As we send our kids to school, it is becoming more difficult to know whether we are sending them with their carefully packed lunch bags and backpacks for a day of actual education. Instead, they might be entering their classrooms and libraries to be met with books and materials that used to be hidden behind the covered windows of X-rated adult bookstores.

While that might seem extreme to some, what sounded extreme yesterday will likely be tomorrow’s reality. At least if those currently at the head of our education system have anything to say about it.

For example, the American Library Association is the leading organization charged with selecting the literary materials that school districts across the country can offer to students during school hours at all grade levels. Ideally, the task would be taken seriously, with the goal of enriching the minds of young children, providing them with a positive educational experience throughout their most formative and impressionable years, and assisting in shaping healthy ideas for them to carry into adulthood.

However, this once-honorable institution now sets a standard of reading programs for young students that seems to be intent on utterly crippling the minds of the next generation.

As we learned almost two years ago, the ALA elected as its president a loud and proud Marxist lesbian by the name of Emily Drabinski. An open supporter of sexualized drag queen performances for kids and making openly graphic books such as Gender Queer and Lawn Boy available to children through school libraries, Drabinski has been eagerly sharing posts on social media about her intent to “strengthen American libraries” by pushing back against parents who want to monitor the books their kids have access to in school. In addition, she wants to make what have been falsely labeled as “banned books” available to budding readers by any means necessary.

Other open supporters of degenerate works for children have been exposed by Tiffany Justice of Moms for Liberty. Justice has been making her rounds to various media outlets to discuss this issue and to gather a semi-sane explanation as to why children should be able to read materials with graphic images of sexual acts and descriptions of behaviors that one might find after hours at an adults-only night club.

During one of these viral exchanges, Justice recently confronted the ever-articulate and intellectually superior Joy Reid about what benefit these books pose to a child’s education, describing, in detail, some of the disturbing content that young students are being exposed to. Instead of acknowledging the reality of the situation and addressing the material directly, Reid thought it best to try to discredit Justice as unqualified to determine what children should be reading, as she is not a teacher or “expert.” Reid also chose to fearmonger based on the idea that excluding the books in question from a school library would directly harm LGBTQ students who might “feel seen” by what they read.

A similar exchange took place on a recent segment of “60 Minutes,” where both Justice and Tina Descovich faced off with host Scott Pelley, who believed that he and his audience needed an explanation as to why kids should not be reading the previously described materials. “What is your fear?” he asked.

The pair then read directly from the books in question, which have been found throughout school districts across the country. However, when promoting this episode to the public, Pelley provided a voiceover during those portions of the discussion. This move was likely to convince the public that Moms for Liberty was overreacting since the books are tame enough to be shared on public television. Yet, had Pelley not been speaking over the words that Justice and Descovich were reading out loud, this episode would not have been approved for a general audience.

Avoiding discussion about what kids are reading under the guise of inclusivity is the common tactic used by woke/gender activists in order to keep these books within reach of public school students. The ALA is even dishonest about the pictures and behaviors in these stories. In its new Book Résumés guide for parents — which is apparently supposed to reassure them that the “banned books” are safe for their kids to read — it avoids disclosing the pages and storylines that have been at the root of concern for parents across the country.

The “résumés” provide basic synopses of the books, with no mention of a warning for content — and the résumé for the book Lawn Boy illustrates the vagueness: “Educators have the best sense of the appropriate age range for the diverse learners they work with and understand these ranges vary depending on a book’s intended use.”

As we strive to keep our schools clean, moral, and educational, the challenge becomes increasingly difficult when the other side refuses to acknowledge the debauchery that they’re defending.

They won’t even articulate the contents of what their woke allies want children to pull from the shelves of their school library, even while insisting that it is school-appropriate and beneficial for kids to explore this subject matter in the name of “inclusivity.”

Yet if those who question it are truly extreme and on a mission to censor speech and “ban books,” then why is it that those promoting the material go out of their way to censor it so heavily themselves?