THE SCHOOL COMMITTEE in Ludlow is expected to wade into the nation’s culture wars this week, taking up a proposal that would shift decision-making power around library book acquisitions from school administrators and librarians to school committee members, parents, and residents.
The proposal reflects ongoing tensions between Ludlow educators and a group of parents who believe the schools are pushing material and ideas they view as inappropriate. The initiative is surfacing in the wake of a lawsuit filed by parents who say they were not informed by school officials that their children had changed their names and gender identity. The suit was dismissed last year, but has since been appealed.
Visual or written content that is sexually explicit or depicts human genitalia would be prohibited under the proposal, although there are some adjustments for older grades. Under the proposal, the school superintendent would develop a list of books for acquisition, which would then be reviewed by Ludlow residents for 30 days before the school committee votes on it, either in whole or book by book. School and library staff would be responsible for ensuring current library materials meet the policy’s criteria, and could be disciplined or even terminated if they fail to do so.
The policy was proposed by School Committee member Joao Dias, who modeled it on a policy adopted by schools in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. That policy is being challenged in court by the American Civil Liberties Union, which alleges it is targeting LGBTQ youth.
The ACLU also opposes the proposed policy in Ludlow, a community northeast of Springfield. Ruth Borquin, senior and managing attorney of the ACLU of Massachusetts, said the proposed policy violates the rights of LGBTQ students by denying access to information related to sexual orientation and identity.
Borquin said the policy confuses pornographic content (which is solely intended to arouse) with content that is sexually explicit but has literary, scientific, educational, or artistic value. She said the Ludlow proposal could ban images of Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel and many classical paintings of Mary nursing Jesus because only images of breasts above the nipple are allowed.
“Proponents of this policy say they are for parents’ rights, but in truth, they are anything but,” Borquin says. “This policy violates the rights of parents who want their children to have access to information vetted by qualified educators and librarians, not by a puritanical group of people obsessed with body parts.”
Borquin says that Massachusetts, like other states across the country, has recently seen an uptick of people challenging various titles. But this policy, if passed, would be the first sweeping book ban in any library in the Commonwealth.
At a contentious school committee meeting last month, parents, teachers, residents, and school committee members argued passionately for and against the policy.
Deborah Martell, speaking in support of the policy, held up two anti-LGTBQ books she would like to see in the district’s libraries. One of the books, The Health Hazards of Homosexuality, by Amy Contrada, shows “how these behaviors cause medical and psychological damage, ” said Martell.
But other proponents denied the policy targets queer students. “This [policy] has nothing to do with LGBTQ, get that through your heads,” said parent Bella Soares. “Pornographic, drugs, rape, obscenity books. That’s what we’re trying to eliminate here.”
Soares read an explicit passage from a popular coming-of-age novel, Looking for Alaska, by John Green, which describes the awkward encounter of two young people having oral sex for the first time.”You tell me this is not pornography,” said Soares.
Other proponents argued that while the district’s current policy allows a parent to object to a book, that process takes time. Lee Luna, a middle school parent, objected to Crank, by Ellen Hopkins. Luna says the book, which explicitly describes drug use, sex, and rape, was not appropriate for her 11-year-old child. “It’s a tutorial for how to cut meth, snort it , shoot it, and cook it, ” she said.
After a year of meetings and communication with school staff, the book was still on the shelf and Luna said she felt unheard. The superintendent directed the librarian to be careful in how it was circulated but Luna had lost faith in the librarian’ s judgment.
Laura O’Keefe, a middle school social studies teacher, said the proposed policy is a response to things that are not happening in the schools. “There is no pornography in our libraries,” she said. “We don’t have students who pretend to be cats, and we certainly don’t have litter boxes in our bathrooms. There is no conspiracy to teach anything other than the Massachusetts state standards, and we do not deliberately hide things from parents and guardians. Especially at the middle school level, the more support we can get from parents and families, the better.”
Jenny Wright, a therapist and middle school parent, said that middle and high school students “are appropriately developmentally curious about sexuality and gender.” Wright says research shows over 50 percent of children are exposed to pornography through websites and social media by the age of 13. “Doesn’t it make more sense for them to have access to books rather than looking this information up online?” she said.