Residents and educators urge Harford board to drop appeal of stateboard reinstatement of Flamer

Dozens of residents, teachers and students used the board's public-comment period to urge the Harford County Board of Education to abandon its court appeal of the Maryland State Board of Education's decision to reinstate the graphic novel Flamer in school libraries.

Multiple speakers said the appeal would cost taxpayers money for little chance of success and would further divide the community. "This appeal to the circuit court will cost the taxpayers of Hartford County," Lucy Buxton said. Several commenters, including Anne Hartig and James Ramsey, said the board's process leading to the local ban appeared procedurally flawed and that the state board intervened after appeals were filed.

Other speakers emphasized student mental-health stakes. Samuel Batters, who identified as a lifelong Harford County resident and a member of the LGBT community, said the bookhelps students who have experienced bullying and can provide support when students feel isolated. "This book belongs," Batters said. Ronnie Davis, a former teacher, said he read the book as evidence of resilience: "The message I saw was unmistakable. Suicide is not the answer." Several speakers urged the board to strengthen book-review procedures and parental opt-out tools rather than pursue litigation.

Speakers also referenced prior board meetings: some attendees said the board did not follow its own procedures in the original reconsideration process, and that the State Board's opinion relied on exhibits the local board had not seen. Public commenters noted that HCPS parents already can request that their own child be withheld from particular books, and urged the board to focus on transparency and inclusive review processes.

Board members acknowledged the comments and said staff are working on opt-out improvements and clearer online resources. The meeting record shows the board previously voted to pursue an appeal at a special session; public commenters at this meeting called on trustees to reconsider that decision and to avoid using taxpayer funds for litigation with a low probability of success.

Next steps: the issue remains subject to the ongoing appeal process referenced by speakers; commenters asked the board to report back with improved book-review procedures and a tally of written public comments submitted to the special meeting.