Librarians Finally Admit the Reviews They Hide Behind Are Useless

School librarians have spent years telling parents, school boards, and courts that every book in the collection was carefully selected using professional reviews. That claim has been the standard defense. “We follow the selection policy. The books have multiple positive reviews from School Library Journal, Kirkus, Booklist…”

It was also the shield used against parents who dared to object to s[*]xually explicit material in school libraries. Challenge a book? You’re told the professionals already reviewed it. Object too loudly? You risk being labeled a book banner, a bigot, or worse—and in multiple cases sued.

Now the librarians themselves are admitting, in their own research and on their own podcast, that those reviews cannot be trusted.  Audio, transcript, and journal article available below.

In a 2026 study published by the American Association of School Librarians (AASL, a division of the American Library Association), Books and Barriers: The Influence of Book Censorship on the Role of School Librarians, Their Self-Efficacy, and Well-Being, researchers Misty S. Schattle and Johnny R. O’Connor, Jr. interviewed eleven school librarians in one large Texas district. The librarians reported that collection development now takes far longer because:

“they often feel that the reviews cannot be trusted, requiring the need to read books in their entirety before placement on the shelf.”¹

One elementary librarian put it bluntly:  

“It’s almost like we can’t go on our reviews. I’ve been reading a lot more books.”¹

Dr. Schattle expanded on these findings on the School Librarians United podcast:

“lots of librarians that I talk to were saying that they couldn’t really rely on reviews anymore because… they read a review, but are they gonna get something that is questionable… so they might still find that they needed to read it before it could go on the shelf… they’re just finding that it’s taking so much time… because now you have to read all the books.”²

This is not new. I documented the same problem more than a decade ago.

In 2010, Kalida, Ohio Superintendent Don Horstman removed Lush by Natasha Friend after a fifth grader brought it home. The book contained graphic s[*]xual details. Horstman read it himself and said the glowing professional reviews had omitted those details entirely.³ Similar patterns appear in my 2011 post on incomplete reviews⁴ and my 2009 post on a Kentucky superintendent overriding ALA lists.⁵

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick has been even more direct. In August 2026 remarks, he stated that the librarians are the ones responsible for the presence of “dirty, filthy, and vulgar books” in school libraries, that they know what is on the shelves while many superintendents and teachers do not, and that the American Library Association trains librarians and considers such material “just fine.”¹⁰

Librarians themselves have used the same defense when suing parents. Amanda Jones, who filed a high-profile lawsuit against parents who criticized materials in her library, has stated: “As a professional librarian, I use professional reviews about where we place books in the library.”¹¹ Her justification for the books she selects rests on the very reviewing sources that Schattle’s research and the librarians she interviewed now say cannot be trusted to flag “something that is questionable.”

Meanwhile, the American Library Association itself continues to elevate those same professional reviews. Through its Unite Against Book Bans campaign, ALA created “Book Résumés”—documents packed with awards and glowing professional reviews, designed to be handed to boards and review committees.⁶ The résumé for Gender Queer is a perfect example: starred reviews from Booklist and School Library Journal, YALSA and Rainbow Project lists, the Alex Award, and more. What it carefully omits is any actual content from the book.⁷

At the same time, ALA’s official policy forbids the rating systems that do document content.

The 11th edition of ALA’s Intellectual Freedom Manual (2026) is explicit. On page 8 it notes that school boards and lawmakers use ratings produced by “religious and political groups” to limit access to library books and control what is added to school libraries. Chapter 7 contains an entire section on rating systems and states:

“Using, enforcing, or approving of ratings systems violates the Library Bill of Rights.”

It further warns that rating or labeling materials based on assumed age-appropriateness “may be perceived as restricting access.”⁸

On page 145 the Manual specifically addresses the sites parents actually use:

“websites like BookLooks.org and RatedBooks.org often use legal-sounding language to falsely imply that certain books that do not comply with their moral or religious beliefs are illegal and ‘harmful to minors.’ … Their claims are false and have no basis in law. Libraries should not use ratings from these sites to justify removing books from their collections, limiting access to library resources, or making decisions about what books to purchase for library collections. … publicly funded libraries should not use private content rating systems to restrict access to materials. This policy should apply to all users, including children and young adults.”⁸

Kelly Jensen at Book Riot has likewise dismissed BookLooks, RatedBooks, and similar sites as “unprofessional, biased book reviews” and “politically-driven.”⁹ Tools such as RatedBooks and the National Book Rating Index (NBRI) that actually catalog explicit content are rejected, while the professional reviews that leave librarians unsure whether a book contains “something that is questionable” remain the approved standard—until parents notice the problem, at which point the response is often a lawsuit.

So the position is now fully circular:

• The professional reviews ALA has long promoted as the gold standard for selection and defense of books are admitted by ALA’s own researchers (in an AASL journal) to be inadequate. Librarians say they can no longer rely on them and must read the books themselves.
• The rating systems that actually describe s[*]xual content, language, and other details are denounced by ALA as illegitimate tools of “religious and political groups.” Using them violates the Library Bill of Rights.
• ALA’s Book Résumés lean on the same professional reviews while omitting the content those reviews fail to flag.
• When parents point out the resulting problems, some librarians sue them for defamation while continuing to cite the very reviews now acknowledged as unreliable.

Either the approved reviews work, or they don’t. If they don’t—as Schattle’s study and the librarians themselves now say—then the tools that do provide useful information about content are the ones ALA explicitly forbids, precisely because those tools can be used to keep inappropriate material away from children.

I spoke with Brooke Stephens, founder of RatedBooks.org and the National Book Rating Index (NationalBookRatingIndex.com). RatedBooks creates reports based on a content rating scale that uses the book’s own excerpts to justify each rating. The National Book Rating Index aggregates nearly 38,000 reviews from multiple sources and can be searched for free or used by librarians to process entire library inventories and generate rating reports on matched titles. The more the ALA defends giving mature content to minors while declaring professional reviews inadequate and parent-created rating tools illegitimate, the more obvious the need for these resources becomes. Stephens is both amused and grateful for the free publicity the ALA has given her work. She sees their rejection of transparent content rating systems as further diminishing any remaining need for the organization itself.

Parents who challenged books and were attacked for it were right. The professional reviews were never the rigorous safeguard claimed. They were a convenient shield. ALA still promotes that shield through Book Résumés and selection policies while simultaneously declaring the more accurate content ratings off-limits and supporting legal action against those who notice the gap.

The result is predictable: children retain access to material that even the librarians selecting it now say they cannot trust the reviews to identify—and, as Lt. Gov. Patrick noted, the librarians are the ones who know what is on those shelves.

NOTE ADDED 23 AUGUST 2026:

This article will have a followup article about teachers who truly are trusted experts and who truly care for teaching children, instead of indoctrinating them, like the requirements American Library Association added to all the various state Freedom to Read Acts and Right to Read Acts.  These teachers who truly care were directly vilified by American Library Association and its librarians, such as by Amanda Jones who is suing me for defamation calling one of them "a menace and a bully."  The only menace is to ALA as people wake up and realize the emperor has no clothes, something that Misty S. Schattle described in detail when we learned librarians have to read all the books for themselves.  Then when teachers do read all the books for themselves and decide some books are inappropriate for schools, they are vilified and sued, such as by PEN America, a partner with ALA in "Unite Against Book Bans."  So stay tuned for the upcoming post.

NOTE ADDED 3 OCTOBER 2026:

As promised in the above note:

• "In Education, 'Trust the Experts' Is a Scam To Silence Even Expert Dissent," by Crystal Marull and Vicki Baggett, The Hill, 22 September 2026.

Endnotes:

1. Misty S. Schattle & Johnny R. O’Connor, Jr., “Books and Barriers: The Influence of Book Censorship on the Role of School Librarians, Their Self-Efficacy, and Well-Being,” School Library Research 29 (2026), https://www.ala.org/sites/default/files/2026-06/schattleandoconnor.pdf.

2. Dr. Misty Schattle, “Censorship’s Impact on School Librarians and their Libraries,” School Librarians United with Amy Hermon, Episode 372, August 21, 2026, https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/censorships-impact-on-school-librarians-and-their/id1434321470?i=1000784807311.

3. “School Excoriates Book Reviews that Fail to Disclose ‘Graphic S[*]xual Details’ in Books for Children; Lush by Natasha Friend is ‘Wildly Inappropriate’ for Certain Children,” SafeLibraries, December 16, 2010, https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2010/12/school-excoriates-book-reviews-that.html.

4. “False Censorship Claims Exposed by WSJ Author Attacked for Exposing Truth About Young Adult Books; Meghan Cox Gurdon Decries Incomplete and Uninformative Book Reviews,” SafeLibraries, June 8, 2011, https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2011/06/false-censorship-claims-exposed-by-wsj.html.

5. “Kentucky School Superintendent Exposes False Cries of Censorship; Removes Educationally Unsuitable Books from Curriculum Despite Being on ALA’s List for Reluctant Readers,” SafeLibraries, November 30, 2009, https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2009/11/kentucky-school-superintendent-exposes.html.

6. Unite Against Book Bans (American Library Association initiative), Book Résumés, https://bookresumes.uniteagainstbookbans.org/.

7. Book Résumé for Gender Queer: A Memoir by Maia Kobabe, Unite Against Book Bans / ALA, https://bookresumes.uniteagainstbookbans.org/wp-content/uploads/kobabe_GenderQueer_20240214.pdf.

8. American Library Association, Intellectual Freedom Manual, 11th ed. (ALA Editions, 2026), pp. 8, 145 (and Chapter 7 on rating systems). See also ALA’s related “Labeling and Rating Systems: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights.”

9. Kelly Jensen, “BookLooks, RatedBooks, and Other Unprofessional Book ‘Review’ Sites to Know: Book Censorship News, January 10, 2025,” Book Riot, January 10, 2025, https://bookriot.com/booklooks-ratedbooks-and-other-unprofessional-book-review-sites/.

10. “Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick Opposes Explicit Books In Schools, Pleas for Parents to Act to Get These Books Removed, Calls Out School Librarians,” SafeLibraries, August 20, 2026, https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2026/08/texas-lt-gov-dan-patrick-opposes.html (quoting Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick’s remarks holding school librarians responsible for the presence of explicit materials and noting ALA’s role in training them).

11. Maggie Heyn Richardson, “Livingston Parish’s Amanda Jones landed in a national fight about book banning. Now, ‘That Librarian’ Has Written a Memoir,” 225 Magazine, August 8, 2024, https://www.225batonrouge.com/our-city/livingston-parishs-amanda-jones-landed-national-fight-book-banning-now-librarian-written-memoir (quoting Amanda Jones: “As a professional librarian, I use professional reviews about where we place books in the library.”).

Hear the Admission:

Listen to the librarians themselves discussing how professional reviews can no longer be trusted, followed by a transcript of what they said:

Librarians Finally Admit the Reviews They Hide Behind Are Useless

Major exposé to be published soon.

Here's an excerpt of librarians lamenting how book reviews are no longer useful, forcing school librarians to read all books for themselves.

Transcript in attached post. pic.twitter.com/fY7y0LzkmP

— Dan Kleinman @OccupyLibraries (@OccupyLibraries) August 22, 2026

Transcript:

Amy Hermon:

[Y]ou know, these attacks on their collections were happening. 

Dr. Misty Schattle:

So what I found, and you have to keep in mind, this was a, this was, very much a small group of people. They were eleven librarians that I spoke with from one district, so you're talking about a very tiny population. But, they all found that their collection development processes were taking far longer than they ever had before. So, they, you know, we, we, all, as librarians, we, we read reviews, that's what we do, because unfortunately, as much as we would love to, we cannot read every book, there's just way too many out there. But I was finding that, that lots of librarians that I talk to were saying that they couldn't really rely on reviews anymore because, you know, they didn't know, were they going, you know, they read a review, but are they gonna get something that is questionable, um, you know, like, and then so they would, they might read a review and they might get something but then they might still find that they needed to read it before it could go on the shelf, or maybe they were going to public libraries and trying to find books so they could read them before they bought them. But then, you know, they're, they're still like, they're just finding that it's taking so much time, so much time that they don't have, right? And collection development, it's, it's a lengthy process anyway. Right? I mean well, maybe not, if you don't have much money to spend it don't take much time. But, if you, if you have a decent budget, you know, I, I, I don't know a single school librarian anywhere that's been like, "well, I had all this money to spend, so I was just buying whatever." I mean, nobody does that.

Amy Hermon:

Uhhh, (laughter) I, I was gonna say, back in the, uh, the ESSER days when we had ESSER funds, uh, after the pandemic, ah, there was something that I was aware was never gonna happen again in my career, but it involved a, a very small window of time and spending an amount of money that I could, could barely believe this was actually happening, it was like winning the lotto or something. But um, no, but I, I think that especially when you talk to people for whom they are not rookie librarians, these are not rookie librarians, you're dealing with people who are, in some cases, seasoned, they are veterans, they, they, this is not their first rodeo. They have built a collection repeatedly and you'd like to think that at some point you get better at this, and and you start to trust your, um, your judgment as a professional, and the longer you do this, in. The hope is that you become more confident in the decisions that you're making and you're not second-guessing yourself. But when somebody calls into question what you're doing, all of a sudden that hyper scrutiny that, that is imposed on, on the collection that we're building, this becomes an absolute, colossal, e-, e-, expensive time that we have to, to use, just to satisfy, uh, community members who have made it their life's mission to upend whatever sense of normalcy we have in our spaces.

Dr. Misty Schattle:

Yeah. It, it's just, you know, it's just crazy to me, like, I don't know. We have these degrees and, you know, we, we want to do our job, but sometimes it, it's hard, just finding the time to, to do all of the, the reading of, you know, all the books, because now you have to read all the books.

Amy Hermon:

So, I regularly hear from school librarians that there aren't enough hours in the day to do our jobs. We arrive before school early, we work through  lunch, we stay late. I'm already aware that there are, uh, a number of us who have extended calendars where we have built in days where we are working either, ah, before the school year starts or well into, uh, after the school year ends. Our professional training, our judgment, apparently isn't good enough when it comes to selecting the books that we oversee. And it's just, it's not just insulting, the burden that we now have to satisfy, uh, uh, somebody's expectations of, of how we are, are, you know, supposed to be doing our jobs.

Dr. Misty Schattle:

Yeah. I think it definitely makes that harder, because, like you said, we have training for this, we go to school to, to learn how to develop collections, and, you know, I, I'm sure you did as I did took classes on collection development, but not just that, I took children's literature, I took young adult literature. I mean, I enjoyed them. Honestly I was exposed to books I probably would've never picked up on my own. And I know, like, even now looking back, looking back at those classes, I can still, you know, recall some of those books that I read in those classes back in 2007. I can say, you know like, I know that I've put specific books that I read because of those classes in specific children's hands, because that was what they needed at that moment. I've always said that my most favorite part of my job as a school librarian was connecting kids with that just-right book for them. With that book that they didn't know they needed, but they needed.

Amy Hermon:

At Wayne State University, we had to pick two of the three categories, so we had, there was a young adult course, a middle grade course, and a, ah, children's, ah, literature. And these were actually the three classes that overlapped with our School of Education. And, so that was really interesting. And I'll never forget, it was the, you know, the, the assignment was legend, it was the hundred book project. And the hundred book project, the expectation was is that we would familiarize ourselves with a hundred books during the semester and write up synopses and, and all sorts of, ah, write ups and, and critical reviews, and, and, you know, we thought it absolutely daunting at the time, but now that I think about it, it was ay, some of the most memorable activities I did and I really, really enjoyed it.

—

URL of this page: 

safelibraries.blogspot.com/2026/08/librarians-finally-admit-reviews.html

Follow Protect Salado Kids on X: @ProtectSaladoKs

Follow Kelly on X: @patriotesse

Follow Dan on X: @OccupyLibraries @SafeLibraries @WLibraryA

Join World Library Association:

WorldLibraryAssociation.org

Legal Defense for SLAPP Suits Against Free Speech

Neutrality in Libraries is White Supremacy Says Librarian Kelly Jensen

"Neutrality is white supremacy," says a librarian i

Kelly Jensen: "neutrality is white supremacy"

n another example of how librarians are not "trusted experts" and seek to use local libraries for carrying out a political agenda antithetical to America.  American Library Association-awarded librarian Kelly Jensen in Book Riot writes that.  She doesn't want libraries to be neutral and blames it on capitalism, which is what she means by "white supremacy."  The public wants neutrality in libraries, but ALA librarians don't.

More from Kelly Jensen: "Who gets the safety of 'neutrality?' Cishet white people."  Sounds racist to me.  Sound racist to you?  "That trustee has been noting there aren’t enough books for their white cishet son, who is into history nonfiction."  Yep, racist.  "He wants the library to be 'beige,' built in the image of white supremacy and nothing more."  Yep, racist, and "beige" is not white, so her statement is internally inconsistent because she's blinded by hate.  Your "trusted expert" for school kids is a racist—but also a librarian, so she's fine and will continue to collect ALA's American Association of School Librarians awards and maintain her position as Senior Editor at Book Riot.

She's also anti American.  Kelly Jensen has a history of hate for America, such as by posting to her 13K Bluesky followers, "BTW, it is okay to just not celebrate or give a single sh[*]t about America's 250th anniversary of colonization.  You are allowed to just ... not!"  

Here are two articles on how people talking about "white supremacy" mean anti capitalism and anti American:

Borysenko, Dr. Karlyn. “Re-Education #7: Why Whiteness Means Capitalism; It’s Not About White People; It’s About the System.” Substack newsletter. Decode The Left with Karlyn Borysenko, August 18, 2024. https://karlyn.substack.com/p/re-education-7-why-whiteness-means.

Lindsay, Dr. James. “White Supremacy.” New Discourses, September 18, 2023. https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-white-supremacy/.

Now let's see in detail what ALA's "trusted expert" for children says about neutrality in libraries.  It's jam packed with projections like about "right-wing boards"—while ALA trains librarians ("Read. Lead. RUN!") into creating anti-American, pro child indoctrination boards comprised of librarians:

Jensen, Kelly. “Pride Month Still Matters, Despite Disappearing From Libraries: Book Censorship News, July 17, 2026; Pride Displays, Programs, and Events Continue to Disappear from Libraries in the US, Making Them Complicit in Queer Erasure.” Book Riot, July 17, 2026. https://bookriot.com/pride-is-disappearing-in-us-libraries/.  [Bold font modified.]

Quieting [of Pride in libraries] also happens more systematically. Numerous libraries have seen their right-wing boards craft policies related to affinity displays or programming. These policies target marginalized groups either intentionally, which we have seen in libraries where the far-right has simply taken over the library board and built the institution in their cult leader’s image, or they’ve been created under the guise of “neutrality.” But libraries aren’t neutral. Libraries have never been neutral, and libraries can never be neutral. They are unabashedly pro-library, which means being unabashedly pro-community and unabashedly pro-representation. Neutrality is bullsh[*]t. “Neutrality” is why far-right interests have run the train over libraries again and again and again. If libraries stand for nothing, they fall over easily again and again and again.

Neutrality is white supremacy. Until libraries understand that being political isn’t the same as being partisan, extreme partisan interests will declare the library as theirs and theirs alone.

....

At Columbia State Community College in Tennessee, a library’s LibGuide on LGBTQ+ terminology, flags, and organizations disappeared from the library’s website. It had been the library’s most-viewed guide, but the director heard from someone that they should remove it to “avoid any controversy.” The guide was not deleted, but it was unpublished. This is complying in advance, of course, and it’s also doing a tremendous disservice to an adult user audience. Who gets the safety of “neutrality?” Cishet white people.

.... 

Need I say more?  The above is all my opinion.  But watch Kelly Jensen on Bluesky to see for yourselves what I see.  These are the people set up by American Library Association to be "trusted experts" for school children.

Neutrality is white supremacy.

Quote of the above graphic:

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 

The first CRT tenet that we rely on, "racism as ordinary," is defined by Delgado and Stefancic as the idea that "racism is an ingrained feature of our landscape, it looks ordinary and natural to persons in the culture" (2017, 8-9). Because White Supremacy culture underlies the landscape of librarianship, and vocational awe and neutrality are arguably two of its most important mainstays, the assumptions, beliefs, and policies born from these values are seen as the norm rather than things to be challenged and ultimately transformed. Within this overarching tenet, we draw specifically on Alan Freeman's identification of a "perpetrator perspective" and a "victim perspective" in understanding White Supremacy, as well as Cheryl I. Harris's multifaceted approach to understanding whiteness as property. The second CRT tenet that we draw on to examine neutrality and vocational awe is "critique of liberalism," which pushes back against the idea that "equal treatment for all persons, regardless of their different histories or current situations," yields an equitable social structure, and that "with the election of Barack Obama, we arrived at a postracial stage of social development" (Delgado and Stefancic 2017, 26). Specifically because the value of neutrality in libraries relies on these misconceptions, we italicize this term throughout the rest of this chapter to highlight the fallacy in the goals of neutrality-framed library work. 

Due to a prevalent idea that "libraries are for all," there is a misconception that racial inequity does not affect libraries and requires no real intervention in libraries because people from all races, creeds, and walks of life are treated equally in the space. This idea is a central defense of neutrality; proponents of neutrality state that since we serve everyone, we must allow materials, ideas, and values from everyone. It also bolsters vocational awe, in that it forestalls meaningful critique of the field, particularly critique of its racial dynamics. As three People of Color, we have experienced on the micro and macro levels how librarianship weaponizes vocational awe and neutrality to uphold White Supremacy and further marginalizes communities of color. However, our very marginality allows a clearer view of the disconnect between the espoused values of librarianship and the reality of the field. We use this view to examine the current narratives of library work and, in a CRT tradition, to revise the history that has so long comforted the white majority of our profession (Delgado and Stefancic 2017, 25). 

Many of CRT's tenets overlap, particularly to relate the following ideas: that White Supremacy is purposefully maintained over time and is not happenstance and that the dismantling of White Supremacy is poorly served by incrementalism and similar liberal methods of achieving equality. Incrementalism, as defined by Lindblom, is the method of change by which many small policy changes are enacted over time in order to create a larger broad-based policy change (1980). Incrementalism, as a method, will not be limited to public policy in this analysis but will also encompass the larger implicit and explicit cultural rules that define the field of librarianship.

Source: Leung, Sofia Y., and Jorge R. López-McKnight, eds. Knowledge Justice: Disrupting Library and Information Studies through Critical Race Theory. The MIT Press. The MIT Press, 2021. https://direct.mit.edu/books/book-pdf/2252069/book_9780262363204.pdf. 

Oh yes, oh yes, by the way, something completely different about Kelly Jensen.  She has been viciously attacking, of all places, New York Public Library and its president and CEO Tony Marx.

Jensen, Kelly. “What Goes Into Tracking Censorship, With an Update From the New York Public Library Comms Team; Immense Work Goes into Reporting On and Tracking Censorship, So When We’re Asked to Pull That Work, We Take It Seriously.” Book Riot, July 13, 2026. https://bookriot.com/what-goes-into-tracking-censorship/.

One of the things she really hates is that New York Public Library demanded she delete a link to something.

Within hours of last week’s Literary Activism link roundup post going live, a spokesperson from the NYPL’s communications department sent an email (to my personal email–something really unusual) expressing frustration that they were not asked for a comment and with “an urgent” request for a phone call.

....

I extended the offer to share what NYPL may wish to say in response to the carousel link. The spokesperson then responded with requests to take down the link, once again asking me for my phone number. I did not remove the link, though I did again offer to link to any public response they might give.

To be clear, we do not pull or censor our link roundups to allow individuals or entities to respond to information linked in these sources. Responses have been included in succeeding Literary Activism link roundups where appropriate.

To me, this is hysterical.  She's offended NYPL committed "censorship" by demanding she delete her link to something.  

This is yet another of the never-ending line of ALA double standards.  In the first of the many defamation suits ALA had someone file against me, there was a demand made of me.  If I complied with the demand, the lawfare lawsuit would be dropped.

What was the demand ALA wanted for the defamation suit against me to be dropped?  To delete a link!  To delete what I wrote about ALA!  About how ALA was homophobic!  ALA wanted me to delete a document proving ALA was homophobic!  Kelly Jensen wasn't incensed about that but demands NYPL be criticized for doing nearly exactly what ALA did!  To protect homophobia!  By Deborah Caldwell-Stone, Esq.!

So I never deleted it, the case continued on, and I won it both times (since it was refiled after the initial attempt failed).  Now, read about ALA homophobia from the very article ALA sought to get me to censor and I didn't—and Deborah Caldwell-Stone, Esq., only rose to more and more prominence in ALA making all of ALA homophobic (were she in my company, I would have fired her for homophobia):

Kleinman, Dan. “Gay Hate @ Your Library.” SafeLibraries®, July 27, 2014. https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2014/07/gay-hate-at-your-library.html.

And I'm still being sued in now the fourth and fifth defamation suits promoted by ALA.  Please give $5, it's cheaper than a Starbucks!

Kleinman, Dan. “Legal Defense for SLAPP Suits Against Free Speech.” GiveSendGo, February 3, 2026. https://www.givesendgo.com/legalfundforparents.

Quote of the above graphic:

At the center of any investigation into whiteness that uses the methodological tools of “Critical Race Theory is Cheryl I. Harris’s (1995) foundational work on whiteness as property and the “conscious selections regarding the structuring of social relations” (280). Harris’s profound insights into the workings of whiteness compel us to recognize that the construction of racial meaning has historically emerged—and continuously reemerges—as a structural formation co-constitutive with US nation building, the territorial expansion of American empire, and racial capitalist development. The goal of destroying White Supremacy, then, routes us on a path to destroying the property relation itself—that is, destroying the system of ownership and control that reproduces relations of domination. In this vein, Jennifer Brown, Nicholae Cline, and Marisa Méndez-Brady’s chapter, “Leaning on Our Labor: Whiteness and Hierarchies of Power in LIS Work,” asks us to think carefully about the political economy of library services—in particular, how the commodification of information, the bureaucratization of diversity efforts, and inequitable distribution of labor seamlessly function to enact changes that don’t actually change anything at all. This “stubborn resistance,” as they call it, is, indeed, both ordinary and extraordinary, impeding the actual work of dismantling systems of oppression. Such a recognition forces us to consider whether a liberatory LIS is even possible within the very system of racial capitalism.”

Source:

Knowledge Justice

Leung, Sofia Y.; Lopez-McKnight, Jorge R.; Chiu, Anastasia

NOTE ADDED 20 JULY 2026:

I have updated this to add in detail the openly Marxist and anti American statements of American Library Association librarians.

These ALA librarians must be eliminated from any public jobs. Defund ALA is a minimum, first step. https://t.co/Tv3CbqUIkC

— Dan Kleinman @OccupyLibraries (@OccupyLibraries) July 20, 2026

—

URL of this page: 

safelibraries.blogspot.com/2026/07/neutrality-in-libraries.html

Follow Protect Salado Kids on X: @ProtectSaladoKs

Follow Kelly on X: @patriotesse

Follow Dan on X: @OccupyLibraries @SafeLibraries @WLibraryA

Join World Library Association:

WorldLibraryAssociation.org

Legal Defense for SLAPP Suits Against Free Speech

PEN America Fakes School Book Bans in The Hill; Pico-Violative Material May Be Removed Legally

PEN America fakes school book bans and almost everything else in The Hill.  

Below I republish the entire opinion piece, then intercalate what's really going on.

• "False Stories of 'P[*]rn in Schools' are Decoys for Book Bans," opinion editorial by Kasey Meehan (director of PEN America's Freedom to Read program), The Hill, 2 May 2026, hyperlinks omitted.

In 2021, alarming accusations of "p[*]rn in schools" — sounded by the conservative Florida Citizens Alliance in its 2021 P[*]rn in Schools Report and later championed by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) — spread like lice in a classroom. 

[FALSE - "Lice in a classroom" already sounds disgusting, sounds like a real horror show.  It's a manipulative statement to make, and here it is in sentence one.  It puts the agitation in agitprop. "Alarming accusations" is more agitprop.  REALITY - Inappropriate books are numerous in school libraries as a direct result of over 60 years of effort by American Library Association to eliminate parental rights and eliminate the application of various laws and US Supreme Court cases like Board of Education v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982), that allows schools to immediately remove pervasively vulgar and educationally unsuitable school books, often referenced in short as "p[*]rn in schools." The "alarming accusations" are simply parents who have become aware of Pico-violative material in school libraries and who seek redress of their government under constitutional state and federal law to have such material removed per the law.] 

The so-called p[*]rn targeted by the report was not AI deepfakes or internet sites, but books for children and teenagers. Shockingly, its false message took hold far and wide. 

[FALSE - "The so-called p[*]rn" is a manipulative tactic to use language to sway how people think.  More agitprop.  The "p[*]rn" is actually Pico-violative material and may be constitutionally removed immediately from shelves.  So it's not "so-called."  It's an actual problem reworded as "so-called p[*]rn" to give the impression that there's no p[*]rn in school libraries, and there isn't, but there definitely is Pico-violative material and it can be and has been removed from schools.  PEN America wants to put an end to that by manipulating how people think about the issue to the point where no one thinks Pico applies anymore.  So it's a cleverly worded phrase that sounds good but leaves out the truth.  Again, agitprop.  The truth is Pico-violative material is legally removable under the law.  So it's not "so-called p[*]rn," it's material that violates the Pico case, and it may be removed immediately from public schools.  If PEN America's agitprop is accepted as truth, not a single book will ever be removed from any school library.  We know that is false.  So we are not going to fall for PEN America's agitprop.]

Now, Congress is seizing on that fear with the Stop the Sexualization of Children Act [HR 7661], which would withhold federal money to schools and libraries over books and materials with what its sponsors determine to be "s[*]xually oriented material".  

[FALSE - "seizing on that fear."  After PEN America set up the straw man, namely, p[*]rn in schools, it then attacks the straw man and calls opposition to it "fear."  More agitprop.  But at least PEN America didn't echo the American Library Association lie that the Act is called the "Book Banning Bill."  The agitprop continues in the same sentence.  "What its sponsors determine to be 's[*]xually oriented material'" is another way to say trust the school librarians who say anything goes, there are no limits, rather than an entire legislature that, stung by American Library Association rules applied by school libraries that have filled school libraries with Pico-violative material, have decided to explicitly oppose "s[*]xually oriented material."  It's not a "fear" of inappropriate material in school libraries, it's a reality, and it's a reality that groups like PEN America want to lie to the public and to legislators (hence the opinion piece in The Hill) that no books may ever be removed from school libraries

—whatever ALA from Chicago says goes—in every school nationwide.  Something ever more subtle is a lie about HR 7661 that might withhold federal money over "s[*]xually oriented material" and how it's bad to withhold money for learning  First, there's a major case ALA lost on that very point, but in the context of internet filtering in libraries: United States v. American Library Association, 539 U.S. 194 (2003).  The Court plurality found the government has the right to withhold funding if the libraries did not use internet filtering against inappropriate material.  The Court found, "The interest in protecting young library users from material inappropriate for minors is legitimate, and even compelling, as all Members of the Court appear to agree." Yes, it's common sense, but PEN American wants people to get over any concern for any common sense so as to mislead people into allowing children access to inappropriate material—on the public dime, no less.  Second, Illinois Public Act 103-0100, drafted by ALA and called the "Right to Read Act" or the "Freedom to Read Act," explicitly adopts ALA's "Library Bill of Rights," and explicitly takes away state grants if school don't adopt ALA's aspirational creed by name or by substance.  So denying money to drive compliance with ALA diktat is okay when it ensures school kids continue to get "s[*]xually oriented material."  Third, ALA redefined what's "s[*]xually inappropriate for minors" as "diverse materials ... about inclusion."  So when PEN America speaks about it being wrong to deny funding for "s[*]xually oriented material," they essentially define it as "diverse materials ... about inclusion."  All together, PEN America is misleading people to thing it's wrong to do what the US Supreme Court already allowed and what even ALA itself already allowed, only in the opposite sense where state funding was withheld if schools did not allow children access to inappropriate material.  It's another ALA double standard.]

Source: youtu.be/XvD_gg1fQXI

In five years of recording book bans across the country, my organization, PEN America, hasn't come across a banned book that contains p[*]rnography. Why? Because distributing p[*]rnography in schools is a felony that can carry a prison term. Of the thousands we've seen removed from classrooms and school libraries supposedly for p[*]rn, none meet the legal or even informal definition.  

[FALSE - this entire paragraph relies on the first that set up the "p[*]rn in schools" lie in the first place.  It completely misses the mark, intentionally so, with the intention to mislead people into allowing school librarians to continue exposing school children to harm formulated over 60 years ago by Chicago's American Library Association.  By the way, the last USA book ban was in 1963.  So "In five years of recording book bans across the country, my organization, PEN America, hasn't come across a banned book" is inadvertently truthful.  But now I have a primary source to say in five years of checking, PEN America hasn't found a single book ban.  Welcome to reality, PEN America!  Further, another straw man argument: "none meet the legal or even informal definition" of p[*]rnography.  That's irrelevant.  Pico did not address p[*]rnography.  The issue is pervasively vulgarity and educational unsuitability.  P[*]rnography makes a great straw man argument though.]

We have found that, overwhelmingly, books wrongly identified as p[*]rn represent gay and transgender characters and themes, depict race, racism, s[*]xual experiences that do not constitute p[*]rn and themes that may be challenging, even uncomfortable, like gun violence and s[*]xual abuse.  

[FALSE - this entire paragraph relies on the first that set up the "p[*]rn in schools" lie in the first place.  In reality, such books listed comprise Pico-violative material and as such may be removed immediately from public school libraries.  The issue is whether the material violates Pico.  PEN America intentionally confuses people by adding in factors that are entirely irrelevant to a Pico determination.  The Pico Court did not rule that inappropriate material may be removed unless it deals with s[*]xuality, racism, gun violence, and s[*]x abuse, then it stays in the library no matter what.  That was not the Court's decision.  But it's what PEN America wants people to think.  More agitprop.]

Book banners promise that removing these books will keep kids safe from supposedly scary, criminal and harmful stories. 

[FALSE - "Book banners."  They just said they didn't see any book bans after checking for five years.  Now the parents who complain are smeared as "book banners."  Not a single parent anywhere ever banned any school book.  They have the legal right to ask a school board for redress of a concern, and it's the school board that may apply the Pico case, never any parent.  So to call all parents "book banners" it just more agitprop from PEN America.] 

We disagree. Books and storytelling are an essential part of public education. 

[TRUE in principle, FALSE in application - but Pico-violative material has been legally excluded by the US Supreme Court from being "an essential part of public education."  Indeed, the Pico case allows for various works to be removed and removed immediately.  After all, it's common sense.  Calling all parents "book banners" is an effort at language contamination intended to mislead people into simple ignoring the Pico case and substituting instead the judgment of Chicago's American Library Association.  Now who do you trust more, the US Supreme Court or the Chicago American Library Association?] 

We oppose book bans and advocate for access to diverse reading materials that reflect lived experiences or introduce new worlds, identities, histories and perspectives.  

[FALSE - This is the most massive lie so far because, while it sounds legitimate, it is based on unseen material PEN America doesn't disclose, and intentionally so.  Access to "diverse reading materials" sounds legitimate, and even compelling.  But what PEN America doesn't disclose is that the definition of "diverse reading materials" means something completely different than what anyone thinks.  It's a huge deception.  Pure agitprop.  PEN America did not disclose that American Library Association changed the definition of "diverse reading material" to explicitly include "s[*]xually inappropriate material for minors."  The then top lawyer for American Library Association provided training to librarians that changed the meaning of "diverse reading materials" to "s[*]xually inappropriate material for minors."  In full, here is what was said by the ALA lawyer during the training, 

But ultimately, we found that the thing that needs to happen most, and it needs to happen before these bills are introduced, is sustained uh messaging that reframes this issue um that uh that takes it away from the idea that these are inappropriate for minors, or s[*]xually inappropriate for minors, and promotes them as diverse materials and programming that are about inclusion, fairness, and protection of everybody's right to see themselves, and their families reflected in the books in the public library. 

So when PEN America says they "advocate for access to diverse reading materials," which sounds legitimate, what is meant is, "s[*]xually inappropriate for minors, ... promote[d] ... as diverse materials."  That's what PEN America is deceptively hiding.  All in an effort to convince people to expose more school children to more "diverse reading materials that reflect lived experiences" that has been reframed to that from "s[*]xually inappropriate for minors."  It's truly disgusting, and here it is in The Hill to attempt to fool the Washington, DC, legislators—so more kids will be harmed by ALA.]

Laney Hawes, co-founder of the Texas Freedom to Read Project, once said: "Fear is effective." Nothing is truer in the book banning crisis. A fear of p[*]rnography morphed into a fear of diversity, equity and inclusion, of educators and librarians supposedly indoctrinating kids and ultimately, of transgender and genderqueer kids themselves. Fear has led to laws, policies and executive orders about material in schools being "harmful to minors" or "s[*]xually explicit."  

[FALSE - Laney Hawes is not the co-founder of the Texas Freedom to Read Project.  That group was created by American Library Association as a local ALA affiliate, built in such as way as to give the appearance of being a local advocacy group.  Here's PEN America repeating the lie.  The reality is ALA has set up hundreds of local ALA groups nationwide, all of them called "grassroots," while none are grassroots and all were ALA created.  It's bragged about by ALA leadership.  It's stated in 990 tax forms submitted to the federal government.  Sometimes the groups themselves inadvertently acknowledge ALA's involvement publicly.  Yet here's PEN America talking about it like it's some grassroots group.  It isn't.  It's a ALA-created local ALA office.  And look, she spread the ALA message: "fear is effective."  Well lying is effective too, Laney, and you're lying.  In reality, school libraries are suffused with inappropriate material that could be removed under Pico.  You and PEN America want to keep it all on the shelves.  Then PEN America goes on with the "book banning crisis."  There's no book banning, and the "crisis" is that parents have finally woken up to the Pico-violative material filling school libraries, and American Library Association is trying to stifle that, and PEN America partnered with ALA to mislead people about Pico in Unite Against Book Bans.  There's your crisis.  It's that the people harming the kids are finally getting noticed by the parents and thereby the legislators.  That's the crisis.  So it's not a crisis, it's a healthy reaction by parents after they finally became aware of the harm being done intentionally to school children by ALA-trained school librarians.  The rest of the paragraph talks about the "fear of p[*]rnography."  So right there two lies are mashed together into one giant lie.  The remainder of that paragraph expands on that giant lie.]

My organization has documented how vague language leads to overcompliance and sweeping restrictions on all types of books. If this new bill in Congress passes, will schools be afraid to buy Maurice Sendak's children's classic, "In the Night Kitchen" because of young Mikey's nudity? Or Michael Hall's "Red: A Crayon's Story," with its messages about acceptance often applying to gender and s[*]xuality?  

[FALSE - here PEN America adopts the research of American Library Association that proves if you talk about innocuous books instead of the ones really at issue, then you can fool a lot more people.  The Sendak case, for example, is innocuous and involves librarians, not parents, who drew underpants on a child character.  It's blown up by ALA and PEN America into a giant cause célèbre.  Hence Kasey Meehan used it in her op ed for the politicians to see and blindly believe.  It's a little nothing case committed by a few librarians.  But the books about teaching kids how to use Grindr to meet a man for a night, that's not the book PEN America used as an example.  It's pure manipulation, and it's based on focus group testing by ALA to maximize the indoctrination and s[*]xualization of children.  It's agitprop.]

And although the bill includes exemptions for a list of "classics" identified by Compass Classroom — developed as homeschooling teaching tool for a Bible-based perspective — modern classics like Khaled Hosseini's "The Kite Runner" and Toni Morrison's 'The Bluest Eye" are not exempted. These books would likely land on a no-purchase list due to depictions of s[*]xual violence. Most explicitly, the bill would block the purchase of books about transgender people, censoring titles like Ami Polonsky's tale about a transgender 12-year-old, "Gracefully Grayson."  

[FALSE - "modern classics."  First, ALA focus group tested talking about "classics" as more effective to move people than being honest about reality.  Second, there is no "modern classics" exemption to Pico-violative material.  If it violates Pico, it's out, even if it's a "modern classic."  And "transgender people"?  That's a ridiculous lie.  There's no such thing as a transgender person.  No person has ever been nor will ever be transgender.  It's a harmful lie, harmful to children most particularly, and recent medical studies have quantified the harm, and it's quite significant.  Why does PEN America promote harmful material to children?  Why is it trying to mislead Washington DC legislators into allowing this harm.  It's Pico-violative material.  It could definitely be removed, and immediately.  There's no such thing as "a transgender 12-year-old."  Everyone knows that, even PEN America.  But it's useful as an excuse to promote more harm to more children.  That's what PEN America is doing writing this opinion piece in The Hill in the first place.]

This bill would mean school districts across the country that reject book censorship would be thrust into this maelstrom. Just this week, over 100 organizations urged people who care about education, books, young readers and libraries to call their representatives in Congress and tell them to vote against this bill.  

[FALSE - it's just more manipulative language based on the lies and merged lies from above.  This time the word "censorship" is thrown into the mix.  Again, the meaning of the word has been intentionally changed by American Library Association so that it no longer means censorship.  And the "over 100 organizations"?  All are ALA, created by ALA, or partners with ALA.]

Misleading tales of p[*]rnography and dangerous books, librarians and teachers are false narratives that have been woven in community after community, affecting the quality of education kids receive. But the more you read, the more you are able to spot an unreliable narrator claiming there is p[*]rn when it is not there. That narrator presents contradictory and inconsistent messages, where logic is absent and truth is hidden.  

[FALSE - same lies as above, but look at "woven in community after community."  ALA creates hundreds of local ALA offices nationwide and calls them "grassroots," while in an act of pure projection, "false narratives" have been "woven in community after community."  So now agitprop works?  "Logic is absent and truth is hidden"?  Seriously?  PEN America (and ALA) never discloses the logic and always hides the truth.  For example, despite my repeated attempts, PEN America's leader refused to debate me on these issues.  The invitation is still open, Kasey Meehan.  Indeed, you will never see anyone at PEN America ever engage in debate with a parent like me, precisely because the truth is hidden, and PEN America (and ALA) intend to keep it that way.  So while parents get the blame from PEN America as "unreliable narrator[s] claiming there is p[*]rn when it is not there," the reality is it's PEN America that's unreliable and continues to hide the truth by refusing to debate the issue publicly.  By the way, as to hiding the truth, librarians are trained to hide the truth.  It happens frequently, but just days ago Kelly Jensen published this about using subversion or direct activism to promote potentially harmful material to children—and librarians should no longer be considered "trusted experts":  

Among the suggestions below, you’ll have easy-to-implement and manage ideas, alongside some that will likely need to be done more subversively. Maybe subversively isn’t the word, honestly. Perhaps a better way to phrase it is that some of these suggestions may bring direct activism into the picture in a way that has not always been common in public libraries.

Speaking of Kelly Jensen, let's get back to "unreliable narrators."]

Unreliable narrators like DeSantis conceal a larger agenda to weaken public schools in favor of vouchers and private school options as outlined in Project 2025. Others, such as outraged parents who see book excerpts taken out of context on Facebook, campaign to remove them, even though there is no evidence at all that reading books causes harm.  

[FALSE - the "unreliable narrator" lie is now so big that PEN America applies it to the Governor of Florida.  Essentially, anyone who disagrees with indoctrinating and s[*]xualizing school children right in their schools using taxpayer money is labeled an "unreliable narrator" by one of the very groups seeking to maintain its grip on people so they continue to harm children as PEN America wants but can't force them to do, unless they first lie to the people so they think what PEN America wants them to think.  Again, agitprop.  Again, to harm kids.]

Meanwhile, students, parents, teachers, librarians and authors resist the efforts to remove books from schools. These more reliable narrators spread the message that books aren't harmful, and the opposite is true. Studies have demonstrated that reading, particularly reading for fun, helps advance critical thinking skills, academic achievement and empathy, and reduces stress.  

[FALSE - all those people were all activated by American Library Association into doing what ALA wants and has been working to achieve for over 60 years.  PEN America wants people to think the "book banners" are in the minority.  The reality is the people seeking to keep children from Pico-violative material are the vast majority, and the minority is the Chicago ALA and all the people it has already convinced into harming school children.  We heard about "unreliable narrators" before.  Now we hear about "reliable narrators" who somehow agree Pico-violative material is just fine for kids, we don't need Pico, we don't need obscenity laws, we don't need common sense and community standards, we just need kids to read anything approved by ALA—so anything, anything at all, even the books about sneaking behind your parents back to score a man for a night.  And "empathy."  Don't get me started.  As if PEN America trying to harm more children cares a whit about empathy, another word that has been given a new definition that has nothing to do with empathy.  

And "reliable narrators"?  American Library Association published last year a movie call "The Librarians."  It has huge even laughable lies in it.  It quotes Dwight D. Eisenhower, for example, talking about don't join the book burners.  It leaves off what he says after a comma where he essentially said matters of decency should be the only form of censorship.  No kidding!  The laughable deception is when a librarian shown only in the shadows for dramatic effect is finally revealed—in the last 30 seconds of the movie before the credits roll.  You immediately feel you've been had.  Even the promo poster features the hidden character gimmick.  So "reliable narrators" is what they want you to think, not the actual reality that is quite the opposite.  In full disclosure, I appear uncredited in the film.]

A colleague and I previously wrote how learning about s[*]x in a romantasy novel or through s[*]x education doesn't make kids s[*]xually promiscuous. It instead offers information about consent and healthy relationships, keeping young people safer.  

[FALSE - PEN America just lied to us over and over again, then merged the lies and made them bigger.  Can we definitely trust PEN America that kids reading Pico-violative material "doesn't make kids s[*]xually promiscuous"?  No.  If PEN America is saying that, the exact opposite is true.  There's no "consent and healthy relationships" exception to Pico.  "Keeping young people safer" is another lie that sounds good, but not when the true meaning of the phrase to PEN America is revealed.  But don't worry, PEN America doesn't do interviews with anyone who potentially might disagree.]

Students want the right to read freely, and most parents want that for their kids too. It's also okay to be offended, shocked or scared by a book. But the response should never be to remove access to reading or to ban themes, identities and perspectives.  

[FALSE - that last sentence just completely eliminates Pico.  Eliminates obscenity laws.  Eliminates community standards.  Eliminates common sense.  Everyone everywhere protects children from harm—except school librarians.  Now why is that?  "But the response should never be to remove access to reading or to ban themes, identities and perspectives."  Hey, Kasey Meehan, ever heard of Pico?  Did you know it has resulted in the removal from schools of many books?  Better yet, will you debate me publicly? 

And "most parents want that for their kids too" is an ALA-polled lie.  When Harris or Rasmussen runs a poll, then most parents oppose explicit books in public schools.  But ALA asked the question in a why that gave them the desired answer, and here's PEN America reeling it off like it's the truth.]

Reading for fun among children declined by 40 percent over the last two decades. Now more than ever, we need more readers, especially those who can spot an unreliable narrator.  

[FALSE - And this lie is a wow.  She is now implying that children should be able to determine when their own parents are "unreliable narrators" so they should be ignored.  Eliminating parental rights is the 60 plus year goal of ALA.  Now it is also the goal of PEN America, and there it is in black and white.  I'm certain the school board in Escambia County, FL, that PEN America is suing will be interested in learning this.]

Kasey Meehan is director of PEN America's Freedom to Read program.

By the way, the readers of The Hill aren't buying it:

Also, see my own opinion in The Hill:

• "Shame on PBS: 'The Librarians' is One Big Lie to Parents and Kids," opinion editorial by Dan Kleinman, The Hill, 2 February 2026.

—

URL of this page: 

safelibraries.blogspot.com/2026/05/pen-america-lies-about-school-books.html

Follow Protect Salado Kids on X: @ProtectSaladoKs

Follow Kelly on X: @patriotesse

Follow Dan on X: @OccupyLibraries @SafeLibraries @WLibraryA

Join World Library Association:

WorldLibraryAssociation.org

Legal Defense for SLAPP Suits Against Free Speech

Rutherford County Library System Being Bullied by American Library Association Mirrors

Rutherford County Library System is about to be bullied by the American Library Association and other major national groups that are part of ALA's Unite Against Book Bans, including American Civil Liberties Union and the National Coalition Against Censorship.  

On March 16, 2026, the library board voted 8-3 to move books, mainly about so-called trans children, to the adult section, likely because many now believe medical transitions for children involve horrible mutilation with life worsening and shortening consequences, let alone sterilization. The library director Luanne James refused to comply with the board's directive.  Now ALA is bringing its full weight to bear on Rutherford County as it does in hundreds of communities nationwide.  This article will disclose some of the ways in the present case.

To start, the ALA has created a local group called "Rutherford County Library Alliance."  See:

• "Tennessee Walking Horses - TN Parents Astroturfed by ALA Use High Stepping Lies to Overwhelm Rutherford County Library Board; It's an ALA Pattern Nationwide," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 15 December 2023.
• "ALA Details Bribes to Convince Governments to Sell Out Children," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 12 March 2024.
• "so we reached out to a, we reached out to a group and formed the alliance" https://www.youtube.com/live/Zisf2MWKcLk?t=87
• $28,999 - "Created and supported 18 local library Alliances to conduct public education and outreach about the First Amendment in Libraries, along with research into book bans."

Rutherford County Library Alliance is a bought and paid for astroturf group for ALA.  RCLA even admitted it ("we reached out to a group and formed the alliance").  ALA (via EveryLibrary) 990 filings show its standard operating procedure is to "create and support ... local library Alliances," as shown above.  Yet media treats RCLA as if it is truly local, not an astroturf group created and funded by Chicago's ALA to be the Rutherford County branch of the Chicago ALA.  The Tennessee Freedom to Read Project (TFRP) is another ALA creation, only this one admits to it: "EveryLibrary, the national political action committee for libraries, supports TNFRP's website and digital engagements."

EveryLibrary 990: "create and support ... local library Alliances"

ALA then has its specially awarded librarians write letters in support of the local group and of the library director defying the library board.  One such librarian, Kelly Jensen, who previously trained librarians how to block Christians from book readings in public library meetings rooms, has written an article listing the email of every board member and urging all of her readers to write to the board in support of the library director.  The ALA-astroturfed local group will then be at the next meeting handing out purple shirts (an ALA plan to represent red and blue voters united, which they are not when it comes to harming children in libraries) that are provided by ACLU, and books provided by NCAC.  Someone let me know what books so I can update this post.

Another way ALA is bringing pressure to bear is by doing what it usually does, namely, lying.  Recently Campbell County Public Library in Gillette, Wyoming, had a library board decide to jettison all ALA policy.  Library director Terri Lesley decided to adhere instead to Chicago's ALA diktat instead of the board's new rules.  So she was fired.  She then got help from ALA (though I have no proof for that other than it's obvious given ALA is funding multiple lawsuits nationwide) to sue the library.  Without even mounting a defense, the library settled for the full amount of insurance coverage.

ALA brags everywhere that this is a warning to library boards that library directors will follow ALA diktat, not library board rules.  It sounds that way, right?  Well it's an ALA lie.  You see, ALA in the past argued that legal settlements mean nothing.  Suddenly its library boards better dare not challenge the power of ALA diktat.  ALA argued legal settlements mean nothing when multiple lawsuits by multiple librarians for being s[*]xually harassed by p[*]rn viewers allowing by ALA policy all settled for the limits of the policy.  ALA said they were just settlements to get rid of the case, that no librarians have ever been s[*]xually harassed, and that proving such a thing in court has nearly insurmountable odds.  So when the settlement favors ALA, it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.  But when the settlement exposes the harm done by ALA to local communities, suddenly the settlements mean nothing and the underlying claims of s[*]xual harassment are "dubious."  So, by ALA presenting half the story, it is effectively lying.

In a nutshell,  ALA is creating then getting its local group to get ALA partners ACLU and NCAC to make a personal appearance at the board meeting to overwhelm the voting public.  And ALA-awarded librarians are writing posts to get its nationwide pressure network to bring its guns to bear on the board.  ALA itself is lying about library directors being fired for refusing to follow board directives as required by law.  In Tennessee, see § 10-3-104 - Powers and duties of library board.

So what will the board do?  Will it follow Tennessee law and stick to protecting local children from material that directly harms them, or will it cave to a massive pressure wave built up by an organization from Chicago that has been working for over 60 years to eliminate parental rights and uses various groups to give the appearance of legitimacy, including ones it created and funded, to give the appearance of local interest in ALA goals?

We shall see.

And naturally, I'll send this in an email to the board, via email addresses I got from a prominent member of ALA's pressure wave.  I'd be curious to find out just how many people showed up or wrote emails in response to the pressure wave.  I can guarantee you local citizens have no such organized action network as ALA has where essentially every entity opposed to the board is ALA, ALA generated, or ALA aligned.  It's like being attacked by multiple mirror images and giving up because you think you're outnumbered.

Let's hope the local Tennessee children win, not the Chicago ALA (ALA), the Chicago ALA (EveryLibrary), the Chicago ALA (RCLA), the Chicago ALA (TFRP), the Chicago ALA (ACLU), the Chicago ALA (NCAC), the Chicago ALA (Luanne James), the Chicago ALA (Kelly Jensen) and the Chicago ALA (media).

—

URL of this page: 

safelibraries.blogspot.com/2026/03/rutherford-county-library-system.html

Follow Kelly on X: @patriotesse

Follow Dan on X: @OccupyLibraries @SafeLibraries @WLibraryA

Join World Library Association:

WorldLibraryAssociation.org

Legal Defense for SLAPP Suits Against Free Speech