indoctrination is valid, but that fear held by relatively few cannot be allowed to stop all students from learning about the most important controversial — and yes, political — issues in our world. High school is meant to transition teens into young adults, and that can’t be done if students are sheltered from anything different or disagreeable. Education must teach not just academics but an understanding of the boundless scope of life, experiences and opinions that make the world so controversial.
