Thread by @emilymayerSC

Use this thread if you’re interested in following along the Beaufort County School District meeting as they seek to ban 97 books from school shelves @ACLU_SC #freedomtoread #BCSDbooks

A full room, standing room only, as we gavel in. Lots of chatter about this topic being taken up the week before an election. Will begin with a student performance and some notes of celebration before the first public comment section.

First speaker: if our students are experiencing it, it’s important for their literature to reflect it.

Second speaker: has submitted an appeal of the removal on the basis of the school board being misled by a political group. She brought evidence to support her claim that she’s distributed to the board.

Third: a gentleman concerned about the historical implications of book bans. “One way to make kids read a book is to tell kids not to read it.”

Fourth: @Nash4SC124 is concerned about the constitutionality of the removal of these books, as most are about characters of color or lgbtq+ characters.

Fifth: (a comment theme tonight) a concern that the process laid out in district policy hasn’t been followed when removing these books.

Next: a gentleman concerned that this ban comes from a third party recommendation, asks if all of the members of the board has read all 97 books.

A speaker concerned about the budget is seen in violation of the rules. The board recessed after the speaker does not yield and states it’s his first amendment rights to be allowed to speak. He addresses the room while the board recesses. Some folks leave.

We’re back on the books (ironic that I think the board would rather hear this a million times than hear about a budget audit). Current speaker suggests that parents who wish to censor what their children read should do so in an individual manner.

Next speaker shares concerns about the Moms For Liberty group and their ulterior motives. States this group is known to do the same at school boards across the nation.

This speaker states that these books were deemed concerning due to pornographic nature, yet “Stamped” (the entire series) is on the list, which has no such scenes in it. 👏🏻

This current speaker is grateful to the board for extending time for public comment and to those in the room, she states she felt she was the only one who cared about these books.

Now speaking, a rep on behalf of @TheSCEA : the group asking for these books to be banned will not stop here. He’s concerned about the impact on sharing his classroom library with students.

(A quick pause for my chance to speak.) Next speaker supports the book bans. States the district has zero-tolerance on drugs, so why is it okay for other adults to say children what his child can read? States that those supporting these books are breaking the law.

Quotes the Bible to close his remarks. The irony isn’t lost on me.

Next speaker asks why the Bible isn’t on the banned list based on the qualifications of the other books on the list.

Next speaker is questioning the qualifications for these books being banned. wants to know how many complaints there were. Says lack of transparency is a concern.

Student body President from May River HS on behalf of her classmates: yes the content of these books may be “triggering”, but that they have helped her classmates navigate difficult experiences and emotions. “Many of these banned narratives are representative of our experiences.”

“Just because it strikes discomfort, does not mean it shouldn’t be heard.” Asks for an age appropriate compromise.

Next speaker is the teacher of the former speaker: cites the state standards these books help fill. These books help expand student perspective on others experiences.

“What are we teaching our kids when we give in to those who complain the loudest?”

Next speaker (a librarian): this is an infringement on students’ first amendment rights.

“My colleagues and I use multiple methods to vet books. I have two masters degrees in order to do my job. Trust me to do it. We are under attack each day for these books.”

Josh Malkin from @ACLU_SC, a former classroom teacher: “the first amendment guarantees our students the right to have access to these books…opinions of a vocal minority do not supersede this right.” Cites a Supreme Court precedent

(can y’all tell why Josh and I get along? We’re cut from the same cloth!)

There are 21 nonpartisan organizations across the state that support the district giving students access to these books.

Next speaker: parents are afraid students will pick books they themselves don’t understand.

Next speaker cites the importance of intellectual freedoms. Refers the district’s preexisting policy on the topic. Concerned about the message being sent when that policy isn’t followed.

Next speaker (a former social worker) passionately refers to his experience with kids. “There is not topic inappropriate for kids. Ignorance is dangerous.” “If we shut every library in this country and we would protect our children from anything.”

A district parent stating her disappointment in this decision as it contradicts the BCSD’s values.

“These few parents are acting as the morality police…without giving accurate context for the passages that force their views.”

“Not every book is for every child, but there is a child for every book.” 👏🏻

Virtual comments now being heard: first @JSrutekForSC (a district parent) concerned about parents who have had to jump though hoops to get what their children need, yet these parents were able to skip the line to be accommodated.

“It should never be easier to strip away a person’s rights than it is to protect them.” @JSrutekForSC 🔥

End of first public comment session 👏🏻

Out of the entire first public session, 1 comment on support of bans, 1 comment that had nothing to do with books, rest in support of the books. That’s a great feeling. Gaveling back in for the rest.