NJ A4210 (2024) Prohibiting Book Banning and Withdrawing State Aid

Days ago New Jersey Democrats filed legislation to set into NJ law a harmful ideology from Chicago, Illinois, and from thence into public schools.  A4210 (previously S3893 / A5499 but they failed) requires libraries to adopt ALA diktat or lose state funding.  A4210 contradicts United States Supreme Court case law, the United States Constitution, and the New Jersey Constitution and makes the Chicago Way supreme.  Not satisfied with the public outcry against A3446 / S2421 that attempted a substantially similar goal, A4210 is much shorter, names and requires the Chicago organization and its aspirational creed be incorporated into New Jersey law, then withdraws funding from schools that don't comply.  We always hear how libraries need more funding, schools must hire certified librarians, and anyone who stands in the way is a troglodyte, but suddenly it's okay if funding is pulled from schools if they do not accept harmful ideology from Chicago's American Library Association [ALA].  That's the essence of A4210.  It's just a naked power grab with New Jersey's children as the target.

A4210

Here is A4210 in its entirety:

SYNOPSIS

     Prohibits book banning in public libraries and schools; authorizes withholding of State aid for noncompliance.

 

CURRENT VERSION OF TEXT

     As introduced.

  

An Act concerning the banning of books, amending N.J.S.18A:74-12, and supplementing various parts of the statutory law.

 

     Be It Enacted by the Senate and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey:

 

     1.    N.J.S.18A:74-12 is amended to read as follows:

     18A:74-12.  The Department of the Treasury, at the request of the State Librarian, is hereby empowered to withhold any form of State Library aid from any municipality, county, or area library [which] that:

     a.  does not comply with the provisions of chapters 33 and 54 of Title 40 of the Revised Statutes and chapter 132 of the laws of 1947 (C.45:8A-1 et seq.) [wherever applicable, or];

     b.  does not comply with any rules and regulations duly adopted pursuant to [said statutes] the provisions of chapters 33 and 54 of Title 40 of the Revised Statutes and chapter 132 of the laws of 1947 (C.45:8A-1 et seq.) or this chapter[, or which];

     c.  bans or restricts access to a book or other resource within the municipality, county, or area library's collection in violation of sections 2 and 3 of P.L.    , c.    (C.       ) (pending before the Legislature as this bill);

     d.  fails to adopt the American Library Association's Library Bill of Rights or a policy prohibiting the practice of banning or restricting access to a specific book or resource as required pursuant to sections 2 and 3 of P.L.    , c.    (C.      ) (pending before the Legislature as this bill); or

     e.  reduces its annual expenditures for library services pursuant to chapters 33 and 54 of Title 40 of the Revised Statutes below the average of those expenditures for normal, recurring, operating costs made during the three years previous to receipt of the first State aid [under] pursuant to this chapter.

(cf. P.L.2001, c.137, s.35)

 

     2.  (New section)  a.  As used in this section:

     "Free county public library" means any free county library established pursuant to R.S.40:33-1.

     "Free regional public library" means any regional library established pursuant to section 1 of P.L.1962, c.134 (C.40:33-13.3).

     "Governing body" means a director or other chief administrative officer, a county library commission, and a board of county commissioners.

     b.  Notwithstanding any State or federal law to the contrary, a governing body of a free county or regional public library shall not ban or restrict access to a book or other resource in its collection because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval.

     c.  A governing body of a free county or regional public library shall adopt the American Library Association's Library Bill of Rights, or a policy prohibiting the practice of banning or restricting access to a book or resource because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval.

     d.  Nothing in this section shall be construed to require the governing body of a free county or regional public library to purchase, or otherwise acquire, a book or resource for inclusion in its collection.

 

     3.  (New section)  a.  As used in this section:

     "Free municipal public library" means any free public library established pursuant to R.S.40:54-1.

     "Joint free public library" means any joint free public library established pursuant to section 1 of P.L.1959, c.155 (C.40:54-29.3).

     "Governing body" means a board of trustees and a director or other chief administrative officer.

     b.  Notwithstanding any State or federal law to the contrary, a governing body of a free municipal public library or joint free public library shall not ban or restrict access to a book or other resource in its collection because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval.

     c.  A governing body of a free municipal public library or joint free public library shall adopt the American Library Association's Library Bill of Rights, or a policy prohibiting the practice of banning or restricting access to a book or resource because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval.

     d.  Nothing in this section shall be construed to require the governing body of a municipal or joint free public library to purchase, or otherwise acquire, a book or resource for inclusion in its collection.

 

     4.  (New section)  a.  Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, a board of education of a school district shall not ban or restrict access to a book or other resource within a school library's collection because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval.

     b.    A board of education of a school district shall adopt the American Library Association's Library Bill of Rights, or a policy prohibiting the practice of banning or restricting access to a book or resource because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval.

     c.     Nothing in this section shall be construed to require the board of education to purchase, or otherwise acquire, a book or resource for inclusion in its collection.

     d.    The Commissioner of Education is hereby authorized to withhold all or part of any State aid paid to any school district pursuant to P.L.2007, c.260 (C.18A:7F-43 et al.) or any other law for failure to comply with the provisions of subsections a. and b. of this section.

     5.  This act shall take effect immediately.

 

 

STATEMENT

 

     This bill prohibits the banning of certain books in public libraries and school libraries, and authorizes the withholding of State aid for noncompliance.

     This bill prohibits a governing body of any free public library, joint free public library, free county library, and free regional library from banning or restricting access to books or other resources because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval.  Additionally, this bill requires the governing body of these public libraries to either adopt: 1) the American Library Association's Library Bill of Rights, which provides that books and materials "should not be excluded because of the origin, background, or views of those contributing to their creation," or "because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval"; or 2) a policy prohibiting the banning or restricting access to a book or resource because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval.

     Under the "state library aid law," the Department of the Treasury can withhold State Library aid from any municipality, county, or area library if the public library fails to comply with certain laws and regulations.  This bill amends current law to permit the withholding of State Library aid if a public library fails to follow the provisions of this bill. 

     Similarly, this bill prohibits a board of education of a school district from banning or restricting access to books or other resources in a school library.  Under the bill, a board of education is similarly required to adopt the American Library Association's Library Bill of Rights or a policy prohibiting the banning or restricting access to books or resources.  The bill permits the Commissioner of Education to withhold State aid to any board of education that does not follow the provisions of this bill.

     The bill's provisions should not be construed to require a free public library or board of education to purchase, or otherwise acquire, a book or resource for inclusion in its collection.

Major Problems with this Proposed Legislation are Numerous

Major problems with this proposed legislation are numerous, and they are designed to keep people in the dark about what's really happening.  Let's shine a light on the bill's language:

"Fails to Adopt the American Library Association's Library Bill of Rights"

"Fails to adopt the American Library Association's Library Bill of Rights":  ALA is located in Chicago, Illinois.  So first off, some foreign idea is to be inserted into New Jersey law just by voting on it without any discussion by legislators of the concepts contained within that foreign idea.  Second, ALA's "Library Bill of Rights" come from a harmful ideology that children must have the same rights as adults.  We all know that's false and it defies common sense, community standards, and the law.  It defies US Supreme Court case law and the US and NJ Constitutions.  But we in New Jersey are to sweep all that aside because some private organization from Chicago adopted radical ideology and inserted it into its "Library Bill of Rights" by making it "age" discrimination to apply common sense, community standards, and the law to children in schools and public libraries.  ALA even made up the "right to read" precisely to take away from parents and school boards that power to control schools, and that is essentially what A4210 does and what it's designed by ALA to do.  For details on this to see how long and deeply ALA has been on this long march towards this goal, read: Koganzon, Rita. “There Is No Such Thing as a Banned Book: Censorship, Authority, and the School Book Controversies of the 1970s.” American Political Thought 12, no. 1 (January 2023).

"Bans or Restricts"

"Bans or restricts":  A4210 doesn't come out and say this but all material must be available to all children without even the slightest restriction whatsoever.  None.  If a public library board wishes to remove an adult book from the children's section and place it into the adult section, A4210 makes this unlawful.  If a school librarian thinks a book is inappropriate for a middle school and needs to be moved to the high school or removed completely, A4210 makes that unlawful.  Further, while there have been no book bans in the USA since 1963, ALA decries thousands of book bans every year and labels every single person who challenges a book under the US and NJ Constitutions as a censor, sometimes a racist censor, sometimes a homophobic censor.  So by "bans" A4210 once again means anything.  Anything at all. Nothing may even be banned or restricted in any way from any library.  It's all or nothing, and if you do not comply with the law, the nothing part will be enforced and state funding will be withdrawn.  If a school decides Gender Queer is pervasively vulgar and educationally unsuitable and removes it from the library, as many schools have, the NJ law will require the state to cut funding to that school.  A few times of that happening and school boards will get the message and nothing will ever be removed from any school no matter how inappropriate for children and no matter anything else whatsoever, not even US Supreme Court case law.  Money talks.  A4210 is a framework for a bullying tactic, a financial "bludgeon" as ALA President Emily Drabinski likes to say about parents, to force compliance with what a private organization from Chicago wants.  New Jersey parents will lose all rights to challenge any materials whatsoever because nothing may be banned nor restricted.  This is A4210.  This is the Chicago Way forced on New Jersey children if A4210 passes into law.  New Jersey parents will have lost all rights to have any say in the affairs of children in libraries in public institutions.

"Partisan or Doctrinal Disapproval"

"Partisan or doctrinal disapproval":  This phraseology is super slick because on its face it appears agreeable and it comes from the Board of Education v. Pico case.  As practiced by ALA, however, "partisan or doctrinal disapproval" means anything goes.  Anything and everything.  Even material that could be and has been removed from schools under the Pico case will no longer be allowed under A4210.  How do we know?  Because ALA has never approved the removal of anything at all from any school.  Because ALA has redefined the legal removal of pervasively vulgar and educationally unsuitable material under the Pico case as violative of Pico's proscription of book removals based on partisan or doctrinal approval.  For example, Gender Queer is a book both pervasively vulgar and educationally unsuitable and it has been removed under the Pico case from many schools.  Alarmed that school children were being deprived of the right to read pervasively vulgar and educationally unsuitable material, and specifically Gender Queer, ALA created Unite Against Book Bans.  At that site the argument is made Gender Queer may not be removed from schools because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval of the ideas contained therein, and the issue of the book being pervasively vulgar and educationally unsuitable is essentially ignored.  That's what A4210 will do and how it is worded.  Like ALA, it will interpret Pico to nullify its ruling by essentially saying no, pervasively vulgar and educationally unsuitable material may not be removed, because all such materials have ideas and Pico prevents the removal of material based on the partisan or doctrinal disapproval of the ideas contained therein.  ALA even calls application of the pervasively vulgar and educationally unsuitable standards a "loophole."  Projection!  ALA creates the loophole then spins it as a loophole by parents!  "While we can look at the Pico decision to draw some comfort, it does not mean the same case would play out similarly with today's Supreme Court."  So ALA is not only writing laws for New Jersey, it's also deciding the US Supreme Court Pico case would no longer apply!  Can you see how super slick this argument is?  Is it the Chicago Way that's right for New Jersey, New Jersey's children, no less?

"Authorized to Withhold All or Part of Any State Aid Paid to Any School District"

"Authorized to withhold all or part of any State aid paid to any school district":  This is a huge double standard.  Librarians always want more money.  More jobs.  More certification.  More schools must have school librarians.  Yet here's the New Jersey legislature voting on a bill to "withhold all or part of any State aid paid to any school district" if a school doesn't "adopt the American Library Association's Library Bill of Rights, or a policy prohibiting the practice of banning or restricting access to a book or resource because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval."  What a huge double standard.  Here ALA's president Emily Drabinski describing in the Huffington Post how her being a Marxist and proudly claiming as much upon being elected ALA president (a new Marxist president was just elected, but I digress) is causing state library associations to drop out of ALA membership, stating that denying funding to libraries is bad: "Most libraries are funded locally. Federal funding is pretty small. But state-level people are facing attempts to gut funding."  Isn't A4210 gutting funding?  Why do librarians both call for more funding and call for gutting funding, as long of the effect is to maximize the ability of librarians to provide children with pervasively vulgar and educationally unsuitable material, and all per Chicago ALA's wishes?

"American Library Association's Library Bill of Rights, Which Provides that Books and Materials 'Should Not be Excluded Because of the Origin, Background, or Views of Those Contributing to Their Creation,' or 'Because of Partisan or Doctrinal Disapproval'"

"American Library Association's Library Bill of Rights, which provides that books and materials 'should not be excluded because of the origin, background, or views of those contributing to their creation,' or 'because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval'":  This is deception through and through.  Can you see it?  Of course not.  That's the purpose and effect of the deception.  What is said about the ALA Library Bill of Rights is deceptive, let alone it is deceptively named to make it sound like a real Bill of Rights instead of a mere wish list or aspirational creed from a private association of librarians based in Chicago, Illinois.  What's quoted are the reasonable parts.  It's reasonable that nothing should be excluded because of "origin, background, or views."  It's reasonable that "partisan or doctrinal disapproval" should not a reason for book selection.  Can you see the deception yet?  No?  That's intentional.  A4210 is intentionally deceptive.  What is not in A4210 is that the "Library Bill of Rights" makes it "age" discrimination to keep anything from children.  The word "age" is not even in the bill nor even its summary.  Here's what's in the "Library Bill of Rights" from Chicago that's deceptively missing from A4210:  "V. A person's right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views."  So A4210 sets Chicago's "Library Bill of Rights" into law with the lofty words, "origin, background, or views," while the aspirational creed itself dictates "origin, age, background, or views."  See the deception now?  ALA wrote A2410 to be deceptive.  NJ Democrats promoted A4210 to be deceptive as well.  I have previously informed NJ Democrats about this very deception in Right to Read Act by World Library Association, for which Senator Andrew Zwicker labeled me a "meddling minority," but here they are again pushing the same deception.  Granted, the first portion of the aspirational creed says, "Materials should not be excluded because of the origin, background, or views of those contributing to their creation" and the word age is excluded, but that's in the context of the author, not the reader.  At this point, it's obviously intentional—and children are the target.

ALA Admits to Astroturfing NJ Supporters:

Let me add that since I have exposed how ALA gets directly involved in local politics in hidden ways by astroturfing the appearance of local support for ALA policy, ALA's president has just confirmed that, and in the context of its meddling in New Jersey:

Recently, a library in New Jersey was being challenged again for having a book about puberty in their high school collection, which is entirely appropriate.   That platform [a campaign, Unite Against Book Bans] activated 40 local people to come out.  It’s an advocacy platform.  ALA was able to mobilize advocates through it for this event.  These are people who are very interested in their kids being able to read the books they choose.

Source:  "'It's Been Devastating': A Q&A With the Top Librarian Fighting the GOP's Book Bans;

'The Weaponization of Libraries ... is a Bludgeon That's Scaring People Everywhere," said American Library Association President Emily Drabinski," by Jennifer Bendery, Huffington Post, 7 April 2024.

Here's ALA (via its crypto subgroup EveryLibrary) directly astroturfing for A5499, S3893 and S3907 that has been updated in A4210: "Put an End to Book Bans in New Jersey!"  NJ Senator Andrew Zwicker is so concerned about meddling minorities from out of state, certainly ALA meddling from Chicago should concern him:

One critic who told legislators he would testify against the bill is Dan Kleinman, a Texas-based blogger who last year launched the World Library Association as an alternative to the American Library Association, which has led the charge nationally against banning books. Zwicker said neutralizing that meddling minority of out-of-towners is one of his goals.

Source: "New Bill Targeting Book Censorship at Libraries Leads to Partisan Clash; Bill Would Offer Protections for Librarians Facing Harassment," by Dana DiFilippo, New Jersey Monitor, 15 February 2024.

       Conclusion:

So not only has Chicago's ALA written NJ A4210 legislation, not only does it explicitly include its own "Library Bill of Rights" in A2410 so it becomes NJ law, not only has it misled the legislature and the public by leaving out the word age and changing "origin, age, background, or views" to "origin, background, or views," but it also gets local NJ people to show support for Chicago's ALA.  And who gets hurt?  New Jersey school children.  They are the target of Chicago's ALA.  They need the protection of New Jersey's legislators. 

The question is who do the legislators support more, New Jersey's children and their parents or the meddling librarians from Chicago who have worked for over half a century to take away rights from parents and school boards who protect children with common sense, community standards, and the law?

Can you believe this bill A4210, if passed into law, will require all NJ schools to make all books available to school children despite the law and the state and federal constitutions or else funding will be pulled from the schools?  And all because Chicago's ALA wants it.  Sounds tyrannical to me.  I know if I were a parent and I could no longer challenge a book under this new law, I would sue the State of New Jersey and everyone involved.   How about you?  What would you do?  Comment below.

Graphic courtesy of @WakeUpNJ.

—

URL of this page: 

safelibraries.blogspot.com/2024/04/a2410.html

On Twitter: 

Follow @SafeLibraries Follow @SexHarassed Follow @WLibraryA

Join World Library Association:

WorldLibraryAssociation.org