Residents sharply criticise book bans and urge clarity on reading-policy language

Two members of the public used the meeting’s second public forum to push the board on reading-materials policy.

Katherine Trinh, who identified herself as a long-time Readington resident, delivered a forceful critique of book bans and so-called watchlists. "There is nothing conservative about book bans and watchlists," Trinh said, calling the practice authoritarian and announcing plans to launch public organizing online to oppose local censorship.

A later speaker, Katherine DeLuca, asked the board to clarify language in proposed regulation 2535. DeLuca said she supported protecting students but urged the board to distinguish between demonstrable student-safety metrics (for example, fire safety or student suicide prevention) and broader "protection" language applied to reading materials. She asked whether the board has data linking classroom reading choices to student safety metrics and urged care in applying protective policies to curricular materials.

Why it matters: Public comments reflect active community engagement on curriculum and library oversight. The exchange captured both a strongly worded ideological objection and a procedural question about how the district defines and justifies restrictions on reading materials.

What the board recorded: The board thanked the speakers and acknowledged their comments; no formal action or vote on regulation 2535 was recorded in the meeting transcript.

Both public commenters requested further public engagement and transparency from the board on how reading and resource policies will be implemented.