BY KARISSA MILLER
Iredell-Statesville Schools Board of Education members are taking a closer look at board policy No. 3200, which addresses school library books and instructional materials and the procedure for removing access to sexually explicit books.
A group of parents and community members have regularly spoken out at board meetings in support of a stronger policy to remove books containing sexual content from school libraries, claiming the material is pornographic and inappropriate for students.
Other students and parents contend that removing books violates students’ First Amendment rights.
During Monday night’s board meeting, Superintendent Jeff James cautioned board members about removing books just because there is a strong objection to it and reminded the board of students’ First Amendment rights.
A Supreme Court decision in Island Tree School District v. Pico addressed this issue, James said. In 1975, a group of parents complained about nine books, including Kurt Vonnegut’s “Slaughterhouse-Five” and Langston Hughes’ “Best Short Stories by Negro Writers.” The Island Tree School District board members, who described the works as “anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic and just plain filthy,” removed the books in 1976. That decision was challenged in a lawsuit brought by a group of students, one of whom was Steven Pico.
The Supreme Court ruled in the students’ favor on First Amendment grounds, holding that the right to read is implied by the First Amendment. The government — in this case a public school — cannot restrict speech because it does not agree with the content of the speech, the court ruled.
“I work at the pleasure of the board, but it’s also my job to enlighten you on what the law says,” James told board members.
The superintendent said that the district has a robust policy in place. Parents can challenge or question a book, which will then be read and discussed by a volunteer committee made up of parents, school staff and teachers.
One book review committee included a youth pastor, according to James. The schools try to find members who represent a wide range of viewpoints.
Any book that is challenged is flagged in the school’s library system, the superintendent added.
“If you want to know what your kid is reading, just ask the school. They will tell you what books your kid is checking out,” James said.
One book that was challenged, “Looking for Alaska,” has been removed, James said. Later in the meeting, he explained that this book met the “pervasively vulgar” requirements needed to have it removed.
Another book, “Absolute True Diary of a Part-Time Indian,” was limited to a high school only audience after being reviewed.
The superintendent also pointed out that only small percentage of students are checking out the books considered controversial. There has been a slight uptick in student interest in these books if they become movies, he added.
Board Feedback
Board members had questions and comments about the policy.
“Our process, it seems to me, is so cumbersome that we can’t even use it effectively and efficiently,” said Vice Chairman Mike Kubiniec. “So I think we should call for some process changes to make it streamlined and some other definitions would be helpful.”
Why does a committee have to read a 300-page book and then discuss whether it is appropriate, he asked, when the highlighted passages that describe sexually explicit behaviors could be reviewed and a decision made?
Board member Brian Sloan offered a simple suggestion.
“If there is one word that a kid can’t speak, then I don’t think it should be inside a school library,” he said.
Sloan likened the damage that library books are causing society and the community to a fire “we can’t put out.”
James advised the board that books must meet the definition of “pervasively vulgar” in order to be removed.
“Everyone who has been in a lawsuit has not followed their own policy. We have a process to review anything that’s brought up,” the superintendent said.
Board member Anita Kurn seemed surprised when the superintendent told her that all of the books that were submitted for review have been reviewed.
Dean Shatley, the school board’s attorney, mentioned that some books that have been submitted for a challenge or review may not actually be owned by the district.
LEARN MORE
♦ Read I-SS policy No. 3200 HERE.
Sesquipedalian: Say and define this word, Brian Sloan.
He would probably have to look it in the dictionary which contains some vulgar words. Is he then going to ban dictionaries?
It is nice to see that in a district with academic struggles the focus is put on books that aren’t being checked out, dress codes, and politics. Why leave time to focus on improving student achievement through actions that actually matter and impact the classroom. Porn books aren’t in school, the students carry a divice in their pocket with greater access to video porn than all of the school libraries in the state combined have books. No ban on those? And to play devils advocate, the Bible contains text equivalent to or worse than most of the books being focused on, yet it is offered as a class in high schools. Too much political postering going on as opposed to an objective standard. And for all the liberty groups hyping this up, you are keeping progress from being made on things that actually support student learning, and you are acting like communist or Nazis. Last I checked those groups were all about burning books and limiting anything they didn’t agree with and might make people question.
BTW, before I’m written off as a left-wing nut just know, I’m an independent thinker, I look at things from all angles and form my own opinions. I’m free from being pigeonholed by partisan requirements. The super left and right will be the death of America, idealistically and as a world leader.
I applaud Dr. James and the schools for being judicious (uh oh, Mr. Sloan, that last word might be inappropriate) and attentive to this political matter.
As a government body, protecting citizen’s (including student’s) First Amendment rights is serious business and needs to be taken seriously. I appreciate that at least Supt. James has that understanding. I’m not so sure about others on the Board. Banning a book if a student can’t speak a word in it? How silly is that? And you don’t want to bother reading a whole book to understand the context and have a discussion before banning it? That’s lazy governing and shirking your duty. I can pull isolated quotes out of the Bible that would be just as salacious in the eyes of the book banning crowd. But I don’t see that on their list. Just because someone doesn’t like what they see in a book, doesn’t mean the world has to bend to their opinions. It sounds like there’s a reasonable process in place to review books and it needs to be followed. The torch and pitchfork crowd will need to get over it.
Thank you Dr. James for doing your job and explaining the law to this ignorant, politicized, divisive, almost anti-American fiasco (look it up, Mr. Sloan!) Board. Students’ First Amendment rights are important. If a parent doesn’t want their child to read a book, be the parent and take it away and return it to the library. End of story. Don’t try to impose your values and beliefs on another child or family.