Hundreds of Harford County residents urge board to reinstate 'Flamer' after library ban

Hundreds of residents told the Harford County Board of Education on July 21 that the board should reverse its decision to remove the graphic novel Flamer by Mike Curato from school libraries.

Speakers from across the county — librarians, teachers, parents, students and representatives of the NAACP of Harford County and the League of Women Voters — said a trained reconsideration committee and the superintendent had recommended keeping the title or limiting it to high-school students. “I am a school librarian,” Jennifer Klein said during public comment, “and the reconsideration committee rigorously reviewed the book and found it acceptable.”

Multiple commenters said the board’s June 26 vote to remove the book ignored that committee’s recommendation and lacked transparency. One speaker told the board it had held a closed appeal and then overturned the established process, a point echoed by several commenters who said the board failed to follow its agreed procedures. “You ignored it in order to vote according to your own personal beliefs,” one public commenter said, arguing the board violated state law and its own procedures.

Supporters of the book described it as a mental-health lifeline for LGBTQ+ students. “If this book might inspire just one young person not to kill themselves, that should be reason alone not to ban it,” virtual commenter Christopher Provident said. Student leaders and a regional student-council representative urged the board to recognize student voices and the precedent created by overriding professional recommendations.

Board members who spoke said they were mindful of competing responsibilities. Vice President Lauren Page, who said she read the entire book, explained her vote to remove it was based on what she described as repeated profanity and language she considered inappropriate for students. Other members said they had not read the book and called for improved processes, transparency and a possible reconsideration path. “I abstained because I had not read the book,” Doctor Mueller said, and added she planned to read it before weighing future actions.

The board’s president reiterated that appeals to the board are treated as confidential under current ethics rules, but acknowledged concerns about the process and said the board would review options for transparency and possible listening sessions. No formal motion to reverse the June 26 decision was taken during the meeting.

The public comment period lasted more than 40 minutes in person and included a virtual commenter slot. The board said it plans to schedule a dedicated information or listening session to allow deeper discussion outside the time-limited business meeting.

The reconsideration process, the scope of the appeals process, and whether the board will reopen the June 26 decision remain unresolved. The board moved on to other business and later entered a closed session to discuss personnel and bargaining matters.