Connecticut Republicans continued to advocate for book bans in school and public libraries last week, hosting a press conference to advocate that individual parents should be able to control what entire communities should have access to.
The Feb. 26 press conference, hosted by Sen. Henri Martin, R-Bristol, and featuring Sen. Rob Sampson, R-Wolcott, Rep. Anne Dauphinais, R-Killingly, and Rep. Gale Mastrofrancesco, R-Wolcott.
The Republicans expressed opposition to Senate Bill 1271, legislation that would require school and public libraries to implement policies to review books questioned by parents and determine whether their content is suitable for given age groups.
“Our opposition to these bills is not about banning books. We’re not trying to ban ‘Huckleberry Finn,’ ‘The Mockingbird’ [sic] and some others that were mentioned,” said Rep. Dauphinais. “We’re really looking to put minor children in a place where they’re not exposed to [those books] in public school libraries.”
Dauphinais was referring to “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” by Mark Twain and “To Kill A Mockingbird” by Harper Lee, some of the most-lauded books in modern American history and among the most-challenged books in the United States due to depictions of racism and sexual assault.
Dauphinais and Mastrofrancesco are members of the Connecticut Conservative Caucus.
Arguments against the bills in question largely focused on “parents rights” and hinged on the existence of materials in libraries that children could potentially read.
“This is so graphic I can’t read it out loud,” said Mastrofrancesco about a page of images and text isolated from a sex-education book intended for high-school audiences. “I feel embarrassed.”
Mona Colwell, a candidate for the Old Lyme Board of Education in 2021 who was endorsed by the Old Lyme Republican Town Committee, was introduced by legislators as a concerned mother.
“My son was going into sixth grade and he was given a book by the librarian,” Colwell said. “My son got to the eighth page, read a swear, felt uncomfortable and said ‘Mom, I don’t want to read this book.’”
Colwell said the book “Ashfall,” a survival fiction novel about a teen in a post-apocalyptic world, was a “horrible book” due to content including “negative depictions of police,” sexual content and violence, and she was “able to prevent children from having to read it.” A second book, “The Eye of Minds,” was described as offensive due to a character being “transhuman.” While Colwell’s description of the book implied a character was transgender, the science-fiction novel’s ending features the philosophical movement of enhancing the human body using technology.
“Ashfall,” by Mike Mullin, is recommended for readers ages 14-and-up, while “The Eye of Minds,” by James Dashner, is recommended for readers 10+.
Colwell said she reported the books to her son’s school and their content was reviewed by school staff, meaning the books underwent the exact process outlined for a challenged book in the legislation the lawmakers opposed.
Sampson ended the press conference, claiming efforts to create boards to review questioned content in schools represented a “policy shift” being imposed to remove local control and parental authority.
“No one’s trying to ban books,” Sampson said. “Banning books is the practice of preventing books from being printed, sold and distributed. No one here objects to these books existing, or being available in a public library. What they object to is their accessibility to minor children. There needs to be someone with the wisdom and intelligence that says books [with mature themes] are not in the hands of 10-year-olds.”
The legislation in question, Senate Bill 1271, if passed would require boards of education and state libraries to develop policies where challenged books would be reviewed to see if they were age- and grade-appropriate for students and children.
