Question

My school district public library system just reviewed a new (April 25th, 2024) NY Education Department Decision by the Commissioner, addressing the proper procedure for evaluating school library books. What does this decision mean for school libraries and school library systems?

Answer

The member is referring to NYSED Commissioner Decision #18,402, which resolved an appeal related to books in a school library.

In a nutshell: petitioners[1] appealed to Education Commissioner Betty Rosa after a school board voted to retain five books whose inclusion in the library one of the petitioners had formally requested be reconsidered. Commissioner Rosa upheld the board’s decision and emphasized the legal considerations of evaluating material in public school libraries.

The commissioner’s decision shows the importance of:

  1. well-developed collection development policies for school libraries and school library systems;
  2. following those policies; and
  3. using those policies to ensure that access to school library resources is not limited in a way that violates the state or federal constitution.

The decision did not change law or policy but is noteworthy because it emphasizes that even when a school is accused of having materials that are “obscene” or “harmful to minors,” it is important to follow the law and not to remove books due to an author’s worldview or identity.

Of course, what sounds simple—not removing library materials due to an author’s views or identity—can be complex. Selecting library materials is not simply a matter of preference or gut instinct. Per the regulation at 8 NYCRR 91.1, a school library must have an array of materials to “provide an adequate complement to the instructional program in the various areas of the curriculum.”[2]

8 NYCRR 91.1 means selection of library books must consider not just the context of the library’s collection but the overall instructional program in the various areas of the curriculum—a balancing act that certainly requires consideration of a book’s point of view, which, as the decision describes, cannot be a basis to remove it from the library.

This is why having a collection development policy is so important.

Following a collection development policy can ensure (and document) that the work of assembling a school library collection is not just based on what would be a meaningful and balanced array of books in and of itself but is evaluated in the context of the overall academic operation of the school, while avoiding assertions of viewpoint discrimination.

For this reason, many school district library collection management policies incorporate this regulatory standard into the “selection” part of its policy. A district that does not expressly work from this standard may want to consider using one of the BOCES-supplies model policies[3] to do so.

From there, as emphasized by the decision, once a book is selected and in a school library collection, removal or restriction of access on the basis of viewpoint or identity violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. 

So, for school districts wondering: how does this decision apply to us? The take-aways are:

  1. have a well-developed policy for school library collection development, which incorporates the language from 8 NYCRR 91.1;
  2. follow that policy any time books are selected, cataloged, challenged, or removed; and
  3. apply the policies to ensure that access to school library resources is not limited in a way that violates the state or federal constitution.

Another take-away (although not expressly stated) would be to not use policy “workarounds” such as removing books from shelves, requiring materials be covered or hidden, avoiding purchasing titles because of threats, or otherwise subverting normal policy and procedure.

For those with the time, reading the decision is highly recommended, as it is a timely primer on these issues.[4] 

Thank you for an important and timely question.

 

[1] “Petitioners” is the formal name for people bringing an appeal to the NYS Education Department Commissioner. Many “Ask the Lawyer” readers know this, but since it’s a legal term, it’s good to explain its meaning.

[2] See N.Y. Education Law Section 274 and 8 NYCRR 91.1.

[3] Such as the one offered by Erie 1 BOCES Policy Services: https://www.e1b.org/en/administrative-services/policy-services.aspx

[4] The decision is especially meaningful to this author, as her office wrote and submitted a “friend of the court” brief on behalf of the New York Library Association in this case.

Submission Date