Today, CBLDF joined a coalition of free speech advocates led by the National Coalition Against Censorship and the ACLU of South Carolina in issuing a joint statement that condemns a recent budget provision “compromise” that penalizes two state universities for assigning LGBTQ books.

The South Carolina legislature considered punitive budget cuts for two universities that utilized LGBTQ-themed books in voluntary reading programs. The budget cuts were aimed at two schools: College of Charleston, which had used Alison Bechdel’s Fun Home in a voluntary summer reading program for incoming freshman, and the University of South Carolina Upstate, which had used Out Loud: The Best of Rainbow Radio for a similar program.

In March, CBLDF joined a coalition led by NCAC to urge the South Carolina Senate to reject the budget cuts, and the Senate Finance Committee rightly rejected them. However, the full Senate continued to debate the budget, coming up with a “compromise”: Instead of cutting the funds, the legislature proposed a budget provision that doesn’t cut funding but — in a an act of irony so classic that it should be included in the dictionary — the provision reallocated the funds to books that teach about the Constitution. From NCAC’s official press release regarding the joint statement:

The provision forces the two colleges to allocate the exact amounts spent on “objectionable” books to teach the U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence and Federalist papers, “including the study of and devotion to American institutions and ideals.”

The budget provision was accepted by Governor Nikki Haley. However, NCAC executive director Joan Bertin has been vocal about the “compomise”:

But according to NCAC Executive Director Joan Bertin, “what has been ‘compromised’ here is the bedrock First Amendment principle that public officials are precluded by the First Amendment from suppressing ideas because they find them ‘objectionable’.”

This budget provision is a far cry from the compromise proposed by South Carolina state senator Brad Hutto, who would have required the availability of an alternative reading assignment while preventing South Carolina’s General Assembly from dictating which books are assigned.

The budget provision is most certainly an attack on the right to read in the state and clearly represents unwarranted political interference with academic freedom and undermines the integrity of the higher education system in South Carolina.

The joint statement follows in its entirety:

—