The Library Battlefield: Defending Professional Curation Against Political Purges

As an author of eight books, I’m intimately familiar with the journey a story takes from mind to page, and eventually, one hopes, to the shelves of our nation’s libraries. I also know, with a certainty born of experience, that not every book penned—not even every book of my own—belong on every single library shelf. There are considerations of audience, artistic merit, community standards, and sometimes, the appropriateness of content for a general readership. My first wife was, and still is, a librarian; I’ve seen firsthand the thoughtful dedication that goes into curating a collection that serves a community. This is why the recent legal turmoil surrounding our public libraries, particularly last Friday’s stunning decision from the federal 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, feels like a direct assault not just on books, but on the very professionals we entrust with nourishing our collective intellect.

Libraries, at their best, are sanctuaries of thought, governed by dedicated professionals who understand the art and science of collection development. Librarians are wonderfully intelligent people whose vast swath of knowledge and deep understanding of their communities far exceeds that of any politician or judge seeking to impose a narrow agenda. They routinely make difficult choices, “culling the shelves” of books that haven’t been checked out in years or are no longer relevant, or deciding that certain materials, however artistic, might not be suitable for all ages in a general collection. This is responsible curation, not censorship. It is a professional judgment made in service of the community, not at the behest of a political faction.

But the 5th Circuit’s 10-7 ruling in the Llano County, Texas, case dangerously blurs this vital distinction. In an opinion that can only be described as a regression, the court declared for the first time that public library patrons have no First Amendment right to receive information from library collections. It overturned its own decades-old precedent and effectively greenlit the removal of 17 books in Llano County—books largely targeted by conservative activists for their content on race, gender, and sexuality.

Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan, writing for the majority, asserted that removing books isn’t “banning” them because they’re available elsewhere, and that libraries have always decided “which ideas belong on the shelves and which do not.” His flippant suggestion that one ask a librarian for the “Holocaust Denial Section” to test this premise is a grotesque misrepresentation of library ethics and a chilling justification for ideological purges. As the seven dissenting judges rightly warned, such reasoning “forsakes core First Amendment principles” and opens the door to “frightful government censorship.”

This ruling stands in stark and welcome contrast to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Loftus v. Governor of Iowa last August. In that case, concerning an Iowa law mandating the removal of books depicting “sex acts” from school libraries, the 8th Circuit rejected the state’s argument that such removal decisions were “government speech” immune from First Amendment scrutiny. Instead, it upheld students’ right to receive information, recognizing that school libraries serve as vital forums for accessing diverse ideas and that removal of books based on content to conform to a state-mandated orthodoxy infringes on this right. The 8th Circuit understood what the 5th Circuit majority apparently does not: the act of curating a library for public access to a diversity of viewpoints is fundamentally different from the government dictating a singular, approved message.

What should never happen is any kind of direct governmental influence—be it from activists, politicians, or now, alarmingly, federal appellate courts—telling librarians how to do their jobs or what their communities should or shouldn’t read based on a narrow political agenda. When books are removed not because they are outdated or unread, but because a vocal minority or a prevailing political power dislikes the ideas within them, that is not curation; that is censorship, plain and simple. Librarians are trained to build collections that reflect a multitude of perspectives, to foster critical thinking, and to provide a “strong and sustainable source of information” for everyone. They operate under professional ethics and established collection development policies.

The Llano County decision, and the “government speech” doctrine its proponents champion, threatens to turn libraries from vibrant marketplaces of ideas into monotonous echo chambers reflecting only the views of those currently in power. It invites political interference and undermines the very purpose of public libraries in a democratic society.

The circuit split created by these conflicting rulings makes it likely that the Supreme Court will eventually have to weigh in. When it does, one hopes it will affirm the longstanding principles of intellectual freedom and the public’s First Amendment right to access information in their libraries, free from political coercion. We must trust our librarians, defend their professional autonomy, and protect our libraries as essential pillars of an informed and engaged citizenry. The alternative is a dangerous path toward sanitized shelves and shuttered minds.