Residents clash over explicit and age‑appropriate books during Las Cruces Public Schools public comment

Las Cruces — Nine people who signed up for public comment at the Las Cruces Public Schools board meeting on March 4 urged the board to act on library materials they consider inappropriate for students, while other speakers urged the board to keep books available and to protect student privacy.

The exchange began when Juan Garcia, a community member, said the community should “take a closer look at the materials that our tax dollars” buy for schools and said his group does not advocate banning books but wants “thoughtful procedures to ensure age appropriate books are in school libraries.” Later in his remarks Garcia described passages he said were in specific titles; the board and reporters did not seek to quote graphic descriptions verbatim.

The meeting included comments from both sides of the debate. Gage Burnett, who spoke in favor of a draft board policy on student privacy and immigrant protections, said literature that describes “horrible things” can help protect students by letting them encounter difficult topics in a safe setting. “If the first time you’re reading about a horrible event … is in a safe building … you’ll be able to ask questions and understand it,” Burnett said.

Sarah Smith, another commenter who opposed what she called “age inappropriate” titles, said the issue is protecting children, not targeting any identity group. “Protecting children from inappropriate explicit content is not book banning,” she said. Dana Hopkins, who identified herself as a queer mother and grandmother, urged care in labeling materials and said for some students schools are “their only safe place.” Giovanni Sebastian Hernandez, Southern New Mexico base building manager for the New Mexico Dream Team, said attempts to remove books were “lies perpetuated by very prudish members of our community” and described his support for keeping access to books that reflect students’ lives.

Board President Court and other members did not vote on any library action during the public comment period. The board’s public‑comment rules and time limits are described in board policy BEDH and on the district’s public input form (IJL‑E1), which the president referenced before opening the public‑comment period.

Why it matters: The discussion touches on several district policies and state‑level guidance about student privacy, library collection development, and what material is appropriate by grade. Parents and community groups on both sides of the issue told the board they want clearer procedures for notifying families and for ensuring age‑appropriate access.

What happened next: The board heard nine public comments on the subject at this meeting and made no immediate policy change. Board members and staff discussed the policies later in the agenda that relate to student privacy and law enforcement access to campuses (first readings of policies JB, KLG and JIH), but no final action on library collections was taken at this session.

Ending note: Several commenters referenced a publicly circulated list of titles and a website (nmfa.us/schoolbooks) as a resource; the board did not adopt or endorse that list during the meeting.