Open Letter to Greater Clark Hills Regional Library Board

Dear Members of the Greater Clark Hills Regional Library Board,

I hope this email finds you well and you all came through Hurricane Helene unscathed. My thoughts and deepest sympathies go out to members of all of our communities who have suffered losses at this time. Shortly before Helene, a letter (attached) from Julie Walker (Georgia State Librarian) was mailed to Bill Tinley, Dr. Carraway, Scott Johnson and Mary Lin Maner. In that letter, Ms. Walker expressed concern that recent changes to Columbia County’s policy regarding material selection and placement as voted on by the Columbia County Board of Commissioners (CCBoC) are not in compliance with Georgia law. My understanding of that letter is that these policies would need to change through the regional board in order to be within regulation. I am writing to you to encourage you to NOT adopt these guidelines on a regional level.

First, based on an open records request, it is apparent that the guidelines passed by the CCBoC were developed by Dr. Carraway and Lindsey Brantley without any input from library staff. Our library staff are the experts in this area and it’s inappropriate to sideline their knowledge in the development of library policy. These guidelines are very confusing, often conflicting and attempt to apply movie-ratings to literature, which doesn't actually translate to a true policy. In many media reports and comments on social media from various members of the Columbia County Library Advisory Board (CCLAB), the passing of the guidelines by the CCBoC has been downplayed as simply moving a “handful of books” or “putting age-based guidelines in place to guide the process.” I even believe that some members of the CCLAB may actually believe this as I’m not sure they are paying that close attention or critically thinking through the issues. Maybe some members are scared to cross other members on either one of the boards. There are some structural issues within the makeup of the CCLAB and how members are appointed which are problematic, however I will address those specific issues in separate communication. Upon closer scrutiny, the effects of this change in policy is nothing short of a complete overhaul in the shelving system of the library. This in lies the danger of passing guidelines without expert input that seem on their face to be simple and somewhat reasonable, but have far reaching unintended consequences. 

While this change is not an outright ban of books, it is a form of censorship. If you are familiar with the term “shadow ban” frequently used in social media, it’s similar in nature. Some also call it a “soft ban.” It is a tactic used by those who censor information to move content they find unappealing to a place where it would be less accessible because it’s not where it’s expected to be, with the long-range goal of lessening the circulation of that material. The end goal is to eventually remove the books from the library’s collection due to that lack of circulation. While censoring information from children on the basis of “age-appropriateness” may sound reasonable on its face, it becomes an insidious practice when the motivations behind such moves are political in nature.

In conjunction with this change in policy, there is much evidence that the online database BookLooks.org is now being applied as a guide in the placement of the books at Columbia County Libraries. BookLooks being utilized in this manner is distressing, as it is closely tied to Moms For Liberty, which is a group designated as an extremist group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. The BookLooks website claims they have no affiliation with Moms For Liberty, however the association is well documented in media reporting (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2023/10/05/website-driving-banned-books-surge-moms-for-liberty/70922213007/) and their rating system has been promoted at Moms For Liberty conventions. Upon close inspection of the database itself, it’s interesting to note that many of the books that they choose to review are based on a specific “conservative” political/religious worldview. Currently, the Columbia County Library is using this database’s ratings together with the passed guidelines to screen and scrutinize books in the Young Adult Room and move them to the adult section of the library. It’s my understanding that then the same process will be followed in the other areas of the children’s sections. Often the books are chosen to be reviewed by BookLooks though because of their content. The books reviewed by the database are often LGBTQ+ or cover various “controversial topics” that individuals with this particular “conservative” viewpoint may find offensive. Further, the books are often given a higher “rating” because of this content (Link to rating https://booklooks.org/ratings-system) For example, BookLooks will often increase the rating for a book if it has an LGBTQ+ character or has “controversial racial/social/religious commentary.” The ratings are not solely based on “profanity” or “obscenity.” Even when a BookLooks report claims there is “sexual activity” on the summary page, there’s not necessarily “sexual activity” included in the excerpts and there seems to be very little consistency as to the definition of “sexual activity” when comparing different books that note this as a concern. Also, often the excerpts are taken out of context so it’s difficult to necessarily judge an entire body of work based solely on highlighted passages by a group who put this database together with the intent that individuals could challenge books nationwide without even reading the material. There are no specific guidelines as far as what the database says is “controversial” either so it’s left to the rater’s murky subjective criteria. There is also no identification of the raters rather than stating it’s a group of volunteers. Some of the picture books are rated as a 1 simply because the character is an immigrant, mentions social/cultural issues or it’s the perspective of someone in a historical event that BookLooks doesn’t want promoted, such as the Japanese internment camps during WWII. Also, some of the claims by BookLooks are ridiculous. For example, BookLooks claims a picture book called “I’m a Girl!” by Yasmeen Ismael contains “alternate gender ideologies” just because it showed a girl bunny riding around on a scooter happily proclaiming that she was a girl when other animals called her a boy while she engages in active outdoor play. It is an inherently biased rating system and I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at the absurdity of some of the claims made in the database. 

After the CCBoC passed the guidelines, library staff began using this rating system to scrutinize the books that exist in the database, frequently removing books rated a 3 or 4, and often even ones rated as a 2. Further, I can only assume the note on the document stating “sent up for review” means that the CCLAB is making the decision where the book needs to be shelved, without an open and transparent process. Simply scrutinizing the books in this database though is already showing an inherent bias against books that individuals with this particular “conservative” worldview find disagreeable. This is a public library and the same standards need to be applied to every single book, regardless of content. So, if a book with an LGBTQ+ character is pulled off the shelves for containing the word “f**k” more than once (which would be within the PG-13 guidelines based on the movie industry that was referenced in the guidelines passed by the CCBoC), then that same standard needs to be applied to every single book in the Young Adult/Teen Room. The books listed on BookLooks can not be given priority in the reshelving process, given its fundamental and structural prejudices. As a side note in this discussion I would like to remind everyone that Scott Johnson advised the CCLAB about 1 year ago, that they can’t discriminate against certain books or authors due to content. However, Scott Johnson advised that criteria such as obscenity and profanity can be used. Therefore, if the regional committee wishes to adopt these guidelines for the entire Greater Clark Hills Regional Library System, it must be applied equally to all books throughout the library equally and without prejudice.

I sincerely believe that the end result of this policy will be a complete destruction of the Teen/Young Adult spaces in our public libraries. If we remove every book from the teen room that has something "controversial" in it or profanity, we’ll be left with a small handful of books in these spaces. Instead of a room, it will be one shelf. I have also taken the time to look at many of the Reconsideration Forms that have been submitted over the past couple of years. It is not lost on me that although many of the most "controversial" books are located in the Young Adult Room, there is not an actual outcry from parents of teenagers challenging this material. The creation of these guidelines, and actually some of the appointments on the CCLAB, seems to have the purpose to acquiesce to a very vocal group, consisting primarily of elderly women. If the parents of actual teenagers aren’t challenging these books, I have a hard time understanding why there is a need for such interventions. It is a Columbia County library policy that no children under the age of 12 are to be in the library without direct adult supervision. In the Columbia County Library Young Adult Room, there is a visible sign upon entry, warning all that enter that many books in that room contain controversial subjects, language and content. It is a parent’s prerogative to allow a child over the age of 12 into the library without supervision. If a parent has such strong concerns about the content, they should accompany their child to the Teen Room. I would think that would be a much better policy position rather than dismantling beloved public community spaces.

Also, keep in mind that this is occurring within the context of falling literacy rates nationwide amongst our youth. I recently read an article in the Atlantic that discusses the degradation of the ability of college students to read entire novels, even at elite institutions. As parents, we are constantly fighting a battle with technology to encourage reading and literacy. I frequently hear from K-12 teachers that they are also struggling to promote reading and literacy. To foster a love for literature and reading, it is crucial that policy guidelines curate a library’s collection that is current and accessible to today’s youth. The subjects and topics that many found relevant in the 1950s or 1960s may not be current or seem relevant to today’s youth and I fail to see how the creation of these guidelines helps with this fight against functional illiteracy in America. In fact, it seems to exacerbate the problem.

Respectfully,

Karin Parham