Eddie Waldrep, a candidate for the Academy District 20 (ASD20) school board, raised serious concerns with his tweet from April 2024 referencing his being “gaveled for reading from one of the books protected by SB24-216,” closely mirroring tactics previously used by Derrick Wilburn. Waldrep referred explicitly to Colorado Senate Bill 24-216, a legislative measure enacted to establish clear, transparent standards for library resource policies and protect library staff from unwarranted censorship or retaliation.
Notably, SB24-216 mandates that public libraries adopt clear written policies regarding the acquisition, retention, and reconsideration of library resources. These policies ensure books and other materials are not arbitrarily removed due to personal or political biases. Importantly, the bill explicitly protects library employees from retaliation if they uphold these policies in good faith.
A Familiar Tactic
However, Waldrep’s tactic—publicly reading explicit content presumably taken out of context to provoke outrage—is reminiscent of Derrick Wilburn’s disruptive and controversial actions during a student-led candidate forum. Wilburn notably read graphic excerpts from the novel Push by Sapphire in front of an audience that included children as young as eight. This deliberate provocation traumatized young attendees and sparked widespread condemnation.
Currently, Wilburn is suing a parent constituent for defamation because the parent has publicly spoken out about the negative impact his stunt had on her child, raising concerns about his judgment. Waldrep’s adoption of similar methods raises important questions about his own judgment and appropriateness for positions of educational leadership within ASD20.
Further raising transparency concerns, Waldrep has recently deleted or otherwise made his X account unavailable. This action should prompt public inquiry about what Waldrep is attempting to hide or conceal from public scrutiny. Fortunately, internet archives preserve these records, reinforcing the need for transparency and accountability from public figures.
Waldrep’s tweet and public reading appear to replicate Wilburn’s tactic, using shock value rather than reasoned discourse to influence public opinion and policy debates about educational and library resources. Such methods are intentionally inflammatory and detrimental, particularly in settings involving young audiences or public discourse about sensitive topics.
This similarity in approach raises critical questions about Waldrep’s suitability for leadership roles in educational governance, particularly within D20. Rather than fostering thoughtful debate about the role of libraries and educational materials, Waldrep and Wilburn’s methods serve to incite controversy, manipulate public sentiment, and potentially harm children and community members who are exposed to such deliberately provocative actions.
Community stakeholders should closely scrutinize candidates and public figures employing these tactics, recognizing that sensationalism and shock tactics contribute negatively to constructive community dialogue and policy-making, particularly regarding sensitive educational matters.