The Wake County Board of Education approved a revised policy Tuesday that would require educators to spend more time reviewing books that are selected for libraries and for classroom read-alouds.

The changes include prohibiting materials that are “pervasively vulgar” — a term used in state law on school book selection but not officially adopted into the Wake County school board’s policies. The term isn’t defined in the new policy, as it’s not defined in state law — something that frustrated some board members and parents who spoke Tuesday night.

Other WRAL Top Stories

Three board members — Chris Heagarty, Cheryl Caulfield and Wing Ng — had supported potentially changing the prohibition of “pervasively vulgar” materials to a prohibition of “obscene” materials, which is defined by state law.

“It may not be a sharp, clear line but I think it’s the clearest line we’re going to get,” Heagarty said. He argued families will greatly disagree on what’s appropriate for their children to read, watch or hear and a defined term gives the school system something to fall back on.

Heagarty declined to make a motion without enough support to pass the proposal, and Caulfield and Ng voted against bringing the policy changes to a vote at all.

Board Chairwoman Lindsay Mahaffey said she preferred to keep the term “pervasively vulgar” because it aligns with existing state law on how schools should select books; obscenity law is a criminal statute devised without schools specifically in mind. She also noted no student has to read even books that are assigned to them, because parents can request an alternative.

“We have multiple methods of accountability here,” Mahaffey said.

Wake County made these changes and is considering others as state lawmakers are considering making more requirements in schools’ processes for handling book removal requests, which could affect Wake County’s pursuit of policy changes.

The House of Representatives budget would require materials to not be “obscene,” school boards to adopt health books during public meetings and schools to publish all course materials. It would also allow challenges to books or materials to be appealed all the way to a state committee, upon which the elected Superintendent would serve alongside others. Currently, the highest level of appeal is to the local school board, which has the final say.

What’s changing

The changes:

  • Require materials to not be “pervasively vulgar”
    • Require teachers to use discretion and collaborate with other school staff in selecting materials for students to read aloud in class. For example, they must first read the passage, and they must consider the needs, age and maturity level of the classroom’s students.
      • Would make library books subject to the same selection and review as both required and non-required classroom materials
        • Would add “age” and “grade” appropriateness among things to be considered in book selection (on top of “maturity,” already in the policy)
          • Would have non-required reading be selected in collaboration with school-level teams or leadership, instead of just the district head of Academics

            The proposed changes are coming from the Wake County Public School System, which has fielded a handful of formal complaints from parents in the past two years over books that have themes or passages related to race, gender and sexuality.

            Earlier this spring, Jessica Lewis, a parent and school board critic, told the board a high school girl in Wake County was embarrassed after being asked to read aloud a passage from Sherman Alexie’s “The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-time Indian” that featured the narrator talking about masturbation.

            The school board is still mulling some other changes to the parent complaint and review process for books and instructional materials.

            The school board — and others across the nation — has also listened to informal complaints. Some parents, who are frustrated that certain books are available to check out in school libraries or are on classroom library shelves, have read aloud at school board meetings book passages that describe sex acts.

            Critics of the movement to remove books contend it focuses too much on books written by people of color or LGBTQ people.

            Caulfield said her negative feelings about some books had nothing to do with whether characters were LGBTQ. She objected to graphic descriptions of sexual activities.

            “The more I dive into the books the more I see what people are really talking about,” Caulfield said.

            Board Member Tyler Swanson said he’s frustrated by the conversation around whether school library books are appropriate.

            “There’s other issues that we should be dealing with,’ Swanson said.

            Swanson and other board members argued families may disagree with many of the people who want certain books removed from schools.

            “They’re our families, too,” Board Member Lynn Edmonds said.

            Board Member Monika Johnson-Hostler said the school board’s role is to govern and should avoid making value judgments about certain books. Families can make their own choices about what’s appropriate and what isn’t, she said.

            “We all have that right, and I wouldn’t take that right away from anyone else as a parent,” she said.

            Defining appropriate material

            Julie Page, president of Moms for Liberty’s Wake County chapter, said the board needs to define “pervasively vulgar” to ensure certain books would actually be excluded.

            “If you can’t figure out what it is then change the (word),” Page said. She recommended using “obscene,” which is defined in state law.

            That definition largely focuses on sexual content and requires that a material have no educational or artistic value.

            That, combined with court precedents on obscene materials, should be enough to help the school system better judge materials, at least better than the term “pervasively vulgar,” Heagarty said.

            Last month, board attorney Jonathan Blumberg said no state law or case law that he knows of has defined “pervasively vulgar.” But he noted the significance of the word “pervasive.”

            “It’s basically repeated vulgarity through a material,” Blumberg said at an April policy committee meeting.

            At that meeting, Assistant Superintendent for Academics Drew Cook said opinions may vary. He believes school-level and district-level review committees are “much more likely to hit the community mark” on defining it than the state or a wider group.

            Several board members on Tuesday said they would ultimately prefer a ratings system for books when trying to consider age appropriateness.

            “If there is some graphic content, give us a warning,” Ng said.

            The district doesn’t have a ratings system Professional groups may label books for certain age groups or apply a more broad label of “young adult” to certain literature.