The Columbia School Board’s monthly meeting on Thursday was notably dominated by a number of speakers looking to address a recently-decided library policy.

Among the unusually large crowd that filled the meeting room, those who spoke focused chiefly on the American Library Association’s Library Bill of Rights, a set of guidelines for libraries mainly concerning censorship.

Amended over the years per the ALA website, the bill of rights features several items emphasizing that materials shouldn’t be excluded from a library based on origin, background or views of the creator; libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view and they should challenge censorship as they pursue their goal of providing information.

Adoption and adherence to these guidelines was made mandatory for Illinois libraries to receive state funding via a law signed by Gov. JB Pritzker in 2023.

The Columbia School Board addressed the bill of rights in December as it held a first reading of an Instruction Library Media Policy – which was later passed in January – removing part of the policy about adhering to ALA guidelines.

It was noted at the time that this was done to provide the district more local discretion on what media items are put in district libraries.

The first speaker to address the board was Betsy Mahoney, who noted she didn’t live in Columbia but introduced herself as a “concerned neighboring librarian.”

Mahoney spoke broadly in favor of the bill of rights and referenced the previously mentioned 2023 law, saying “the act reinforces professional responsibilities of library workers to build collections suited to their full curriculum and recreational reading needs.”

“As stated in the ALA Bill of Rights, library material should never be removed based on partisan or doctrinal disapproval,” Mahoney said. “Upholding the ALA Bill of Rights is not an admission of a controversial collection. It is a commitment to a measured, methodical evaluation of your library’s collection. Librarians are constantly evaluating library collections to make sure that it does reflect a school curriculum and meets the needs of its students.”

Mahoney further described the various factors that go into making a curriculum-suitable library collection, also noting a collection development policy does still allow for books to be removed from a collection should they be out of date or at an inappropriate reading level.

Carrie Clayton was the first of several parents to address the school board on this bill of rights, also speaking against the district’s shift away from in-person Scholastic book fairs.

Clayton opened by speaking about how she feels the board doesn’t value broad input from parents, instead listening mainly to a small group of like-minded individuals.

She questioned how the decision to move away from book fairs came about and who contributed to the choice. Clayton also touched on the ALA guidelines, speaking in favor of books with wide representation – particularly books with diverse racial and LGBTQ perspectives.

“If a parent does not want their child to purchase a book from the fair or check out a specific book at the library, they have that right to make that decision for their family,” Clayton said. “They can review both options, attend the fair with their child or have a conversation about why they find a certain book inappropriate. But what they should not have the right to do is dictate what books are available to every child in this district.”

Another parent introduced herself as Allison Wolfe. She, too, spoke broadly in favor of the Library Bill of Rights, reiterating much of what had been said about the guidelines and what they mean for a library.

“This law does not prohibit the act of challenging or complaining about a book,” Wolfe said. “If our board were to restore the ALA Bill of Rights within the policy and rejoin the ranks of the vast majority of local school districts, reconsideration policies would still apply for valid reasons, the only limit to selection being on the basis of partisan or doctrinal beliefs. Given that this is a public school district, I struggle to see the logic of removing this section of the previous policy unless you wish to violate these widely accepted rights in order to impose your own beliefs.”

Wolfe also suggested there was a lack of transparency from the board regarding this book fair decision. She additionally spoke to her interest in having books be “developmentally  appropriate” while avoiding banning books based on diversity or differing perspectives.

Sarah Clarke was still another parent who addressed the board, emphasizing the benefits of a diverse reading selection for students.

“All children deserve to see themselves reflected in the books that they read,” Clarke said. “By removing the district’s adherence to the American Library Association or ALA Bill of Rights, you have erased the district’s commitment to not exclude materials because of origin, background, partisan or doctrinal disapproval.”

Clarke further spoke to her familiarity with the situation from watching board meetings and speaking with district administration as well as local libraries, emphasizing that the response from parents did not come from a misunderstanding.

Still another parent to speak was Emily Skowron, though she explained she was reading a letter written by a district employee which was particularly focused on the book fair matter.

“Book fairs are so much more than just opportunities for students to buy books,” Skowron read. “They are moments of excitement and discovery. For many students, the book fair is one of the few times they get to choose books that reflect who they are, their interests and their experiences. It’s not just about picking up a new title. It’s about finding a story that connects with them, whether it’s through characters who look like them, share their struggles or explore worlds they can relate to. This representation matters more than we might realize, as it helps students feel seen, valued and empowered.”

The letter Skowron read further emphasized the value in the variety of books that can be found at a book fair, even as not every book will be right for every student, and it also stressed that decisions made for the best interest of students should be made “without the influence of political ideologies.”

The final parent to speak was Amanda Champion, who explained she was presenting a letter written by her husband.

The letter touched on the loss of funding from the state and the loss of revenue from book fairs, also – like previous speakers – emphasizing the value in students seeing representation in books.

“Let’s be honest with each other. This isn’t to benefit the children,” Champion said. “This is because a handful of people with their attitudes toward a particular group robbed them of their good sense. Working in healthcare, I have seen people at their best and at their worst. I have also seen more than my fair share of the extreme things that young people will do to themselves when they don’t feel heard, when they don’t feel represented and when they feel that just seeing themselves is wrong. I like many, if not all, of the parents here want nothing more than the best for our kids, to feel happy about themselves 100 percent of the time.”

Columbia School Board President Greg Meyer expressed his thanks to the crowd for the input, and opened the floor to Columbia Assistant Superintendent of Schools Amanda Ganey given her work on overseeing district curriculum matters.

Ganey noted her shared passion for student literacy, going on to note the district doesn’t currently have a certified librarian or an objective book selection or reconsideration process, though efforts are being made toward those matters.

She also pointed out that no books have been removed from any district shelves, with only one book being shifted to another library as it was found to be at an inappropriate age level.

On the Scholastic book fairs, Ganey also said the district is still doing Scholastic book orders, with students able to browse a sort of catalogue of books that their parents can order for them.

Ganey further spoke against the idea that the school board is looking to ban books.

“I’m here to tell you that is not the vision, to take books away, to censor books,” Ganey said. “It’s truly the exact opposite. It’s to take a step back, hopefully find us somebody that can help us get our processes aligned so we can do what’s best for students.”

Meyer also addressed the audience – noting that he was not speaking on behalf of the board – to speak to his and Ganey’s determination to maintain a library at Columbia High School amid the major renovations even as architects spoke against them as outdated.

He, like Ganey, also noted the board has not banned any books, adding that a major reason for removing the ALA Library Bill of Rights from the recent library policy was to maintain local control.

Meyer also spoke about the transparency concern, expressing interest in having more input from parents such that he and the board would be able to consider different points of view.

He also made a statement regarding the apparent political nature of ALA guidelines, referencing how folks who had addressed the board spoke about keeping politics out of education decisions.

“This Library Bill of Rights was a partisan bill, like it or not,” Meyer said. “It received only Democrat votes for and only Republican votes against. It’s not non-partisan. We’re a non-partisan board. I don’t want politics in school.”

Subsequently, one member of the audience questioned Meyer’s apparent conflation of the ALA Library Bill of Rights – the ALA being a national nonprofit organization advocating on a number of library-related issues – and the 2023 law that made the bill of rights a mandatory set of guidelines for libraries wishing to receive state funding.

Following the meeting, Meyer offered further comment to the Republic-Times. He reiterated that the board has never voted to ban a book and likewise hasn’t provided input regarding district library content.

On book fairs, he said that, rather than being removed due to a single recent complaint, they have been a subject of complaints for some years. He spoke to parents’ right to have the money they give their students for books not be spent on the various toys or other novelties that are also often sold at the fairs, with Scholastic book orders still allowing students to purchase books they’re interested in.

He also spoke further to the district’s interest in and passion for books and libraries, expressing distaste for the idea of transitioning away from traditional libraries to “more media center-focused spaces.”

Meyer additionally described the district’s lack of a certified librarian – an empty position which will hopefully be filled in the near future – and the apparently political nature of the previously discussed law as the main reasons the board opted not to adopt the bill of rights.

He further emphasized that the board and the public agree on a great deal, with the most important factors being commitment to students and improvement of the district.

Ganey and Columbia Superintendent of Schools Chris Grode also spoke with the Republic-Times following the meeting, likewise reiterating some of what was established Thursday evening.

Grode noted district libraries are currently operated by paraprofessionals rather than certified librarians, with the last librarian having been pushing for media centers rather than traditional libraries – a direction the district wasn’t interested in.

He also spoke to the apparently broad response against the 2023 law among school districts in the state.

“What we found was that when you take the governor’s law and you couple it with the Bill of Rights from the Library Association, you can have some ridiculous outcomes,” Grode said. “And so a lot of the school districts south of Chicago did not get the state library grant this year.”

While the current number of districts refraining from adopting the Library Bill of Rights is uncertain, an article from the Chicago Tribune published last December indicates that roughly 700 school districts in Illinois applied for state grant funding in the two prior fiscal years while “about 40 elementary and high school districts opted not to seek the funding” since the law took effect at the start of 2024.

Ganey spoke primarily about the difficulties the district has encountered in pursuing a library policy without a certified librarian and their hopes to improve in this area going forward.

“In addition to that law, school code then required every school district to have an anti-book banning policy, and when I was researching our current procedures and policy for our libraries, I found that we did not have an objective book selection policy and procedure,” Ganey said. “So how can we say that we would never ever have to remove a book if we don’t have an objective policy to support that? So our thought was: take out the bill of rights because we were not able to do the anti-banning policy at that moment due to school code, figure out our objective book selection policy – that way, if there were ever a book in question, we would have an objective process to fall back on.”

Ganey and Grode further emphasized the plan to hire a district librarian in order to manage district library policy in the future.