It’s ironic that a novel about the Iranian revolution initially drew the ire of conservative school-board members at the Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified School District. That debate – and concern about some language used by the author – sparked the district’s passage of a new plan that makes the elected trustees the final arbiter of books that the district uses in its curriculum.
The board ultimately approved the use of “Persepolis: The Story of Childhood,” which documents the oppressive tactics of the Islamic Republic. Unlike in Iran, the United States champions the widest freedom of speech and thought – and Americans generally frown upon elected officials who try to set themselves as “culture ministers” who vet reading material.
By a 3-2 vote, the board gave initial approval to a policy that requires a full board vote before the district pilots a new book. The ringleader, Trustee Todd Frazier, argues it’s not actually a book ban. He’s technically correct. Yes, someone has to make these choices. But schools typically set up a process, such as the district’s Literature Review Committee, to vet teachers’ proposals.
Related Articles
The unexpected consequences of tobacco bans: bonds, taxes, police, and more
California state computer systems fail new audit, at risk of serious security breaches
California’s ailing power grid stymies electric shift
Banning suspensions and expulsions for ‘willful defiance’ is the wrong way to help students
The how and why of gun violence and children: Letters
This approach turns every mundane choice into a hot-button political issue. It will dumb down students’ reading material by assuring that educators propose only the least-controversial books – lest it set off controversy at a board meeting. The policy encourages ideologically driven board members to grandstand. Trustees have more pressing issues (e.g., finances, hiring practices, etc.) to handle.
“I have been made keenly aware that our education system has become more focused on divisive ideologies that threaten traditional American values rather than promote academic excellence,” Frazier argued during his campaign. Instead of focusing on academic excellence, the board majority seems intent on promoting its own divisive ideologies.
We have long supported the idea that parents should have a greater say in their children’s education, which is why we advocate for charter schools and other alternatives to monopoly public schools. But the answer isn’t to micromanage book choices or preen for conservative media, but to delve into the hard work of building a competitive school system.