Today we’re taking another look back in time to explore Komrosky, Wiersma, and Gonzalez’s addition to the Temecula Valley Unified School District Board Policy 6000, Concepts and Roles, banning pornography, etc. in the district’s instructional materials.
Originally presented on June 27, 2023, this policy was sent to a subcommittee to work directly with district staff to determine its final wording. The subcommittee had not presented their work when the three “conservative” board members passed the revised policy at their December 12, 2023 meeting, just before Gonzalez resigned.
The revised policy states:
“The district’s education program, including all of its instructional materials, shall also comply with legal requirements and shall not include pervasive pornography, erotica, graphic descriptions or depictions sexual violence inappropriate vulgarity or profanity, or other obscene material [sic].”
Nobody wants pornography in schools
So just to be quite clear, let’s say right up front that nobody wants pornography in schools. As Trustee Barclay pointed out in the December meeting, that’s why you don’t find Playboy magazines in our high school libraries.
That’s also why California Education Code repeatedly uses the term “age appropriate” when talking about curriculum, library books, school physical environments—everything having to do with students.
So what’s the matter with this policy?
We see three problems with this revised policy. The first is that it’s not necessary.
Not necessary
Ed Code forbids materials that are not age appropriate. Following the law, TVUSD has established policies for adopting and reviewing curriculum (AR 6141: Curriculum Development and Evaluation) and for individual parents to review their child’s learning materials and express any concerns (Board Policy 1312.2).
Differing opinions
The second problem with the revised policy is that people have differing opinions as to what falls under these categories. (Trustee Barclay addressed this issue in the June 27 meeting, starting at about 4:33:48 in the video.) We can define these terms generally, of course. To summarize Merriam-Webster:
Pornography, erotica, and obscenity are defined differently, but all describe something intended to cause sexual excitement or arousal.
Vulgarity is crude language (for example, typical four-letter words).
Profanity is using God’s or another religious figure’s name disrespectfully, for example in swearing.
But within these definitions, people have wildly different views of what is acceptable. If characters in a book use the f-word, for example, how many times does that vulgarity have to appear before it’s “pervasive”?
Who decides?
And that leads directly to the third problem with the revised policy: who decides how many f-words it takes for a book to be banned as pervasively vulgar? Who decides what is pornographic, erotic, sexually violent, vulgar, profane, or obscene? Who decides what your child should read?
Komrosky, Wiersma, and Gonzalez believe they should decide. Komrosky denounced three high school library books in the June 27th discussion (see the meeting video starting at about 4:43:57), making it clear that he considered this policy revision a preliminary to banning books he finds objectionable.
But California state law and TVUSD Board Policy state that individual parents have the right to decide for their child what is acceptable. All parents have the right to review their child’s curriculum and, if they have concerns, request an alternate assignment (Education Code 51101, Board Policy 1312.2). These parents’ rights have been in place for many years—Ed Code 51101, for example, dates to 1999.
TVUSD parents also have the opportunity to review and comment on new curriculum the school district adopts, as do community members, whether they have a child in the district or not. (For a recent example, see The K-5 Social Studies Curriculum War of 2023.)
And parents here have immediate online access to their students’ current assignments through the district’s parent portals: Infinite Campus, Seesaw for elementary students, and Canvas for middle and high school students. Parent portals are available in both English and Spanish, and parents use them all the time to see assignments, check progress, and email teachers.
Then what’s the point of the revised policy?
Our concern with the revised policy is that it’s a foundation for arbitrarily banning books and learning materials, based solely on whoever sits on the TVUSD School Board at any particular time.
We saw Komrosky, Wiersma, and Gonzalez refuse to approve the K-5 Social Studies curriculum that 47 of our local teachers carefully chose and piloted with almost 1300 students from all 18 elementary school sites. All the parents of those children and the community at large were asked for feedback, and the feedback was positive. Yet Komrosky, Wiersma, and Gonzalez refused to adopt the curriculum because optional supplementary materials contained a short biography of gay-rights advocate Harvey Milk.
Do Komrosky and Wiersma want to ban other learning materials, claiming that they violate this policy because they’re obscene or profane—according to these two trustees’ religious beliefs? Based on their past actions and Komrosky’s statements in school board meetings, that looks like their plan.
In contrast, we believe that teachers, not trustees, are the curriculum experts. And we firmly believe that parents should keep their rights to be the final decision-makers for their own children.