BY STEVE NUZUM
The process of banning or restricting books under South Carolina’s new “instructional materials” regulation is beginning to gather steam across the state.
Many advocates predicted during the end of last school year, as the South Carolina State Board of Education considered Ellen Weaver’s proposed regulation, that the consequences of such broad language would be wide-ranging and negative.
One concern expressed by opponents was that granting expansive book-challenge powers to individuals, and encouraging each district to, in the words of the regulation, "prospectively review and asses [sic] its Existing Instructional Materials for compliance with this regulation," would create cover for districts and individuals to target books for whatever criteria they might choose— including nakedly partisan, political, or other inappropriate reasons— and to then use the expansive board regulations as an excuse.
For example, In June, the South Carolina ACLU wrote, in response to the regulation’s impending passage, that it “sets a statewide policy banning books that contain descriptions of ‘sexual conduct’ and ‘excretory functions.’ This broad definition could be used to remove a vast range of literature from South Carolina schools, including classics like The Canterbury Tales, 20th-century masterpieces like 1984…”
I have reviewed lists from multiple South Carolina school districts being used to preemptively review books this year in response to the regulation. Both The Canterbury Tales and 1984 are among the wide range of books that are being reviewed for potential removal, despite having not been challenged by parents, as were commonly-taught texts from Shakespeare to Frederick Douglass. Books challenged under similar district rules last year included Slaughterhouse Five, The Handmaid’s Tale, and even Nickel and Dimed. It remains to be seen if these districts will remove any of these texts, but to see them reviewed in this way is striking.
Superintendent Ellen Weaver and attorney Miles Coleman-- who, according to The State was “paid more than $40,000 for his work, which included explaining the rule change to legislators who allowed the law to take effect without voting on it”-- repeatedly, and often dismissively, claimed that the concerns of advocates were unfounded. They said the regulations were intended to make district policies on book removals more transparent and fair. The preamble of the regulation claims it will create “a uniform process for local school boards to review and hold public hearings on complaints”. Coleman, in his opening remarks on the regulation, called it “logistically feasible”. Weaver, for her part, told concerned students from anti-censorship groups testifying before the Board that it was “unfortunate, in my opinion, that there are adults and narratives who have actively misled you about what this regulation does and doesn’t do. But I want to be entirely clear with you that this regulation in no way silences your viewpoint or your voice.”
But initial actions by SC districts seem to be proving the advocates right.
Greenville Schools has canceled its annual book fairs, supposedly due to the regulation. Interestingly, surrounding school districts have not interpreted the regulation to require this, but that seems like part of the point. The State Board of Education, for its part, has praised the district for “pausing” the fairs.
In a packed school board meeting, “speaker after speaker” challenged the cancellation of the book fairs and Greenville’s approach to interpreting and enforcing the regulation. When Superintendent Burke Royster said, “No one in Greenville County schools has canceled a book fair. We have paused books fairs,” his comment was met with audible laughter from the crowd.
And while Coleman and Weaver promoted the regulation as creating greater transparency and uniformity in the book challenge process, that doesn’t seem to have happened, either.
Greenville Board member Anne Presley said the regulation “was made murky-- intentionally or unintentionally-- by the hands that made it”.
And while Greenville has interpreted the regulation to require a “pause” on book fairs, some neighboring districts have gone ahead with theirs. Meanwhile, some districts in other parts of the state, like Lexington Two, have also “paused” book fairs, according to Lexington Two parent Melissa Goforth.
In neighboring Lexington One, the topic of book fairs also came up when the board discussed the policy at their last meeting. The discussion began, ironically, with Chief Academic Officer Mary Gaskins ironically stating that the regulation “provides more consistency and clarity across the state.”
This statement was almost immediately followed by another board member asking, “How do book fairs fall into this? Do they fall under the same guidelines? Can people do complaints?” Gaskins responded, “We have been keeping a running list” of questions to ask the Department of Education.
At the same time, while the regulation requires that parents who object to specific titles make “a good faith effort to address their concerns regarding non-compliance with this regulation with school level or district level staff,” the year has started in some districts with parents avoiding the challenge process altogether while still having books removed.
Courtney Simons, a third grade teacher in Anderson One, shared with me that a parent had challenged a book in a colleague’s classroom library. The book was Drama, by Raina Telgemeier, a graphic novel about students navigating middle school crushes as they put on a school play, including one character who is gay. The book contains no “sexual content,” even under the very broad definition of the regulation, although the parent may have been angered by a stage kiss between two boys when one has to step in at the last moment to play a female role.
A screenshot from Drama shows two characters kissing as part of a stage play. The book contains no “sexual content” as defined in SC law and in the regulation.
Based on Simons’ description of events, the parent did not follow the “good faith” requirement of the regulation, but went straight to a state senator, who intervened: “The student brought the book to their parents. So the parent, the father, went straight to the senator and demanded it be removed from classrooms.” While a formal challenge doesn’t appear to have been brought, Simons said, “It has now been banned from the entire district.”
A recent request for clarification from Anderson One about the book has not been returned as of this writing.
Simons said she felt the district was doing the best it could under the circumstances to comply with the regulation. For example, she said, the district was making arrangements with volunteers to come and help with the tremendous task, required by the regulation, of cataloging all school instructional materials currently in use.
On the regulation’s supposed goal to create uniformity and transparency, Simons echoed what the Lexington One board member said: “I think it has made it more confusing, and more dramatic.” Whereas before, Simons said, individual parents might be more likely to restrict their own children from reading a book, she feels the new regulation has empowered some parents to take control over the reading choices of students “who aren’t even theirs."
Simons said she loves being a teacher, and loves “watching students learn and grow,” but that having to deal with the requirements of the regulation, as well as the negative attention it seems to encourage from the community, is “discouraging”.
“It drains you,” she told me.
Of course, these issues are not particular to Anderson One, and in fact Anderson One seems to be trying, based on Simons’ account, to do its best in balancing the requirements of the regulation with student, teacher, and parent needs. I have heard from many parents and school staff-- most of whom were fearful of speaking out publicly about actions being taken in their districts. Throughout the state, many, if not most, books which have been reportedly targeted for removal, or which were already challenged under previous district challenge policies, don’t contain “sexual content” by even the most broad standard, and it’s hard to understand what the animating principle, if any, is in their selection, if not the fact that the majority contain either LGBTQ+ characters or themes dealing with racial identity or racism.
It is still early in the school year, but conversations I have had with parents and school staff in multiple districts suggest that districts simply don’t agree on how to interpret the language of the regulation. This is resulting, as advocates feared, in a chaotic and inconsistent beginning to the school year for everyone, and in an environment where essentially any text, no matter how important, beloved, or even central to teachers’ academic plans, might be potentially questioned and even removed in an attempt to comply..
For a list of commonly-challenged and banned books by district, click here.
For further exploration of this topic, check out this episode of CEWL Conversations, featuring school librarians, Cassie Owens Moore and Jamie Gregory.
Comments