Residents, librarians urge Readington board to rescind or revise 'sensitive materials' language in Policy 2535

A sustained public-comment period at the Readington Township School District meeting focused on recent amendments to Policy and Regulation 2535 (library materials). Residents, district educators and the New Jersey Association of School Librarians (read aloud by a community member) urged the board to rescind or revise language they said is vague and could allow board-led review committees to restrict materials.

Kathy Chard, a Readington resident, told the board: “Do we have a censorship office here like the communists did in my country? Yes.” Several speakers echoed concerns that language such as “sensitive materials” is ambiguous and could create a chilling effect that discourages librarians and teachers from recommending books.

Marlena Orlandi read a letter from the New Jersey Association of School Librarians urging the board to “revert to the language recommended by Strauss Esme” and warning that the adopted changes may conflict with the state Freedom to Read Act. The letter, read aloud, said the association is “very concerned about the policy changes” and asked the board to remove pre-purchase review committee language.

Teachers and librarians who spoke described existing local safeguards, opt-out procedures and the formal challenge process. Lauren Mahoney, a Readington teacher of more than 20 years, noted that the books cited in public debate were already in library collections and that the district’s challenge procedures require reading the whole book before action is taken. She said public screenshots and excerpts circulating online can misrepresent context.

Other speakers, including parents and residents, called for clearer standards that would prevent sexually explicit content from being available to younger students. Tom Kriby suggested more specific language such as limiting profane or graphic sexual descriptions in materials accessible to middle-school students.

Board members acknowledged the volume of public comment and read several emails into the record. After public comment, the board voted to adjourn into executive session to discuss a legal matter; the publicly stated reason for the executive session was a legal discussion and the board expected to return without taking public action at that time.

The meeting record shows strong public engagement on Policy 2535 with callers urging either restoration of recommended policy language or tighter, clearer restrictions; the board did not adopt further policy action in public session and moved the matter to executive session for legal review.