Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Book Ban topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents, students urge St. Francis school board to rescind policy 606.5 and follow state law
Summary
Multiple community members, students and local professionals urged the St. Francis Area Schools board to rescind district policy 606.5 and adhere to Minnesota statute cited by speakers; no board action on the policy was taken at the meeting.
Dozens of residents, parents and students told the St. Francis Area Schools board on May 27 that a district policy they called a "book ban" is harmful and should be rescinded and replaced with procedures that follow state law.
Speakers at the district office public comment period urged the board to rescind policy 606.5 and to follow Minnesota statute 134.513 (as referenced by speakers). Vanessa Hite, who identified herself as a mental health professional, told the board the policy "perpetuate[s] ignorance and further marginalize[s], oppress[es], and harm[s] students and community members" and asked the board to "correct your mistake not only by rescinding policy 606.5 and adhering to Minnesota state statute 134.513 forward".
Community members described classroom and library restrictions as inconsistent with the district mission and damaging to student learning. Melinda Bart Singleton said she had lost trust in the board's judgment and called the policy "capitulat[ing] to right wing political ideologies." Deb Mariner said the removal of books "does not support intellectual freedom" and urged the board to revise the district's book challenge policy to ensure "fairness, transparency and inclusion."
Students also spoke. Izzy Bongard, a tenth grader, and other high school students told the board that books which "make me think" are essential to their education. Alex Hendrix, a junior at Saint Francis High School, described how reading a novel about depression had been personally important and said banning such books "takes away the one chance someone has to regain" and can remove a "lifeline" for students struggling with mental health.
Several speakers tied literary removals to concrete educational harms. Rachel Anderson, a parent of two current students, said books removed or challenged include passages cited in the new language-arts curriculum and that limiting access could put students at a disadvantage for AP and college-readiness exams.
Not all public commenters favored rescinding the policy. Richard Klobuchak said he supports limiting access to what he called "obscene material" in schools, citing examples he described as evidence that some students cannot handle certain content. Board members did not take formal action on policy 606.5 during the meeting.
Speakers asked the board to follow the district mission "to equip all students with the knowledge and skills to empower them to achieve their dreams and full potential while becoming responsible citizens in a dynamic world." Many urged the board to reverse the policy and to revise its book challenge procedures.
The board received the comments during its public comment period; no vote on policy 606.5 was scheduled or taken at this meeting. Several commenters noted ongoing litigation involving the district and said that limited what the board would say about policy status. Board members thanked speakers for participating at the end of the comment period.
The board's next regular meeting is scheduled for June 9; the agenda posted during the May 27 meeting included a special closed session on that date for attorney–client privilege regarding active litigation.
