NC House Education panel advances bill removing school library books with sexual content

Yahoo

16-04-2025

(Photo:)
The North Carolina House Education Committee approved a bill aimed at barring books and other media with sexual content from school libraries, opening up schools that do not comply with the requirements to lawsuits.
The proposal, House Bill 636, drew concerns from Democratic representatives over the subjectivity of which books are 'harmful to minors' or 'pervasively vulgar,' the standard for removal set by the bill, as well as protests from members of the public, some of whom were ejected by the sergeant-at-arms for vocal disruptions.
The bill requires each of the state's 116 school districts to establish a committee made up of five parents or guardians and five educators tasked with reviewing all school library material for sexual content to determine if it is in violation of the state guidelines, as well as new additions and any book fair offerings. The bill declares any media containing 'descriptions or visual depictions of sexual activity' to be inappropriate for all ages and grade levels.
The State Board of Education would be required to maintain a database of all banned media across the state and update it annually. In addition, objections from 10 parents, residents, or teachers would be sufficient to require the review of specific library materials. While the bill leaves final say over what materials should be included in libraries with school governing bodies, it also opens up a private right of action for parents, guardians, and residents to sue over noncompliance with the law by any school.
The bill comes amid a wave of book bans around the country as Republican-controlled legislatures have sought to give parents a veto over the material their children can access at school. In the 2023-24 school year, more than 10,000 instances of book banning took place around the country, PEN America found. Critics of the bans say books on LGBTQ+ and racial topics are disproportionately subject to removal, alleging ideological rather than educational motives for the restrictions.
Rep. Neal Jackson (R-Moore), one of the bill's primary sponsors, contended that the removal process is 'absolutely not book banning,' pointing to Supreme Court precedent that schools may bar any content that are 'pervasively vulgar or educationally unsuitable.' He said controlling available library media is critical for parental rights.
'It's not about fiction books. It's not about nonfiction books. It's not about novels,' Jackson said. 'Very simply, it's about pornography and not allowing pornography in our public school libraries.'
But that argument left opponents of the bill unconvinced. Rep. Marcia Morey (D-Durham) said she feared books like Alice Walker's 'The Color Purple,' which depicts a young girl experiencing and overcoming rape, would likely be subject to bans despite their literary and educational value.
'That's book banning, that's censorship, that's one of the all-time great books that kids learn to read with, that they get an interest in,' Morey said, comparing moves to ban controversial media to George Orwell's '1984.' 'I don't see the line, I see subjectivity, and I'm really, really worried about that. I have very serious concerns that this is total censorship.'
Rep. David Willis (R-Union), another primary sponsor, said books like 'The Color Purple' are not the target of the legislation, calling characterization of the bill as a book banning measure 'personally offensive.' He said there is a clear legal definition of 'what is vulgar, what is obscene, and what is pornography' that does not encompass books with educational merit.
'That is not what this is designed to do and the folks in this committee understand that clearly,' Willis said. 'If I were to take one of these books and walk across the mall and sit down with one of the tour groups of kids that come through there every single day and start reading aloud — and start exposing the book and the pictures in these books — it wouldn't take very long for me to get arrested.'
Rep. Laura Budd (D-Mecklenburg) said that despite the lawmakers' assertion that the bill seeks to protect parental rights, it instead infringes upon them by allowing other parents to block her children's reading material. She recalled a teacher contacting her because her son, then a fourth grader, was reading 'The Boy in the Striped Pajamas,' a book that depicts the horrors of the Holocaust.
'It's my job as the parent, not the school's and not the government's, to determine what is appropriate,' Budd said. 'This is in fact book banning and a very slippery slope, because what you define as wholesome may not be the same for me.'
HB 636 was also approved the House Rules Committee Tuesday afternoon and is scheduled for a vote before the full House on Wednesday.