The Color Purple. The Kite Runner. The Hate U Give.

As Florida continues its political and cultural attack on books, these are just three popular titles being elevated in the headlines. This trio of books also happens to be among the literary works of art that have impacted me the most as a longtime bibliophile.

Since middle school, I have found myself picking up the most profound, controversial books that libraries offer… and devouring them. As you can imagine, hearing about the implementation of Florida HB1467 law and subsequent legislation evoked many feelings, including anger. Mainstream news reporters have explained that Florida’s school boards tarnished the reputation of many books that I previously put on a pedestal. These stories highlighted lawmakers’ blatant disregard for democracy and America’s constitution. As convincing as they appeared, these stories were excellent at serving their intended purpose: championing a partisan viewpoint without offering viewers and readers all the facts. Realizing I, too, had fallen for the trap, I started asking myself questions: Why was the law initially introduced? What problems could it solve, if any? When I failed to find answers online, I knew that I had to take matters into my own hands and learn more.

Let’s break down HB1467 and its baggage.

The original intent of HB1467 was to protect parental rights and curriculum transparency in Florida public schools. It requires all instructional materials in public schools to be selected and vetted by certified media specialists who have completed a mandatory training course established by the state. Media specialists are required to publish a list of all books available in classrooms, libraries and class curricula through a publicly accessible online catalog. In addition, all books already housed in public schools when HB1467 passed require reviews by two professional journal sources and approval by community stakeholders for media specialists to keep them available to students. Nothing too crazy yet, right?

Here’s where things started to heat up. This law also allows individuals to challenge the books offered in Florida public school libraries, classrooms or curricula. To do so, a person must complete an objection form found on the school’s website. The school district’s review committee — which consists of media specialists, community members, parents and department heads — then has 30 days to read the book, convene and decide whether to uphold or overrule the objection. Three criteria all books must follow are: (1) Age appropriateness, (2) Educational value and (3) No pornographic content. However, these criteria are highly subjective and review committee members hold all the power over these decisions. Both conscious and subconscious bias can creep into the decision-making process and a lack of consistency may exist across counties. Also, this exercise feels duplicative given that all books were already vetted at the inception of HB1467 by a trained media specialist. Why should non-experts on a review committee dictate what books stay in schools?

Already, the book review process is backlogged in several Florida counties. Books are inaccessible to students after being challenged and before the review committee makes its decision. Critics of the legislation argue that students should not be deprived of valuable academic materials during the waiting period, while supporters believe potentially harmful content should not be shared until it is deemed acceptable by a review committee.

Spoiler alert: that was not the most contentious part of the law. What triggered the wrath of so many people? Well, if a review committee decides to remove a book from a school, no child in that respective school district can access the book. For example, when The Hate U Give was challenged and removed in Lee County, no public school student in any school in Lee County could acquire it through school. This provision has galvanized people to speak out and caused a heated debate as the lines between free expression and parental rights are blurred. Why does one parent’s view dictate access to a book for thousands of children? Is this law promoting student well-being or hindering them from learning about important topics conducive to society at large? Why do most books that are removed contain similar themes, like gender identity, religion, racism, police brutality, offensive slurs or language, mental health struggles, substance abuse, suicide and sexual assault? Most importantly, how do we find a balance between individual and parental rights before the situation spirals out of control?

After researching, I see the rationale for its passage. I also believe that amendments are necessary to streamline the process and ease existing tensions. There is a way to enforce parental preferences for individual students — parents can create a “red list” for their child, and only their child. If parents challenge a book, it should be noted and placed on a red list for their child only. When a student goes to check out books from the library or classrooms, teachers and librarians will know what books that students can and cannot check out. This solution does not step on the toes of other parents who have different reading preferences for their children. It also eliminates the entire challenge process and its nuances (backlogging, nonparents submitting challenges, waiting periods, etc.).

Finally, the state must ensure that an adequate number of trained media specialists are employed for each public school to handle the workload of vetting books. It is critical to have the right number of resources to get this done in a timely manner.

Since the implementation of HB1467, Florida has seen a dramatic rise in the number of books that have been challenged, sometimes for overt political purposes. As a result, one measure (HB1285) was recently enacted to limit the number of book challenges a non-parent may make. While both HB1467 and HB1285 have been portrayed by media sources in a biased, polarized manner, one must take the initiative to objectively investigate further, understand the true intent of the legislation and determine any shortcomings. Only then can a suggestion like individual red lists come to fruition.

— Natasha Agarwal is a 17-year-old senior at Canterbury School and founder of BelieveNBooks, a nonprofit that distributes books to underprivileged children and teens in Southwest Florida. She is the author of “Tales of African Women Trailblazers,” a book that explores successful historical figures through a collection of stories and illustrations.