VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. (WAVY) — The Virginia Beach School Board approved a controversial policy amendment related to the review of “sexually explicit content in schools” on Tuesday night.
Critics said the policy change wasn’t needed based on current policies, will overburden librarians, and could eventually open up the district to legal action.
The amendment to policy 6-65, presented by board member David Culpepper and seconded by board member Vicky Manning (who’s helped lead the fight to review certain books in the past), passed in a 6-4 vote following numerous speakers.
Board Chair Kim Melnyk, along with members Trenace Riggs, Jessica Owens and Beverly Anderson voted against the amendment.
In speaking prior to the vote, Culpepper said chosen books should teach students to learn things such as reading, science, et cetera, and shouldn’t “chase the latest fad, appeal to unwholesome interests or desires, certainly not undermine the moral or religious beliefs of their families, and not be harmful to the moral and mental development of children.”
Board member Jessica Owens, in voting no, said the amendment is “solving for a problem that I just haven’t seen exist,” adding that “we have processes in place, parents have the ability to make decisions [on children’s access to library materials] … this amendment just seems to put unfunded mandates on our staff. We’re having the conversation about making cuts with staffing while also while having conversation about adding additional duties.”
Breaking down the policy change
The change directs Superintendent Don Robertson to create a “content committee” comprised of senior staff members, library media specialists and other “knowledgeable staff” to develop procedures to review books.
This is different from a policy adopted by the board in December 2022 to review potential sexually explicit material in instructional materials in order to comply with a 2022 law signed into law by Gov. Glenn Youngkin.
That statute didn’t deal with library materials, and unlike the amendment Tuesday, was required by law. It did, however, establish a framework for how the school division looks at materials that could be used for looking at books in the library, per School Board Attorney Kamala Lannetti.
The amended policy passed Tuesday will “ensure that elementary school libraries do not have library materials that contain sexually explicit content” and “identify incoming library materials for secondary school libraries that contain sexually explicit content and list such library materials on the School Division website.”
School division librarians and Robertson have said there are already no books that could be considered sexually explicit materials in elementary schools, and the policy wouldn’t have a major affect there.
“They didn’t think that was going to be a major concern,” Lannetti said.
However, the big concerns are with the review process at the secondary school level, where the committee would have to review potentially hundreds of incoming books per year (existing books in the system wouldn’t be included), putting an increased workload on librarians and others. Any books deemed sexually explicit would then be listed on the school division’s website.
“That one’s going to a little more meaty,” Robertson said. “We know at the secondary level you could see [200] to 400 books coming through every year. … That procedure’s going to be a little more heavy of a lift for library specialists.”
Virginia Library Association Executive Director Lisa Varga, who called the move “government overreach,” said librarians will be forced to have to do this additional work without pay “on top of their already full schedules.”
“I also know this amendment does not hold up to First Amendment scrutiny,” Varga said. “We are seeing this argument against books, which you’ve copy and pasted from other people, pop up all over our country, and the places that have tried to adopt it have had to roll it back.”
Lannetti indicated the policy could also lead to challenges or potential legal action.
“So [where] you’re going to have a potential issue is,” Lannetti said, “if you label something sexually explicit, can someone challenge that? They can always challenge— that is a problem now. Where you weren’t labeling, … you are now going through your incoming material and you will labeling it, so that’s why this committee is going to have to work carefully to do the best we can to make sure we have good definitions and procedures in place.
“There is no law that addresses the requirement of library materials, any law that talks about sexually explicit materials in a criminal sense. It specifically exempts public libraries … [and] also public schools.”
That’s something Varga also pointed out in the hearing, mentioning a bill introduced this legislative session by Republican Phillip Scott that would roll back those exceptions. It ultimately was tabled in a 5-3 vote. State legislatures elsewhere have taken up similar measures, including bills that would allow librarians to be criminally charged.
Melnyk said she “had concerns from the very beginning” about the amendment, but “alarm bells were ringing” when Culpepper spoke on Tuesday, “mostly because of the subjectivity and arbitrary nature of those statements.”
“We must carefully choose which books are in our libraries,” Melnyk said referring to Culpepper’s statements. “Who gets to choose that? … We cannot be arbitrary and subjective about what library book is important to each child … and again, someone may say you can sue for any reason, but we’ve heard over and over and over again that we can be sued. And we will be sued, and I guarantee we will be sued.”
Robertson, in addressing the issue, emphasized “people feel so differently about the definition of sexually explicit.”
“Even though you try to lay the definition out so it’s very clear, it’s still open to interpretation for what some of those terms mean, meaning you can be sued at any time. We know. We’ve had that discussion many times on this dais.”
Robertson, though, added he doesn’t think the policy puts his staff into a position to ban books, but it will take time to figure out the “heavier lift” required to review the incoming material at the secondary level.
He will now be tasked with creating the content committee outlined in the amendment. However, the board’s discussion Tuesday clarified that if Robertson finds that the board’s formation isn’t possible due to the increased workload, et cetera, he could recommend not forming the committee.
“Again, this isn’t a statutory requirement,” Lannetti said. “This a choice you’re making.”