Will CCPL follow the lead of Paris-Bourbon library?

Recently the Paris-Bourbon County Public Library declared itself a “Sanctuary Library.” This was par­tic­u­lar­ly unusu­al dur­ing a peri­od when so many pub­lic libraries are being pres­sured to restrict and cen­sor mate­ri­als to which their patrons will have access.

In speak­ing with a mem­ber of the library staff I was told that the library had received 102 requests to cen­sor or restrict mate­ri­als in the last nine months.  Of those 102 requests, only one book was restrict­ed by being placed in the adult col­lec­tion area.  This indi­vid­ual also indi­cat­ed that a descrip­tion oth­er than “sanc­tu­ary” might have been bet­ter but could offer no suit­able alter­na­tive.  An addi­tion­al com­ment was to the effect that the word “sanc­tu­ary” applied to the library being a place where the First Amendment is protected.

When asked if Moms for Liberty – the ultra-right group seek­ing to ban books across the nation – might have been behind the cen­sor­ing requests, I was advised that that group seems to be con­cen­trat­ing on school libraries at the moment.  Hardly a response that engen­ders con­fi­dence regard­ing the sanc­ti­ty of pub­lic libraries.

And while  some libraries across the coun­try are act­ing as the Paris-Bourbon County Public Library has, far too many oth­ers are work­ing in the oppo­site direc­tion, either prod­ded by local cit­i­zens, local library boards, the local gov­ern­ment (in those cas­es where local gov­ern­ments have more sub­stan­tial con­trol over the pub­lic libraries), or, in some cas­es even by state leg­is­la­tures which have sought to cre­ate crim­i­nal sanc­tions against librar­i­ans who refuse to act as censors.

It would be great if Clark County res­i­dents could expect our library to fol­low the lead of Paris.  The present Clark County Public Library Board of Trustees appears to be dis­in­clined to pro­claim a right to read as a guid­ing prin­ci­ple of the library since adher­ence to Freedom to Read prin­ci­ples enu­mer­at­ed in ALA guide­lines have been removed from the library’s Collections Development Policy, which had been in place since 2012.

Despite the fact that no fur­ther books have been sub­ject­ed to cen­sor­ship here since Gender Queer was restrict­ed to the adult sec­tion of the library (with addi­tion­al check­out restric­tions), it is not incon­ceiv­able that fur­ther restric­tions or cen­sor­ship might occur.

Trusteeship mem­ber­ship on a library board comes with great respon­si­bil­i­ty, one that should assure the widest range of mate­ri­als avail­able to those who uti­lize the library facilities.

The appli­ca­tion form for trustee­ship con­tains some very per­ti­nent ques­tions, such as:

• Why are you inter­est­ed in serv­ing as a trustee?
• What ideas or pro­grams would you like to pur­sue dur­ing your term of board membership?
• What do you see as the library’s role in the future?

Considering the pres­sures being brought on libraries every­where and the poten­tial of assaults on mate­ri­als being avail­able to the pub­lic, such as that expe­ri­enced by the Paris Library, the appli­ca­tion forms for trustee­ship should per­haps include addi­tion­al ques­tions, such as:

• Do you believe that a role of the library is one of act­ing as a cen­sor of materials?
• Have you read the ALA (American Library Association) Right to Read Statement, the Library Bill of Rights, the Intellectual Freedom Statement and the Freedom to View posi­tions and do you sup­port them? (All of these ALA state­ments were removed from the Clark County Public Library Collections Development Policy fol­low­ing the restric­tions placed on Gender Queer)

There is noth­ing wrong with hav­ing a library board com­posed of all Democrats or all Republicans, all lib­er­als or all con­ser­v­a­tives. The prob­lem lies in mak­ing deci­sions about who shall serve on the board based strict­ly on a person’s polit­i­cal affil­i­a­tions. Of twen­ty-five appli­cants for two posi­tions which become avail­able on the Clark County Public Library Board on July 1, 2024, not one indi­vid­ual was cho­sen from the more lib­er­al applicants.

So, here’s a sug­ges­tion.  If the choice of nom­i­nees is to be tru­ly non-par­ti­san, how about redact­ing any infor­ma­tion from the nom­i­nee appli­ca­tion forms that would reveal the iden­ti­ty of the per­son apply­ing? After all, that infor­ma­tion is redact­ed from the forms when they are revealed through an Open Records Request.  If the nom­i­nat­ing com­mit­tee were forced to make its rec­om­men­da­tions strict­ly on the respons­es regard­ing how the appli­cant feels the library should func­tion, the process would cer­tain­ly be more non-partisan.

Every library deserves to be rep­re­sent­ed by non-par­ti­san trustees who, in turn, rep­re­sent a cross-sec­tion of the community.