NH parents and educators debate YA book’s place in school curriculum following recent removal
“The Perks of Being a Wallflower” was recently removed from a Concord school’s recommended reading list. Many have expressed displeasure over the decision.
When I was in middle school, I read a book that continues to have a significant impact on the way I view the world. That book, “The Perks of Being a Wallflower” by Stephen Chbosky, is among the most frequently restricted or banned titles in schools across the US, according to PEN America. The school I attended fell under this umbrella. My best friend at the time read “Perks” after me and discussed it with our school librarian, who had concerns about the book’s content. I don’t remember the exact sequence of events or the technical process that led to its removal, as I was only a kid at the time, but I do remember feeling a sense of grief when I found out our school would no longer carry the book on its shelves.
As an adult, I understand that the process for restricting books is more nuanced than it seemed when I was an adolescent, but I’m often still struck by a sense of grief when formative titles are taken out of the hands of readers who need them most. I want to preface all of this by stating that I’m not a parent and thus I don’t understand that part of the equation, and I would never deem my opinion more valuable than anyone else’s. Everyone is entitled to make whatever decision is best for them and their families. The grief I am talking about here, and that others have expressed in New Hampshire following the removal of “The Perks of Being a Wallflower” from a local school’s reading list, is largely centered around a loss of perspective and connection.
Several difficult subjects are addressed throughout the novel, including suicide, drug use, sexual assault, consensual and non-consensual sex, abortion, trauma, and PTSD. These are sensitive topics and should be addressed as such, and I understand that some children are more receptive to reading about these things in a safe setting, like a school library or classroom, than others. For me, and for my group of friends in middle school, “Perks” was life-changing. It presented a snapshot of what our realities actually looked like, and of the pain we were experiencing, each in our own ways, both privately and openly. It also served as a guidepost for how to seek help for that pain, as the novel makes it abundantly clear that trusted adults must be sought out when you’re struggling, and that mental health resources are available if you need them. The book teaches valuable lessons about self-worth, self-respect, being kind to yourself and others, and reaching out to those who are on the precipice of falling into their sadness in a way they might not be able to come back from.
One of the most quoted lines in the book is, ultimately, the line that has had the most significant impact on my life over the last two decades: “We accept the love we think we deserve.” It’s a line I’ve repeated on countless occasions as I’ve navigated the pitfalls and excitement of growing up, falling in love, falling out of love, and figuring out what I really deserve versus what I just think I deserve. It has been a beacon of light in even the darkest times—a gentle reminder and a firm hand reassuring me that there’s always a way forward involving kindness, patience, and genuine care—and I’m not sure how things would have turned out for me if I hadn’t read that line when I did.
All that is to say, I thought it might be helpful to lend a personal perspective to the situation in Concord, where a Merrimack Valley High School committee recently recommended removing “The Perks of Being a Wallflower” from required reading lists. I’m going to include both sides of the argument in the remainder of this story, as it’s important to cover the facts neutrally and honestly. I can see both sides, and I think there should always be room for nuance, as that’s the only way any of us will ever learn from each other in these situations.
I’m going to leave you with one final thought of my own that might help you see things from a different perspective if you happen to lean toward the restricting side of this argument. Life is, unfortunately, difficult for many of us from an early age. Ideally, we’re all going to experience childhood and adolescence as they should be experienced, with an abundance of safety and happiness, but that isn’t always the case. In the instances where it isn’t—where children are suffering at home, or at school, or generally—they deserve to be able to read stories that reflect their suffering, and that teach them the safest way to find the resources, community, and help they need. And they deserve to do it alongside their teachers and their peers, who can ensure the process is as supportive and informative as possible.
Here’s why it was removed from the school’s reading list
“The Perks of Being a Wallflower” was removed from the Merrimack Valley High School reading list following a parent’s complaint and a subsequent investigation by the school’s seven-member committee. The parent, whose identity has remained anonymous for privacy, said she was uncomfortable with her teenage son reading the young adult novel. “Perks” follows the main character, Charlie, a teenager in Pennsylvania who writes letters to an unidentified friend throughout his freshman year of high school. Charlie writes openly about his friendships, his struggles with his mental health, and the various pressures associated with growing up/coming of age.
The concerned parent read the book herself and said she objected to around 52 pages of the novel (it’s 218 pages in total). Most of these objections centered around scenes depicting physical or sexual abuse, drug use, drunkenness, or inappropriate relationships and experiences. In an email to her son’s teacher, she wrote, “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.” She was allowed to have her son individually opt out of reading the book, but chose instead to submit a reconsideration request for the book under a district policy regarding school content. Before her complaint, tenth-grade English classes in Merrimack Valley had been reading “The Perks of Being a Wallflower” without incident for the last two years.
Once her request was received, the seven-member school committee—composed of administrators and teachers—reviewed the book “over a period of several weeks.” They “engaged in discussion and research before making the decision to recommend that the book not be required in the future,” said Catherine Masterson, the Assistant Superintendent for Merrimack Valley School District. She emphasized that the book has not been completely banned and that teachers are still permitted to include it as an optional text. However, it cannot be included in required reading lists anymore. It will also still be available through the school’s library for those who want to read it independently.
Given that this is the first New Hampshire school to restrict a book following one parent’s complaint, many have since opposed the decision, including academics and other parents in the area.
Educators and parents have expressed displeasure over the school committee’s decision
Many have spoken out against the Merrimack Valley High School committee’s decision to recommend removing “The Perks of Being a Wallflower” from required reading lists. The teacher who originally assigned the book to her tenth-graders wrote in an email to the concerned parent that the novel “provides students with the opportunity to reflect on the complexities of growing up in a safe and structured environment,” meaning the classroom where they would be discussing the book and its content.
She also stated that the topics it covers, while difficult, “reflect real challenges that many adolescents face, and they are presented in ways that encourage critical reflection rather than endorsement of the behaviors.” The teacher went on to write that Chbosky’s novel “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.” She added that she refrains from reading a “non-consent scene” aloud during class.
For other educators, restricting books is part of a larger problem, particularly in an instance like this where “it sets a dangerous precedent where a single complaint can alter a curriculum,” said Rivier University English professor Sally Hirsh-Dickinson. Hirsh-Dickinson has never assigned the book herself, but she said that, “I would hear students being passionately enthusiastic about how significant this book was for them. It’s a book that speaks to a lot of students in a lot of sensitive and meaningful ways.”
The senior director for New Hampshire’s MomsRising chapter, MacKenzie Nicholson, said the decision to remove the book from required reading lists made her sad. “My first thought is about the students who might see themselves in that book — or who may have, but will not now.” This perspective is one that was, and will continue to be, considered by Principal Shaun St. Onge, who said in an interview that “the majority of the feedback was well-received from students” when asked about the book. He understands, though, that not every student or parent will agree with that assessment.
“There are kids that will benefit from it, and there are kids that may have a hard time with it. In school, we can’t anticipate how each individual student will react,” he said. St. Onge added, “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. The reality is it’s all of it.”
That reality will continue to lay the foundation for discussions not only of this book but also of other educational topics in the future.
Our stories may be republished online or in print under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. We ask that you edit only for style or to shorten, provide proper attribution and link to our web site. Please see our republishing guidelines for use of photos and graphics.
