[ad_1]
This content contains affiliate links. When you buy through these links, we may earn an affiliate commission.
Whether or not public school students will continue to have fewer diverse choices in their reading life across South Carolina was the topic of today’s State Department of Education meeting. Ten books were on the table for statewide removal following committee input, but a robust discussion about the unintended consequences of such decisions–and the abuse of the process that has imbued one parent in one county with outsized power to ban books across the state–led to a motion to table the decisions for another month.
The books under consideration at the April 1, 2025 meeting included:
Due to Regulation 43-170 (R-43-170), decisions over content in school libraries is in the hands of the South Carolina Department of Education. Materials deemed to have “descriptions of sexual content” are inappropriate for schools and must be removed. What that phrase means is intentionally vague, allowing for the opinions of a small number of individuals within the state to decide on behalf of all students and parents statewide.
The South Carolina Department of Education, headed by Ellen Weaver–who used taxpayer money to hire a lawyer to lobby in support of this school book banning bill–set up an Instructional Materials Review Committee (IMRC), where any parent in the state can submit complaints. This has allowed individuals to exert significant power in what’s available not only in their public schools but in schools statewide.
The IMRC reviews complaints and elects whether or not to advance the complaints to the Department of Education for a final decision. Decisions are made not on reading the entire book and assessing whether or not it rises to the definition of obscenity per the Miller Test. They’re made based on excerpts provided by the person bringing about the complaints.
The IMRC recommended that 10 new books be added to the state-sponsored banned list. Those decisions were passed on to the Department of Education who voted to table the decision making for a future meeting. This was in no small part thanks to the voices of several board members.
Among them was Dr. O’Shield. He spoke at length about how all of the books banned so far–as well as the 10 on the docket for the day–were coming from one single county out of a state with more than 40 counties. As an educator, he had not seen problems with any of the books in his own school and put in the effort to see how many of the 10 titles were available where he taught, when they were purchased, and how frequently they’d been borrowed.
O’Shield also questioned why there could not be restrictions applied to books, rather than outright bans. He mentioned that there are plenty of 18 year olds in high school who shouldn’t be restricted from accessing so-called “adult” materials. The IMRC explained that this option is one among many the committee can recommend and has in the past. Ellen Hopkins’s book Crank, for example, is only available with parental permissions.
This restriction option, however, is not available to books that meet the state’s criminal code definition of depictions of “sexual content.” That’s why the 10 books at hand could not be given that recommendation and why Crank could. Crank‘s content did not meet that threshold.
Reverend Tony Vincent, a newcomer to the state education board, talked about how reading passages out of context–as is how the decisions have been made in the state–is a deep disservice. While he may not wish his own children to read the books, he acknowledged that not only are there young people who would benefit from the books but also that his duty in his role on the board (and elsewhere) was to make decisions out of love for other people. Banning books statewide over a small selection of passages would be the opposite of acting in love.
Board member Maya Slaughter spoke, pointing out that now that the Board has been through this review process, it seemed as though they may now be able to identify potential abuses of the process. She suggested more time to review the process before making any decisions on the slate of books.
That would ultimately be granted.
South Carolina banned its first round of books for all public schools on Election Day when people were otherwise occupied. Seven made the initial list. In the weeks following the ban of those books, listed below, further action was taken in deciding to not ban Crank by Ellen Hopkins but to restrict its access to parents who grant opt-in permission.
In early February 2025, the State Department of Education voted to ban four more books. Those titles were The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky, All Boys Aren’t Blue by George M. Johnson, Flamer by Mike Curato, and Push by Sapphire. Two additional books brought before them at that meeting were retained, meaning they could remain in public schools: Bronx Masquerade by Nikki Grimes and The House on Mango Street by Sandra Cisneros. Those two titles were part of a series of challenges by one parent in the Fort Mill School District; that parent unsuccessfully challenged a third title, too, an introduction to literature for 8th graders textbook.
All 10 of the books brought before the South Carolina Department of Education today were challenged by one individual, Elizabeth Szalai. Szalai was behind the demands to remove nearly 100 titles challenged in Beaufort County Schools, the bulk of which were returned to shelves. With South Carolina’s new law, she and others like her now have the opportunity to take their complaints beyond their own school district and potentially have books pulled from all public schools in the state. Szalai was behind the complaints that led to the state banning four books in February.
One single parent has had outsized power to have books banned across an entire state.
Complaints over each of the books, both banned and retained, are available the South Carolina Department of Education’s website (here is where final decisions and associated documents live and here is where pending decisions and associated documents live). Take the time to read them and understand these decisions are being made on conspiracy theories and cherry picked passages being distributed by Moms For Liberty and similar groups. One member of the board in today’s meeting suggested that some of the titles in question could be used by older students or librarians to “indoctrinate” younger people.
For all the arguments about “local control,” the power given to the State Board of Education to remove books statewide is the precise opposite. The South Carolina Department of Education is the arbiter of what is and is not accessible to students in public institutions across the state, not those who live or work in those communities.
Today’s decision suggests that many have come to realize the consequences associated with that power. This is a positive motion.
The full list of books banned in every public school in South Carolina is currently as follows:
Three states have legal mechanisms that allow for statewide book bans, though only South Carolina and Utah have used them so far. The other state is Tennessee.
[ad_2]
View Original Source Here
:quality(85):upscale()/2026/02/18/893/n/1922564/857ece5a69962087501ab8.98904531_.jpg "Everything to Know About the \"Love Is Blind\" Engagement Rings")
