"Better" is subjective. If the adaptation indeed only takes 5% of the original text, it is perfectly fine to debate which parts would be the most poignant depending on what message is being attempted. Obviously the graphic/comic adaptation does not capture the entirety of the original text...does it capture the spirit and lessons in the same way? I have no idea.
If you are arguing that there are different and better ways to teach the content...you are right. That is a question of pedagogy. But if this were merely an issue of pedagogy, we wouldn't be talking about removing books, firing teachers, and pretending that 8th grade curiosity of sex is offensive.
And yes, these were Anne Frank's own words from my understanding. A middle school-aged girl herself. Is middle school too young to be curious about sexuality? Is middle school too young to learn the realities of the holocaust? The illustrations in this book (that were posted here) were certainly nothing offensive. Even if the "adaptation" made some changes (which is likely, I presume), what, in any of the content, is so objectionable that it justifies this kind of reaction?
You agreed that the teacher should not have been fired for this. Do you agree that the questionable passage is a depiction of molestation (since you are the one who posted that in this thread, for the sake of "relevant context")? Or do you agree that this is more misplaced right-wing hysteria?