Fort Bend ISD Trustees Approve Strictest Library Book Policy Yet

Students, parents and librarians gathered outside Fort Bend ISD’s Administration Building on Monday evening to protest what they described as the “most restrictive” library book policy in Texas.

The “Right to Read” rally, organized by the Friends of FBISD Libraries, a coalition advocating for the district’s libraries, occurred before the board of trustees approved changes to chain-in-command and selection criteria requirements.

“Banned books means banned opportunities. Banned books mean banned education,” Anna Lykoudis-Zafiris, a parent, said. “Banned thinking. Banned compassion. Banned abilities to relate to others and be problem solvers.”

The group of roughly 30 community members donned red and maroon shirts and held up signs that read “No Book Czar” and “Parent’s Choice (NOT Trustee David Hamilton).” Despite their efforts, the revised policy passed 5-2, with trustees Angie Hanan and Dr. Shirley Rose-Gilliam dissenting as usual.

The new library materials policy prohibits any books that “advocate or promote” racial, ethnic, sex-based or religious stereotypes, sexual activity or illegal actions by minors like drug usage.

Those speaking out against the policy questioned how an author’s intention to “promote and advocate” would be evaluated. They also asked if the superintendent, Dr. Marc Smith, would do it, as the revisions place sole authority over a book’s fate in his hands.

Traci Marlowe, a district librarian, contended this was a violation of HB 900, a Texas state law, and of standards set forth by the Texas State Library and Archives Commission that require school districts to use reconsideration committees when there is a complaint about a title.

Under the new policy, Smith can bypass a reconsideration committee and decide on the text’s status himself. The complainant also does not need to follow the steps of a formal reconsideration process.

“The proposed policy makes review committees optional,” Marlowe said. “This conflicts with state standards and could expose districts to legal challenges and waste valuable time and taxpayer money.”

Marlowe and others took issue with what they called the district’s lack of trust in librarians selecting age-appropriate content and disrespect to parents who are supposed to be the “primary decision-makers” over what their kids read by gutting these committees.

The boardroom went dead quiet when Clements High School student Christopher Pontiff spent the remainder of his time addressing the board by requesting that they sit in silence, look at the crowd and reflect on the impact these changes will have.

“I want y’all to look up at me. I want y’all to look up at these parents. Don’t smack your lips. Don’t give me a slight smirk,” Pontiff quipped. “Don’t look down and check how much time I have left.”

Board president Kristin Tassin attempted to move on to the next public speaker, but Pontiff reasserted that he had yet to yield his time.

Reconsideration committees in the past have consisted of a mix of district staff who opted to remove, retain or restrict a challenged book. Under the updated policy, Smith could decide, appoint a designee to choose on his behalf or convene a committee.

Smith echoed sentiments he expressed during a board meeting in April when an earlier version of these policy changes was first proposed, saying that he had every intention of convening a committee whenever one was needed.

“It’d be my goal, my desire, my option to make sure that I utilize all the options that are available to me in that process,” Smith said.

A previous policy version included a clause banning nudity “of any kind,” including “depictions, illustrations and descriptions” in all elementary and middle school and classroom libraries.

“I don’t think they realize how many books would be removed,” said Amanda Kennair, a Friends of FBISD Libraries organizer and district parent. “From what I heard, some of the most popular series from elementary schools would have gone, and I think a lot of parents would have probably been shocked to learn that they wouldn’t be available anymore.”

Kennair referenced neighboring district Katy ISD, which implemented a similar ban last year, resulting in No, David! by David Shannon getting yanked from shelves. A decision that Katy ISD board president Victor Perez had to walk back in a statement where he wrote, “The board policy was not established with the expectation that well-known and harmless children’s books would be impacted.”

“What child has ever looked at a partially clothed Winnie the Pooh and been aroused?” Kandis Easley, a long-time educator, sarcastically asked on Monday night.

Hamilton announced an amendment to the original clause in the updated policy that replaced the prior language with text that would not permit depictions of sexual activity promoting the touching of genitals amongst minors in these texts.

The concern about the volume of books the approved changes will remove extends to the high school level. Community members noted that the vagueness of the policies’ sections, including “advocate and promote,” will keep titles that may not feature explicit content but touch on certain controversial subjects out of students’ hands.

Many argue that books on the Advanced Placement exam or commonly used in the college-level curriculum would be collateral damage.

Frank Strong, one of the co-founders and co-directors of the Texas Freedom To Read Project, did an independent analysis and found that at least 22 of the titles featured in one of this year’s AP exam’s Free Response questions did not meet the new policies’ requirements.

Strong also listed nine to 12 titles, including Macbeth by William Shakespeare and Moby-Dick by Hermann Melville, that could toe the line between abiding by and violating district selection guidelines.

Hamilton, who first proposed that Smith have sole authority over reviewing the districts’ books in April, received most of the criticism from community members and fellow trustees alike. They argued that Hamilton spearheaded these changes to “further his agenda” after he filed for over 30 titles to be reviewed—most of which were retained by reconsideration committees.

Hanan took issue again with the lack of input the rest of the policy committee members were permitted to give — she is a member of that committee — saying they hadn’t met since the previous workshop meeting despite Hamilton having amended the text.

“We really need to understand what we have because this will be a hot mess. I continue to reject the way this policy is written,” Hanan said. “I believe it continues to get worse and worse, and I will remind this board last spring you supported the policy unanimously.”

Hamilton asserted that “egregious content” is still in the library and that he had wanted to avoid it getting to the point again where pastors were reading excerpts aloud at the district’s board meetings again as they did at a board meeting in March, which is why he wanted to enact the policy changes.

He noted that he wanted to read several of the sexually explicit sections of titles found in the libraries at the August workshop but was told not to do so.

Trustees Adam Schoof, Sonya Jones and Rick Garcia defended Hamilton as Schoof took issue with Dr. Scott Pett, a writer and editor with Rice University’s Jones Graduate School of Business who has a Ph.D. from the college.

Pett quoted renowned writer Audre Lorde while addressing the board to describe the danger of pulling excerpts out of texts without their accompanying context and reviewing books as parts but not wholes.

“I’ve been getting nonstop emails and listening to you guys say that there are no pornographic images in our schools — and for the Ph.D. who does not know the definition of porn which blows my mind,” Schoof said. “Porn is an image of sexual intercourse or sexual act, a visual image and those visual images are in our schools.”

Jones added to Schoof’s comments, saying that these “degenerate books” would lead students to “unsheltered lifestyle choices” if they were not removed from district shelves.

Tassin said she agreed with those who said their libraries were their saviors; however, she reminded those speaking out against the new policy that school libraries were not public libraries.

“In the school system, we have always determined what is or is not age-appropriate and what is or is not educationally suitable, and we are not going to stop that now,” she added. “We can throw around rhetoric like banning books and destroying books. That is not what is happening here.”

Following Monday’s vote, several members of the Friends of FBISD libraries huddled outside the boardroom to discuss the next steps.

“Parents have spoken out against it again and again at board meetings, and yet the policy has not changed at all,” Kennair said. “They are sticking with it as it’s written. I hope that some of the trustees realize that’s not in the district’s best interest.

“I hope they spend more time focusing on providing our kids with a great education instead of trying to promote these extreme views,” she noted. “This is detrimental to all of our kids at the end of the day.”