Steve Nuzum blogs from South Carolina about the impact of new regulations.
The process of banning or restricting books under South Carolina’s new “instructional materials” regulation is beginning to gather steam across the state.
Many advocates predicted during the end of last school year, as the South Carolina State Board of Education considered Ellen Weaver’s proposed regulation, that the consequences of such broad language would be wide-ranging and negative.
One concern expressed by opponents was that granting expansive book-challenge powers to individuals, and encouraging each district to, in the words of the regulation, “prospectively review and asses [sic] its Existing Instructional Materials for compliance with this regulation,” would create cover for districts and individuals to target books for whatever criteria they might choose— including nakedly partisan, political, or other inappropriate reasons— and to then use the expansive board regulations as an excuse.
For example, In June, the South Carolina ACLU wrote, in response to the regulation’s impending passage, that it “sets a statewide policy banning books that contain descriptions of ‘sexual conduct’ and ‘excretory functions.’ This broad definition could be used to remove a vast range of literature from South Carolina schools, including classics like The Canterbury Tales, 20th-century masterpieces like 1984…”
I have reviewed lists from multiple South Carolina school districts being used to preemptively review books this year in response to the regulation. Both The Canterbury Tales and 1984 are among the wide range of books that are being reviewed for potential removal, despite having not been challenged by parents, as were commonly-taught texts from Shakespeare to Frederick Douglass. Books challenged under similar district rules last year included Slaughterhouse Five, The Handmaid’s Tale, and even Nickel and Dimed. It remains to be seen if these districts will remove any of these texts, but to see them reviewed in this way is striking.
Superintendent Ellen Weaver and attorney Miles Coleman– who, according to The State was “paid more than $40,000 for his work, which included explaining the rule change to legislators who allowed the law to take effect without voting on it”– repeatedly, and often dismissively, claimed that the concerns of advocates were unfounded. They said the regulations were intended to make district policies on book removals more transparent and fair. The preamble of the regulation claims it will create “a uniform process for local school boards to review and hold public hearings on complaints”. Coleman, in his opening remarks on the regulation, called it “logistically feasible”. Weaver, for her part, told concerned students from anti-censorship groups testifying before the Board that it was “unfortunate, in my opinion, that there are adults and narratives who have actively misled you about what this regulation does and doesn’t do. But I want to be entirely clear with you that this regulation in no way silences your viewpoint or your voice.”
But initial actions by SC districts seem to be proving the advocates right.
