South Carolina – Following protracted public debate during their most recent meeting, the South Carolina Board of Education postponed a vote on the removal of ten books from public school libraries. Confronted with strong opposition from community members including parents, teachers, and librarians, the board chose to delay their vote.
The controversy focuses on ten particular books whose material and concepts have generated criticism. Ranging from Ellen Hopkins’ “Collateral” to “Empire of Storms” by Sarah J. Maas, to Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s “Half of a Yellow Sun”, the books in question are varied in genre and subject matter. “Kingdom of Ash” by Maas, “Identical” by Hopkins, and “Hopeless” by Colleen Hoover are among other works. “Tricks”, also by Hopkins, “Last Night at the Telegraph Club” by Malinda Lo, “Living Dead Girl” by Elizabeth Scott, “Lucky” by Alice Sebold.
The discussion at the board meeting mirrored a larger national debate about the appropriateness of certain books in educational settings. Following a complaint from one local resident, the local board in Beaufort County had already inspected all the disputed books. If the state board eventually decides to ban these books, this will bring the total number of banned books in South Carolina’s school libraries to 21, surpassing Utah’s 17.
Regulation 43-170 directs South Carolina’s book-challenging process, which lets any resident voice concerns about educational resources in public schools by filing a form with the Instructional Materials Review Committee (IMRC). These submissions are then examined by this committee, which recommends the State Board of Education to keep or remove the books under ultimate jurisdiction. Particularly screening out verbal or visual representations of sexual activity, the rule states that the information must be “age and developmentally appropriate.”
The discussion concerns not just the material but also the procedure and its consequences. Critics including the ACLU of South Carolina contend that the law could let a few people’s complaints influence book options, often aimed at works addressing complicated social concerns or reflecting different points of view, especially those written by women or LGBTQ+ authors.
In contrast, supporters of the law claim that such actions are required to protect children from unsuitable content. Several board members voiced concerns about the wide applicability of Regulation 43-170 during the deliberations, indicating prospective changes in future discussions.
Some Democratic State House members have rallied around a suggested “Freedom to Read” bill meant to protect access to a broad spectrum of books in school libraries all over the state in reaction to ongoing concerns about book bans.
The South Carolina Board of Education’s final judgment on these ten books is still pending with no date now scheduled for the next meeting, hence the state is at a crossroads between protective control and educational freedom. As part of the continuing national conversation on educational materials and freedom of information in schools, the result will probably echo outside South Carolina.
