Library collection policies govern the who, what, where, when, why, and how of materials arriving and leaving shelves. Some libraries have a single large policy with separate sections covering everything from acquisition to deaccession and patron challenges; others maintain separate policies that address these concerns. For the sake of ease throughout the piece, “policy” and “policies” refer to the same thing–rules and procedures used by libraries to make decisions related to the materials in their collection. As librarianship has continued to professionalize and standardize, the collection policy has truly become a tool to help protect the First Amendment for both the library and its users. The first is to ensure that the materials are protected and represent the whole community they are to serve. The second is to give library users the ability to challenge materials they believe are inappropriate, inaccurate, or irrelevant.
Collection policies were developed and used more following the 1980 election. Then, like today, they weren’t always used for good. The 80s were an era of book challenges, often occurring in ways that were neither documented nor could be documented as they are today. This is even though, just a decade prior, the Supreme Court defined obscenity via the three-pronged Miller Test (1973).
In an older blog post, literary luminary Judy Blume sets the scene of where and how collection policies in this period of time were first absent, then wielded as tools for censorship:
Literary Activism
News you can use plus tips and tools for the fight against censorship and other bookish activism!
Too few schools had policies in place enabling them to deal with challenged materials. So what happened? The domino effect. School administrators sent down the word: Anything that could be seen as controversial had to go. Often books were quietly removed from school libraries and classrooms or, if seen as potential troublemakers, were never purchased in the first place. These decisions were based not on what was best for the students, but what would not offend the censors.
[…]
A year later, when a new book selection policy was introduced forbidding vulgar, obscene and sexually related materials, the school superintendent zealously applied it to remove more than sixty-five books, many of them classics, from the curriculum and classroom libraries. They included To Kill a Mockingbird, The Red Badge of Courage, The Great Gatsby, Wuthering Heights, and Of Mice and Men. Also banned were Shakespeare’s Hamlet, King Lear, The Merchant of Venice and Twelfth Night.
More connections among libraries, more opportunities for library workers to engage with one another and share best practices, and more discussion of what is at stake without defined policies and procedures led to better efforts to develop these tools in the 80s, 90s, 00s, 10s, and now, the 20s. Public and public school libraries better understood the true nature of what they do and offer. They are institutions of intellectual freedom and places where the First Amendment rights of all are paramount.
Policies don’t arrive in a bubble. Where those working in the library, on the ground and in administration, may develop these policies, they do so knowing there will be input from their library board, their school board, and, likely, legal counsel. This is why, despite the need for these policies to be updated annually to address the latest tactics in censorship and new resources and tools available to support collection management, the layers of approval required to do so make such a timeline challenging, if not impossible.
Policies protect everyone.
All of that is context for what’s started to emerge as another tactic being employed by the far right, the Epstein class, and their sycophants to dismantle and destabilize libraries. In the last few months, two libraries in two different states have followed the law and their own policies when faced with a challenge or multiple ongoing challenges. In both libraries, because the outcome did not align with the desired authoritarian power over the library, staff and stakeholders were removed from their roles.
In other words, following library policies led to those who did so losing their jobs because the policies protected against influence from a political agenda.
Those with allegiance to the far right and its harmful, discriminatory beliefs claim to love rules, policies, and order. But that’s only true when those rules, policies, and orders advance their agenda–not when they protect the well-being and interests of the whole.
Pickens Public Library (South Carolina)
South Carolina’s budget proviso, passed in 2024, requires that public libraries “certify to the State library that their county libraries do not offer any books or materials that appeal to the prurient interest of children under the age of seventeen in children’s, youth, or teen book sections of libraries and are only made available with explicit parental consent” to get their state money. The proviso does not define “prurient interests,” though per state code, that refers to “a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion and is reflective of an arousal of lewd and lascivious desires and thoughts.”
In other words, the types of books that do not exist in any public library in the United States.
The language’s vagueness is intentional. It leaves the door wide open to deem anything a particular political persuasion “inappropriate.” This proviso has been why young adult sections of public libraries in the state have been disappearing altogether, including in Horry County and Lancaster County. It’s why other public libraries in the state have passed draconian policies that limit where and how libraries can select materials for their collection, such as in York County. The “book review” website Rated Books celebrates this particular accomplishment, as their narrow agenda is the agenda in a state public library.
In 2025, Pickens County Library was certified by the state that its collection aligns with the proviso and received its budget funds as anticipated. This year, though, some board members believed they should hold off on signing the form certifying compliance and granting them state cash. Why? Because that same contingent of the board wanted to draft new and updated policies for the library. This came not only from their own desire to continue pushing partisan politics across the whole of the library, but also because a small and vocal contingent of the community had been demanding the removal of certain books and themes from the library for years. It was a solution in want of a problem.
An earlier social media post from the Pickens County Republican Party shows that attacks on the County library have been ongoing for a long time. Going even further back, there’s been clear tension in the county between republicans and their MAGA counterparts–and it’s a tension that put Lori Osborn, chair of the Pickens County Library Board, in the middle of, having to navigate demands to ban books from the library in which she would not be complicit. Osborn served as Chair of the library board for years; she is no longer in the role as of 2026.
Coverage of book challenges in the library dates back to 2024, with complaints about Raina Telgemeier’s Drama, which the board decided to keep in the juvenile section. Reading through the next year and a half of board minutes includes numerous calls for the board to review materials, most of which center on stories of people of color and/or queer people. The targets mirror those across the state and the country. You can see a list right on the library’s website of the torrent of challenges and their outcomes from 2024-2025.
An early January 2025 board meeting included the slow rollout of a new collection management policy. There was little discussion of it at the meeting, aside from acknowledging that it was coming and that a forthcoming discussion would distinguish teen books from young adult books. Recall from Horry County and York County that this same false division resulted in the dismantling of teen/YA collections from both systems. A committee meeting from February of last year illuminates just how off the rails the lengths to which demands for book removals and relocations were.
“This particular book was a man’s butt, and he was in a gay pride parade, and
it was on the front of the book.” The Director asked, “So is the problem the gay pride parade or the man’s butt? Ms. Miller replies, “I think it’s both issues for children. This was in the young children’s section.” The Director says, “There are children that we serve that have gay parents. We have to serve everybody.” Ms. Miller replies, “I know, but there are more children who do not have gay parents, who’s minds are not ready to absorb that yet. It messes with the child’s mind.”
Now, many years into nonstop fighting over the books available in public libraries, the January 2026 board agenda included reviewing the library’s collection policies (again) and discussing the difference between teen and YA books (again). In the meeting agenda, the collection policy includes the Library Bill of Rights and the Freedom to Read Statement, and it also notes that it now distinguishes between YA and teen books. As in other libraries across South Carolina, the distinction completely ignores actual knowledge of the topic, deferring instead to the idea that “YA” means for ages 18-25, and not teenagers.
Days after that board meeting, the board’s policy committee meeting would include removing portions of the current policy–including the Library Bill of Rights–and changes to both the policy and challenge process. There are no minutes from that meeting, but those discussion points are in the agenda. On January 28, the policy committee then held an urgent meeting and updated the library’s collection policy. Still central? An inaccurate distinction between “YA” and “Teen.” The fast-and-loose definitions of what does or does not make materials “inappropriate” or “appealing to the prurient interests of children” also appear throughout.
There is always a convenience factor here: “YA” and “Teen” have real clear delineations, per the board. At the same time, “I’ll know it when I want to be mad about it” is fine for defining anything “inappropriate” or “appealing to the prurient interests of children.” This portion of the policy is intended to put anyone trying to make heads or tails of what these words do or don’t mean into the bullseye of manufactured outrage. That new policy was passed by the board on February 12, despite at least one board member requesting legal review.
Amid conversations about the new policy, the library’s director made it clear that staff would need to invest significant time, money, and energy in reviewing every book made available to young people in the library. This would include dismantling the teen section and moving materials from their intended audience into adult collections. It would require evaluating materials to determine whether they fit the vague definitions the board elected to use to determine whether the material was inappropriate for minors.
Again, the library has no such material and had already certified to the state that it was in compliance with the proviso the previous year.
The director, backed up against the wall by the demands to now review over 86,000 items in the library, announced that any programming would need to be canceled in order for the library to do what the board demanded. The same people who run programming are now expected to comply with a new policy that replaced one that was perfectly adequate, if not one that better protected the library and its patrons.
Days later, in another urgent meeting by the library board, the director was fired. The board made no statement on why they moved to fire the director. They also did not indicate who would be running the library or overseeing its operations, including the review of 86,000 books available for minors.
There is little question as to why she was fired, though. Her decision to comply with the new policy then turned the ugliness of the policy back around to the board, and they could not have their image or reputation sullied in the media. Even if they did it themselves. Even if it was exactly in line with partisan demands. Despite following an earlier policy that ensured state budget allocations, that wasn’t good enough for the power-hungry, vengeful library board. Despite a new policy being rammed into place and the library director immediately getting to work on compliance, she was fired from her job.
This was never about the books in the collection. It was never about the state’s budget. It was never about the policy. It was about a majority of the board wanting to steal as much power from the people it purports to represent as possible.
As of Friday, March 6, the board decided not to vote on the new policy yet. However, the director would still be fired, the YA section would still be gutted, and somehow, staff would still provide all of the programming already on the calendar. They’re also itching to appoint an interim director, Bruce Heimburger, a retired librarian and an elder at a church with values and beliefs aligned with far-right evangelicalism. Pickens County Library Board’s president Danny Parton is a long-time conservative pastor; At-Large Board Member Mark Kilburn is a local republican engaged with the county’s GOP (the same group, noted above, that has been mounting attacks on the library for years); District Six board member Brian Aiken was a pastor at a local Baptist church, at least until resigning last March.
The board is so eager to have Heimburger take the helm that they’re not even requiring him to work on-site full time. He’ll work two days a week in Easley and the rest of the week from his home in West Columbia. The board also decided to change its regular meeting times to accommodate his schedule.
People on the ground in Pickens County have been fighting against book censorship and the GOP’s attempts to remake the public library in its vision for several years. This was an escalation, and it occurred at a time when the board knew they could not only undermine the collection policy that had served the library for years but also implement their own destructive policy and fire the person in charge of overseeing it.
The board now has no one to be accountable to, and that’s exactly how they want it. Their plans to appoint someone who aligns with their values are their opportunity to exert even more power and disregard the needs of the actual community.
Randolph County Library (North Carolina)
Where Pickens County’s library board of trustees sought power by overthrowing library leadership and adherence to policy, in Randolph County, power was stolen not only from library administration. It was also stolen from the library board itself, leaving the library and its governance both a giant question mark and a blazing exclamation mark.
In fall 2025, a woman using the Randolph County Library borrowed the book Call Me Max by Kyle Lukoff. She borrowed it for her grandchild “without realizing what it was about.” Angry about the book centering a trans narrative, she complained to the library. These kinds of “I didn’t know” statements, of course, point far more to the person saying them than the thing about which they’re talking. In this example, the patron either didn’t bother to look through the book or elected to lie about it. Given Lukoff’s catalog and the ongoing attacks on trans people and books, it wouldn’t be surprising if the reality here is both.
The library took the complaint seriously, as they should. Book challenges are protected by the First Amendment and in library policy.
Randolph County’s library board followed its policy and reviewed the book. At the meeting where they were to discuss their decision, the public comment period was filled with advocates for and against the book’s removal from the collection. Following their own policies and procedures, and after personal reading of the material, the board voted to keep the book in the children’s section. The board did not ban the book because it was not out of alignment with their own policies. The library took the challenge seriously and treated it that way from start to finish.
Some of the County Commissioners were unhappy with this outcome. Three of the five Commissioners then voted in December to fire the entire library board and dissolve the bylaws governing them. Yes–one book being left on shelves, following policy for review, led to the dissolution of an entire library board by the county. Why?
Power.
County Commissioners acknowledged that the library board did no wrong and that they followed policy. Three of those County Commissioners, however, decided that their personal opinions on the book and the challenge outcome did not reflect the values of all Randolph County residents. This, despite Randolph County residents showing up at the very library board meeting to share their thoughts and input. To County Commissioners, the only people who count as residents are those who repeat the partisan rhetoric around trans people and inappropriate library books.
Since that December meeting, no library board has been in charge of the Randolph County Library. In early March this year, the County Commissioners passed new bylaws that govern the library board–something that, surprise, gives them even more power over what should be an independent oversight board for the library. The Commissioners appoint all nine members of the board, but these bylaws offer no insight into how library board members are appointed.
This only gives the County Commissioners more power to make decisions on behalf of the county’s library. From those cheering on the County Commissioners’ actions and new bylaws, it certainly doesn’t sound like it represents a whole community. Just the parts that align with current partisan pet projects.
“Because of your tenacity, a new board will soon be constituted that aligns with the values and principles of the vast majority of Randolph County citizens,” said Pastor Jonathan Burris. – from WUNC reporting
Given that the Commissioners have made it clear they’re unafraid to can an entire board for following institutional policies, there’s no question that those appointed will need to be in lockstep with Commissioner priorities or face similar backlash.
Taken together, these two cases paint a picture of the ongoing evolution of attacks on library collections and libraries themselves. It’s not a leap. Alabama and Idaho have both proposed legislation this year to revoke autonomy from oversight of libraries. Both bills would put the power of library oversight into the hands of politicians–for now, that benefits the far right in both states. What happens when the power shifts, though? The goalposts will move, and new laws will be proposed. If the far right can’t control an entity and treat it as their personal project, they will undermine any and all means to get their way. You don’t need to look much further than gerrymandering, redrawing voting districts, and ongoing voter suppression tactics, such as those seen in Dallas and Williamson County, Texas, just last week.
It’s not limited to the macro scale. It’s being employed on the micro scale, and each of these situations on the micro scale adds up to exactly what’s been worrisome since the start: libraries are being turned into government mouthpieces, controlled by a partisan minority, with funding challenges that make the future of these institutions of democracy unstable and uncertain.
The rallying cry of “local control” is not about local control. It’s about controlling everything, right down to the local level. In both Pickens and Randolph Counties, what scares those stealing power where they can is the knowledge that grassroots advocates on the ground are closely watching them. Both communities are among those with residents who are showing up and speaking out about what’s going on. These power grabs are a means by which a failing political movement attempts to hold on wherever and however they can by continuing to override the will of the people they purport to serve.
Book Censorship News: March 13, 2026
- Donnelley Public Library (ID), which went adults only following Idaho’s draconian book ban law and which is also involved in one of the lawsuits filed against the state for the law, hosted a forum about their involvement in the lawsuit. This report of that meeting is a pretty fascinating read.
- Sumner County Library (TN), despite having conservative activist and fifth place swimmer Riley Gaines on the board, cannot come to a decision on what kind of book banning policy the library needs. This battle’s been on for over a year.
- Libraries around Chattanooga, Tennessee, removed or relocated 15 titles per the demands from the Secretary of State.
- Last week, the Louis Riel School Division (Winnipeg, Canada) pulled a book from library shelves over Palestinian imagery, bucking protocol and procedure. The complaint came from someone who works in the library and is not Palestinian. The book is now back on shelves.
- Recall that lawmakers in Florida were censoring a college introduction to sociology textbook because it approached topics like race and gender? The gutting of that book means 400 pages were deleted of the full 667 pages.
- “Staff at Redwood National and State Parks recently flagged nine books about local tribal histories in an effort to comply with orders from the Trump administration to scrub federal parks, monuments and statues of material that “disparages Americans past or living” or that emphasizes anything but the nation’s “beauty, abundance, or grandeur.”” Remember that it’s not just public schools and public libraries.
- At least 160 books have been pulled from Alberta, Canada, schools, thanks to a provincial order. You can see the list of titles here.
- Community members in MSAD 11 (ME) are rallying to keep the comic Prince and Knight on school library shelves.
- Wisconsin legislators are considering a bill that would require labeling “explicit” books. This is not only unethical on the library level, federal courts have called requiring this of book sellers unconstitutional. Not to mention, there’s no such thing as explicit books being made available to young people.
- The Fremont County Library System Board (WY) is still debating how much power they should give themselves in deciding what books the library can acquire. It is not the board’s job to select books, but some boards want to give themselves ultimate power (see above!).
- White Oak Independent School District (TX) is moving The Perks of Being a Wallflower from the school section of their library to the public section of their library (it’s a joint-use setup). The school librarian is right that this is still censorship.
- An Oklahoma bill banning “sexually explicit” books from school libraries has passed the House. There are no such things as “sexually explicit” books in school libraries, so go ahead and know this means LGBTQ+ books. Check out this story which showcases the Oklahoma legislators who believe books should be burned.
- The latest from New Braunfels Independent School District (TX) in the realm of book banning, the lack of new books being added to the district, and the district’s use of AI to ban titles (see this from earlier this school year).
- Here’s a student’s perspective on books being banned in Francis Howell Schools (MO). “This challenge includes numerous titles that many of us at FHC read in any given English class.”
- St. Charles County Library (MO) has banned LGBTQ+ flags from the premises. “Library employees here have been ordered to remove flags — including LGBTQ pride flags— and other decor that “promotes personal beliefs” from their workspaces, officials said on Tuesday. St. Charles City-County Library CEO John Greifzu said the move is part of a push to make the library “welcoming to everyone.”” How discrimination is welcoming to everyone is the question.
- How a high school librarian in Abilene, Texas, fought back against Moms for Liberty.
- Lubbock Independent School District (TX) has 35 books under review for potential banning. This piece is wild–check the line about the issue of “liberal ideology.”
- The Massachusetts Right to Read coalition rallied this week to support a Freedom to Read bill in the state.
- Fairhope Public Library (AL) has appointed an anti-book banner to the board, which is great news for the library. It may be less great news for the state who is still withholding funds from the institution because they aren’t removing the books that the state demands they should.
- The proposed legislation in Wyoming which would have dismantled YA collections in school and public libraries died last week. Here’s what one Wyoming library director said about the legislation and the impact it would have had.
English (US) · 