Tennessee School District Doubles Down to Align with the American Library Association: Take Back the Classroom Tennessee

Tennessee School District Doubles Down to Align with the American Library Association The Clarksville Montgomery County School System (CMCSS) in Tennessee has recently made an audacious decision to align with the American Library Association's (ALA) Library Bill of Rights.  Despite growing calls from parental rights groups and state commissions to disassociate with the progressive ALA, the CMCSS has taken the opposite approach and is embracing the radical policies of the ALA.   In their updated policy released on April 4, 2023, the CMCSS explicitly stated their commitment to the principles laid out in the ALA's Library Bill of Rights. This decision showcases the CMCSS's disregard for Tennessee law and the community they supposedly serve.    The controversy deepens as earlier this month it was discovered that contrary to state law, CMCSS provided a teacher training that taught students that “white” and “Christian” people are privileged while “a person of color” and someone who is “polyamorous” are oppressed.   Karen England, President of Capitol Resources Institute and Take Back the Classroom, expressed concern about the direction CMCSS is taking.  "The alignment with the ALA's agenda raises questions about whether the school district truly respects the legislative decisions made by our elected representatives," England said. “The presence of so many controversial books within CMCSS's library collection also raises eyebrows among concerned parents and the community.”   Tennessee's 2022 enactment of the Age-Appropriate Materials Act was intended to address the issue of explicit and inappropriate content in school libraries. The Act mandated that all school districts, including CMCSS, ensure that library materials are suitable for the age and maturity levels of students and uphold the educational mission of the school.  "For years the public has been advocating for the televised broadcast of board of education meetings to ensure public accountability and transparency,” England adds.  “However, it appears that our district remains the only one in the country that has not yet embraced this technological advancement. Maybe it is because they don’t want their constituents to know what they are doing.” With the Tennessee Department of Education providing guidance on compliance, there are serious concerns that CMCSS's alignment with the ALA's progressive values are in direct conflict with the Tennessee law.  Is your school district following the law or the ALA? Tennessee law states districts must ensure the library collection is appropriate for the age and maturity levels of the students who may access the materials, and suitable for, and consistent with, the educational mission of the school. CMCSS's policy is in clear violation as according to the ALA, they oppose all attempts to restrict access to library services, materials, and facilities based on the age of library users. Access to Library Resources and Services for Minors: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights The American Library Association supports equal and equitable access to all library resources and services by users of all ages. Library policies and procedures that effectively deny minors equal and equitable access to all library resources and services available to other users is in violation of the American Library Association’s Library Bill of Rights. The American Library Association opposes all attempts to restrict access to library services, materials, and facilities based on the age of library users. Take Back the Classroom Tennessee

CRI | 520 Capitol Mall, Suite B-1, Sacramento, CA 95814

—

URL of this page: 

safelibraries.blogspot.com/2023/08/tennessee-school-district-doubles-down.html

On Twitter: 

Follow @SafeLibraries Follow @SexHarassed Follow @WLibraryA

Courtesy, Professionalism, Respect

Courtesy, professionalism, respect.  It's the motto of the New York Police Department.  It is good for public servants to observe those values.

Sometimes public servants have neither courtesy, professionalism, nor respect.  When such a public servant is a member of a public library board of trustees, it can be all the more shocking.

Interestingly, while a library board member exhibited none of those values to me, his library director exhibited all of them, and in such a case the contrast is particularly striking.

So I wrote a letter to the library director asking him to see if he could guide the library's board into being more professional.  I did not do this to be obnoxious in any way.  Rather, I am trying to find any means short of continuing litigation to get the library board to comply with the law, something it has not done for almost a year, and to do so as quickly as possible to minimize the financial pain to the community.

In that light, I bring to you my attempt to stop a library board from defying the law for almost a year, including continual new violations of the law, because so far there have been absolutely no consequences for breaking the law.  One of the laws involved is a civil rights law; these are not frivolous concerns.  And this is a library that broke the law so as to ensure children retain access to the unfiltered Internet in the children's section of the library, even while knowing children have accessed hardcore pornography.  I'm not sure my attempt will work, but at least I am making an effort to gently advise the board that if it continues to defy the law, consequences will continue to mount and perhaps grow so large that the municipality itself will face liability for failure to stop the lawlessness.

---

Dear Westfield Memorial Library Director Philip Israel,

I attended the Westfield Memorial Library Board of Trustees [the board] meeting yesterday on 25 February 2016.  At that meeting there were numerous possible violations of the New Jersey Open Public Meetings Act [OPMA].  I am currently suing the board and its 2015 members individually for what I believe to be other violations of OPMA.  So now it is possible the board and its individual members are serial violators of OPMA.  It is possible a Court might consider ongoing violations as an aggravating factor when determining what remedies to apply.

Further, as the board has many new members, and as OPMA violations appear to me to be continuing unabated despite the present litigation, it is possible I may decide to amend the existing litigation to advise the Court of the possible ongoing violations and possible new defendants, namely, the new members of the board.

However, the real interest here is that the board complies with the law, not that I add new counts to an existing lawsuit with each new violation and each new board member.  The board’s complying with the law is in the interest of everyone, me, the board, the municipality, the Court, everyone.  So at this moment I’ll not add new counts and new defendants nor file any new cause of action.  But in exchange, the board needs to make an effort to comply with the law.

Here are violations I saw tonight.  First, the agenda did not list the executive session.  By law, the agenda must be provided “to the extent known,” and certainly the board knew it was going to have an executive session this evening, just like it knew it would discuss everything else on the agenda.  See NJS 10:4-8(d). Second, the public announcement of the executive session listed two reasons for the meeting, namely, personnel matters and litigation.  That violates the law.  For example, it may not just say litigation.  It must specify what litigation is being discussed.  See: http://ogtf.lpcnj.org/2012/2012213OK/rutgersMc.pdf

So the agenda listed “PUBLIC PARTICIPATION” then “ADJOURNMENT.”  I spoke at the public participation portion of the meeting, for example, warning a new library trustee that simply because a person challenged books does not automatically equate to censorship, as she had reflexively labelled it, portending a library trustee beholden to the American Library Association instead of acting in the public trust.  I also suggested that the dates and times of board meetings should be on the library’s electronic/online calendar as they used to be and on the web page dedicated to the board, not just hung on a sign in the library.  People look online for things these days.  Both suggestions seemed to be welcomed.  I sat down and everything appeared okay.

After I spoke, instead of adjourning per the agenda, the unlisted executive session was announced.  As I was leaving due to the closing of the meeting to the public, because I was aware the library likely should have listed the executive session on the agenda, I so stated that, to which one of the board members and a defendant in my existing lawsuit said to me, “public participation is closed,” meaning shut up and go away.  This is an aggravating factor to me of this latest OPMA violation and of previous ones as it evidences an atmosphere completely at odds with OPMA and no remorse for past violations of civil rights.  The board just violated OPMA again, I said the executive session likely should have been on the agenda in accordance with OPMA, and I was told to shut up, don’t tell us to follow the law.  That’s how I understood it.  I responded that it was unfriendly to say that as I was just advising them in respect of the law.  Then I left.  I was forced to make that comment after public participation had closed because the possible illegalities involving the agenda and the lack of specificity had occurred only after public participation had closed.  Was I to remain silent on yet more violations of civil rights under OPMA simply so I would not offend a bully board member?  Does OPMA require silence from the public when they witness lawlessness and it is not during the public participation portion of the meeting?  What goes on in the minds of board members who clearly show disdain for public participation and the law even in the face of litigation over that very law?

So here are issues for the board to address, and they should be addressed in public in compliance with OPMA. 1) The board needs to reverse its string of OPMA violations and begin to comply with the law.  Any negative consequences of OPMA litigation is the board’s fault for repeatedly failing to follow the law, not my fault for seeking to have the law enforced. If I do not see immediate improvement, I may consider amending my complaint to ask the Court to force compliance and include the new board members who are now possibly responsible for new OPMA violations, or I may bring a new action.  2) The board needs to be respectful of the public’s right to speak and not make snide remarks intended to tell someone to shut up and go away and don’t tell us to follow the law. Common courtesy should be enough to make that call.  But if that is too difficult for the various bullies on the board, at least consider that such actions might be considered as aggravating factors by any Court reviewing various possible and serial OPMA violations.  3) The board needs to correct past violations of the law, including those in my lawsuit: http://tinyurl.com/LibraryOPMA

I am going to continue attending board meetings at that library.  I am going to continue to expect compliance with the law and speak up at any time if I see violations of the law.  I am going to continue to write about noncompliance with the law.  Eventually the board will follow the law.  It would be best for everyone that it did so immediately on its own volition instead of having to be forced into it by application of the various remedies afforded in OPMA.  To the extent the board remains recalcitrant and drives up costs like legal fees that taxpayers ultimately pay, that will be the board’s doing, not mine.  I know American Library Association strategy is to fight tooth and nail to keep the public in the dark about how libraries break the law, even to the point of advising libraries to destroy evidence in violation of the law, and I know the board is already beholden to the American Library Association.  I know the American Library Association holds training sessions to teach librarians to use ad hominem argument to distract the public from a library’s own malfeasance.  If the board goes down the path of using lawyers to pound the public into submission while maintaining the illegality, that will be the board’s doing, not mine.  It would be best for the board to simply follow New Jersey’s law instead of Chicago’s American Library Association.  It’s going to end up doing that eventually anyway, so the sooner the better for everyone.

You may have noticed when the issue came up of the removal of the dozen or so drug and alcohol books from the youth section in respect of a mom’s challenge, I suggested applying the library’s book selection policy then advising the mom such books are within that policy.  So I am not there to complain about everything the board does and support every complainant.  Rather, the board in my view is now on a nearly year-long string of defying OPMA, and I have every right to seek enforcement of civil rights in such a case, in fact I have a First Amendment right to do so.

I thought you should know this and please forward to the board.

And while I am at it, I’m very impressed with your own professionalism as library director.  You are consistently excellent, even as board members make flip or rash statements about censorship or tell the public to shut up and go away, both exemplified by the American Library Association. Please try to help the board to come into compliance with the law, especially OPMA, and to act professionally as you do.  I’m not sure what it hopes to gain by its continuing defiance of the law that is about to span an entire year.

CC to Westfield Mayor and Town Council as two of the Council are involved in this matter and it might be time for the municipality to finally stop the board from acting outside the law, which the municipality was every right and duty to do, before potential liability grows to subsume the municipality as well.

CC to media and good government groups.

Dan

URL of this page: safelibraries.blogspot.com/2016/02/courtesy-professionalism-respect.html

On Twitter: @ALALibrary @NYPDnews @WMLNJ

Follow @SafeLibraries

Pornography Versus Library Bill of Rights, by Colby Sheppard, Westfield Leader, 9 April 2015

Pornography Versus Library Bill of Rights

Imagine the shock to learn the children’s computers in the Westfield Memorial Library have no pornography filters.  Upon speaking to other parents they had the same reaction, “I thought there were filters!”  No, not the case.

The Westfield Memorial Library is one of the only area libraries to not have filters on the computers with Internet access in the children’s department.

In February, the library begrudgingly agreed to put filters on only two of the four computers in the children’s section.  Allowing pornography on any public library computer is illegal in accordance to New Jersey state law.  Also, the U.S. Supreme Court says blocking pornography from public libraries does not violate the First Amendment.  Why then should the citizens of Westfield settle for filtering only two of four children’s computers instead of filtering all computers in accordance with the law?

I learned the library eschews N.J. law and the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, by choosing to follow the “Library Bill of Rights” of the American Library Association.  (www.wmlnj.org/About/Internet%20Use%20Policy.asp)  Result?  Your child has access to hard-core pornography.

Westfield Memorial Library; Internet Use Policy
wmlnj.org/About/Internet%20Use%20Policy.asp

Is this what we want for the children of Westfield?  It should be Westfield’s duty to ensure the library complies with the law, not the American Library Association.  Is Westfield living up to that duty?

The library’s “mission statement” defines the library as “the community’s destination for discovery and ideas – engages minds, entertains spirits, and facilitates lifelong learning for people of all ages.”  What part of pornography does any of that?  What “ideas” should we be getting from watching sex trafficking victims having the worst days of their lives broadcast on library computers?  Pornography goes against the very mission of the library, it’s about time the library starts complying with its own mission statement.  It’s time we get involved and restore common sense and the law.

I’ll be attending city and library meetings to push for compliance with the law that makes pornography illegal in all N.J. libraries.

United States v. American Library Association, 539 US 194 (2003)
laws.findlaw.com/us/539/194.html

I do not want any kid to see hard-core pornography in the library, and I’m asking those who agree to come out to the meetings as well and speak up.  Also, speak up by writing a letter to the library board and let them know your views.  The library should listen to the citizens of Westfield, N.J. law, and the U.S. Supreme Court, not to the American Library Association.  We just need to let our town and our library know we’re awake now and we’re going to speak up for our community.  It might take time, but we’ll get there.

Please join me in advocating for this positive change.

Colby Sheppard

Westfield

NJ law (NJS 40:54-12 [link]) permits library boards to
"do all things necessary and proper" to run libraries.
US v. ALA says, "public libraries have traditionally
excluded pornographic material...." Clearly, Internet
porn is not "necessary and proper." So allowing
Internet porn is acting outside the law. NJ library
boards have no power to exceed the law; municipal
bodies must act to stop the lawlessness.

Source:

• "Pornography Versus Library Bill of Rights," by Colby Sheppard, Westfield Leader (NJ), 9 April 2015, hyperlink added.
• Reprinted with permission.  All graphics/captions were created by SafeLibraries and are not part of the original publication.

URL of this page: safelibraries.blogspot.com/2015/04/library-bill-of-rights.html

On Social Media: @ALALibrary +TownOfWestfield @TownOfWestfield @wmlnj

Follow @SafeLibraries

Moving Porn at BYU is Censorship?

This takes the cake. A university has a collection of soft porn that it promotes front and center in the school library. As a result, many women have ended up in therapy for porn addiction. Students, joined by their therapists, asked the school library to move the books back to the shelves, instead of front and center. The library refused claiming moving the books would be censorship!

See "Therapy: Part 2," by Lauren, The Barnes Family, 27 June 2009. See also "Romance Novels Pornography for Women," by Adrienne, Adrienne Bone, 27 June 2009. I have added these links to "Thomas Sowell on Banned Books Week - BBW is 'Shameless Propaganda ... Now Institutionalized With a Week of Its Own" because the American Library Association's false censorship claims are strikingly similar.

Censorship! Victims of real censorship would laugh about this, then cry that censorship has become so diluted that moving porn back to the shelves is considered the equivalent of, say, jailed Cuban librarians.

Citizens across the nation are beginning to ask public libraries to move material inappropriate for children to the adult section. St. Louis citizens just did this successfully. The false claim that it is "censorship" is made in every case. Children, they claim, have First Amendment rights to inappropriate material. They don't, but that's what they claim.

Along comes Brigham Young University [BYU]. This time the target of the false "censorship" claims is college-age women. So even without the presence of children, the same false "censorship" claims are being made. Result? The BYU Library keeps the porn collection front and center, library patrons continue to be harmed, and it may be a direct result of the library's policy. Potentially, the school may be directly liable for the harm caused to the women after the library refused to move the books using false censorship claims.

When will people stop being intimidated by those claiming moving books is censorship? It is BYU's library, not the library director's library. Get the library director to do what the university community wants, not what the library director wants. If he or she refuses to budge, take appropriate action and move on.

The blog posts discuss the many efforts of students and therapists trying to stop this injustice. The library and school administration has turned them away each time or broken promises. I won't. I hereby offer to assist anyone regarding this matter.

.

Library Control Denied by ALA Acolytes for Over a Decade and Counting in Gilroy, CA

What? Gilroy, CA, is still fighting for local control over public libraries after all these years? Is the American Library Association's [ALA] anything goes policy that hard to shake? Apparently. Would anyone suggest what should be done?

On 21 August 2008, out comes "No Library Bond Money Until Internet Porn Issue Solved," by Cynthia Walker, The Gilroy Dispatch, 21 August 2008. It is sad to see how long this library has been able to drag its feet on protecting children from harm. "By Dec. 1996, we saw our first incidents of obvious minors accessing pornography in libraries. We were stunned when our trusted friends, the librarians, told us that it was a child's right to look at anything he wanted. 'Please respect the privacy of the child.'"

Alas, "the libraries responded, citing ALA Policy, that all library resources must be available to all library patrons, regardless of age." Years and years of meetings and media, all to no avail.

Local control over public libraries is impossible when the ALA and its local acolytes dig in their heels. This is precisely why state CIPA legislation is needed.

Consider the following familiar refrain from "Vote No on Prop. 81," Editorial, The Gilroy Dispatch, 19 May 2006:

"Speaking of local control ... even after six years, it still rankles that our librarians refused and continue to refuse to adopt a policy prohibiting access to pornography by minors on library Internet terminals. When every day new incidents reveal the ease with which sexual predators solicit children online, any claims that the library is a safe place for kids ring hollow. The values espoused by the American Library Association are so divorced from the values of our community that we would seriously consider withdrawing from the Joint Powers Authority and going back to the days of a city library under local control, rather than giving one thin dime to an institution controlled by an organization that believes in 'all materials for all patrons regardless of age.'"

The Gilroy story is long and sad and neverending. Local library control has been denied by ALA acolytes for over a decade and counting in Gilroy. Apparently, the words of the US Supreme Court in US v. ALA (2003) mean nothing to the ALA and the Gilroy librarians: "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." Something stinks in Gilroy, and it's not garlic.

I urge everyone to read "No Library Bond Money Until Internet Porn Issue Solved," by Cynthia Walker, The Gilroy Dispatch, 21 August 2008:

No Library Bond Money Until Internet Porn Issue Solved

Aug 21, 2008
By Cynthia Walker

[FOR REASONS OF COPYRIGHT CREDITED TO THE GILROY DISPATCH, I ONLY SHOW SOME PARTS OF THE ARTICLE. BUT PLEASE GO TO THE LINK FOR THE WHOLE THING -- IT'S WORTH IT.]

....

In Nov. 1996, the Internet was installed in county libraries. My friend Matthew expressed some uneasiness to me. "There's pornography on the Internet," he told me. "What if children get into it?" I scoffed, "Oh, Matthew, the librarians would never let that happen."

By Dec. 1996, we saw our first incidents of obvious minors accessing pornography in libraries. We were stunned when our trusted friends, the librarians, told us that it was a child's right to look at anything he wanted. "Please respect the privacy of the child."

.... In March, the libraries responded, citing ALA Policy, that all library resources must be available to all library patrons, regardless of age.

.... We responded to the library's letter. On May 18, 1997, we took a police officer to Gilroy Library to demonstrate that illegal material is available on children's terminals. The officer was shocked; he, like most other sane individuals, assumed that the library was using some sort of filtering technology. He took a report. Assistant District Attorney Karyn Sinunu verified that material was illegal (obscene), but said: no victim, no crime. The library did nothing....

.... And in June 1999, the Board approved existing guidelines as "policy." Librarians will not monitor. Parental consent for minors is not required. Open access to all patrons, regardless of age. Consequently, if a patron complains that a child is viewing pornography, a librarian, at her discretion, may move the porn-surfing patron to another terminal or tell the offended patron that the porn-surfer has a right to privacy.

....

---

Cynthia Walker Cynthia Anne Walker is a homeschooling mother of three and former engineer. She is a published independent author. Her column is published in The Dispatch every Friday.