By Geena Monahan—For the North Star ReporterÂ
A bill inspired in part by North Attleborough’s controversial removal of a library book from an elementary school has cleared a major hurdle on Beacon Hill.
The Massachusetts House voted 153-3 on June 10 to approve legislation filed by state Rep. Adam Scanlon (D-North Attleborough) that would establish statewide standards for challenging and removing books from school and public libraries.
The measure, known as An Act Regarding Free Expression, now heads to a conference committee, where House and Senate negotiators will reconcile differences between their versions before sending a final bill to Gov. Maura Healey.
“I am proud that the House passed my bill to prevent censorship and protect freedom of speech,” Scanlon said in a statement. “This is about defending something basic: the right of students and communities to be able to learn freely, encounter a broad spectrum of ideas and choose what they read without interference.”
According to Scanlon’s office, the legislation was prompted in part by North Attleborough’s 2023 removal of “Woke: A Young Poet’s Call to Justice” from the Martin Elementary School library. The book was removed following a parent’s complaint — without public notice or a formal School Committee vote — sparking community debate after the decision became public in early 2024.
The controversy drew widespread attention, including the protest resignation of then-Town Councilor Darius Gregory. Following months of public discussion, North Attleborough Public Schools returned the book to library shelves and revised district policies governing the review of library materials.
School Committee Chair Tasha Buzzell said the district’s experience exposed shortcomings in policies that had been in place for more than two decades.
“Book bans and challenges were not on my radar in 2024,” Buzzell said. “We had a policy written in 2002 and updated in 2004 that lacked consistency and transparency. Schools within the district could reach different results on the same materials, and the review process was not publicly accessible or generally reviewable.”
Buzzell said the controversy ultimately led the committee to strengthen its policies and create a more transparent review process.
“The School Committee changed our policy based on the district’s experience, and I am not surprised that Rep. Scanlon has been forward-thinking in moving this issue forward on the state level,” she said. “Necessity is the mother of invention, and sometimes our greatest learning opportunities are in seeing where we have failed.”
According to Scanlon’s office, the bill would require school committees to adopt written policies governing library materials and establish a transparent process for reviewing complaints. Challenged books would remain available during the review process, which would include public hearings and opportunities for community input.
Under the legislation, books could be removed only after a vote of the elected school committee and based on clear and convincing evidence that the material lacks educational, literary, artistic, personal or social value, or is not age-appropriate for any student at the school. Decisions could also be appealed through the courts.
Buzzell said she supports the bill’s emphasis on transparency and objective standards.
“Education is the one thing no one can take away from you, but restricting access to materials without public conversations and debate about well-considered reasons feels plainly wrong,” she said.
Scanlon filed the legislation in January 2025 with Rep. John Moran (D-South End). The bill was reported favorably out of committee before advancing through the House this month.
During debate, lawmakers rejected an amendment filed by Rep. John Gaskey (R-Carver) that would have removed legal protections shielding schools, libraries, and museums from obscenity enforcement when materials have educational, literary, artistic or scientific value.
Speaking against the amendment, Scanlon cited the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Miller v. California, which held that a work is not obscene if a reasonable person could find it to have serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
“We are not talking about edge cases alone,” Scanlon said during debate. “We are talking about the everyday curriculum of public education and public culture.”
Scanlon said the legislation is intended to protect access to a broad range of ideas, regardless of political viewpoint.
“This is not a partisan issue, and all people from across the political spectrum have much to fear from ideologues policing what other people and their families may read,” he said. “The freedom to read widely, encounter a broad spectrum of ideas, and learn freely is key to ensuring the preparation of able and civically-minded citizens.”