Library specialist and community speakers urge board to reverse removal of Lillian Duncan

Amanda Bird, library media specialist at Gardner Edgerton High School, told the Board of Education that removing Lillian Duncan from the high school library disregarded the book review committee’s near-unanimous recommendation and harms students who seek representation.

"Removing that lifeline sends a message that their struggles are not worth acknowledging," Bird said, arguing that the committee of district-appointed professionals recommended keeping the title and that the board’s action undermines that process. Bird also urged the district to consult the American Library Association's Office of Intellectual Freedom on equitable review policies.

Other public speakers echoed those concerns. Dave Druvetta said he read the book after the board’s decision and found it presents adolescence from the viewpoint of two children working through difficult issues; he called the committee’s recommendation to keep the book “near unanimous” and criticized the board for overruling that judgment.

Kristen Schultz cited research, including studies by the Trevor Project, on the mental-health effects of excluding LGBTQ+ representation and said social narratives in literature provide students with models for processing challenging situations. Several speakers asked the board to restore access for students who seek familiarity and validation through books.

Kami McKeever, president of Gardner Pride and a substitute teacher in the district, said the district’s review process was designed so qualified reviewers could assess appropriateness and, she said, the board’s vote to remove a book that references medical treatments for some youth overrode that process. McKeever urged parents to use existing electronic tools to limit access for specific children rather than removing titles for all students.

A handful of speakers challenged the district’s handling of multiple book reviews and criticized perceived double standards; one speaker read a requested passage from another book to argue for stricter vetting of materials. That speaker also criticized district policies for permitting certain titles to remain on shelves and said the review process needs revision. The reading included explicit sexual language from the requested title; the board did not read that passage into the record.

Speakers framed the issue as one about student safety, representation and the integrity of a committee-based review process rather than simply about the content of an individual title. No motion to restore the book appeared on the agenda during this meeting; the public-comment segment concluded with a request that the board follow its own review process and consider guidance from professional library organizations.