/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/pmn/D6BYSC3B3VHLLCECVUJL6XH3PA.jpg)
The Pennridge school board’s decision to rescind a previous policy banning “sexualized content” in library books hasn’t quelled the debate over which titles belong on library shelves. Under the new policy, seven books and graphic novel series have been removed, deemed “age-inappropriate,” adding to the 18 books and graphic novel series that were either removed or challenged under the previous policy.
This has sparked accusations from some community members that the Democratic-led board is effectively enacting book bans. However, board president Ron Wurz maintains these removals represent age-appropriateness rather than censorship.
“There are some books that shouldn’t be in a high school library,” Wurz stated. ”I don’t call that banning, I call that age-appropriateness.”
The district’s actions have divided the community, raising questions about what constitutes suitable reading material for high school students.
A specific point of contention arose from the review process of 22 books that were quietly removed from circulation during the 2022-23 school year. These books were not formally challenged but were kept off shelves for extended periods by staff members after Republican board members warned of “pornographic filth” in the libraries. A parent prevailed in a court case, compelling the district to disclose the removals.
Following the policy change, the administration paused the review of these 22 books until a new policy was established. The high school librarian ultimately determined that 14 of these books should not be returned to the library, citing her professional judgment.
Among the books excluded were “Gender Queer,” a graphic novel dealing with gender identity and sexuality; “The Haters,” about aspiring musicians on a challenging road trip; and “Push,” a novel about a teenage girl experiencing sexual abuse, which served as the basis for the movie ”Precious.”
In addition to these books, a reconsideration committee reviewed other titles challenged since last year, ultimately removing 11 books and graphic novel series. These included works exploring themes of revenge, the occult, and violence, with some containing explicit sexual content.
Notable removals included “American Psycho” and “Sex is a Funny Word,” a resource book intended for adult use with students.
However, the district also reinstated six of the 22 books initially removed in the 2022-23 school year, including popular young adult novels “Looking for Alaska” and Toni Morrison’s “Beloved.”
Some books challenged by community members were retained, but with the stipulation that parental consent is required for student checkout. This list includes “Identical,” about twin sisters coping with their father’s addiction and abuse, and “A Stolen Life,” a memoir detailing a young girl’s kidnapping.
The review process for two additional titles, “The Perks of Being a Wallflower” and “Cirque Du Freak,” which disappeared from shelves in 2022-23, remains unresolved.
The ongoing debate highlights the tension between diverse viewpoints in the community. Some Democratic board members expressed disappointment over the removal of books popular among teenagers, including titles from the “A Court of Thorns and Roses” series and ”It Ends With Us.”
They questioned the district’s approach to book evaluation and pointed to the policies of highly-ranked school districts that maintain these titles in their libraries.
Conversely, Republican board members and community advocates voiced concerns about the district’s process, particularly regarding potential reliance on recommendations from the American Library Association. Some cited a controversial statement made by a former ALA president, raising questions about the organization’s ideological stance.
Despite these differing perspectives, the district remains committed to its new policy and invites any community member concerned about a particular book to submit a formal reconsideration request.
Title: Navigating the Library Controversy: An Interview with Dr. Emily Carter, Education Policy Expert
Time.news Editor: Welcome, Dr. Carter. Thank you for joining us today to discuss the recent events surrounding the Pennridge School Board and their controversial decision about library book removals.
Dr. Emily Carter: Thank you for having me! It’s an important topic that affects many communities across the nation.
Time.news Editor: Absolutely. Recently, the Pennridge School Board rescinded a policy banning “sexualized content” but still removed seven books they deemed “age-inappropriate.” How do you view this decision in the context of educational policy?
Dr. Carter: This situation highlights the challenging balance between age-appropriateness and censorship. The board’s stance is that they are making decisions based on what they believe is suitable for high school students, yet the line between age-appropriateness and banning books can often blur.
Time.news Editor: Board President Ron Wurz insists that these removals should not be characterized as censorship. How do you interpret this viewpoint?
Dr. Carter: It’s a common argument among school boards that focus on age-appropriateness. However, the problem arises when the criteria for “age-appropriate” content can be so subjective. The removal of books like “Gender Queer” and “Push,” which tackle significant issues like identity and trauma, raises concerns about whether we are shielding students from necessary conversations rather than facilitating them.
Time.news Editor: You mentioned necessary conversations. The community seems divided on this issue, with accusations of book bans flying around. What are the implications of such a division?
Dr. Carter: A divided community can create an environment of distrust between parents, educators, and school boards. If community members feel their voices aren’t being heard, it can lead to further polarization. Education should be a collaborative effort between all stakeholders, and when that collaboration breaks down, students may lose access to a well-rounded education that includes diverse perspectives.
Time.news Editor: One specific point of contention was the quiet removal of 22 books last year that weren’t formally challenged. What does this say about the process of reviewing educational materials?
Dr. Carter: The lack of transparency in the removal of those books is concerning. In democratic educational settings, there should be a clear and open process for reviewing materials. When books are removed without public discourse or formal challenges, it suggests that fears and biases may be dictating policy rather than educational values.
Time.news Editor: The decision to pause the review of those 22 books until a new policy was established raises questions about the review process itself. What should an ideal book review process look like?
Dr. Carter: Ideally, a book review process should involve clear criteria that are publicly accessible and developed with input from educators, librarians, students, and parents alike. Transparency is crucial. Ensuring that multiple viewpoints are considered allows for more informed decisions that reflect the community’s values while prioritizing students’ educational needs.
Time.news Editor: Following this new policy, certain titles were removed while others were reinstated. What’s your take on this mix of outcomes?
Dr. Carter: It’s a reflection of the complexities involved in these decisions. While reinstating some titles may appease certain factions of the community, it reiterates the idea that literary merit and educational value are often subjective. It will be crucial for the board to communicate clearly about why they made these specific choices to build trust.
Time.news Editor: Lastly, as an expert in education policy, what would you recommend to school boards across the country facing similar challenges?
Dr. Carter: Engage the community proactively. Create forums for discussion where all stakeholders can express their concerns, and make decisions grounded in educational best practices rather than fear. Students deserve access to a wide range of ideas and perspectives, especially those that challenge their understanding and provoke critical thinking.
Time.news Editor: Thank you, Dr. Carter. It’s been enlightening to hear your perspective. I hope this conversation helps to foster understanding and dialogue in communities grappling with these important issues.
Dr. Carter: Thank you! I hope so too. Education thrives on open conversation, and we must keep that spirit alive.