Board should protect students from inappropriate content

Monday night at the Perkiomen Valley School Board meeting, public attendees were afforded three minutes to speak about agenda items. Normally these meetings are sparsely attended. The board president, Jason Saylor, kept order and opened dozens of folding chairs as an unprecedented number of parents and district stakeholders filed in.

Of the two controversial topics, graphic sexual content within books shelved by the school librarian, and armed school police to protect students and staff: Sexual content dominated the first two hours. An Anime-type detailed image of two minor teen girls performing sexual acts, taken from a book shelved in the high school (14-18-year-old students) drove the discussion. It should be noted that last week the Perkiomen Valley middle schools also removed content deemed age-inappropriate to their students (age range 11-13.)

The split was along political-ideological lines, left versus right. The left attempted to portray censorship as an attack on LGBT students, and fascism-like “book bans” as a violation of the First Amendment. Right and independent voices rejected the assertion, making clear their objection did not distinguish between heterohomo; that the sole difference between the controversial explicit graphic images from actual child pornography was the difference between illustrations versus photographs — that the two are indistinguishable; that it is the duty of the board to protect children from pornographic content; that such material is not “sex ed” in the traditional sense, but titillating entertainment unsuitable for the impressionable young.

The term “age-appropriate” was used multiple times, and a plea for the school not to abuse Loco Parentis, to focus on practical curriculum, and to leave sexual matters to parents and qualified licensed psychologist-counselors (any sexual discourse between adults and minors must be limited to these two stakeholders.)

The proceeding was filmed and is available on YouTube. Notable: Left board members refused to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. Left audience members defied the board president’s instruction not to comment over those speaking; many left speakers loudly attacked the board president’s process versus focusing on the controversial material. Right speakers included a current teacher, mothers of students, war veterans, and childless taxpayers who delivered calm, well-constructed arguments that included a plea to the board to publicize controversial content so that more district stakeholders can be made aware of what is going on inside the four walls.