CHEYENNE, Wyo. — The Laramie County Board of Trustees shot down a chance to hold an informal hearing discussing whether one of the district’s books contains objectionable content.
Currently, around 30 books at LCSD1 are labeled as containing “sexually explicit content,” a term created by the district to distinguish titles that contain objectionable material. However, one educator believes one book didn’t deserve to be labeled as such.
The school district’s controversial library policies were once again part of the discussion at Monday night’s school board meeting. Over the past year, the district has received three appeals for books that were reviewed and deemed sexually explicit. Those appeals were submitted by Todd Reynolds, a professor at the University of Wyoming and parent of two students at LCSD1. Reynolds urged the board to consider holding the hearing so that trustees could “hold their [review] process accountable.”
“This is a chance to show the community that you believe in the process that you created and that you will make sure that you follow that process to the best of your ability,” Reynolds said. “An appeal is part of that process, and voting to have an informal hearing would demonstrate your commitment to the entirety of the policy you created.”
The book in question was “Monday’s Not Coming,” a 2018 young adult novel by Tiffany D. Jackson. The novel follows a girl named Claudia as she yearns to uncover what happened to her friend, Monday, who goes missing. Jackson’s 2018 novel is available at East, South and Triumph high schools, per the list of books identified as sexually explicit.
Despite Reynolds’s recommendation, the board was unable to reach a consensus on whether to hold a hearing on the book. Two board members voted in favor of the meeting, while three didn’t. At least four board members had to be in favor of the hearing for the vote to pass, chair Tim Bolin said.
The board comprises just six trustees at the moment as Susan Edgerton resigned earlier this month. Trustees are currently reviewing applications for her spot and will decide who fills the vacant seat at the board’s next meeting Nov. 4.
Background
“Monday’s Not Coming” was nominated as having sexually explicit content Jan. 16, per the district’s list of nominated material. The district defines sexually explicit content as “textual, visual, or audio materials that depict sexual conduct or describe sexual conduct using more than a passing reference (such as the use of a sex-related expletive) or allusion.” To view the definition for sexual conduct, click the drop-down menu below.
The district’s term for “sexual conduct” is defined as any of the following:
(a) Masturbation or lewd exhibition, actual, simulated, or animated, of the genitals, pubic hair, anus, vulva, or female breast nipples;
(b) Sadomasochistic abuse, meaning actual, simulated or animated, flagellation, or torture by or upon a person who is nude or clad in undergarments or in a costume that reveals the pubic hair, anus, vulva, genitals, or female breast nipples, or in the condition of being fettered, bound, or otherwise physically restrained, on the part of one so clothed;
(c) Actual, simulated, or animated touching, caressing, or fondling of, or other similar physical contact with a pubic area, anus, female breast nipple, covered or exposed, whether alone or between humans, animals, or a human and an animal, of the same or opposite sex, in an act of apparent sexual stimulation or gratification;
(d) Actual, simulated, or animated stimulation of a human genital organ by any device whether or not the device is designed, manufactured, or marketed for such purpose; or
(e) Actual, simulated, or animated ultimate sexual acts, whether between human beings, animals, or an animal and a human being.
Definition for “Sexual Conduct”
Any parent or guardian can submit a form to the district alleging a book available in a school library contains sexually explicit content. Once a book has been nominated, the Division of Instruction forms a review committee to analyze passages of the book and determine if the excerpts meet the district’s definition for “sexually explicit content.”
Below is a graphic detailing the review process committee members follow while reviewing a book. The passages in question can also be viewed below.
Two of the three committee members reviewing the book concluded “Monday’s Not Coming” contained sexually explicit content. Superintendent Stephen Newton then certified the book as objectionable on April 29.
As soon as the book was added to the district’s list, an appeal was made. Reynolds wrote to the district April 29 stating that the review process lacked sufficient evidence to make any judgment on the book.
“Only 1 [passage] depicts an actual sex act (page 246), and it does not describe anything,” wrote Reynolds, whose submission was listed anonymously. He confirmed to Cap City News that he initiated all the district’s book appeals thus far. “One passage (page 346) refers to another book, not the one being reviewed. One passage (page 298) refers to two characters, fully clothed, dancing on a dance floor at a party. … This is a challenging, 435-page book, and to argue that because of 1 sentence on one page it is sexually explicit is just intellectually dishonest. This is not just a matter of taking passages out of context — it’s truly a matter of not comprehending the passages at all. There is simply not enough here to make that classification.”
Reynolds’s full responses can be viewed below.
Comments from board trustees
Trustees Rene Hinkle and Brittany Ashby voted to hold an informal hearing on “Monday’s Not Coming.” Meanwhile, Christy Klaassen, Alicia Smith and Brooke Humphrey opposed it.
Hinkle has been an outspoken opponent of the district’s book policies and voted to approve the informal hearing on “Monday’s Not Coming.” At Monday night’s meeting, she said that she believes Jackson’s novel should be required reading for students and parents.
“It’s a very moving book,” Hinkle said. “It discusses many different topics, and if part of our library policy was to have to read a book and determine whether the entire content of the book is important or not, this would definitely not be on the sexually explicit list.”
Hinkle added that the topic of sex is brought up several times in the novel, but sexual acts are mentioned in passing and never explicitly shown. Further, she said that committee reviewers didn’t agree on what passages depicted “sexual acts.” This demonstrates, she said, the general vagueness of the district’s book policy.
Trustee Alicia Smith, meanwhile, voted against the hearing. She said she finished “Monday’s Not Coming” and that it’s a great book but believes “there are parts of the book that are troubling.”
“As a mom, I would like to know before my child is able to check out this book,” Smith said. She said she opposed holding the hearing on the book as two of the three review committee members and superintendent found that the book contained sexually explicit content. “I appreciate that we have a process in place and I support what three out of the four [who] looked at the book and looked up the information have said.”
Klaassen said the point of the district’s book policies is to give power back to parents. Furthermore, “Monday’s Not Coming” won’t be taken off shelves for parents or students who want to read it.
“We don’t make a decision on whether [a] book is good or bad,” Klaassen said. “We just get the parent the information they need to decide if they think their minor is ready to read about sexually explicit content.”
Ashby responded to Klaassen’s statement.
“I think that’s a little disingenuous,” Ashby said. “For the first policy, that is true. … But ultimately that list and the decisions we’re making about what qualifies as sexually explicit are guiding the second policy.”
Ashby is referring to the district’s “Procurement Policy,” which tasks librarians with avoiding purchasing any books that contain sexually explicit content.
Following the discussion, board members then voted to affirm the superintendent’s determination on the book. Trustees Bolin, Klaassen, Smith and Humphrey voted to ultimately uphold the decision.