Roxbury board declines to accept book‑committee recommendations for two challenged titles

The Roxbury Township School District Board of Education on June 9 did not accept the review committee’s recommendations to place two previously challenged books back on open shelves without restrictions.

The board received public comment before the votes. Jennifer Marchese, identifying herself as a substitute teacher and a Jefferson Elementary parent, urged the board to keep the books in library collections, saying, “I universally oppose book bans because they are a barrier to knowledge.” Heather Champagne, a resident and former board member, and other speakers said the district’s review process had been followed and urged the board to accept the committee finding. Susan Starikoff and Katie Gokie asked the board to consider setting limits on how frequently the same title may be challenged.

Superintendent Dr. Thomas Santora told the board a committee convened under district policy and regulation 91‑30 reviewed full texts and anonymous committee surveys. The committee recommended both titles remain in circulation without access limits and sent that report to the board for a final determination.

Members then took separate roll‑call votes on the committee recommendations. The motion to accept the committee’s recommendation for "This Book Is Gay" did not pass. The board subsequently voted separately on the committee’s recommendation for "Gender Queer," and that motion also did not pass. The transcript records the results as "item 1 does not pass" and "does not pass" for item 2; the minutes do not record further action or a substitute motion during the meeting.

The public comment speakers had urged the board to respect the committee process and noted that, according to the speakers, the titles had little or no recent checkout history; they also proposed policy changes to limit repeated challenges of the same material. Superintendent Santora said the committee’s review complied with district policy and regulation 91‑30 and that committee recommendations had been forwarded to the board.

The board did not articulate at the meeting a next procedural step for the two challenged titles after the failed votes. No formal change to district policy was proposed or adopted during the session.

The board’s handling of both books followed an education committee referral and a formal committee review; community members at the meeting called for clearer limits on repeat challenges and for parents who object to particular titles to use existing parental-control options.

Copies of the committee report and the redacted challenge forms were discussed in public comment but were not entered into the record at the meeting for immediate review. The board did not vote on amendments to regulation 91‑30 during the meeting.

Looking ahead, the board’s next regular meeting is scheduled for July 14; the transcript does not specify whether the two titles will be re‑raised at that meeting.