What’s Really at Stake: The And Tango Makes Three Ruling and the Slippery Reasoning That Fails Us

A recent ruling in Escambia County, Florida, struck down a First Amendment challenge to the school board’s removal of And Tango Makes Three, a children’s picture book about two male penguins raising a chick. The decision rested on a deeply concerning premise: that neither authors nor patrons (students) hold First Amendment rights with respect to a library collection. In other words, the court said: you have no constitutional right to expect certain perspectives and ideas to be made available.

That line of reasoning is more than a legal footnote; it is a warning sign of how much can be lost when we allow weak rationales for censorship to gain legal legitimacy. Every excuse used to justify removal, or threaten removal, chips away at the principle that libraries, especially public and school libraries, serve as spaces for open exploration and learning, not instruments of political control.

Here’s how this ruling ties into the broader fight for the freedom to read and why we must not accept those arguments:

Excuse #1: “It’s not really banned. You can buy it elsewhere.”

This is perhaps the most pervasive dodge. Remove the book from public access, then argue that the remedy is another library, private purchase, or personal libraries. That logic ignores the core purpose of publicly funded libraries: equitable access. If only those who can afford or think ahead have access to certain ideas, then access is no longer public or universal, it’s a privilege. Unfortunately, the judge in the Escambia case accepted precisely this excuse, stating that students still had other means to get the book. That illustrates just how far the judicial reasoning has drifted from upholding library access as a public right to speech.

Excuse #2: “We’re only removing inappropriate books.”

Of course, that sounds reasonable in theory. Who would defend truly harmful material? But here’s the problem: the definition of “inappropriate” becomes political when it’s left to untrained non-educators or bureaucrats. In Escambia, objectors focused on its depiction of same-sex parents, the perfect example of content removed because of viewpoint, not pedagogical concern. When we allow “appropriateness” to be decided politically rather than professionally, we give politicians carte blanche to remove any book that challenges their worldview.

Excuse #3: “You can’t have every book anyway, some must be excluded. This is just curation.”

Curation is a defensible practice when done by librarians and educators using clear, professional criteria. But when politicians assert themselves as curators, we lose local decision-making to state-level power grabs. In Escambia, the ruling treated the board itself as the final curator, even over librarian judgment. That shifts the burden from professional review to political whim. When political actors claim the authority to decide what ideas belong on the shelf, community standards and student needs get erased along with our First Amendment rights.

Excuse #4: “Taxpayers shouldn’t have to fund these books.”

This is a dangerous argument and one that highlights the possible “tyranny of the majority” that the Founders were concerned about. Yes, public funds should be used wisely, but once we accept that any taxpayer objection justifies removal, every book becomes vulnerable. If one ideological group can demand removal of books they dislike, then books that others value will also face removal when the political winds shift. Not only is this concerning on constitutional grounds, but in practice it would be fiscally irresponsible and impossible to manage in places where political power changes hands every two or four years. Public goods—libraries, schools, civic institutions—are supposed to represent the diverse interests of a multifaceted society, not the narrow agendas of those with political power.

The larger danger: Eroding the concept of library rights

The Escambia ruling didn’t simply remove one book; implicitly, it removed a premise: that libraries should protect community access to multiple, even controversial, voices. If patrons and authors lack First Amendment standing, then library collections become subject solely to government discretion. That opens the door to viewpoint control, ideological censorship, and consolidation of power in the hands of state actors rather than local committees, librarians, or residents.

Disturbingly, the ruling sidestepped the difficult question of whether school library collections constitute government speech, but warned that even if you assume library curation is not government speech, the law still favors the board’s authority to select (or remove) without constitutional obligation. That ignores long held constitutional guardrails against viewpoint-based removals.

Why this ruling matters beyond Escambia

• It sets a precedent: Other districts and states may now cite this logic to justify sweeping removals with little fear of constitutional pushback.
  
  
• It weakens community control: When decisions are centralized and political, local autonomy fades.
  
  
• It stigmatizes diverse works: By justifying removals based on objections to protected identities or themes, it fuels chilling effects across libraries statewide.
  
  
• It encourages preemptive removal: Knowing that courts may defer to boards, districts may strip collections before challenges even surface.
  
  

What advocates must do now

1. Appeal aggressively
   The authors and student plaintiffs have already filed notice of appeal. The next judicial stages must confront whether library selection implicates First Amendment rights and whether curation can be state-mandated censorship.
   
   
2. Document every removal
   Save records, emails, meeting minutes, especially when titles are removed without due review. These are critical when later asserting unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.
   
   
3. Defend librarian professionalism
   Advocate for policies that return collection authority to trained librarians and local review committees, not political actors.
   
   
4. Tell the human stories
   Statistics may not move moderates, but stories do: how the removal affects a child, how a teacher loses trust, how a community loses its voice.
   
   
5. Demand clarity in law, not vague justifications
   Push back on laws or policies that rely on undefined concepts like “inappropriate,” “offensive,” or “harmful.” Those open-ended terms become control tools.
   
   

Conclusion: Why we can’t allow this logic to prevail

The judge’s ruling in the Escambia County case gives state actors a blueprint: when in doubt, reduce public institutions to political tools instead of centers for open inquiry. That logic does the opposite of protecting free speech; it extinguishes inclusivity under the guise of order.

If we allow this reasoning to stand unchallenged, we’ll see more And Tango Makes Three decisions, more district-level removals, and fewer ideas flowing freely into student hands. What begins with penguins ends with silence.

Libraries, schools, communities… your rights are on the line. Defend them. Speak up. Because if we concede that not all books are worthy of public defense, then the next removal might be the one you care about most.