HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-15-2024-BLT-PUBLIC COMMENTSwww.californiaparentsunion.com
1
P.O. Box 221562 | Carmel CA | 93922
tracy@californiaparentsunion.com
June 3, 2023
RE: GOVERNOR NEWSOM’S THREAT LETTER RE: BANNING BOOKS
Dear California Superintendents and Administrators,
It appears our California state government is once again attempting to mislead and bully
educators in the state of California as they did during COVID relating to masks and testing of
our youth. As you recall California Department of Public Health’s (“CDPH”) director sent a
letter out August 23, 2021 which threatened educators with legally untenable consequences into
believing they had to force mask and test children – or schools could be sued, the school
insurance would be canceled, teacher credentials were allegedly at risk, crimes could be charged
- when those measures were only ever mere health recommendations. Educators tragically
believed CDPH’s lies and unspeakable things happened to our children for years as a result.
Instead, I write to provide you with reasoned legal information to help you see through this
blatant intimidation tactic to prevent a similar travesty from happening again.
On June 1, 2023, Governor Newsom, Attorney General Bonta, and Superintendent
Thurman (Collectively the “State”) wrote a letter relating to the removal of books from libraries
and curriculum. The letter hit a few key points that I will address in turn. However, as usual, the
State is pushing propaganda and misses the entire point of what actually concerns parents. What
parents do not want in their schools is any material or curriculum that is developmentally
inappropriate or aimed at oversexualizing children. This is not about “banning books that reflects
diverse experiences and perspectives of Californians.” It is about preventing the use of or
removing all material not developmentally appropriate for our children in any form. Most
particularly, it is about obscene PORN in our school curriculum, materials and libraries.
CONSTITUTION DOES NOT RESTRICT BANNING PORNOGRAPHY
The State first makes the point in its June 1 letter that “freedom of speech may include
controversial, unpopular or offensive content.” It goes on to articulate what we all know: “that
local educational agencies have broad discretion in the management of school affairs but it may
not ban books because one dislikes the ideas in them.” The State cites to Board of Education v.
Pico a 1969 United States Supreme Court case among other cases. This first point exemplifies
how out of touch the State is as to what is happening in our schools that concerns parents.
www.californiaparentsunion.com
2
What local educational agencies cannot do is push porn or a religion/ideology or
pedophilia on our children. The same case cited by the State stands for this exact proposition.
Book removal or banning does not violate the constitution, and more precisely the first
amendment, and educators are perfectly within their rights to remove or ban them when they are
unsuitable. Bd. of Educ. v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 871(“respondents implicitly concede that an
unconstitutional motivation would not be demonstrated if it were shown that petitioners had
decided to remove the books at issue because those books were pervasively vulgar.”) The Pico
Court goes on to make a very important counter point that the State neglected to mention in its
letter:
“And again, respondents concede that if it were demonstrated that the removal decision
was based solely upon the "educational suitability" of the books in question, then their
removal would be "perfectly permissible." Id at 871.
Obscenity is not within the area of protected speech or press. Roth v. United States, 354 U.S.
476, 485 as cited in Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629, 635.
“There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention
and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem.
These include the lewd and obscene . . . . It has been well observed that such utterances
are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a
step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the
social interest in order and morality. . . ." Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 485 citing
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568.
We The Parents want all references to obscene material, hidden under the guise of “social
studies” or whatever doublespeak the State is using, out of our schools.
CALIFORNIA EDUCATION CODE DOES NOT SUPERCEDE CALIFORNIA PENAL
CODE WHICH MAKES DISTRIBUTION OF PORNOGRAPHY TO MINORS A CRIME
The State next pushes the idea that California educators must provide a representative
social sciences curriculum, cannot present discriminatory content, and then takes the illogical
leap to contend that removing books could amount to discrimination. The State then has the
audacity to threaten local education agencies with the office of the attorney general and
encourage people to file discrimination complaints with their local education agencies and even
appeal to the CDE. This is a bastardization of the laws explaining what rises to the level of
discrimination, a patent abuse of power, and a blatant intimidation tactic.
Parents have every right to inquire what their children are being taught and raise
objections as to what is not appropriate from their perspective.
www.californiaparentsunion.com
3
Let me be clear. All that has happened in the law in relation to “gender identity1” is that
another protected class has been added to the already in place laws against discrimination. Like
the other protected classes enumerated in California statutes, such as religion or race, in order for
one to act in a manner that rises to the level of actionable discrimination, certain facts must exist.
For example, to prevail on a claim under Ed Code §220 for peer sexual orientation harassment, a
plaintiff must show (1) he or she suffered “severe, pervasive and offensive harassment that
effectively deprived the plaintiff of the right of equal access to educational benefits and
opportunities; (2) the school district had “actual knowledge” of that harassment; and (3) the
school district acted with “deliberate indifference” in the face of such knowledge. Donovan v.
Poway Unified School Dist., 167 Cal. App. 4th 567, 579. “Whether gender-oriented conduct
rises to the level of actionable "harassment" thus "depends on a constellation of surrounding
circumstances, expectations, and relationships," Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc.,
523 U.S. 75, 82 (1998), including, but not limited to, the ages of the harasser and the victim and
the number of individuals involved, see OCR Title IX Guidelines 12041-12042. Id at 651.
“Damages are not available for simple acts of teasing and name-calling among school children…
even where these comments target differences in gender. Rather, in the context of student-on-
student harassment, damages are available only where the behavior is so severe, pervasive, and
objectively offensive that it denies its victims the equal access to education that Title IX is
designed to protect.” Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629, 652. Emphasis added.
This means one must engage in behavior that actually rises to the level of discrimination.
This does not mean removing porn from our schools equates to discrimination. No where in the
State’s letter to all educators or in the CDE’s recent publication on Removal of Instructional
Materials does it address the fact that porn is in our school materials which is against the law.
Our Penal Code carries very stiff penalties for the use of lewd materials when it comes to
minors. “Obscene matter” means matter, taken as a whole, that to the average person, applying
contemporary statewide standards, appeals to the prurient interest, that, taken as a whole, depicts
or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and that, taken as a whole, lacks serious
literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Cal Pen Code § 311. Material that is “obscene or
incites pupils as to create a clear and present danger” is prohibited. Cal Ed Code § 48907. Every
person who publishes, possesses, or prints material knowing that the matter depicts a person
under the age of 18 years personally engaging in or personally simulating sexual conduct
violates Cal Pen Code § 311.1. A person is guilty of sexual exploitation of a child if he or she
knowingly… duplicates, prints, or exchanges any representation of information that depicts a
person under the age of 18 years engaged in an act of sexual conduct. Cal Pen Code § 311.3.
And if you commit criminal violations and used obscene or harmful matter to induce, persuade,
or encourage the minor to engage in a lewd or lascivious act your penalties can be more serious.
These are just some of the California laws against obscenity.
Is porn in our classrooms or libraries? Absolutely. The following excerpt is taken from a
book called “The Bluest Eye” which a Roseville area school district recently tried to justify by
comparing it to Romeo and Juliet because of the “suicide” scene:
1 This is simply a concept that a person can “identify” on a broad spectrum. Sex is not the same as gender; sex is
based on what physical characteristics one is borne with at birth.
www.californiaparentsunion.com
4
What the State should be encouraging is parents to file complaints with licensing
agencies against anyone who violates the law by serving obscene material to minors. This
includes not only the lewd books in our libraries but everything else that is aimed at normalizing
sexual acts in our schools involving minors.
In sum, the State’s clear threat and intimidation tactic under the guise of a demand for
information regarding book removals or banning is unfounded if you as a local educational
agency act constitutionally. You know inappropriate material when you see it and if you cannot
tell then ask the parents what they find appropriate and stop participating in the most recent
political fads. Get back to basics. Whatever you decide to do, understand that the State’s letter is
aimed at doing their best to confuse, mislead, and threaten and intimidate you into believing you
have no choice; however, I am here to tell you, you do. Please make the right choice one for our
kids – Get The Porn Out.
Sincerely,
Tracy L. Henderson, Esq
Founder | California Parents Union
July 14,2024
To: City of Newport Beach Board of Library Trustees Dorothy Larson, Lauren Kramer, Antonella
Castro, Meghan Murray, Chase Rief
Newport-Mesa School District taxpayers got a rude awakening two years ago when an elementary
school student at Wilson School showed Flamer to his mother who then complained to the school
board trustees. Good for her.
As Newport Mesa Unified School district taxpayers, we were horrified when we learned several
copies of this book were in the school library. We wrongly assumed that we could trust the School
Board trustees to approve library books that were age appropriate and not allow pornographic
material.
We assumed adults, acting on behalf of parents, would want to protect kids’ innocence and school
librarians would discern what books were age appropriate and eliminate books which were not.
We were sorely wrong.
The library tech at Wilson was quickly dismissed and the books removed. But the public
confrontation caused us to start looking carefully at all library books paid for with tax dollars. When
did we start allowing these kinds of books in our libraries? What happened to discernment?
Common sense? When did we cave in to tolerating what is offensive to most adults and allowing
children to consume it?
It takes courage and time for us to bring Flamer now to your attention as library trustees. If we
didn’t speak up and support this appeal and the removal of this book, this book would stay on the
shelves and children, and even if it is just one child, would be less innocent by reading it.
And you, as trustees, would be responsible.
It is worth our efforts to appeal to your common sense that this book should not be on library
shelves for children under 18 years old, unless you think it is ok to offer them Playboy, Hustler, etc.
as well. God forbid.
Will you take a courageous stand in this community and agree that this book caters to prurient
interests which means “having or encouraging an excessive interest in sexual matters?”
Flamer is salacious, lascivious, unwholesome, and indecent and there is no justification for it
being on tax-supported library shelves.
You have an opportunity to tell this community that if anyone wants to read it, they can order online
or buy it in a bookstore, and tax dollars are not going to be used to buy, catalog and shelve it.
Please remove this book from library circulation.
Sincerely,
Wendy Leece
July 15, 2024, BLT Agenda Item Comments
These comments on Newport Beach Board of Library Trustees agenda items are submitted by:
Jim Mosher (.
Item No. 1. Appeal Hearing of "Flamer" by Mike Curato
I have not seen any of the books recently appealed, since they have all been checked out. But I
understand that in this case the objection seems to be that this book contains some words and
images the appellant feels are inappropriate for teens to see, and the request is to move it from
the Teen Collection to the Adult Section of the library.
I would note that according to the minutes of the June 17, 2024, meeting (Item 2 on the present
agenda), the Board adopted revisions to its Collection Development Policy (NBPL 2), placing
increased scrutiny on items added to the Children's Collection. On page 12 (handwritten page
24 of agenda packet), the present appellant asked that the increased scrutiny be applied to the
teen collection and not just to materials for children aged 12 and under. The Board rejected that
suggestion and declined to apply the increased scrutiny to the Teen Collection.
I would also note that moving an item from the Teen Collection to the Adult Section does not
restrict access to the item: it simply means that a person searching for the item in the catalog
will be directed to a different shelf.
Hence, the concern seems limited to the possibility that an innocent person physically browsing
the Teen Collection, but not specifically looking for this item and unaware of its existence, will
accidentally encounter it, open it and be exposed to words and images the sight of which will
have bad consequences.
While such shock may be theoretically possible, I would guess the teen who has not
encountered similarly inappropriate words spoken by their peers or adults, or similarly
inappropriate images on the internet, is rare.
Item No. 2. Minutes of the June 17, 2024 Board of Library Trustees
Meeting
The passages in italics are from the draft minutes, with corrections suggested in strikeout
underline format.
Page 2 (handwritten page 14 of agenda packet), Item 1, paragraph 3, sentence 1: “Library
Services Director Melissa Hartson provided information about the book, its location and how
the evaluation result was decided and stated that the publisher of the book, Scholastic Inc., is
a reputable and the largest publisher and distributer distributor of children’s books in the
world.”
Page 2 (handwritten page 14 of agenda packet), Item 1, paragraph 4: “Chair Watkins
thanked Ms. Webb for the research and good information that she provided and stated he
July 15, 2024, BLT agenda item comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 5
found it informative and called for public comments and requested all comments be limited to
two minutes and subjective to about the pros and cons of the appeal and not extraneous
arguments.”
Page 4 (handwritten page 16 of agenda packet), full paragraph 3: “Library Services Director
Hartson clarified that the book is not available in the Mariners Branch’s school library
section.”
Page 4 (handwritten page 16 of agenda packet), full paragraph 7, sentence 2: “It’s an
important resource and the overall message of the book was to celebrate a person in history
in Statton Staten Island that hadn’t gotten appropriate recognition and the kids recognized
that and, in the process, learned about themselves.”
Page 5 (handwritten page 17 of agenda packet), Item 1, paragraph 2 from end: “Chair
Watkins reviewed the Director’s decision on the evaluation was to have the book remain in
the children’s collection, and called for public comments and requested all comments be
limited to two minutes and subjective to about the pros and cons of the appeal and not
extraneous arguments.”
Page 6 (handwritten page 18 of agenda packet), paragraph 5, sentence 1: “Vien Nguyen,
Newport Beach resident, spoke in support of the Director’s decision and agreed with the
previous speakers speaker’s points.”
Page 8 (handwritten page 20 of agenda packet), Item 3, paragraph 2, sentence 3: “It She
stated that it leaves young white children feeling like they’ve done something wrong and
because of their skin color they should feel back bad about that.”
Page 10 (handwritten page 22 of agenda packet), last paragraph before Item VI: “The Board
Took took a 10-Minute Break at 6:42 p.m. and resumed with all members present except for
Secretary Lauren Kramer who had an excused absence.”
Page 12 (handwritten page 24 of agenda packet), first bullet: “page 103 of the redlined
version and requested the addition of a semi colon semicolon, in the 4th line of the same
paragraph add “Collection” after “Children’s””
Page 12 (handwritten page 24 of agenda packet), third bullet: “top of page 105 – 4th line
from the bottom of the underlined material at the – add the word “to”before between
“anything”and “the contrary.””
Page 12 (handwritten page 24 of agenda packet), paragraph 2 after bullets, sentence 2:
“And She suggested they review the books already in the Collection, specifically at the
Mariners branch in the students’ section, white privilege should be added to the list of
controversial issues, and parents should be allowed access to the library when the school
students are using the library.”
July 15, 2024, BLT agenda item comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 5
Item No. 8. Approval of Site Placement for A Novel Idea by Craig Gray
I support the staff recommendation.
I would also note that according page 21 of the May 20, 2024, minutes, the Board’s decision at
that time was not technically “to not approve the Balboa Branch Library as the site placement
for A Novel Idea” (as the present staff report says), but rather “to reconsider the Balboa Branch
as the location of A Novel Idea.” The significance of that slightly different wording is not clear
from the minutes.
In any event, “reconsideration” certainly seems appropriate in view of the June 17 straw poll to
do so.
Item No. 9. Library Service Policy (Council Policy I-1)
I must respectfully suggest that in continuing to recommend “no change,” staff is missing the
point of this item.
For those unfamiliar with its history, library policies seem to have long been regarded as City
Council policies, adopted by the Council generally, but not necessarily always, on
recommendation from the Board of Library Trustees. As of August 2017, this consisted of a
suite of eight active policies.
1 They consisted of Policy I-1 (Library Service Policy),Policy I-2
(Use of the Newport Beach Public Library),Policy I-3 (Newport Beach Public Library
Collection Development Policy),Policy I-4 (Library Gift and Donor Policy),Policy I-5
(Newport Beach Public Library Collection Gift Policy),Policy I-6 (Children in the Library),
Policy I-7 (Library Meeting Rooms) and Policy I-8 (Newport Beach Public Library
Internet Use Policy).
Of those, Policy I-1, dating back at least to 1974, had set the vision for the function and
future development of the NBPL.
However, as part of a comprehensive review of the Council Policy Manual undertaken in
2017, and adopted as Item 18 at the Council’s August 8, 2017, meeting, it was
recognized that City Charter Subsection 708(a)gives the Trustees exclusive charge of
library administration, and neither requires nor allows Council modification of policies
set by the Board. As a result, the Council “repealed” (but encouraged the Trustees to
adopt as their own) its policies I-2 through I-6 and I-8 (see pages 3 and 154 of the staff
1 There as also a Policy O-3 (Disposal of Discarded Library Materials), last updated in 1981, that seemed
to fallen into disuse without being formally repealed.
July 15, 2024, BLT agenda item comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 5
designation in the BLT’s policy system, the vision guiding the NBPL should not be lost.
should it be “NBPL 0”? Or should it be incorporated into a separate Vision/Mission
Statement? Or even combined with a strategic plan for the future adopted by the BLT?
As to the second omission, I would respectfully suggest that review of proposed NBPL
policy changes by the City Attorney’s Office is no substitute for the Council’s request to
see them before adoption. To the best of my knowledge, the City Attorney’s Office does
not show the proposals to the Council or ask for their comments. My guess is that in
adopting their new Policy I-1, the Council expected the BLT to direct library staff to
provide copies of BLT policy revisions to the City Clerk for inclusion as Council consent
calendar items, where they (and the public in general) would have a chance to comment
before their adoption by the BLT. If the BLT does not want NBPL staff to do that, they
should ask the Council to delete Policy I-1. Otherwise they should follow it.
Having a policy that is ignored serves no one, as does having no vision.
2
and older secƟon. Parents sƟll have freedom to choose how, when and
whether their children have access to these books.
4. Stop this Appeals process that is encouraging criminal youth behavior,
wasƟng your Ɵme, our tax dollars and resources that could be more
producƟve veƫng quality good books.
5. Our Team pledges to assist in these efforts by presenƟng 100’s of good
books, book fair opportuniƟes, speakers and book readings for children
under 18.
America is great when America is good!
Be the shining Light on the hill!
Ban this sexual moral decay!
Stand for Truth!
You are leaders at such a Ɵme as this!
Join us to CONNECT CHILDRENS MINDS AND HEARTS FOR GOOD!
“ ……A good tree cannot bear bad fruit nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every
tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the
fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know
them.”
Matthew 7:18-20
Many blessings to all,
Constance