Munster board accepts reconsideration committee finding, keeps challenged book in district libraries

The School Town of Munster Board of School Trustees voted 5-0 on Feb. 10 to accept the reconsideration committee's original decision that a challenged book not be removed from district libraries.

A parent, Denise Yannakopoulos, told the board during the meeting's public-comment period that her 5-year-old had come home upset after seeing images she described as showing private parts in a scholastic advertising magazine distributed at school. She said she filed a formal complaint and urged the board to "do the right thing" and remove the material.

The reconsideration committee's report, presented at the meeting by a district staff member, applied Indiana law, the U.S. Supreme Court's Miller obscenity test and the district's own policies in reaching its recommendation. The committee concluded the book at issue is not obscene and should remain available in school libraries. The presenter also said the state's literacy-endorsement training uses the "No, David" sample as an example in some training materials.

Board discussion that followed stressed the thoroughness of the committee's work. "This was an extremely thorough report," Board Member Dr. Schwartz Wolf said during deliberations, commending staff and committee members for citing precedent and state materials. Other board members echoed praise for the process and recommended further policy clarifications be considered by the board.

Board Member Castro moved to accept the reconsideration committee's original decision; Board Member Bender seconded the motion. The roll-call-style approval was recorded as a 5-0 vote in favor.

The board did not remove the title under challenge during the meeting and did not adopt an additional restriction or temporary removal. Members noted the committee's recommendation included suggested policy changes for the board to review at a later date.

The item grew out of a single formal complaint and public comment; the district record and committee report were cited as the basis for the board's decision rather than additional evidence introduced at the public meeting.

Board members and staff said they will consider whether further policy language or procedures are needed to clarify reconsideration protocols in light of recent state law changes mentioned during the discussion.