The Clark County School District (CCSD) Board meeting on September 11, 2025, once again spotlighted one of the most divisive issues in education today: books in school libraries.
The debate is no longer about whether students should have access to literature – it’s about which books, and who gets to decide.
At the center of the meeting was a controversial book, Flamer by Mike Curato. According to critics, this graphic novel not only deals with sensitive issues but also includes disturbing details on methods of self-harm.
Parents raised concerns that the book, newly placed on some school shelves, contains passages describing “step by step” how to cut one’s wrists. For many, such explicit content is less about education and more about harmful instruction.
One of the strongest voices in favor of keeping the book available was CCSD librarian Nichole Beer.
She argued that removing titles like Flamer would amount to censorship and would deprive students of opportunities to explore real-life issues through literature.
Beer’s position echoed a broader theme heard from advocates during the meeting: banning books is an attack on intellectual freedom.
Also present was a group called Showing Up for Racial Justice Las Vegas (SURJ LV). On their website, SURJ LV describes itself this way:
“When we fight racism, we all win. SURJ mobilizes white people for justice across the country. Through campaigns, education, and action opportunities, we move our people to reject racism and complicity– and to join movements for change. – A home for white people working for justice. “
Members of SURJ LV spoke out in support of keeping books like Flamer on school shelves, framing the issue as one of equality, justice, and fighting against systems of oppression.
Julie Kemp, member of SURJ LV, defended the importance of diverse books in schools.
“People of different cultures, religions, races, orientations, and genders learn from one another’s experiences, and also from books,” Kemp said.
“The banning of books from a public institution such as a school is obviously an attempt to hinder the breadth and depth of knowledge gained by our youth. One must ask themselves: why would any person or organization want to prevent our youth from learning as much as possible about our history, its people, and the world around us?”
He continued, “The word control comes to mind. Limiting the availability of books and the knowledge our youth can obtain is an attempt to control their thoughts, beliefs, and ultimately their behavior. To limit their books is synonymous with limiting their own behavior.”
Passionate remarks on both sides: one camp fears dangerous or age-inappropriate material creeping into schools, while the other warns against censorship and the narrowing of young people’s worldview.
As a mother of six, I cannot ignore the difference between education and indoctrination. Claiming that graphic descriptions of self-harm or explicit sexual content are “educational” is not accurate.
Literature can inspire, challenge, and broaden perspectives – but when a book crosses into guiding children through dangerous behavior, it becomes something else entirely.
Schools should be places of learning and safety, not places where children are exposed to material that can encourage harm.
This is where the distinction between banning and vetting matters. No reasonable parent or educator wants to ban history books, classics, or diverse stories that enrich understanding of the human experience.
But vetting – carefully reviewing which books are age-appropriate for middle school or high school students – is a responsibility schools owe to families. The difference is crucial.
Vetting means teachers, administrators, AND parents work together to set boundaries that reflect the developmental stage of students.
It means saying, “Yes, this book belongs in a senior-level literature class,” or “No, this graphic novel detailing self-harm should not sit on a middle school shelf.”
It does not mean wiping entire categories of books from libraries; it means drawing lines of protection where needed.
The larger question CCSD must answer is whether the district values parental partnership in shaping what children are exposed to in schools. Parents are not asking for ignorance; they are asking for discernment.
To equate parental concern with censorship is to dismiss legitimate fears about the mental and emotional well-being of students.
At the end of the day, education is about equipping children with knowledge and critical thinking skills to succeed in life.
That can and should include exposure to diverse stories, but it should never include step-by-step instructions on self-harm or graphic sexual material that belongs outside a classroom.
The September 11 board meeting made one thing clear: this debate is not going away.
For parents, librarians, and advocacy groups alike, the question remains – are we protecting our children’s right to read, or are we neglecting our duty to protect their innocence?
The answer may depend not on whether books are “banned,” but on whether CCSD has the courage to draw the line between learning and harm.
The opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Nevada News & Views. This article was written with the assistance of AI. Please verify information and consult additional sources as needed.
