OCEAN CITY – Issues of parental rights and local control continue to percolate at the Ocean City School Board, where a board member recently warned the public about what she claimed would be the harmful impact of proposed legislation in Trenton.
Board member Catherine Panico expressed concern at the board’s meeting Feb. 22 about the Freedom to Read Act, making its way through the Legislature.
The bill, sponsored by Sens. Andrew Zwicker (D-Middlesex) and Teresa Ruiz (D-Essex), seeks to set uniform guidelines to evaluate book challenges at school and community libraries.
If the bill becomes law, only those with a vested interest in a school or community library would be allowed to challenge a book’s appropriateness. The bill defines individuals with a vested interest in a school library as being educators, students, or parents in the district. Those with a vested interest in a community library are defined as residents served by the library.
The bill also protects librarians from criminal and civil liability for well-intentioned execution of their jobs, providing them as well with the ability to sue people who harass them.
Opponents of the bill have dubbed it the “Freedom to Groom Act,” with Assemblyman Erik Peterson (R-Hunterdon) saying the bill allows schools to curate “a collection of books that appeal to prurient interest, promote sexual exploring and sexual deviance.”
In her remarks, Panico said the bill was about removing parental rights and local school board authority from decisions related to library materials. She further argued that the bill “strips parents and community members’ constitutional rights to express dissatisfaction.”
When Panico won her seat on the board, she was supported by Moms for Liberty, a conservative organization that has advocated against school curricula that deal explicitly with LGBTQ issues, critical race theory and discrimination. The organization has for a time been active in supporting candidates for the school board in Ocean City.
Board President Kevin Barnes urged the board to keep its focus on issues directly before the board and not on proposed legislation “that may never see the light of day.”
Ocean City High School student Brian Garrabrant spoke in opposition to Panico’s comments, arguing that “conservative extremist groups” were targeting the LGBTQ community in the “name of protecting children.”
“I personally just find that to be very disgusting, especially as you see all over the country LGBTQ kids being targeted at schools,” Garrabrant said.
Board member Jaqueline McAlister said members should not use meetings to advocate for political positions. “Our pursuit is for the first, best education we can give the kids in our community,” McAlister said, “and I just don’t think we should be persuading the public either way about bills coming out of our legislatures.”
Not all members of the public agreed. Kelly Johnson, who identified herself as a mother from Upper Township, said the bill should be known as “The Distribute Obscene Materials to Minors Act.” She thanked Panico for keeping an eye on such legislation.
Johnson added, “We know across the country parents are coming in up in arms with what is being shown to our children in the safest place they should be, in the schools, and this is just another attempt to take our rights away to protect our children.”
While the discussion focused on the Freedom to Read Act, Panico also decried a second legislative effort that would lower the age of consent from 16 to 13 for seeking health-care services for mental illness issues in an outpatient setting and with no medication involved. She argued that the bill would strip parents from decisions regarding their children’s health care.
“We have laws that dictate what age individuals must be to get married, enter contracts, take student loans, drink alcohol, possess firearms and reach other legal decisions. Those under the age of majority, or minors, are considered incapable of making such decisions in the eyes of the law.
“For some reason, the same representatives believe young children should be able to decide how to treat their mental illness or emotional disorder without any input or consent from parents. I think such action makes no sense and urge everyone to contact educational committee members and oppose the bills.”
Garrabrant took issue with Panico on this as well, arguing that a young person wanting to seek care is a privacy issue. “Without that you are essentially putting these children in harm,” he said.
Those wishing to watch the Feb. 22 school board meeting can do so on YouTube, https://bit.ly/3TqUCYI.
Contact the author, Vince Conti, at vconti@cmcherald.com.
