Colorado lawmakers advance proposal dealing with contested books in public libraries

A panel of legislators approved a measure to create "standards" for public libraries in assessing contested materials after a similar proposal failed to pass through committee earlier in the session.

Diving into an issue that has divided communities across America and enraged parents and activists on both sides of the debate, Senate Bill 216 requires a library's board of trustees to establish written policies governing the acquisition, retention, display and usage of resources, such as books, movies and CDs.

The bill mandates libraries to publicize their reconsideration process, share the outcomes of each reconsideration request with the public and ensure that challenged materials remain on shelves until a final decision is made.

In addition, the bill seeks to inoculate library employees from termination, discipline or discrimination if they refused to remove a resource before it undergoes proper review.

Proponents argued it's "important" to show library patrons, including parents and children, "a world wider than the one they might see in everyday life," and ensure libraries "reflect the diversity of the communities they serve."

Critics countered that some materials are simply not suitable for children, noting that many of the books that have been challenged contain topics that include rape, incest and pedophilia.

In February, the Senate Education Committee rejected Senate Bill 049, which would have created an official process for parents, students and the public to object to materials in a school or public library.

Sen. Lisa Cutter, D-Littleton, and Rep. Junie Joseph, D-Boulder, who sponsored SB 049, are also backing SB 216, which passed through the Senate Education committee via a party-line vote of 4-3. It's next stop is a debate on the Senate floor.

Cutter pointed to a recent surge in book challenges and bans nationwide and said she wants to ensure that Coloradans have the freedom to access resources that expose them to different cultures and viewpoints. She added that the bill prohibits a "resource" from being reconsidered more than once within a five-year period and requires reconsideration requests come from individuals residing in the library district to avoid what she called "ban-bombing," which she described as multiple individuals flooding a library with requests to reconsider the same resource.

"While librarians work to provide their patrons with an inclusive array of materials, culture war extremists are attacking them and accusing them of distributing things that may not be appropriate and trying to deny other library-goers materials and programming," she said. "I want to make sure here that we affirm our commitment to those freedoms and let parents and children and all library patrons make choices for themselves and not for others. It's important to show them a world wider than the one they might see in everyday life."

Erin Meschke, a Boulder resident, contended that no one is trying to ban books. Rather, she said, concerned parents want to ensure their children aren't being exposed to content they deem inappropriate.

Meschke said most of the resources that have been challenged center on topics like rape, incest, and pedophilia, which "have nothing to do with the majority" of LGBT individuals or people of color.

"To protect children from pornography and advocate for protected classes, we must not conflate their rights with the depravity aimed at our children," she said.

Meschke raised similar arguments during the debate in committee over SB 049, the measure that failed to advance. During that hearing, Meschke said she believes that the public library committees would be biased, citing a 2018 poll that found 93% of librarians to be Democrats.

"Senate Bill 49 would impose new controls on the content of libraries without sufficient input from parents or without providing avenues for parental involvement in the decision-making process," she said.

Supporters of SB 216 insisted that such books reflect diversity in "perspectives" and they should be welcomed.

"Public libraries need the protections offered by this bill to strengthen the opportunities to include books and content that represent a wide range of perspectives, enhance wellbeing, and contribute to community cohesion," said Mark Fink from Anythink Libraries in Adams County, adding Adams County is one of two minority-majority counties in the state and added he wants his libraries' collections to reflect the diversity of the communities they serve.

Fink praised the bill's provision to inoculate library workers, who, he said, have been retaliated against and fired for refusing to censor content before it is properly reviewed.

"It's important for public library workers to be afforded protections to continue to provide people of all ages with access to a wide variety of reading materials," he said.

Alanna Hunter-Lawley of the Interfaith Alliance of Colorado also claimed the true "motivation" behind banning books is not a "desire to protect the most vulnerable among us," but rather to "(ensure) that minds remain closed."

"The banning of books represents both a surrender to ignorance and an arrogance to assume that our own experience supersedes the experiences of others," she said, adding that banning books dampens democracy and puts religious and intellectual freedoms at risk.

Donna LaBelle, who testified against SB 049 in February, reiterated her concerns that certain resources available in public libraries may not be suitable for children.

"This and other bills focus on issues that are adding to our children's confusion and pain, instead of helping them," she said, adding that the "peripeteia in our culture is forcing more parents and community members to become more involved" in debates about materials they believe should or shouldn't be available in their libraries.

"The freedom to read is one of our most precious rights," she added. "Regardless of background, zip code, or socioeconomic status, we have the right to read a wide range of materials that provide us with the knowledge base and the critical thinking skills that we need to be informed citizens who will contribute positively to our democracy. Our communities deserve to be represented in public spaces like public libraries, and codifying those legal standards demonstrates our commitment to protecting all Coloradans."

Minority Leader Sen. Paul Lundeen of Colorado Springs and Janice Rich, R-Grand Junction expressed concerns about the bill's proposed five-year reconsideration window, which they thought is too long. Sen. Mark Baisley, R-Sedalia, advocated for the reconsideration process to be solely managed by the library board, rather than the state.

The two bills — SB 216 and SB 049 — have differences but also share similarities. Notably, both measures would prohibit the removal of a "resource" under certain conditions. In the case of SB 216, removal is prohibited until a public library has established a reconsideration policy or if that policy does not comply with the provisions of the bill.

In the case of SB 049, a material cannot be removed while a request for reconsideration is pending.

In addition, both bills say it is unlawful and a "discriminatory practice" to discriminate against individuals or groups in acquiring, retaining, displaying, using or "reconsidering" a library resource.