Hillsborough superintendent orders immediate review after state flags books; public demands clearer process

Hillsborough County Public Schools Superintendent Dr. Van Ayers ordered several library titles removed and launched a districtwide review of hundreds more after the Florida Department of Education and the state attorney general identified specific books as inappropriate.

The move prompted a flood of public comments Tuesday evening, with parents and community members urging immediate action and others warning that book removals must follow clear, public procedures. “This is not about banning books or silencing diverse voices. We are asking you to remove materials that are plainly graphic, developmentally inappropriate, and that damage the innocence of children,” public speaker Theresa Miller told the board during public comment.

The superintendent said the district received letters from state agencies naming a small set of titles and that he asked staff to make those items unavailable while a broader review is completed. “At that point in time, there were 6 books that I emailed out to our team that those 6 books were to removed,” Ayers said in his remarks, and he directed media specialists to review a longer list that has been circulated by the state.

Why it matters: speakers on both sides said the issue is urgent. Several parents described graphic passages they believe are inappropriate for K–12 students and cited Florida statutes as the legal basis for removal; other parents, students and civic groups urged the board to preserve access to diverse viewpoints while making the review process public and fair.

What the board heard: more than a dozen public commenters recounted specific passages they said were sexual or pornographic and demanded removal. A student speaker, Camden Gebhardz, said she was assigned Toni Morrison’s The Bluest Eye at 15 and called the book’s depiction of sexual abuse “not preparing students for life.” Other commenters, including Gianni Hunt of Magnum 5 Voices and author Monte Floyd, urged the board to protect free expression and school-community values.

Several speakers also criticized the district’s transparency. Tricia Long, a parent, said staff removed hundreds of titles from shelves for review after the attorney general’s letter but that parents had not been told which titles were under review. “Public school parents ought to be able to see what is being removed and to have a say in whether or not these books are inappropriate for our own children,” Long said.

Operational steps and estimated costs: Ayers said the initial removal order targeted titles named by state officials; he directed media specialists to review other items from the state’s lists that are typically updated annually. The district will offer a $1,500 stipend to library/media specialists who complete the summer review, district staff said during the meeting. Board members and members of the public estimated a range of costs to complete reviews and potential staffing stipends; 1 public comment estimated the total district cost could reach into the low hundreds of thousands depending on the number of titles and hours involved.

Tension over process: school board members debated how the district reached the decision. Board attorney Jim Porter said the superintendent has operational responsibility for the district and for taking prompt action when state officials identify alleged violations. Several board members said they support removing clearly obscene material but criticized the district for not first briefing the full board and for what they described as uneven communication about how the review will be run and how families can participate.

Next steps: Ayers told the board he will present the district’s review procedures and a status update to state officials. He also said he will travel to a state education meeting this week to explain the district’s actions. The district has not yet published a school-by-school list of titles taken temporarily out of circulation; board members asked staff to prepare that information and to clarify the timeline, whether external review panels will be used, and how parents can participate.

What remained unsettled at adjournment: the board did not vote on policy changes during the meeting that would alter the formal book challenge or adoption process; several members requested a follow-up workshop to set clearer local procedures that align with state law and to ensure media specialists have support and protection from harassment during the review.

Ending: The controversy is likely to continue through the summer. The superintendent’s order put specific titles out of student reach immediately, and the district’s broader summer review aims to produce a list of materials to be returned, removed, or submitted for fuller review before school opens in August.