Roxbury board votes to limit access to Gender Queer, sparking heated public and member debate

The Roxbury Township Board of Education voted July 14 to limit access to the book Gender Queer by placing the text behind the media center counter at the high school. The motion was made and amended to state the basis for the request: the material was “not developmentally appropriate” for the school population.

The vote followed more than an hour of board discussion and public comment. Board members and commenters debated whether moving the book behind the counter constituted a “removal from access” that triggers the district’s own policy and regulation governing challenged materials (district policy 9130 and regulation 9130).

Public commenter Annette Brooks criticized the board’s action during the public-comment period: “The superintendent should be setting the agenda, not the Board of Education,” Brooks said, and she objected to the board overriding the recommendation of the library committee and superintendent. Another speaker, Jennifer Marquez, said she opposed book bans and framed the issue as one of access to knowledge: “Reading a book…does not make you gay,” Marquez said, adding that parents who object can withhold the book from their own children but should not remove access for others.

During board discussion, multiple members urged adherence to committee work and to the district regulation that requires a statement of reasons when material is removed or access is limited. Board member Carol (surname not specified during remarks) read the applicable policy language aloud and said the regulation requires the board provide a statement of reasons; the board debated whether limiting general circulation to behind-the-counter access met that threshold.

The motion to limit access (recorded as Education Resolution 1) was moved by Anne (board member) and seconded by Kathy; a roll-call vote followed. The clerk recorded the following responses: Missus Colucci — yes; Miss Gaudieri — yes; Miss Hernandez — no; Missus Hopkins — no; Missus McGregor — yes; Missus Purcell — yes; Miss Schenick — no; Mister Milledi — yes; Mister Botero — no. The motion passed.

Nut graf: The decision reversed the recommendation of the committee that had reviewed the book and highlighted tensions on the board over procedure, the board’s role versus the superintendent’s role, and how the district implements its challenged-materials regulation.

Board members who opposed the limiting motion argued the action undercut the review committee’s work and may violate the regulation’s transparency requirements; members who supported it cited developmental-appropriateness concerns and parental expectations. Several board members said the matter would remain controversial and that they would revisit procedures for handling future challenges.

Ending: The book will remain in the collection but placed behind the media center desk; the board directed that the stated rationale for the limitation (that it was judged not developmentally appropriate) be recorded with the action. Public comment and the lengthy board debate concluded the item before the meeting moved to other agenda votes.