As dumb and misguided as this is, the good news is that there’s a straightforward solution to it.
The Fort Bend ISD board voted to approve a library book policy on Monday that critics have called the “most restrictive in the state of Texas.”
The board voted 5-2 to approve the policy that allows the superintendent to have sole authority to remove content from library shelves, meaning that the mandated library materials review committee will be optional going forward.
Critics, who turned out to oppose the vote, said this library policy could result in hundreds of books being taken off Fort Bend ISD library shelves.
“I cannot believe that an independent American public school has reached this point,” Dhruti Pathak said. “This policy is appalling to me.”
Pathak, an Elkins High School student, grew up in Saudi Arabia, where she saw the impacts of censorship “firsthand.”
“We are definitely headed in an extremist direction,” said parent Anna Lykoudis-Zafiris.
Thirteen stakeholders spoke against the policy at public comment before the deciding vote. One speaker, student Christopher Pontiff, was honored at the beginning of the meeting.
“I do want you all to consider the hypocrisy of restricting information while congratulating me for the very design that advocated for the openness of information,” Pontiff said.
He then brought silence to the room, asking the board to look at parents standing in opposition to the policy for the two minutes left on his clock. Board president Kristin Tassin attempted to move along with the commenters, but Pontiff declined to yield his time.
[…]
An earlier version of this policy came across the dais in April, when the board voted to table the vote and edit the policy in workshops and board policy committee meetings. The policy was discussed again in June during a board workshop before returning to discussion during the Aug. 12 board workshop.
During this time, the policy edited to address some of the community’s concerns, such as banning books that “stimulate sexual desire” among minors, a vague statement without directions as to how that would be decided.
The updated policy mandates that content must not “promote sexual activity among minors or contain graphic images or explicit descriptions of sex acts or simulations of such acts,” and does not describe what “simulations of sex acts” means.
The policy also stipulates that library books “foster growth in… aesthetic values and societal standards,” two terms that are not defined.
It also mandates that content not promote “unlawful” activity, such as illegal use of alcohol, tobacco and drugs by minors. The original policy proposed that content in elementary schools must not depict or describe nudity in a way that “appeals to prurient interest,” but it was amended to remove that sentence and then add a new sentence that read instead that no depictions of sexual activity promoted the touching of genitals amongst minors.
Prurient, according to the Miriam Webster dictionary, is defined as “arousing, or appealing to sexual desire.”
The policy was edited to add the term “or superintendent’s designee” in some areas to allow the superintendent to delegate the library materials tasks to someone else, which trustee David Hamilton said came in response to community feedback. Still, the policy as written does leave the authority with the superintendent to either make decisions himself or to choose who to delegate those decisions to.
Critics have said that this measure allows for pressure to be inflicted on the superintendent from the board if someone wants a book removed immediately, without a formal reconsideration process, which would be allowed by this policy.
Trustee Shirley Rose-Gilliam was concerned that this policy was putting the superintendent in a difficult situation.
“I sure hope that we are not going to put Dr. Smith in a situation where we are going to have a board member that wants a book off the shelf, and then he is the one that is going to have to have to do that,” Rose-Gilliam said.
Trustee Rose-Gilliam was not speaking hypothetically, as her fellow trustee David Hamilton is the driving force behind this policy and also a major filer of complaints about various books. You should read the rest of the article – the Press also has a good, comprehensive report – and also this post by Franklin Strong, whose work I’ve cited here numerous times as the co-founder of the Texas Freedom to Read Project and tireless analyst of school board trustee races. FBISD Trustee Hamilton has attacked Strong in his pro-censorship rants on social media, so you can see where this is going.
The answer here is what the answer always is: You gotta vote these nutjobs out. Five trustees voted for this policy. They may not all be as bad as David Hamilton, but they supported his work. People are more aware of this threat to the freedom to read now, and they are speaking out and putting pressure on their school boards, with an admirable boost from affected students themselves. That’s all great and wonderful and necessary, but it’s not sufficient. The problem trustees need to be voted out and replaced with people who are on our side. I don’t know how to be any more explicit about this.
Pingback: Katy ISD keeps doing Katy ISD things to library books | Off the Kuff