To the Editor:

Looking for loopholes in the 1st Amendment so they can remove books from school libraries, four BOE members seem willing to expose this town to the expense of legally defending an indefensible constitutionally questionable decision. No matter how well-intentioned Ms Zukowski, Ms Larkin, Mr Ramsey and Ms Kuzma may be, they appear ready to place the district in quicksand.

At the last BOE meeting, Ms Zukowski, a non-lawyer, interprets Connecticut criminal law and Supreme Court decisions in search of a standard that seems to fit her personal beliefs about sexual material. Ms Larkin asserts the 1st Amendment is important while pursuing “off-ramps” for what she deems too explicit. Mr Ramsey contorts the label of “banner” so it won’t apply to him if he votes for removal. Ms Kuzma asks what is age appropriate for “vulgarity” and “naked body parts” after the Special Review Committee of experienced educators already determined this by unanimous vote following board policy and informed by the Library Professional Association guidelines and other professional benchmarks. She and the three other BOE members attended this vote and heard their rationale.

Second-guessing the knowledge of credentialed staff and respected resources is a troubling spectacle when the evaluators are counting pages of masturbation, worried over the dangers of random browsing, and thinking how characters in a book, unlike real life, suffer no consequences for using crude language.

I’m concerned the BOE majority will revise board policy to enhance their ability to interfere with future book review committees and remove content. This is unsettling stuff in the name of “community standards” against the 1st Amendment and predominantly LGBTQ-themed books.

Which begs the question — what are our community standards for a BOE majority who seem to think they know better than the educational experts and library professional organizations they are poised to overrule?

Barbara Wojcik

Sandy Hook