---

by Will Yurman

Author’s Note: I was among those who spoke against the book ban at the school board meeting. Journalists bring their own bias to every story. I want mine to be clear.  I am a firm believer that while people are not objective, the process can be.  The story below is, to the best of my ability, a fair representation of what happened. The entire school board meeting can be watched on YouTube. My comments start at about the 1:20:28 mark.

-Will

—————————–

4-3.

That was the final vote. The Siuslaw School District School Board voted four to three to ban a book from the high school library.

The vote came after an hour of public comment in the middle school commons area where teachers and members of the community spoke passionately and often angrily as well as unanimously against banning the book “Flamer” by Mike Curato.

A 16-year-old high school student in the district set the process in motion when he asked for a review of the book. At Wednesday’s meeting, board member Dianna Pimlott described his concerns as based on objectionable language and the implied sexual content in the book. When the district’s teacher librarian, Jennifer McKenzie, decided not to remove the book from the shelf, the student appealed to high school principal Michael Harklerode.

Following the district’s policy, Harklerode met with his vice-principal and together they reviewed the book. They also decided it should remain in the library.

The student appealed, and Harklerode created a seven-person District & Community Review Committee. The committee is a cross-section of our district – reflecting the nearly even divide among Republicans and Democrats. They debated and then voted, unanimously, to uphold the decisions of the professional staff to keep the book in the high school library.

Which brings us to the school board.  But first the book.

“Flamer” is a graphic novel. Set in a summer camp in the 1990s, it describes the experiences of camper Aiden Navarro in his summer before starting high school. Aiden is bullied by other campers, finds himself attracted to a bunk mate, and navigates thoughts of isolation and suicide as he explores his own identity. Spoiler alert – the book has a happy ending.

From the book’s back cover:

“It’s the summer between middle school and high school, and Aiden Navarro is away at camp. Everyone’s going through changes –but for Aiden, the stakes feel higher. As he navigates friendships, deals with bullies, and spends time with Elias (a boy he can’t stop thinking about), he finds himself on a path of self-discovery and acceptance”

The book publisher categorizes the book as Young Adult and appropriate for ages 14-18. Kirkus Reviews says 12-18 while School Library Journal says grades eight and up.

The journal’s review concludes:

“Curato has created a beautiful story of a teen who must decide if he will force himself into the mold of what he thinks a “normal” boy is, or if he can allow himself to live life on his own terms. An essential book that shows readers that they are never alone in their struggles.”

The National Public Radio podcast “Code Switch” interviewed Curato in 2024 as part of a 30-minute podcast about the banning of books. (The interview with Curato is the second half of the episode).

In the interview, Curato says, “The whole point in making “Flamer” was to tell other 14-year-olds who are going through the same thing that I was going through at their age that it’s going to be all right, that they deserve to be here, that they deserve to take up some space.”

At the school board meeting in February, the board agreed to review the student’s appeal, deciding to consider two options at the March meeting – uphold the review committee’s decision or overrule it and ban the book.

And so, Wednesday night, the board met in the middle school. The cafeteria tables were moved to the side to make room for rows of blue plastic chairs. More than 50 people attended the meeting. Six board members sat on the stage, and one attended remotely.

Eleven teachers, librarians and members of the community spoke against the proposed ban. They were unanimous in their opposition. They argued that the book offers hope to gay students who may feel isolated, and that banning one book can lead to the banning of others. Some spoke to the First Amendment and issues of censorship, and the rights of parents on both sides of the issue to choose for themselves.

McKenzie, the teacher librarian for the district, called on the board to “affirm the decision of educational professionals” and to allow parents and students to make their own decision on whether to read the book.

Linda Yoder, a self-proclaimed Republican and Bible-reading Christian, as well as a mother of a gay child, argued that not all tax-supported items are for everyone – opera, dog parks and books among them – and that’s OK. “I would not ordinarily fall on my sword for a graphic novel,” she said, but retaining a book that can help vulnerable students has merit. “A public institution must serve all even though not everything is of use to all.” 

Public comment was followed by a public discussion among the board members, who in the end considered multiple options. They could have voted to uphold the decision to keep the book, ban it outright, or find a middle ground of limited access.

Three board members would ultimately vote against the motion to remove the book: Maureen Miltenberger, Kady Sneddon and Dianna Pimlott. Among their arguments, the board is duty bound to enforce the district policies and not allow their personal bias to influence their decision.

Board member Sneddon, speaking remotely, described the board’s role as non-partisan. “We are here for every student in the district. We are here for every member of the staff. And we are here for every member of the community,” she said. “Banning books is a very partisan issue.”

The majority – John Barnett, Tamara Cole, Josh Haberly and board chair Brian Lacouture – primarily objected to what they saw as crude language ill-suited to young teenagers. They were quick to state that the topic itself was not their objection. Just the language.

Lacouture started the board’s discussion. “I’ll rip the scab off. I don’t believe it belongs in the collection,” he said. Barnett was the most vocal of the majority. “I don’t disagree with the message,” he began. “However, I think it’s a total degradation of us as a society that we think that we have to have this kind of language in a book to get our message across.”

Barnett went on to say it would have been unacceptable language when he was in high school, and it should be now.

The two sides continued to speak at cross purposes. On one side, the belief that the content was too vulgar for high school students and on the other, the value of making the book available to those who wanted to read it as well as respecting the decisions of the professional staff and community.

In the end, the vote did not seem surprising to anyone. 4-3.