The bill that has just been passed by the Illinois General Assembly raises an interesting question. Here’s a report by Peter Hancock in Crain’s Chicago Business:
SPRINGFIELD — A bill that would block libraries from receiving state grants if they ban books cleared the Illinois Senate Wednesday and will soon be sent to Gov. J.B. Pritzker, who is expected to sign it.
HB 2789 is an initiative of Secretary of State Alexi Giannoulias, whose office oversees the Illinois State Library and administers several grant programs for public and school libraries.
It would require that as a condition of qualifying for those grants, libraries adopt either a written policy prohibiting the practice of banning books or the American Library Association’s Library Bill of Rights, which includes a statement that “(m)aterials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval.â€
“This right-to-read legislation will help remove the pressure that librarians have had to endure from extremist groups like the Proud Boys who have targeted some of our libraries and their staff,†Giannoulias said during a news conference after the state Senate vote. “This first-of-its-kind legislation is important because the concept of banning books contradicts the very essence of what our country stands for.â€
However
Senate Republicans, however, argued that the bill would put too much power in the hands of the ALA and that putting the group’s Library Bill of Rights into law would force local libraries to enact extreme policies.
For example, Illinois Sen. Sue Rezin, R-Morris, cited a provision that said libraries that also provide exhibit spaces and meeting rooms to the public “should make such facilities available on an equitable basis, regardless of the beliefs or affiliations of individuals or groups requesting their use.â€
“I think what I heard is, regarding the Bill of Rights here, that if a library does not make its public space available for anyone who wants to use it, including, say, a drag show, because of what the local officials of that library feel is not appropriate for the library, that library can now potentially lose their state funding,†she said.
Likewise, state Sen. Steve McClure, R-Springfield, said that prohibiting libraries from banning books for any reason would mean they could not reject the donation of books from the public, including books that are purely hate speech or books offering directions on how to build a bomb.
Judging by my reading of the American Library Association’s Library Bill of Rights, this looks like it’s unintentionally opening a can of worms. Intended or not it may end up being a full employment bill for plaintiff’s attorneys and more may end up being spent on legal fees than on library resources.
That can was already open. People are already suing over what can and cannot be in school libraries. Just have every kid have a library card. Divide libraries into red, blue and purple areas. Parents get to decide what access the kids have and the kids can only read books from the section allowed on their card.
Steve
Problem with that approach is some progressive thought leaders (and librarians) believe parents have no business knowing what books their children are reading at the library or who they met with.
Its somewhat amusing.
The major library system near me has an annual budget of $88 million, and spends $5 million on books.
Are books really the main purpose of libraries anymore?
I’m not sure that bill has any legal effect other than possibly the part about cutting funding to libraries. The ALA Bill of Rights looks like one of those statements of general principles that are not accorded rule of law status by courts. (See Justice Robert’s recent explanation of the nature of Judicial canons, but there are other examples)
There is also this tortured sense of book-banning in the discussion of these issues. Teacher requires students to read a book that some parents find objectionable, and the school board tells the teacher to pick another book. The book isn’t banned, the complaint is that the teacher’s choice of book (over others) is unquestionable.
When I was in middle school I discovered Conan, and frequently brought the books to school to read in my free time — the one’s with the Frazetta covers. I couldn’t bring those books to my kids’ schools because of the implicit depiction of violence on the covers. Is the school banning books, well it’s banning the cover. I can read the book somewhere else, though the school might require me to see a therapist to make sure I’m not a threat to myself or others.
Here, the state wants to prohibit the practice of book banning. A written statement from the library banning the practice of book banning does not seem to reflect what I assume are the underlying dynamics: library acquires book, part of the community protests, and the library withdraws the book under pressure. I think its unfair to label the library as engaging in the practice of book banning. Yet, the most clear aspect of the bill is that libraries can lose funding, though if the community outrage could cause libraries to lose funding as well. Lose-lose.