SC committee votes to remove seven books statewide
It retained, as expected, three "classics," and postponed a vote on Ellen Hopkins' CRANK.
Update: the week after I wrote this, the full board voted to agree with the subcommittee’s decisions. Again without reading the books or examining additional language, the Board voted to retain the three “classics,” ban seven books from every public school in the state, and made no decision about Ellen Hopkins’ CRANK. A few Board members did express concerns about the process. For example, Chair David O’Shields seemed concerned that a subcommittee was preemptively challenging books, rather than waiting for challenges to come from parents.
Today, the South Carolina Instructional Materials Review Committee (part of the State Board of Education) met to discuss the first round of books challenged at the state level. (All members were present except board member Cheryl Collier.) The meeting revealed a lot about the actual processes being used to choose and evaluate books for potential removal.
In the end, the committee voted to remove all but one of the non- “classic” texts (1984, Romeo and Juliet, and To Kill a Mockingbird) and, somewhat predictably, given previous comments by Chair Christian Hanley and Department representatives, voted to retain all of the “classic” texts.
Hanley, a conservative who ran for Berkeley School Board in 2022 with support from Moms for Liberty (he was defeated by Yvonne Bradley), began the meeting by saying, “We are here to determine if any of the materials that have been placed before us are in violation of the regulation or South Carolina code.”
“As far as how we got these books…” he continued, “after this committee was started and I was asked to be chair, I asked the State Department of Education if there were any books that were challenged in multiple districts that were clearly violative or if there were any that came up frequently in our public comments”.
Hanley also said an unidentified “library expert” did the research on the books, although as the meeting went on it became clear that neither the committee members nor the staff researcher had necessarily read the books. Board Policy and Legal Advisor Robert Cathcart argued that the regulation only required that the Board establish whether there was sexual content in the books, and that it was not necessary to have read them completely.
Hanley would later muse aloud that perhaps the committee should preemptively consider every Sarah J. Maas book for removal (a move that, like the other book removals, could potentially open the state up to lawsuits from authors and publishers).
As the meeting went on, it became clear that “sexual content” was the sole criterion being used to assess whether a material was “Age and Developmentally appropriate” (in the language of Regulation 43-170).
The first speaker was a sophomore at USC, who was arguing against the removal of the book Damsel. She said the committee should consider the “Miller test,” a consideration of artistic and literary merit which is included in in South Carolina law for consideration of whether a work is obscene. Cathcart would later point out, correctly, that the regulation does not include the Miller test— a feature many predicted during the initial Board meetings on the regulation would lead to a broad range of bans on “sexual content”.
Cathcart referred, as he would throughout the meeting, to the staff recommendation for the book (presumably created by the “library expert”). If sexual content was present, he said, the Board was obligated to remove the material by the regulation.
Committee member Rita Allison moved in opposition of the material (accepting the staff recommendation). Member Joyce Crimminger seconded this motion, and the commitee ultimately voted to remove Damsel.
The committee followed a similar process for every non- “classic” other than CRANK, by Ellen Hopkins— usually with Allison or Crimminger moving to remove the book, and the other seconding. Board member Shore rarely contributed to the discussion, except in her motion to remove A Court of Frost and Starlight.
Mary Foster of Families Against Book Bans (FABB) read from a statement from CRANK author Ellen Hopkins that seemed to move the committee members. After no committee member would motion to remove the book, Chair Hanley asked if there was a motion to postpone judgement on CRANK. All members except for Hanley voted to postpone.
Only one speaker spoke in favor of removing a book. India Springs, administrator of the Moms for Liberty- adjacent PACE for Lex 2 Facebook group, and wife of Lexington 2 School Board candidate Cliff Springs (who has been formally endorsed by the local Moms for Liberty) spoke out against Damsel, arguing schools should not include materials which included negative depictions of romantic relationships.
Most speakers focused on what they saw as an inappropriate fixation on “sexual content,” something the regulation explicitly requires and which staff attorneys seem to have zeroed in on as the main “objective” criteria for considering whether a book is inappropriate for students.
That said, several speakers, including me, pointed out apparent inconsistencies in this criteria. 1984, for example, contains what I would consider several relatively explicit lines of sexual content (as defined by the broad definition of the regulation). While I did not argue 1984 should be removed (and don’t believe it should), I did argue that it was inconsistent to consider only the sexual content in the non- “classic” works.
In response to this line of thinking, Cathcart argued repeatedly that sexual content had to be described more explicitly (in the case of the “classics”), using the metaphor of a movie’s “camera focus” at one point. It is still not really clear where the line is, though. In the case of CRANK, the included excerpts (which match excerpts on the Moms for Liberty- affiliated BooksLooks website) seem to closely match the level of description found in 1984. (Content warning in both cases: discussion of sexual assault.) This is also true of Colleen Hoover’s Ugly Love, and arguably true even of racier texts, like A Court of Wings and Ruin, based on the passages highlighted by committee staff.
Addressing the consideration of A Court of Wings and Ruin, one speaker emphasized that “the main character opposes tyranny and the control the court has over information.” She continued, “You are jousting against windmills and there are real dragons out there,” citing problems in retaining teachers and other issues facing the state education system.
Ultimately, the list of books the committee recommended to remove were:
Damsel, by Elana Arnold
Ugly Love, by Colleen Hoover
A Court of Frost and Starlight, by Sarah J. Maas
A Court of Mist and Fury, by Sarah J. Maas
Court of Thorns and Roses, by Sarah J. Maas
Court of Wings and Ruin, by Sarah J. Maas
Normal People, by Sally Rooney
These staff recommendations will be sent to the Board (except for CRANK). The next Full Board meeting will be on Election Day.
Further reading:
Open Letter to the SC Board of Education
This is an email I sent this morning to the South Carolina State Board of Education following the decision of its Instructional Materials Review Committee to recommend the removal of seven books from every school in the state. I’m keeping most of this piece behind a paywall because it contains explicit content, presented in an out-of-context way, something I argue is not an appropriate way to evaluate books. I certainly don’t want people of bad faith to use these arguments to justify book bans. If you aren’t able to become a paid subscriber and need access to this for some reason, please send me a message.
SC School Board Candidates Fund Mailers Attacking Local Teacher
Note: this piece has been updated to reflect a statement from Mary Wood. Huddle, Baynham, and Loveless have not responded to requests for comment.
Thank you for covering this... it's so depressing to watch them remove the books that might get teenagers away from screens and excited about reading.
Grateful you attend instead of me because I would definitely lose my cool. Rita Allison, who spent years lobbying for CHE, now going against a basic premise of good, public education by banning a book. And I expect a lot more pretending, a lot more pendantic justifications, and Lord know what other BS to advance Ellen's agenda.