top of page
Search

Setting the record straight: Book Banning at MPS

  • Writer: Dan Shibilia
    Dan Shibilia
  • 2 days ago
  • 6 min read

"Book-banning" has become the political buzzword that instinctually creates reactions from both sides of the aisle. Every few months, someone online claims that “schools are full of porn,” or that “librarians are pushing dangerous materials,” or that “kids are being exposed to X, Y, and Z.” It’s dramatic, it’s sensational... and it’s almost never true.


Methuen recently experienced its own episode of this when a School Committee member requested a book be put on the agenda. Despite never explicitly calling this a challenge or requesting a ban, it is not a leap when you take email into context. a challenge to The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian by Sherman Alexie. Everything here can be seen in the recording of the school committee meeting linked here.


That is when the misinformation machine got rolling again. Let’s clean up the terminology, lay out the facts, and explain what’s actually happening in the Commonwealth and Methuen.


All emails are available for viewing here. I am going to do my best to remove my opinion from the article and just stick to verifiable facts.


What is a Book Challenge? (And What It Isn’t)

A book challenge happens when someone formally requests that a school or library remove, restrict, or relocate a book.


According to the American Library Association (ALA):

The Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners (MBLC) uses the same definition-set and tracks challenges statewide.


Source: MBLC — “Intellectual Freedom and Book Challenges”


In other words:

  • Challenge = request

  • Ban = removal


Challenges happen frequently. Bans are rare.


The Methuen Case:

ree

In late September, a 10th grade co-taught English class read The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian by Sherman Alexie. This is the story of Junior, a budding cartoonist growing up on the Spokane Indian Reservation. Determined to take his future into his own hands, Junior leaves his troubled school on the rez to attend an all-white farm town high school where the only other Indian is the school mascot (Source: GoodReads.com).


There are two pages where the narrator, a 14 year old boy, talks about masturbation by comparing the feeling to those he feels for his school work. This is the sole complaint brought to the School Committee as evidenced by the recording of the meeting posted above.


As seen in the attached emails, Member Maxwell and Member Willette, as per policy, reached out the Superintendent with questions. In Member Maxwell's email she references the banned book list posted in the High School Media Center, acknowledging that this book is on the list. She asks how this was missed when allowing it to be used at teaching material.


For reference, to date, Methuen has no banned books. The Banned Books on display in the Media Center represent the list kept by the American Library Association which tracks challenges and banning across the country.


As reported, a single parent reached out to one, or both - it's unclear, of these School Committee members to complain/question the book choice. It's important to note that as stated in the School Committee meeting, the course syllabus contained this book and parent signed off acknowledging not only receipt but that the syllabus has been reviewed and then returned the course syllabus to the teacher at the beginning of year.


While there is no formal policy around alerting parents specifically to sexual references unless it is primary to the material, this book was not specifically called out. If the sexual reference was primary to the story line or the lesson OR even more substantial, it has been the working practices to notify parents. Those objecting are given separate assignments and allowed to go to the Media Center during the lesson to complete them. This was not the case in this situation as the reference to masturbation was incidental and inconsequential to the overall text.


The argument has been made on social media that the passages in question are pornography. The Oxford Dictionary defines pornography as "printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings." Believing in this propaganda simply proves that those giving their opinion didn't read the book.


While both Members Maxwell and Willette consistently upheld that this was not a book banning attempt or even a challenge, there were numerous statements made on the record that this book should be removed from curriculum - which would amount to a ban.


Several parents spoke during public participation against the effort. Many accusing the duo of trying to ban the book. Public participation also drew in Krista McLeod, Director of the Nevins Library, and former Mayor Dennis DiZoglio speaking in favor of the book and against anything the resembles book banning. One parent, presumably the complainant, spoke in favor of the opt out which she believe should have been offered if this book was to continue to stay in the curriculum.


Massachusetts Senate Bill S.2696 — An Act Regarding Free Expression

This bill proposes statewide standards for how school districts select library materials and handle book challenges.


Full text of the bill:Source: Massachusetts General Court — Senate Bill 2696 (2025–


What the bill actually does


1. Requires materials to be chosen by trained professionals

S.2696 Section 82A: materials must be:

  • Age-appropriate

  • Educational

  • Selected based on professional training


    Citation: S.2696, Sec. 82A(a)


2. Keeps books on shelves while a challenge is reviewed

The bill explicitly states that challenged materials shall remain on the shelves until the school committee completes its review.


Citation: S.2696, Sec. 82B(iii)


3. Requires a transparent review process

Books can only be removed after:

  • Notice

  • Public hearing

  • Review committee finding

  • School committee vote


    Citation: S.2696, Sec. 82A(b)


4. Limits removal to very clear criteria


Removal may only occur if a book is:

  • “Devoid of any educational, literary, artistic, personal or social value,” or

  • “Not age appropriate for any child in the school.”


    Citation: S.2696, Sec. 82A(b)


5. Protects librarians and teachers from retaliation

Schools cannot punish staff for selecting materials “in good faith.”


Citation: S.2696, Sec. 82C


6. Requires every district to have a public library-materials policy

Citation: S.2696, Sec. 82B


7. Requires statewide reporting on all book challenges


Citation: S.2696, Sec. 35


Verified reporting on the bill


Multiple news outlets have covered S.2696:

These sources confirm that the bill strengthens process, transparency, and professional judgment — not censorship.


Why Some Groups Are Misrepresenting the Bill

The Massachusetts Family Institute (MFI) published a blog post titled:

“URGENT ACTION NEEDED: Pornographic schoolbook bill moving forward to a vote”

Source: Massachusetts Family Institute (MFI) blog post


Their claims include:

  • The bill “forces schools to keep pornographic books”

  • It “strips local control”

  • It “protects librarians who introduce obscene materials”


None of that is supported by the bill’s text.


Fact-checking the claims


Claim: The bill forces libraries to stock pornography

Fact: S.2696 requires library materials to be age-appropriate and educational. Pornography does not meet those standards.


Citation: S.2696, Sec. 82A(a)


Claim: School committees lose authority

Fact: The bill explicitly requires school committees to hold the hearing and make the final decision.


Citation: S.2696, Sec. 82A(b)


Claim: Inappropriate books remain forever

Fact: Books remain available only until the challenge process is complete.


Citation: S.2696, Sec. 82B(iii)


Claim: Librarians get special protection to “push” explicit content

Fact: The bill only protects staff who select materials in good faith and according to district policy.


Citation: S.2696, Sec. 82C


Independent verification

Independent journalism contradicts MFI’s framing:

  • Boston Globe: The bill “provides guardrails for book challenges” and “protects librarians from political pressure.”(Source above)

  • WBUR: The bill ensures “no immediate removal” and requires “clear criteria for removal.”(Source above)

  • ACLU of Massachusetts: Has repeatedly stated that most challenged books are not pornographic, but deal with race, gender, and identity.https://www.aclum.org/en/news/aclu-ma-condemns-censorship-efforts-libraries-and-schools


Why This Matters for Methuen

Maxwell’s challenge to The Absolutely True Diary… is part of a larger statewide and national wave. Research from PEN America shows most challenged books feature:

These are not “pornographic” books — they are books about identity, adversity, and the real lives of young people.


Our community deserves:

  • Process, not panic

  • Facts, not fear

  • Policy, not politics


Conclusion: The Facts Are Clear

Book challenges are normal.

Book bans are extreme.


S.2696 doesn’t “force porn into schools.” It doesn't “strip parent rights.” It doesn’t “protect obscene materials.”


It standardizes the process, protects professional judgment, and keeps decisions transparent and fair.

And that’s exactly what Methuen — and Massachusetts — should want.

bottom of page