Kansas schools had a close call recently, when the state legislature considered SB 492, which included language buried in the bill that would require teachers to teach only materials that were approved by their school boards.

Kansas SB 492 would have prevented teachers from seeking refuge under obscenity laws, which protects some professionals – including teachers and doctors – from any prosecution surrounding the use of materials considered obscene. The bill was introduced by Olathe Republican Karin Brownlee.

Brownlee’s amendment made it so different school districts would have different definitions of obscenity. It makes for a “Dirty Dancing” moment when you realize, as Browlee pointed out in The Kansas City Star, that the rural town of Colby will have different standards than the sprawling, affluent suburbs of Johnson County.

This raised the fear of one Olathe lawyer, Connie Owen, who worried, in a Star editorial that school districts could be intimidated or influenced by politicians like the divisive D.A. of Johnson County, Phill Kline. Brownlee dismissed any notion that that is the case:

“At the heart of the issue is that someone previously convicted of promoting obscenity with a minor cannot be licensed as a teacher. The same statute that is the basis for prosecution of such a crime is also the same law that allows a person to teach obscenity in the classroom. Does that make sense?”

Also at the heart of the issue is a teacher’s ability to indulge in controversial issues. The question of obscenity, and what is obscene, has populated debate for decades. The landmark Scopes trial that spawned “Inherit the Wind” dealt with the idea that humans developed from monkeys, no doubt considered obscene by some, and something still under debate in this country.

Here we must wonder where the obscenity question would have fallen. English courses? Biology? History?

Would students be prohibited from reading controversial books like “On the Road” or “A Clockwork Orange?” Would the bill inhibit educators’ ability to teach about reproduction? What about the rantings of firebrand Kansan John Brown?

Let’s say that teachers will not bring pornography into class (though I watched “A Clockwork Orange” in high school in Missouri; much of that film and book are pretty dicey for the classroom). What about music as a learning tool? Or poetry? What about photographs? One of the most iconic and telling pictures of the Vietnam War is that of a terrified young and naked girl, fleeing her village, which was under attack by American forces. Is history obscene?

Remember, we’re not too far from a debate (which has reignited in Texas) about the validity of evolution. So if a school board decided that materials advocating evolution were obscene, Kansas schools could again debate the teaching of evolutionary theory.

It’s a slippery slope in a bill that is supposed to be based on background checks for teachers.

By shooting the bill down (it was approved by the Senate), the state House spared Kansas from again facing the question “What’s the matter with Kansas?”

Media coverage of the bill was sparse in the state, and didn’t evoke much of an outcry from local bloggers, but it still brings up many questions about how legislators govern the people. Brownlee’s amendment, thrown into an otherwise irrelevant bill, looks as if it would have violated the First Amendment by forcing public school teachers to seek government approval before they bring teaching materials into the classroom.

From this reporter’s standpoint, the House’s refusal to pass this bill is a good thing. It allows our students access to a wide variety of materials, which help to establish a robust education. Without knowledge, what are we?