Dear North Hunterdon-Voorhees School Board Members,
For weather-related reasons, I will not attend the Board of Education meeting Tuesday, January 27, 2026. But I hereby submit comments nonetheless for your consideration. I see you are having a "first reading." So I suppose my comments would apply to that or to a possible "second reading."
[Read the 11pp proposed policy 6163.1 here.]
[Watch NHV BOE discuss the policy here.]
Easy suggestion first. I'd like to tell you my experience obtaining the policy on the agenda so you can know how some might view it, or actually not view it, which is the problem I'll be addressing.
It did indeed take a bit of rooting around to finally find the page having the agenda. Then the agenda says, "First Reading of Policy." It's too general. What policy? It's under "Policy and School Security," so that tells me almost nothing. I took a gamble and clicked on the link. No real notice went to the public other than "first reading of policy." It's almost like it's sneaking in or perhaps being hidden from people like me. Only then did I finally see "Policy 6163.1 – Media Center/Library" and the changes to be made, then only if I scrolled down to the next page. You really have to dig and maneuver to get to the point where you finally get the notice you should already have had from the agenda but it's not there. The problem with this is, besides not providing notice in an understandable form, people who are casually involved in school workings may not ever get to the point of being properly noticed, while the regulars who already know one has to root around are at a significant advantage over casual viewers. You could be discouraging casual viewers, let alone not providing adequate notice. So that's just a suggestion for you to consider.
Another easy suggestion. Existing policy requires people to state their name and address and affiliation, if any, before speaking. At least in other states, that's a violation of state and federal constitutional rights to seek redress of the government and attorneys general have forced public bodies to drop such requirements. Further, in modern times, that exposes people to potential harassment, and it gets recorded on video, so the exposure is perpetual. American Library Association members, for example, file OPRA/FOIA requests for such information, then it is used in lawsuits, movies, whatever. Such information should be clear that it is optional, not required. Who knows, it might even cut back on the need to respond to OPRA requests if the information is simply not collected in the first place, thereby reducing any costs in researching and replying to such requests.
Now regarding the 6163.1 proposed media center, library policy:
1) The policy allows for electronic databases to be used, and they should. However, some of these databases expose children to inappropriate material not allowed if such material were purchased in print for the school library. The proposed policy does not account for that and it should.
2) The policy states, "Every student shall have access to a media collection containing materials appropriate to age level...." Gender Queer is "age appropriate" but it otherwise is what Pico calls "pervasively vulgar or otherwise educationally unsuitable" so it may be removed from the library. Playboy would be age appropriate, for example. That is a weakness in the policy. The policy would allow Gender Queer while Board of Education v. Pico, U.S. Supreme Court 1982 holds the exact opposite result and the book would be removed.
3) The former version of the policy said, "The superintendent has final responsibility for the selection of media center materials by professionally trained personnel including media specialists, teachers, principals and supervisors." That's being removed. The new policy eliminates the Superintendent and substitutes therefor the school librarian. Under Pico, the Superintendent has the authority to immediately remove material that is pervasively vulgar or educationally unsuitable. No review committee would be needed, saving everyone a ton of time and money. Under the new policy, the school librarian now makes the decisions, not the Superintendent. That eliminates the protections of Pico. Further, nothing at all will ever be deemed as inappropriate by school librarians, other than works by conservatives or dead white males, a term I get from American Library Association directives. The former school librarian for example, Martha Hickson, testified in Trenton, as shown in the new American Library Association film called "The Librarians," that, "in my professional role, there is no p*rn*graphy for minors in, uh, school libraries so there is no need to restrict it. Book restrictions are, however, a form of censorship. Your personal opinion about obscenity does not make it so." Martha Hickson goes on to say, in response to what a legislator said, "fifth graders *have* p*nises." So the change in the policy to eliminate the Superintendent and substitute in the school librarian will ensure that nothing ever gets removed. Voting for this policy change is like voting for anything goes in the school library. Librarians are trained by American Library Association that nothing is ever p*rn*graphy because only a lawyer or a judge can make that decision, and, as Martha Hickson testified, it will be claimed it's censorship to remove such material.
4) The policy does not disclose that Pico applies and California v. Miller, U.S. Supreme Court 1973, does not apply to school books. The "as a whole" standard comes from the Miller case. Miller does not apply in schools. Pico does. So, for example, a school may remove Gender Queer from a school library for being pervasively vulgar and/or educationally unsuitable. Indeed Pico has been used repeatedly to remove that very book successfully. Miller, on the other hand, would require Gender Queer to stay in the library, since "as a whole" it is not obscene, and only a judge can rule it as such anyway. So under Pico, a Superintendent may remove Gender Queer immediately, and under Miller, Gender Queer will never be removed. No book ever will be removed under Miller since Miller is almost never used to determine works to be obscene. It would be a ridiculous endeavor since a case by case basis would be needed, precisely the reason why American Library Association holds it out as the gold standard when in reality it does not apply.
5) The policy is essentially a restatement of the NJ Freedom to Read Act, a law that will eventually be challenged and fail since it overrides Pico and N.J.S. 2C:34-3 Obscenity for Persons Under 18, at a minimum. So I'll save the time of laying it out instance by instance but the comparison with FTRA shows it is essentially a copy, and FTRA was written by American Library Association in Chicago, IL. Board members have an ethical duty to apply local law, not material written by outside special interests groups like American Library Association. For example, the diversity and inclusion language as defined by American Library Association and included in the proposed policy and FTRA would make it so Gender Queer may not be removed, despite Pico, despite 2C:34-3. So yet again, the policy ensures children will, by policy, be exposed to material that could otherwise be removed or not purchased, but for the policy. As if the policy overrides New Jersey law and the U.S. Supreme Court.
6) The policy's removal request procedure is one recommended by American Library Association to intentionally a) drag out the process, b) cost money, c) provide the excuse that book reconsiderations waste money, d) asks leading questions of requesters to get them to say things not relevant to the review but that can be used to sink their request, e) unnecessarily narrows the pool of potential complainants. I'm surprised it didn't put a multi-year limit on again requesting a review since Martha Hickson said it should be five years precisely to eliminate the constitutional rights to seek redress of the government for four years.
7) The inclusion of the parent in the review committee is an American Library Association ruse. It's to make parents think their input is included. In reality, however a parent votes, it is always overridden by the rest of the committee. It's a ruse. In a Florida case, three parents did a comprehensive review of three books and decided two stay but one goes. They wrote a full report. The committee ruled to keep all books without even considering the parents' input for which they worked so hard as part of the committee. When the parents asked why their hard work was not even considered, the librarian on the committee said it wouldn't have mattered since the rest of the committee voted to retain all three books. This is the very ruse that this new policy embeds. I guarantee you all parental input on the committee will be ignored. This will be at least the third way that absolutely nothing will ever be removed from the school library. And it is all because Chicago's ALA has been working towards this goal for over 60 years. If you vote for this policy, you vote for Chicago ALA policy and your kids will be harmed. ALA is getting the school to play all these games at whatever time and expense just to cover up that nothing will ever be removed from the library. Just skip over the charade and make the policy say nothing will ever be removed from the library, so don't ask, and don't complain, and that's it. Done.
8) The policy says challenged material stays on the shelves until the challenge is finalized. That language comes directly from American Library Association. This is now a fourth way the children will remain exposed to inappropriate material despite Pico, 2C:34-3, and the Superintendent's previous ability to immediately remove materials under Pico.
9) The policy exempts from criminal and civil liability school librarians who violate 2C:34-3. By policy, poof, 2C:34-3 disappears. Pico disappears. Superintendents making appropriate decisions under Pico, poof, gone. All by the proposed policy.
10) The policy does not cover the communications of the school librarian. Former school librarian Martha Hickson used her personal Twitter account to conduct school business. She even provided training to librarians nationwide while recording on school grounds presumably during school time specifically telling them to direct message her on her personal Twitter account. Multiple OPRA requests for her communications were easily defeated by claiming there's no control over her personal accounts and she otherwise has no emails to disclose--because she did everything on her personal account. That cannot be allowed to happen again. Require that school business is conducted on school-supplied resources for the board's own good and for proper compliance with open government and records retention laws. Consider making persistently conducting school business on personal accounts a terminable offense. Librarians are trained to use Slack and Signal to circumvent parents, legislators, and the courts. That must not be allowed and can be precluded by policy. It should be added to the proposed policy, although it suffers from so much that it should be defeated. Sure, let them use personal accounts for personal goals and friendships and general librarianship growth, but for school-related communications, that should be precluded. Martha Hickson, for example, regularly communicated school business via her personal accounts with American Library Association. That is precisely why 400 people came to school board meetings and overwhelmed the four locals, two of which now appear derisively in "The Librarians" by American Library Association. The ALA president even gave a speech to all ALA membership that Martha Hickson was super important in ALA's imposing its way in North Hunterdon-Voorhees High School. All done without any records exposed to open government laws or retained under government retention laws. That has to be stopped. If anyone wishes to engage American Library Association about school business, it must be via use of school communications means subject to New Jersey laws and board policy.
11) The policy doesn't even address the Mahmoud v. Taylor case, a significant U.S. Supreme Court decision from June 27, 2025, addressing parental rights, religious freedom, and the use of certain books in public elementary schools. Public schools cannot compel young children to participate in instruction or exposure to materials that interfere with religious upbringing in a significant way. The Court emphasized parental rights in directing the religious and moral development of their children. American Library Association hates that case. That's why it's not in the proposed policy. The only parental rights present are a ruse, as previously stated.
12) "In selecting materials to recommend for purchase, the media specialist shall evaluate the existing collection and consult reputable, unbiased, professionally prepared selection aids, and specialists from all departments and/or all grade levels." This is specifically designed to use only reviews from ALA-approved sources including ALA's own Booklist. It is specifically designed to disallow consideration of reviews from parental groups like RatedBooks dot org. It embeds into the policy an anti parent policy. Did you know that ALA hated BookLooks dot org so much (a parental review site that no longer exists) that it created its own Book Résumés that's just like BookLooks only without the excerpts and graphics but with all the glowing reviews from the approved book review sites? Did you know it was Martha Hickson who initially used NHV time, money, and servers to build what eventually got adopted by ALA as the new Book Résumés site? So the proposed policy includes yet again another subtle but present anti parent policy.
13) Limiting access to children to developmentally appropriate material is not censorship.
14) Books may have s*xualized content but it's not noted in Scholastic reviews and the like. The policy does not address that.
15) Nor does the policy address librarians making available websites that provide access to the very material school policy otherwise precludes.
So what we have in the new policy is the wording from the Freedom to Read Act from Chicago's American Library Association that has been working for 60-plus years to eliminate parental rights and indoctrinate children, crystallized into a policy that was essentially hidden on the agenda page, all to ensure children by policy get indoctrinated and s*xua*lized per ALA diktat. And the policy lacks significant protections and allowances for parental rights.
I have no clue who came up with the wording for the proposed changes, but that person or those persons did what's best for American Library Association, and the school children be damned.
Don't be angry with the way I worded things or what other board members may say about me. Set that aside. For the children, consider what I have said and consider if you really truly want this proposed policy 6163.1 to be applied to your school and your school children and your school parents.
Your policy should allow your Superintendent to remove books like Gender Queer and if it doesn't, something's off. Recall the whole multi-year battle over the books started when the Superintendent told Martha Hickson to remove a certain book, and Martha Hickson went immediately to American Library Association, got them instantly engaged, then intimidated the Superintendent into backing down from his request. The ALA bullying was nonstop after that. And it continues to this day with the proposed wording of policy 6163.1.
Thank you for your anticipated consideration of these matters.
Dan Kleinman
—
🚨🚨UNREAL: Yesterday I asked the indoctrinated far-left librarians in Davis why they want kids to access s[*]xually-explicit books that encourage p[*]rn consumption, like “Let’s Talk About It.”The library manager said the recent passing of “California Freedom to Read Act” (AB 1825) means no restrictions for children.The librarians also seemed fine with predatory men self-identifying into the Women’s Restroom.To prove the stupidity of the policy, I identified as a man and walked into the Men’s Restroom.You can’t hate @GavinNewsom and @TheDemocrats enough.
“The California Freedom to Read Act (AB 1825), signed in September 2024 and effective January 2025, requires public libraries receiving state funds to adopt written collection development policies by January 1, 2026, to prevent book bans.It prohibits removing materials based on topics or views, protects library staff from retaliation, and forbids restricting access based on age or background.”Why do children need to be indoctrinated into radical queer theory and transgenderism?Davis branch library in Yolo County, CA near Sacramento.
—
On Twitter:
Follow @OccupyLibraries Follow @SafeLibraries Follow @WLibraryA
Join World Library Association:
WorldLibraryAssociation.org
Legal Defense for SLAPP Suits Against Free Speech
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments of a personal nature, trolling, and linkspam may be removed.