A California Assembly bill that would prohibit school boards from excluding books that contain “diverse perspectives”—including critical race theory and gender ideology—is another step closer to becoming law.

After passing the state Assembly in May, Assembly Bill 1078 passed 5–2 in the Senate Education Committee July 5, with Sens. Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh (R-Yucaipa) and Scott Wilk (R-Santa Clarita) dissenting.

It will now be heard in the Senate Appropriations Committee in the coming weeks.

Assemblyman Corey Jackson (D-Riverside), who introduced the bill, said its aim is to address some California school boards who have recently removed books “not based on character but because of race, because of someone’s sexuality.”

“These book bans deny students their right to access a broad range of stories and perspectives and they create restrictions on teaching and learning, which impacts our educators and librarians and silences authors, most of whom [are] from marginalized communities,” Mr. Jackson said during the hearing.

The bill would ban school boards from excluding books due to topics related to race, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation. To exclude a book for any other reason, the bill requires a two-thirds supermajority of the respective school board’s vote.

The bill also requires audits of library and classroom books, with potential funding penalties for districts that have insufficient diverse instructional materials, according to California Department of Education’s standards.

During the hearing, lawmakers debated the issue, including who should make such decisions.

Sen. Lola Smallwood-Cuevas (D-Los Angeles) said she believed such responsibility rests with the state.

“There is local control and there is a state responsibility,” she said. “I think this is a forward-looking policy.”

Meanwhile, Ms. Ochoa-Bogh said she thought legislators focused too much on discussions of diversity instead of academics and cost of living, which she said were forefront issues in the minds of her constituents.

“We focus so much on color of skin, gender, sexuality, versus the content of character,” she said.

Passionate Californians on both sides of the issue also spoke on the bill during the hearing.

Speaking in favor of the bill, one Temecula Valley Unified School District teacher mentioned her district, which was recently the subject of statewide controversy after it rejected in May a social studies textbook whose supplemental materials included a book that referenced LGBT activist Harvey Milk.

The board’s president, Joseph Komrosky, said he objected to the book due to reports that Milk was a “pedophile” and had a sexual relationship with a minor when he was 33 years old.

“I’ve witnessed the consequences of curriculum denied in our community,” the teacher said.

State Superintendent Tony Thurmond also spoke in support of the bill saying he valued local control—but it does not include the right to “threaten and bully students.”

“Having recently visited Temecula Valley, I can tell you our students … feel threatened. They feel attacked. They feel mistreated,” Mr. Thurmond said. “They simply want to gain access to information that is proven to benefit them. Inclusive education benefits students academically.”

A representative from the California Teachers’ Association said they had a “neutral position,” but thanked the bill’s author for including the organization in a working group on the issue.

Others strongly opposed the bill, saying it stripped control away from local officials, who were elected to represent the desires of their community.

Jennifer Kennedy, an attorney and member of parent advocacy group Our Duty, likened the bill to “tyranny.”

“What this bill is designed to do is to come down and micromanage those school board members, to come down and make sure the material the state wants to see in schools—which is the ‘inclusive’ LGBT agenda,” said Ms. Kennedy. “We are talking about codifying government tyranny. We’re talking about the state becoming Big Brother.”

A representative for the California School Board Association also told the committee it has concerns the bill, if passed into law, would reverberate.

“We’re concerned that it [could create] a troubling precedent going forward,” the representative said.

He additionally said the association thought the bill’s financial penalties were “going in the wrong direction” and could harm a district’s educational programs.