Massachusetts lawmakers are once again pushing bills to protect books and librarians in the face of ongoing “book challenges.” The bills have previously gone before committees and fell short, but as advocates point out, changes in Washington and Supreme Court decisions bring new urgency.
“Too often, our libraries are the last refuge for some of our most vulnerable in our communities and we have a unique responsibility to make sure we're standing up for them,” said Belchertown State Representative Aaron Saunders - one of dozens to speak at a hearing in Boston Tuesday.
Before the Joint Committee on Tourism, Arts and Cultural Development were a handful of bills that have made the rounds on Beacon Hill in years past. They’re getting new life as book bans and challenges continue across the country – something Massachusetts isn’t immune to.
Joining Saunders was Ludlow State Senator Jake Oliveira, who touched on how his hometown’s school committee previously rejected a campaign to ban books from public schools considered “pornographic” by critics. He also mentioned voters rejecting candidates last year who appeared to support said campaign.
“These attempts we see not just in the town of Ludlow, but all across our country, all across Massachusetts,” he said. “The statistics that were brought to you today talked about those 10,000 attempts … in the last five to six years, we've seen that rate rise exponentially… these books are targeted at many vulnerable communities, whether it's the LGBTQ+ community, communities of color...”
Both lawmakers were touting legislation they filed that, among other things, would call on public libraries to incorporate the American Library Association’s Library Bill of Rights, and adopt policies that state in-part “materials should not be selected, proscribed or removed because of personal, political or doctrinal disapproval or bias.”
They also endorsed another bill returning for consideration – “An Act regarding free expression.” State Senator Julian Cyr, who filed the legislation last session, says it’s designed to protect “the right to read” in Massachusetts by preventing political interference in public and school libraries.
“It prevents book bans - it requires school and public libraries to maintain transparent, educationally-grounded policies for selecting materials and it prevents materials from being removed unless proven to lack any value by clear, convincing evidence,” the Cape and Islands Democrat said. “It protects librarians and educators - it shields librarians and school employees from retaliation, including the loss of licensure, termination or disciplinary action for selecting and defending access to materials in good faith under established policy…”
It would also require annual reporting on book challenges in the state, while ensuring said books remain available while a challenge is under review.
According to the ALA’s Office for Intellectual Freedom, 2023 featured a record 9,021 challenge attempts involving 4,240 unique book titles targeted for censorship in schools and libraries. Massachusetts itself saw 37 challenges to 63 different titles.
Those are also only the challenges that were recorded –book challenges aren’t always formal complaints filed by a library user and many can go unreported.
State Representative John Moran of Boston noted a majority of the challenges librarians across the country dealt with last year alone originate not from parents or library users, but far larger networks.
“In fact, parents only accounted for 16 percent of the demands for censoring books, and only 5 percent of the challenges were brought by library users. So, where's it coming from?” He posited. “Well-funded, national pressure groups and government entities that include elected officials, board members and administrators do the bulk of the work. The 120 titles that [were] most frequently targeted for censorship during 2024 are all identified on partisan book rating sites, which provide tools for activists to demand the censorship of library books.”
Testifying for Cyr and Moran’s bill was Nina Salvaggio, executive director of Greater Boston PFLAG, an organization devoted to supporting and advocating for the LGBTQ+ community.
Salvaggio noted as the bills are considered, the national picture means more challenges could be on the way for books involving vulnerable communities, especially given a recent Supreme Court decision.
“Last month, the US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Mahmoud v. Taylor, siding with parents in Maryland who argued that LGBTQ-inclusive books placed an unconstitutional burden on their religious freedom,” she said. “While the case now returns to lower courts, the majority opinion signaled a shift that could embolden further efforts to restrict access to inclusive materials, undermine professional judgment of educators and the rights of all students to learn in diverse, democratic environments.”
Both bills have been considered and even merged in the past, clearing the Joint Committee in 2024, only to languish after being sent to the Senate Committee on Ways and Means.
