05/18/2025
I have been asked if I support the banning of books in schools. This is a very important question that must be answered delicately.
No, I do not support the banning of books in order to censor ideas or stifle diverse perspectives. Schools must foster intellectual freedom while also being responsible stewards of the materials made available to students.
This conversation is not about banning books wholesale. It’s about striking the right balance between protecting students and preserving access to information. We must ensure that school materials are age-appropriate, educationally suitable, and developmentally sound, especially in spaces where young minds are still growing and developing.
It is intellectually dishonest to conflate thoughtful review of pervasively explicit content with the suppression of ideas based solely on disagreement. I have never, and would never, support the removal of books simply because their viewpoints are controversial. That would violate students’ First Amendment rights, and it's not in line with my values or our legal responsibilities.
Additionally, the U.S. Supreme Court has already addressed this issue in the 1982 case of Pico v. Island Trees School District, ruling that while school boards may not remove books solely to suppress ideas, they do have the authority to remove books that are “pervasively vulgar” or “educationally unsuitable.” This guidance underscores the importance of context, age-appropriateness, and educational value.
I also firmly believe that parents and guardians deserve a seat at the table regarding the materials their children are exposed to. That’s why I’ve advocated for the creation of an online library catalogue, so families can easily view which books are available in our schools and what their child has checked out. This is not about censorship, but about access, transparency, and partnership.
We cannot pick and choose when we want to welcome the input of our stakeholders. We must consistently value parent and community involvement, even when the conversations are difficult.
We can uphold both the freedom to read and our duty to protect. It’s not an "either/or," but rather a shared responsibility.