Librarians: New rule from Missouri official troubling

Oct. 29—Growing political efforts to censor books in school libraries across Missouri has now expanded to public libraries following a new proposal filed by Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft, a top Republican prospect for governor.

The proposal would require state-funded libraries to adopt written policies determining what material is age-appropriate and block public funding for library books that might appeal to the "prurient" interests of minors.

"Prurient" is defined as "material having a tendency to excite lustful thoughts," according to a footnote in the U.S. Supreme Court case Roth v. United States.

However, the ruling doesn't go into specifics or give a detailed definition of what might be considered prurient.

"What is prurient to one person is not prurient to another," said Carrie Cline, director of the Neosho Newton County Library. "Prurient is in the eye of the beholder. We don't know what he means by 'prurient.' It hasn't been made clear."

The Missouri secretary of state's office announced the proposal on Monday, Oct. 17. Ashcroft said he didn't propose the rule in response to any particular book, but hoped it would prevent potential issues.

"I know that a lot of Missouri libraries are doing a good job on this and reflecting the values of the taxpayers that paid for the materials," Ashcroft said. "But I just think it's good to have some guidelines to make sure that we're reinforcing that parents are in control."

Under the proposal, libraries also would be required to honor a parent's decision as to what material their child has access to in the library. Parents would have the right to challenge a library's age-appropriate designation for any material.

"When state dollars are involved, we want to bring back local control and parental involvement in determining what children are exposed to," Ashcroft said in a statement. "Foremost, we want to protect our children."

Libraries that violate the rules would risk losing state funding, which is distributed by the Secretary of State's office through the state librarian. A total of 159 library districts qualified for state aid this year.

In a statement, the Missouri Library Association called Ashcroft's rule "an infringement on the professional judgment of librarians, and an effort to further stoke division in the communities that libraries serve."

The group warned that small and urban libraries, which rely most on state funding, would face the greatest impact from the policy. Institutions like the Joplin Public Library and the Neosho Newton County Library only receive a small portion of their overall budget from the state.

The library proposal is what's known as an administrative rule, which would have the same effect as a law if enacted. It would also not need legislative approval to pass. A one-month public comment period will begin in mid-November. Unless the rule is withdrawn or rewritten by the secretary of state's office, it would go into effect on July 1, the start of the new fiscal year, and be published in the Code of State Regulations, the collection of all state agencies' rules.

Local reaction

The ruling has left a lot of local librarians wondering why this measure was even proposed, because most public libraries already have these types of policies adopted.

Area librarians said they weren't consulted by Ashcroft about the proposal and described it as a complete surprise. The main issue librarians have with the proposal is the idea of literary censorship by the government.

"Our saving grace is going to be that we already all have very good policies in place," Cline said. "What's upsetting to us librarians is that Ashcroft has always been a strong supporter of libraries. This came out of left field because I know he has political aspirations and is aiming to appease people by this action. I'm not really sure where this ruling came from or why."

Jeana Gockley, director of the Joplin Public Library, said while they're still evaluating the proposal, she's more concerned as to why it's being brought up now. She mentioned how librarians were blindsided, especially because Ashcroft has been a strong proponent of libraries in the past.

"I wonder where this comes from and what the intended purpose is because libraries already have collection development policies," she said. "They already have a way for people to comment on any material in the library. It feels like proposing these more restrictive, labor intensive policies is another way to restrict people's access, and at public libraries we're all about providing access. We want parents to help their children select items, and we want parents to be involved in the process. We're already doing those things."

While Ashcroft says this ruling would give back local control, others believe it would do the exact opposite and put the power of censorship in the hands of the state. Cline said it's becoming popular in this political climate to attack libraries and try to censor their material while in reality, children are accessing prurient, unrestricted materials from other sources such as their smartphones.

Public libraries abide by the Children's Internet Protection Act and have internet safety policies in place where users cannot access obscene or harmful content on their computers.

"People are so afraid that their child or somebody else's child is going to see something in a book, when in fact these kids are heavily addicted to social media and seeing horrifically sexually explicit content that their parents are unaware of," Cline said. "Children are very protected at public libraries. There's a lot of things that your children are in danger from, and we're not it. I find it very interesting that we're the ones under attack."

Gockley said they're waiting to receive more guidance from the state librarians office on how to proceed with the proposal.

"They have assured us that they're going to work closely with librarians to make sure that we meet the certification requirements," she said. "When you talk about it at face value, of course everyone wants to have the best interest of children at heart, but this seems different to me."

Rising censorship

A new law passed by Missouri's Republican-led Legislature this year made it a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail for educators to give K-12 students books with photos, drawings or other visual depictions that are sexually explicit.

There are exceptions for anatomy, biology, art or other images that are educational, and the law does not ban written descriptions that might be considered sexually explicit.

Ashcroft last week stressed that he doesn't believe his proposed rule would ban any books. In Missouri, the state constitution and state laws give statewide elected officials and state agencies the power to create additional guidelines beyond laws to help run government.

Ashcroft has not yet announced a 2024 gubernatorial bid, but he listed his intentions for "statewide office" — not secretary of state, as he's done in the past — on recent campaign documents.

"When you try to hold us to the same standards as school libraries, it doesn't work because we will never be your parents, ever, and neither will a politician," Cline said. "A politician is never going to act as your parent."

Alex Dickey, a parent of a 4-year-old, said he wouldn't change the Joplin Public Library in any way and trusts trained librarians to make the right call in their policies.

"Even if we're not in the children's department, I feel safe walking with him through the entire building," he said. "I think the Joplin library already has a handle on this kind of thing already and can use their own judgment."

Ashcroft's office did not respond to a request for comment from the Globe.

Comment period

Ashcroft's administrative rule proposal will be open for public comment Nov. 15 through Dec. 15.

Comment submissions can be mailed to the Office of the Missouri Secretary of State, P.O. Box 1767, Jefferson City, MO 65102, or by email to comments@sos.mo.gov.

"Not only can librarians be asking questions, but parents and concerned citizens can be asking questions," Gockley said.

After that, his office has three months to rewrite the rule based on feedback, submit it as is or rescind it.

"Depending on the comments, we could potentially make a change," Ashcroft said. "I really hope that the people of the state help us to make the rule as good as possible."

The Missouri Association of School Librarians in a statement also asked residents to "support libraries — public, academic and school — across Missouri and provide feedback on this restrictive and harmful rule change."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.