Regarding Regulation 43-170
Mona Fleming
Anderson School District 4 Board Meeting — February 12, 2024
Thank you Mr. Christopher and Anderson 4 School Board Members for allowing public comments.
Mr. Christopher last month you stated that the State Department of Education’s proposed regulation 43-170 may change processes for book challenges. Know that our Pendleton group, Advocates for Intellectual Freedom, was already communicating with State Board members and the SC ACLU. Three of us in our group and one from Oconee, had a phone conference with our Anderson-Oconee State Board member, Sallie Lee, expressing concerns that R. 43-170 should not be approved without revisions. Members of our advocacy group wrote letters to all State Board members. Suzanne Morse and I met with Josh Malkin of the SC ACLU in December. So we are not doing this on a whim, we are advocating for our First Amendment Rights.
This regulation is not about selecting books and instructional materials! It is all politics…political groups seeking to destroy public education as we know it. We know this from Ellen Weaver’s campaign for State Superintendent of Education and her disaffiliation with SCASL, the South Carolina Association of School Librarians. Keep in mind that public education is a cornerstone of our democracy!
43-170 reads as a censorship regulation, seemingly designed to appease special political groups such as Moms for Liberty. The primary books to which Moms for Liberty is opposed have Black, Brown, and/or LGBTQ authors and characters. Keep in mind that the Southern Poverty Law Center now lists Moms for Liberty as a government extremist group.
In history when books were banned and burned, they proceeded to ban and burn human beings. It was called the Holocaust. Think about that.
Censorship denies every person’s right to intellectual freedom as provided by the First Amendment, which is the most important reason to rethink R.43-170. It seeks to limit what texts and books are available to our teachers and students.
Limiting texts and books restricts literacy. As a former reading and English teacher, I used diverse texts to teach skills such as critical thinking, problem-solving, and analysis. As written, the regulation would restrict access to diverse texts in both classroom and school libraries.
Jenny Eisenman says it well, “When we provide students with texts that tug at their hearts, open their minds, or touch their souls, we are fueling interest, which fuels engagement, which fuels learning.” (2021: “Why Diversity and Equity in Content Matters for Reading Growth,” National Association of Secondary School Principals)
Definitions in the regulation are broad. Saying that texts are not age-appropriate if they contain sexual content and profanity restricts students’ access to books appropriate to their age groups.
The proposed regulation is not realistic and will create an onslaught of challenges, including lawsuits similar to those in Iowa, Florida, and next door in Pickens County.
The proposed regulation dismisses the expertise of our librarians, teachers, and curriculum specialists who are trained professionals. We must let educators provide rich, diverse books in both school and classroom libraries. Students need access to books they will reach for to read, further building their reading fluency.
I have myriad concerns so these are just the tip of the iceberg.
Because I believe that if I complain, I must also offer solutions, I sent a second letter to State Board of Education members giving them numerous revisions.
I share all these efforts in hopes that each of you will contact State Board members before 1:00 tomorrow when the State Board of Education votes on this dangerously political regulation. I remind you that you, too, have a voice in protecting public education and democracy. Don’t let fear stop you because that is what political extremists want. They want to keep us silent while they destroy public education and democracy.
