In one of the first known successful book challenges in the state, a parent’s complaint this fall led a Merrimack Valley High School committee to recommend the removal of a well-known young adult novel from the required reading lists of its English courses.
The book, The Perks of Being a Wallflower, is a 1999 coming-of-age story that includes descriptions of sexual assault, consensual sex, drug use and a reference to an abortion. It is among the most frequently banned or restricted books in schools, according to the organization PEN America, which tracks successful challenges to academic materials.
Merrimack Valley High is the third known school district in New Hampshire to restrict access to a book in response to a complaint, according to PEN America’s records, which began tallying challenges across the country in 2021. Its list is likely incomplete.
The seven-member review committee, which was composed of faculty and administrators, stated in its recommendation that “the general population of high school students express familiarity with the content of the book.” However, it acknowledged that the topics “can be uncomfortable for some students.”
First-year Principal Shaun St. Onge declined to comment on the specific reasons why the committee recommended removing the book.
“It’s hard to articulate a specific reason, but the reality is there are controversial topics in it and it would be better to look at other options,” St. Onge said in an interview.
One consideration of the committee, St. Onge said, was the school’s “capacity” to handle future complaints.
“It can be disruptive when things like this happen,” he said. “And if the book was in the same setting next year, it could be the same result. We could be doing another review.”
St. Onge said the English department was still reviewing the recommendation.
The book is “not scheduled to be read this year,” he said, “and we haven’t really reviewed in terms of anything official for next year, but I’m sure they’ll look at that recommendation, and they’re going to go through that process.”
Students at Merrimack Valley will still be able to access the book through the school’s library, St. Onge said.
The decision, which has not previously been publicized, comes as book bans have emerged in the past five years as a major culture war issue in state and national politics. In recent legislative cycles, Republican state lawmakers have attempted but largely failed to pass bills that would make it easier for members of the public to challenge public school content that they view as harmful to children. Meanwhile, they have succeeded in passing laws that increase the requirements placed on schools to notify parents of the curriculum materials they use.
Opponents of these legislative changes have argued that challenges would be used to target LGBTQIA+ content and lead teachers and school leaders to remove materials that could resonate with certain students, particularly those who may be struggling.
Though school boards have increasingly received requests for the removal of books in recent years, including in Bow and Dover, the challenges have largely been rejected.
A bill currently under consideration in the legislature would require that school districts across the state post what materials they authorize.
Megan Tuttle, the president of New Hampshire’s chapter of the National Education Association, said that Merrimack Valley’s review process demonstrated why decisions are best left to local school districts.
“This case in Merrimack Valley illustrates how districts are already responding to community concerns and underscores why a statewide book ban policy is unnecessary, like the recently revived Senate Bill 33 that would undermine local control,” said Tuttle, whose union represents educators at Merrimack Valley.
The complaint
Before the parent’s complaint this fall, The Perks of Being a Wallflower had been taught in some Merrimack Valley tenth-grade English classes for the previous two years without issue, according to St. Onge.
The parent who objected learned about the book in late August through an introductory email from her child’s teacher, who listed the three core books the class was set to read.
Her child’s class was among four out of the 10 tenth-grade English sections that had the book on their reading list this year, according to St. Onge.
Six days after receiving the notification email, the parent responded to the teacher with her concerns about the book, according to emails that were included as part of the district’s response to the Monitor’s right-to-know request.
“If you don’t mind us asking, what is the value of this book?” she asked. “There must be other books that talk about growing up without all of this inappropriate content. We honestly don’t want a lot of this content in our son’s head.”
The parent declined to speak on the record for this story and asked that the family name be omitted to protect their privacy.
“We do not wish to be the poster children for book bans or any other controversial topics,” the parent wrote in an email.
After ultimately reading the book, the parent later described it as “pornography disguised as children’s literature” in the form she submitted requesting its review.
In all, the parent objected to 52 out of the book’s 218 pages. In addition to what she labeled as pornography, the mother wrote that she disapproved of drunkenness, drug use, physical abuse, rape, abortion, a secret relationship between a teacher and a student, “disgusting sexual terms,” suicide, and “men meeting in parks to have random sex.”
The book is written by author Stephen Chbosky, from the perspective of Charlie, a freshman at a suburban Pennsylvania high school, who writes letters to an anonymous friend about his life throughout the year.
Among the pages listed in the parent’s objection, the book includes a scene during which Charlie witnesses a boy forcing a girl to engage in a sex act despite her protestations. In another scene, Charlie describes two boys having sex for the first time.
Charlie states, “I don’t want to go into detail about it because it’s pretty private stuff, but I will say that Brad assumed the role of the girl in terms of where you put things.”
The parent also objected to a mention that his sister’s boyfriend hits her, to several instances that refer to high school students smoking marijuana, to advice about kissing, and to a reference to Charlie taking his sister to get an abortion.
“These thoughts are now permanently in our son’s brain, and we cannot take them out,” the parent wrote. “We are very upset about this. We are supposed to keep our children pure and innocent for as long as possible and we just cannot understand why this material is being introduced to him and the rest of the students at this crucial age.”
The educational value
In emails with the parent, the teacher wrote that the topics in the book “reflect real challenges that many adolescents face, and they are presented in ways that encourage critical reflection rather than endorsement of the behaviors.”
“In addition to its literary merit, this novel provides students with the opportunity to reflect on the complexities of growing up in a safe and structured environment,” she wrote. “Rather than ‘encouraging’ certain behaviors, it opens the door to important discussions about choice, consequence, empathy, and resilience, topics that are critical for adolescents to consider as they navigate their own development.”
The teacher did not respond to a request for comment. She is one of two teachers who included the book among their list of materials for this school year.
When informed about the Merrimack Valley committee’s decision, prominent opponents of book bans said in interviews that it was misguided.
“I’m sad,” said MacKenzie Nicholson, the senior director of the New Hampshire chapter of the organization MomsRising. “My first thought is about the students who might see themselves in that book — or who may have, but will not now.”
Instead of the parent calling for the book to be removed from English courses wholesale, Nicholson questioned why she didn’t instead opt her child out of reading the book individually — an option that the teacher provided, but the parent ultimately declined.
Fundamental to the disagreement about book bans is a debate about whether the purpose of school extends beyond teaching core subjects to facilitating conversations about complex life experiences young people face.
“I think it can be helpful to have an adult teacher asking students to question some of the things in the book and talk about what might be healthier, or not so healthy choices, and also just compassionately affirming that sometimes students might not make the right choice initially,” said Linds Jakows, the founder of the organization 603 Equality and an opponent of legislation that would lead to more restrictions on curricular materials.
The teacher wrote in emails that she focuses on using the book to discuss “Charlie’s respect for women in his life.” She said she skips a “non-consent scene” while reading the book aloud in class.
St. Onge described the book as “highly engaging” and noted that “the majority of the feedback was well-received from students.” He acknowledged that the committee’s decision may not meet the needs of all students.
“There are kids that will benefit from it, and there are kids that may have a hard time with it,” St. Onge said. “In school, we can’t anticipate how each individual student will react.”
“There are people that believe that the purpose of school is to teach reading, writing and whatnot, and then there are also people that believe that the purpose of school is to provide social-emotional care and deep thinking,” he added. “The reality is it’s all of it.”
Instructional material review
Opponents of curricular restrictions said they worry that teachers will lose control over what they see as critical decision-making authority in their classes or start to self-censor their content decisions.
“When professionals start to worry about objections from parents, they may start to second-guess themselves,” Nicholson said.
Merrimack Valley is in the process of introducing a rubric to assess certain aspects of its curriculum, including required core books, St. Onge said. The rubric will structure a more formal review of the course materials’ alignment to the curriculum, potential for differentiation, content sensitivity and appropriateness, among other categories.
St. Onge said that the process, which was rolled out last year, formalizes the material review process but doesn’t require teachers to achieve more levels of approval than they did previously.
“They still have autonomy to choose any material they feel is beneficial,” he said.