Florida's draconian ban law is confusing and poorly worded

I attended Dr. Spiro's workshop on the Lee County School District's policies for complying with Florida's draconian book ban law. Dr. Spiro made it clear that his team is focused on staying within the parameters of the law. The law, HB1467, is confusing and poorly drafted, so it's no surprise that this leads to confusing policies.

My confusion, which I share with parents, educators, and advocates, had to do with the subjective definition of terms like “pornographic,” “sexually explicit,” and “sexual content.” I have been involved in free speech movements since my high school days in Riverdale 40 years ago. The argument has never changed. How can we objectively evaluate a subjective standard to create clear guidelines? Is the biblical story of Lot being sexually abused by his daughters (GEN 19:30-38) “sexually explicit”? Who gets to make that decision? In all these years, I have never heard a satisfactory answer.

The Lee County School District's policy was clear in its intent. It focused on sexually explicit material. We can debate the specifics, but at least it's a somewhat well-defined standard. So when I looked at a list of “Rejected Titles” from Lee County schools, my confusion reached its peak. According to the list from Beanstack, the tracking tool used by the district, only about 15 percent of titles were rejected for sexual content.

Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States is, of course, on the list. The controversy surrounding this title is well known. Zinn was a well-known leftist, and A People's History is written from a “bottom-up” perspective favored by leftists. That being said, there is nothing in Lee County politics that excludes books based on political perspectives—and that's right. I was surprised, however, that the reason given for the rejection was that the book “needed further review.” This was a common justification. Is it unreasonable to expect censors to complete their reviews before rejecting a title?

Voltaire's Candide was rejected for the same reason. This book is one of the most famous philosophical works of all time. It is required reading for anyone pursuing a degree in literature, history or the humanities. One must question the qualifications of the so-called “media specialists” responsible for reviewing our school libraries when a book like Candide requires “further review.”

How about Into the Still Blue by Veronica Rossi? The reasoning for banning this book is, and I quote: “May contain potentially sexual content as described in the bylaws – Aria and Peregrine are clearly in a sexually intimate relationship. They exchange passionate kisses and embraces and sleep in the same bed, but further details are left to the imagination.” So this book is being rejected because the reader's fantasy may be sexually explicit.

Marriage, a History by renowned historian Stephanie Coontz is a book I used in my AICE Sociology course. It was rejected because of “sexual situations and adult content.” AICE Sociology is a college-level course that includes a section on the family as an institution. Granted, a book on the history of marriage may contain references to SEX. However, as a teacher, I knew it was a perfectly appropriate book for this course and level of students. My professional expertise guided my selection of this book. I would have been happy to address any parental concerns had they arisen. That never happened.

Those in charge of rejecting these titles clearly lack the expertise that teachers bring to the classroom. Therefore, even a cursory reading of this list of banned books confirms the thesis that the state has no authority to review books. The decision to ban books from students should be made between parents and teachers. It should not be the prerogative of the state.

Michael Andoscia is a former Lee County teacher with 30 years of experience. He now advocates for the interests of public school teachers. He invites teachers to share their stories with him anonymously at mrandosciasclassroom.net.

This article originally appeared on Fort Myers News-Press: Florida's draconian book ban law is confusing and poorly worded