NEW HANOVER COUNTY — Delays in discussing a banned book have led two New Hanover County school board members to call out the board chair for violating policy and propose a rule making it harder for it to happen again.
READ MORE:School board temporarily bans book on American racism from NHCS classrooms
At Tuesday’s agenda review meeting, the board voted 4-3 against adding a discussion of “Stamped,” a book that was temporarily banned from NHCS curricula more than a year ago, to next week’s meeting agenda. Board members Tim Merrick, Judy Justice and David Perry were in the minority.
Anti-racism activist Ibram X. Kendi’s book, its full title “Stamped: Racism, Antiracism, and You,” was barred from curriculum after Katie Gates, whose child was reading the book in their AP English class, challenged it in September 2023.
Republican board members who voted for its removal — Pete Wildeboer, Pat Bradford, Josie Barnhart and Melissa Mason — agreed with Gates’ claim the book was unsuitable for the class. The book is advertised as a chronology of racist ideas since 1415, and despite the class’ goal of rhetorical analysis, Gates alleged the book went beyond argument and into anti-American and Marxist propaganda.
The ban was to stay in effect until the board updated its policies on supplementary materials and can choose what some members called “a balanced book” to add to the syllabus, possibly alongside “Stamped.”
Prior to Tuesday’s vote, Justice inquired about her request to obtain an update on this progress at a board meeting. Chair Melissa Mason reported the matter would be taken up at the next curriculum meeting in June.
However, Merrick — who was censured for breaking policy last month — argued not taking up the topic after Justice emailed the board March 5 to address it was a violation of board policy. Policy 2330 mandates items supported by two board members must be added to the agenda within two meetings.
Emails obtained by Port City Daily show Justice’s request was backed up by Merrick,. Per policy, the item would need to be on the May 2 meeting agenda.
“To send it to curriculum is great, I think that’s a great channel, a good way to do it, but it does not abrogate the responsibility of this board to pick up something that was motioned and seconded within two sessions,” Merrick said.
Port City Daily reached out to Mason asking if she thought she was breaking policy but did not receive a response by press.
Republican Perry initially wanted to ensure the right people were in the room to discuss the book and give prepared presentations.
“I don’t think there’s any value, other than trying to appease the public or for news articles, to actually get this done now,” Perry said.
Justice explained next week’s discussion would be under information and would serve as an update to the general public — not to re-litigate whether “Stamped” should be part of curriculum.
Perry changed his mind in the end and was willing to give 20 minutes to the update.
Other board members suggested the discussion was politically motivated.
“I’m going to vote no because of the last board meeting we had,” board member Bradford said, referring to the April 11 hearing resulting in Merrick’s censure. “I don’t want to drum up any more fever in the community that’s already out there. I just want to have some peace and not fulfill campaign promises, not build my personal silo. I just want to do the business of teaching children.”
Merrick objected to the notion he was pushing the “Stamped” discussion because of politics.
“It could just as easily be said that the banning of the book is a campaign promise, so let’s put that [accusation] out,” he retorted. “We can’t decide which part of the public we want to show up and which part of the public we don’t want to show up — that’s not our job.”
Community members have been speaking out on the unresolved status of “Stamped,” some even emailing the board to criticize them for voting against taking it up next week. Advocacy group NHC Educational Justice has also scheduled a “Hands Off Book Rally” one hour before the May 6 school meeting.
Justice replied she thought the discussion would diffuse public pushback.
Board member Pete Wildeboer justified his vote against the discussion by saying the public was updated by observing their agenda review conversation. Though, as Merrick noted, few people attend the agenda review meetings and the YouTube streams are only viewed around 250 times, compared to 2,500 regular meeting viewers (though the last several have been in the 700 range).
Though voted down to add to next week’s official board agenda, “Stamped” came up again indirectly later in the meeting during discussion of a proposed policy change on next week’s agenda.
At the agenda review, Bradford asked to discuss policy 2450 on suspension of board policies. It allows board policies “not established by law or contract” to be ceased temporarily by a majority vote of board members present at a meeting.
Merrick proposed the policy change to require a supermajority instead of a majority. This would mean more than four members would be required to approve halting policies temporarily.
Merrick made the suggestion based on multiple instances where the board has ignored its policies. For example, he pointed to additions to the agenda as discussed regarding “Stamped” earlier in Tuesday’s meeting.
“I’m giving you the option — if you don’t want to follow the policy, then quote 2450 and just say that’s what you’re doing,” Merrick said. “We have policies in our manual and if we don’t want to follow them, we should be on record for it.”
Bradford suspected the change would violate Robert’s Rules of Order, which require two-thirds supermajorities for closing debate, suspending rules, and reopening nominations or polls.
“Robert’s protects the right of the little person, the small minority vote,” Bradford said, alleging the supermajority requirement would change that.
However, Robert’s Rules states supermajorities are a tool to protect minority rights by preventing the majority, particularly a certain political party in power, from steamrolling the rights of a minority. They are also used for bigger decisions, such as constitutional amendments and vetoes of the executive branch.
Bradford asked the board attorneys to weigh in on the issue.
Board attorney Norwood Blanchard seemed stumped by Merrick’s suggestion to change the policy to a supermajority vote, saying he had never seen the issue come up before in regards to school board decisions. He concluded he couldn’t think of anything preventing the board from passing the policy change because the supermajority would be used for a procedural purpose.
However, he advised the board not to stray from majority rules for substantive decisions.
Blanchard said he would study the issue and be prepared for more definitive advice ahead of next week’s meeting, when the policy change will go to a vote.
Tips or comments? Email brenna@localdailymedia.com.
Want to read more from PCD? Subscribe now and then sign up for our morning newsletter, Wilmington Wire, and get the headlines delivered to your inbox every morning.
