Four books deemed inappropriate by a group of Vicksburg Community Schools parents will remain on library shelves following a procedural review and recommendation by a district committee.
During a special meeting July 30, Board of Education members voted in favor of supporting the recommendation related to the fate of:
“The Glass Castle”
“The Perks of Being a Wallflower”
“A Stolen Life: A Memoir”
“A Court of Mist and Fury”
The four novels were named from a list of 85 questionable books in the high school media center, a figure referenced by some of the parents at the district’s May 12 board meeting. They cited the website takebacktheclassroom.com as their source for identifying books with content questionable for teenagers.
Following district policy, a five-person committee was assembled and the review process commenced following the board’s June 9 meeting. Committee members, whose identities are not disclosed by the district, were unanimous in their recommendation.
Once before board of education members at their late-July special meeting, a vote against reversing the committee’s recommendation passed, 5-2. Board members Rick Burmeister and Lisa Hostetler cast the dissenting votes.
District officials said the books in question – some of which have been available in the middle and high school library for more than a decade – are not required reading.
Following the July 30 meeting, parent Stephanie Orr said parents and guardians who wish to restrict their child’s access to any book may contact their school librarian to request the book be blocked from their student’s library account.
“We respect families’ rights to make individual decisions about reading materials, but to my knowledge, this decision has not been shared with parents so they can be made aware these books are in the library to flag for their students,” Orr said. She also alleged the time and date of the July 30 special meeting were not communicated to those who submitted an appeal of the committee’s recommendation.
Clearly, she said, the board of education did not take into consideration the concerns or requests from the parents.
“That means these books will still be available for young readers to check out as they please,” Orr stated. “It is the parent’s right to determine what material their child reads, however, in this case, these (85 books) are not labeled or highlighted as vulgar/explicit books, leaving no way for a student to know when they select that book what they are getting into before it’s too late.”
Orr reiterated the group of concerned parents does not condone banning or burning books. They are merely trying to protect minors from reading material that is inappropriate for their age, according to Orr.
“We need to be able to work together to find a way, at the very least, to place these books in a ‘sensitive’ section, so students are required to have parental consent before checking them out,” she added.
During a follow-up interview after the July 30 meeting, superintendent Keevin O’Neill offered his thoughts on the matter.
“I would like to thank district staff members who were part of the committee to review the challenged books,” he said. “The time and effort they put in to ensure a thorough review of the books, including the recommendations, is much appreciated.”
