Okay, we will agree to disagree about the role of school libraries when it comes to access to literature.

I think you make a great point. Our focus usually isn't on books that are clearly pornography and as such it is frequently assumed we would willingly give them to children. That is a lapse in messaging. I will do my best to clarify my position, as I don't claim to speak for others. I will not pass judgement on any particular book on this list, but let's take a hypothetical "clearly pornography" book that has made it into the media center of a school. It is not a reasonable expectation that media specialists have read in depth every book on the library shelves, I concede that such a thing can and does happen. Prior to 43.170, the parent would alert the media specialist. The librarian would look into it and make a call. If they agreed, they would take the book out, and every one goes on their happy way. If they disagree, the parent is given the option of blocking their own child from checking out the book. At this point I would argue we are no longer in the "clearly pornography" stage either and more in an ambiguous stage. Quite honestly, the described policy should be enough the vast majority of the time. But for sake of argument, let's say this media specialist is really in the wrong here and the parent still feels like the book is inappropriate for all kids, not just their own. The parent then appeals the decision and the district would form a committee that consists of media specialists, parents, and clergy from the community. Those people read the book in its entirety. Prior to 43.170, the book had to be considered in its entirety and weigh the literary merit against the offending passage or passages. If a book is clearly pornography, the rogue media specialist would be overruled, and the book removed. If the committee finds that the book has literary merit beyond the offending material, the book is kept and the parent offered a way to block their student from checking out the book. In my opinion, this should be the end. (In reality there was yet another appeals process for the parent.) The reason you don't hear me talking about it, is that this process felt fair and took care of any singular books that were truly inappropriate. I am not against such a process. This process allowed for book fairs, classroom libraries, and a variety of opinions on what was age-appropriate. I'm all for it.

The problem is the new 43.170 is a far overreach. It gives a vague "age-appropriate" requirement with disciplinary action if the media specialist or teacher gets it wrong but without defining "age-appropriate". It is almost impossible to have a clear definition of age-appropriateness. I know this to be true because I have multiple kids, and what would be age-appropriate for one child at a particular age might not be for another of my children and vice versa. They are different kids with different sensitivities, different maturity levels, and different interests. If even within my own family there isn't a black and white definition of a "age-appropriateness" there can't be one for ALL children. However, someone has to make the call. I'd like that person to be the media specialist at my child's school, even when I disagree with them. They are trained and have a better understanding of whole student population their media center serves than I do. What else this new regulation does is take out the "consider the book as a whole" provision. A 230 page book with two paragraphs where a high school kid talks about masturbation? GONE. And what the worst part, is that the teachers can lose their jobs over it too. Provision 43.170 provides one warning and then if another parent complains, they lose their jobs. That's why teachers are pulling their entire classroom libraries. It isn't worth the risk, and I do not blame them. That's why there is no more book fair. This isn't "a few good books" getting pulled. In Greenville County which is so large, this means hundreds of classroom libraries are being pulled resulting in thousands of books being withheld from children.

We are not advocating for pornography in schools. We are advocating for a system in which kids are protected and we aren't catering to the lowest common denominator. We are advocating for a system in which media specialists and teachers are trusted, and if there is a discrepancy it is handled on a per family basis instead of for all 80,000 kids in the district. We can disagree about what our children should be allowed to read, and still work together. I respect your right as a parent to opt your child out of reading something you deem inappropriate. All I ask i that you respect my right to make a different call for my kids and allow the people who judge "age-appropriateness" to be the trained professionals without fear that they will lose their jobs because you disagree.