To Pull the Book or to Not Pull the Book
Where do we draw the line on books being removed from school or public libraries?
Many people view libraries as a place to access material to gain more knowledge about the world. So what happens when somebody decides to limit access to such materials?
The debates about gender identity, critical race theory and a host of other issues that drive the culture war have led to more arguments about whether certain books should be allowed in libraries, whether school, public or both.
There are those who argue that removing books from library shelves is a violation of the First Amendment. Others argue that libraries are taxpayer funded and, therefore, libraries are under no obligation to put every book available on the shelves. And when it comes to school libraries, there's the point that schools are places of learning and that parents have a right to know what students learn.
Thus come the arguments about banned books, in which some say the practice is widespread while others say they aren't actually being banned. I personally define "banned book" to be a book that was available on a school or public library shelf for some time, until a governing body stepped in and took official action to remove it.
Therefore, I would not a call a library not having a book on its shelves at all to be "banned." Only when a governing body declares a book on the shelves must be removed do I apply that distinction.
That brings us to the question of whether or not governing bodies, such as school boards or city councils (or the equivalent thereof), have the authority to pull certain books from the shelves or limit the ability for patrons to check out materials.
The U.S. Supreme Court hasn't given governing bodies much to consider, because I've only found one case in which the high court considered a case of library books being pulled from shelves. In Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico, a number of students filed suit against the school board in question about removing multiple books from the shelves, citing First Amendment violations.
Justice William J. Brennan Jr. wrote the majority opinion, but just two other justices signed it. Two others wrote concurring opinions that resulted in a 5-4 decision that went in favor of the students. However, that the two concurring justices saw problems with Brennan's opinion means we don't have clear criteria for when a school board has the authority to remove a book from a school library.
Brennan's opinion said that school boards may not remove books from the shelves for political or religious reasons, but may remove them because of vulgarity or educational unsuitability. But as the recent debates about books being made available on school libraries show, it's possible that political or religious reasons could overlap with concerns about vulgarity.
Furthermore, who determines what is "educational unsuitability"? Does it mean whether the book is age appropriate? Does it mean whether or not there's anything a student could learn from it? Does a non-fiction book merit greater protection than a fiction book? What if one believes a book that some would describe as "entertainment" carries an important life lesson?
And when it comes to vulgarity, are we talking about pictures or written descriptions? Does one curse word dropped in a book make the whole thing vulgar? What about overly violent scenes -- would such scenes make it one that a school board should consider removing on the grounds of "vulgarity"?
Furthermore, Pico only applies to school libraries, not public libraries. One should define "school library" to be one in which school authorities oversee it, whereas public libraries are overseen by city or town officials. In other words, a school library the public is allowed to access (and there are such school libraries) is still a school library, but if a school simply directs students to the public library to check out books to complete assignments, that doesn't give the school authority over the library.
Pico doesn't apply to the instance in which teachers, administrators or legislators require students to read a particular book. Such authorities must be careful in doing so, lest they face objections from parents. However, if a teacher tells students to do a book report with no subject requirement, and allows students to choose the books they want, the parent has less room for objection and, if a parent's child chooses a book the parent doesn't like, the parent needs to take it up with the child.
Getting back to public libraries, there is a Supreme Court case that dealt with the Children's Internet Protection Act, in which public libraries that accept federal funding for Internet connections are required to install software to prevent minors from accessing harmful material.
The Act was contested in the case of United States v. American Library Assocation, but the Act was upheld in a 6-3 ruling. However, only four justices signed on to the opinion written by then Chief Justice William Rehnquist, while two wrote concurring opinions that meant the Act was upheld.
But that ruling only applies to federal funding received for Internet connections, not whether or not local governing bodies have the authority to remove books from a public library shelf. Nor does it apply to the ability of libraries to assist patrons in searching for a book not available at one library but that might be available elsewhere.
Whether or not another case involving a book pulled from a library shelf reaches the Supreme Court remains to be seen. It's not a given, either, that the current Court would rule a certain way on the practice. And for some local governing bodies, it's not worth dragging out a case for too long, meaning plenty of cases may never make it to the high court.
Thus, the debates about what books may or may not be offered on library shelves, or how far a librarian may go to help a patron locate a book, is likely to keep raging, perhaps with no clear answer. However, I would offer a few suggestions.
* Distinguish between public and school libraries, based on what governing body has authority over the library. If the library is overseen by a city council (or equivalent thereof), it needs to be looked at differently than the library overseen by a school board (again, or equivalent thereof). Whoever has the authority over the library has the say and, thus, we need to distinguish as to what responsibilities the authority has.
* When it comes to schools, there are clear arguments to make about whether or not certain books should be mandated. When it comes to books that are optional, though, it depends on circumstances. As an example, I would not want a six-year-old to read To Kill A Mockingbird because a child that young might not understand the themes. However, I have no issues with a 16-year-old reading the book because that child is old enough to understand the themes. Context should be utilized to determine whether or not the book should be available at a school library.
* When it comes to public libraries, though, a different standard needs to be in place. Because the governing body is a city council or equivalent, and because people of all ages may access the library, there needs to be more freedom to access information. Arguing that they are taxpayer funded isn’t a good enough argument -- all public institutions are taxpayer funded and, thus, if one successfully argues that the First Amendment applies to actions taken at a public institution, the First Amendment trumps the funding argument.
* Remember that, while a library can't buy every book that's out there, that doesn't stop people from donating books. Also, that while a library can't put every book out there on its shelves, that's not an automatic justification for removing a book that's already on the shelves.
* Be careful about pushing against the practice of librarians working with patrons to locate books that aren't available at one library but may be available at another. The purpose of this practice is to assist patrons who are looking for a book that the library in their city or town doesn't have. If a library can't stock every book, it shouldn't be denied the opportunity to help a patron looking for a book that isn't there.
* If the concern is about what books children might access, then we should ask about the role of the parent. In the case of schools, parent objections to books that are mandated not only need to be heard, but should be given greater weight. Parents who don't like a book being available in the school library should be heard, but they need to outline a compelling reason for not offering it because it's not just their children who could be affected. However, when it comes to public libraries, parents who are concerned should accompany their children to the library so they can see the books firsthand and tell their children what they are or aren't allowed to check out, rather than insist the public library do the work.