Legislation is winding its way through the Michigan Legislature that would give district library directors the final responsibility for the selection of materials for inclusion or withdrawal from their library’s collection.
One of the bill’s 23 sponsors, Rep. Carol Glanville told The Epoch Times the bill “aims to protect our libraries by establishing clear standards and processes for selecting and withdrawing materials from collections.”
Critics contend the legislation would cut out parental input, weaken library board oversight, and may allow a director to include materials that serve a personal agenda.
To prevent a district library from stocking a new book, or to secure the removal of a book from the shelf, an objector must first file a “request for reconsideration” of the selection of the item.
The proposed bill would require the complainant to certify that he or she has read the entire book, viewed all the audio/visual material, attended the program in question, or at least read its description.
Section 4(2) of the proposed bill lists what constitutes an impermissible reason for a request for reconsideration.
The author or creator’s religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, height, weight, familial status, or marital status, are not grounds for complaint, according to the bill.
Also, if the subject matter, content, or viewpoint involves any one of the above categories, the request for reconsideration is not to be considered until the material is first reviewed by a court of law to determine if the material is obscene or otherwise protected speech.
The bill makes the library director or the library’s chief executive employee the sole determiner of whether the reasons stated for a request for reconsideration are sufficient.
Critics of the legislation contend that involving the courts would force objectors to incur expensive legal fees.
The legislation also empowers the state attorney general to sue on behalf of the Library of Michigan for a court order compelling a district library to adopt a policy in compliance with the proposed act.
A resident of the library district, or the attorney general, may ask a judge for an injunction to block the unlawful removal of material, and they can sue to compel the district library to return unlawfully removed material to the collection.
HB 6035 also requires that requests for reconsideration come only from residents of the library district.
Glanville, the lawmaker who sponsors the bill, said it “enhances local control” and sets up “guidelines for out-of-district requests.”
“By protecting our libraries, we’re not just preserving books. We’re supporting freedom, community, and the values that unite us,” Glanville said.
Critics said the bill would make it much more difficult for parents and other community members to keep potentially harmful materials away from children.
“This bill is trying to stop anyone from effectively objecting to pornographic and objectionable material for children in our public libraries,” Constitutional lawyer David Kallman of the Kallman Legal Group told The Epoch Times.
“Parents objecting to their children being exposed to pornographic books, magazines, and videos used to be called protecting children.”
Kallman stated the bill would do away with the authority of local library boards to remove obscene and pornographic materials from the institutions they oversee and disenfranchise the taxpayers who support them.
He also said the requirement that an objecting parent immerse himself or herself fully in the contested material before filing a request for reconsideration is unreasonable.
A Small-Town Perspective
Beverly Dear, the long-time director of the Sanilac County, Michigan District Library in Port Sanilac, told The Epoch Times that under the current system, she is already entrusted with the decision of what appears on her facility’s shelves.“I’ve been here long enough to know what the people of our community want to read. We base our selections on what people are using,” Dear said.
“There is a need for multiple viewpoints. I stock some things that I personally don’t agree with.”
Dear said the few complaints she receives are handled carefully because every situation is different and a balance of concerns must be upheld.
“Our board adopts collection development policy which includes a grievance policy. If a grievance occurs, the board discusses it and then it comes back to me to decide,” Dear said.
‘Nobody Wants to Ban Books’
Jay Taylor, a member of the Branson Township, Michigan library board, an elected body, told The Epoch Times that he is concerned that the bill, if enacted, might lead to closed-door decisions.“If it is just the library director that makes the decisions about what to include, the process doesn’t get a public airing. There is no transparency,” Taylor said.
“Imagine entering a public library to find explicit materials, including so-called graphic novels with pictures of sexual activity on display for children to see.”
Taylor wants to protect the ability of parents to raise concerns over such things.
“HB 6035 makes it really difficult for people in the community to have a voice,” he said.
“Nobody wants to ban books, but it is unreasonable to display pornographic materials in the children’s section or out in the open on desks.”
