The problem
Across the country, many school and public libraries have
seen a surge in intellectual freedom challenges — attempts to restrict or
remove access to library resources. But this round of challenges doesn't follow
the usual playbook of a single patron filling out a Request for Reconsideration
for just one library resource. Instead, it looks more like this:
·
Ten to 15 people show up at a public board
meeting and crowd into the slot for public comments.
·
They express (as opposed to submitting in
writing) the desire to remove multiple
titles, 20-30 at a time. And they request that the materials be removed while
under review.
·
They read aloud the naughtiest bits they can
find in the books they object to. The apparent complaint is language and sex.
The books are repeatedly described as "obscene." But in fact, the
content is almost always related to LGBTQ+ and race.
·
These context-free snippets often profoundly
ignore or diminish the actual themes of the book. They also tend to lump all
minors into "child" status —--
diminishing the intelligence or maturity of young readers.
·
They cite "parental rights" as a key
concern — even when the attempt is to control what other parents and their children have access to.
·
They make threats: The board should be recalled,
the superintendent/principal/classroom teachers/librarians should be fired, if
not criminally charged with ... something.
·
They threaten library funding.
·
They record the meeting with their cellphones or
free-standing cameras.
·
They conduct social media smear campaigns.
·
They may carry placards, signs, and sport
buttons.
·
They may holler, hoot, whistle, and stamp their
feet.
Like a photo bomb, this is a disruptive intrusion. We might
call it a “ban bomb” — also disruptive, but with the intent of preventing
others from having access to intellectual content.
To be clear, citizens have a right to protest, a right
enshrined in the same First Amendment that informs library collections. But
many public boards are used to no one showing up at all. When an angry mob
descends, board members are often at a loss. They lose control of the meeting,
and they lose control of a community narrative.
This article addresses some approaches to responding in a
way that is both respectful and productive.
The role of public policies
Most (but not all) schools have a core set of policies to
govern their basic mission and practice. Among these are:
·
The Library Bill of Rights (and
interpretations). Originally adopted in 1939 by the American Library
Association (ALA), this is the foundational document of intellectual freedom in
librarianship. It asserts the intent to build collections regardless of origin,
background, or views. It also asserts the right of a person to use the library
regardless not only of origin, background, or views, but age. The most recent
version, adopted by ALA in 2019, also asserts the right to privacy. (But note
that the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act [FERPA] is a federal law
that affords parents the right to have access to their children's education
records, and school library records are included.)
·
The Code of Professional Ethics. The code states
that librarians should "resist all efforts to censor library
resources." Further, librarians "should not allow our personal
beliefs to interfere with fair representation of the aims of our institutions
or the provision of access to their information resources."
·
A collection development policy. This document outlines
what the library seeks to collect and why, including digital content. Usually,
it includes a statement that the library buys materials that reflect current
topics and concerns and represent many different points of view.
·
Programs & exhibits policies. These newer
policies reflect the fact that many of today's challenges aren't about books at
all.
·
Request for reconsideration protocols. Most
libraries also have a request for reconsideration process. Its purpose is to
acknowledge user concerns, and provide a thoughtful second look
at purchasing decisions in the light of the entire work and the current policy
framework.
Best practices for this protocol
include the following:
·
The complaint must be in writing. This creates
the paper trail: who is protesting, what their specific concerns might be, what
alternatives, if any, are suggested. A letter to the editor, or a public
statement, is insufficient to kick off the reconsideration.
·
The process includes all library resources — --not
just books.
·
The complainant must be a resident of the legal
service area.
·
Items or resources will not be withdrawn while
under reconsideration.
·
More and more often, reconsideration forms
indicate that the patron must have examined the entire item, not just, for
instance, a single panel in a graphic novel, or an isolated
passage from a novel.
·
A committee, generally of library or school
staff, review the whole item and relevant
policy, then make a recommendation to an administrator about whether the
resource should remain as it is, be restricted in some fashion (reclassified
from children to adult, usually, or moved from elementary or middle school to
high school), or removed altogether.
·
The administrator then makes a decision and
communicates it to the original complainant. This usually includes an option to
appeal the decision to a citizen governing board.
·
Some attorneys have advised library boards that
an appeal does not mean policies can
be ignored or changed on the fly. Rather, a board might simply ask if the
protocol was followed. If the request for reconsideration was in writing, if it
came from a resident of the legal service area, if a committee was formed, if
they then reviewed the item and made a recommendation, and if the administrator
accepted the recommendation and communicated it to the complainant, then there
is no grounds for an appeal.
·
Finally, some libraries have placed a limit on
either the number of challenges that one person may file within a time period
(one per six- month
period), or state that once an item has been reconsidered, it won't be taken up
again for a period of (for instance) two years. Time is better spent on
building the inventory, than buying new copies for all
review committee members and taking them away from their library or
instructional work.
Public comment policies and procedures
Some schools and public libraries are surprised to find out
that there is a procedure hiding in their policy manuals. It just hasn't been
used much.
Typical approaches include the following:
·
The person protesting a library resource
identifies themselves with their name and either address or city of residence.
·
Each speaker is allotted some set period of
time, often accompanied by a countdown buzzer or software timer. In my
experience, three minutes is plenty. Some boards offer five minutes. The time
doesn't matter except that it applies to everyone. Speakers can't give their
time to someone else to extend their speaking time. However, speakers
representing a larger group are often encouraged to select a spokesperson, with
others simply saying, "I agree with that person."
·
Boards may set a total public comment
time, stating, "We do have business to conduct today, but will allot 45
minutes of today's meeting for public comment. Those we don't get to will be
invited to speak at our next meeting." Some boards may also choose to take
some public comment at the outset of the meeting, then resume after other
business is concluded.
·
Perhaps the most important protocol is this: The
board shouldn't engage in conversation with the speakers. It's OK to ask
clarifying questions (and that doesn't count against the speaker's time). But
public comment is an opportunity for the board to listen. Where things go awry
is when a speaker needles or asks inflammatory questions of a board member, who
then responds angrily. Those exchanges wind up on Facebook or TikTok. Often,
that's precisely the intent of the public comment.
·
Instead, no action should be taken during a
meeting. A board may direct an administrator to investigate a claim and report
at a subsequent meeting. On occasion, a board member may do some fact checking
in real time. For instance, "The library does not in fact own this
title." But it is under no obligation to do anything. Every comment
doesn't require a response, other than a simple "Thank you."
·
No
items or services should be pulled while an item or resource is being reviewed.
Quite often, challengers will demand that every copy of a book should be pulled
while it works its way through the reconsideration process. But this, like
filing repeated challenges for the same titles, is just a strategy to remove
access through process rather than official decision.
The goal of all the above is to simply provide good
governance, rather than a reactive, shoot-from-the-hip approach.
It's vital to remember that public comment doesn't have to
be a series of attacks. In fact, the best response to a surge of public
challenges during board meetings may be to invite more people to speak, but on the library's behalf. It is not
uncommon to find that one's community lines up with ALA research in 2022
showing that "more than seven in 10 voters (71%) oppose efforts to remove
books from public libraries, with majorities of voters across party lines
opposed." (Voters Oppose Book Bans in Libraries). Too often people talk
only with those who agree with them. They think they're a majority. Having gay
or minority students speak up about the value of materials that answer their
questions or help them feel seen can be transformative for a community. Ultimately,
censorship is best opposed not just by courageous administrators and
boards adhering to policy, but by communities that say, "This is not who
we are. We reject censorship."
Legislation
There have been some legislative attempts, universally (to
date) the work of extreme conservatives, that not only seek to criminalize
whole topics (such as LGBTQ+ materials in schools), but also threaten to punish
the school librarians and classroom teachers who provide access to them. One
example is a 2023 Mississippi bill (
2023) that removed access to whole platforms of content, specifically Overdrive
and Hoopla, for anyone under the age of 18.
Another example is Alabama's House Bill 385
(Alabama State Legislature),
passed in 2024. It would allow anyone to write a letter to a school district
superintendent or head librarian claiming a book is obscene. If the library
failed to remove the materials within seven days, librarians would face a
maximum punishment of one year in jail and a $6,000 fee.
Both examples — and there are many more — represent an
attempt to use the power of the state to reject the First Amendment.
At the same time, progressives have led efforts,
first in Illinois, then in California, now including Colorado, to pass
legislation that both moves intellectual freedom policy into statute and
protects librarians. At some point, one side or the other might set the matter
before the U.S. Supreme
Court. Until then, librarians will find an inconsistent patchwork of support or
penalties for what used to be business as usual: making widespread and
commercially produced products available to the public.
Purpose of Public Institutions
Some community members seek public drama and brouhaha. They
live for the shot of adrenaline to the amygdala, the certainty that the Other
Side Is Up to Something. Their outrage serves blatant partisanship, becoming
part of a narrative that ends in fundraising appeals and voter campaigns.
But what they deserve, what all people deserve from local
government, is thoughtful attention and measured responses. Public institutions
have missions. Those missions should be made manifest by policy and practice.
Moreover, the public deserves meaningful conversation,
balancing individual inquiry with social well-being.
At this moment in our national history we are also engaged
in a deep shift in our own identity. It begins with the freedom to tell the
stories of ourselves. Today, that requires passionate defenders and significant
civic courage.
Conclusion
America’s intellectual freedom culture wars probably won’t
be over any time soon. Meanwhile, library staff should always be on the lookout
for champions. Who articulates — perhaps at school board or parent teacher
meetings — the importance of the broadest possible exposure to literature and
world events? Who respects the intelligence of younger readers, and believes
the best diet for that intelligence is knowledge?
Building a network of supporters takes time and attention. It happens one conversation at a time. Once champions can be found, they may need some support. Provide the core intellectual freedom documents to them. Give them some talking points. Encourage them to talk to others to explore the issue. Help them find friends.
Libraries are themselves a compelling narrative. If we equip champions to advocate for the freedom to read and keep supporting them, many stories can be told. The bottom line is this: The battle usually goes to the best organized. Get organized.
Works Cited
Alabama State, Legislature. House Bill 385. Alabama State Legislature, 2 May 2024, https://legiscan.com/AL/bill/HB385/2024.
Villarreal, Daniel. “Mississippi’s new book-banning law denies minors access to e-books & audiobooks.” LGBTQ Nation,” 11 July 2023.
“Voters Oppose Book Bans in Libraries,” American Library Association, 2022, https://www.ala.org/sites/default/files/advocacy/content/Voters-Oppose-Book-Bans-in-Libraries-AC-11-5.pdf.
Comments