Summary:
- The NC House passed a bill that would dramatically increase the ability of vocal extremist minorities to dictate library holdings
- Moore and Randolph counties now face Title IX complaints after removing multiple books, including major historical classics, for mentioning LGBTQ+ people.
- In Randolph County, a county library board was totally dissolved after refusing to remove a children’s picture book that included a transgender character
- In Western NC, Jackson County voted to leave the Fontana Regional Library system over the existence of materials in their possession mentioning LGBTQ people
Public libraries are a critical county service, providing education and entertainment to all without prejudice. Recently, small but highly vocal groups of ideological partisans have attempted to impose their views on the public by censoring titles held by local libraries. American Booksellers for Free Expression, a group founded in 1990 to combat literary censorship, has found that the overwhelming majority of these challenges target books that include characters who reflect the sexual, racial, and ethnic diversity of the United States – and North Carolina.
That’s true, too, of the challenges targeting regional library systems in Western North Carolina as well as those in Randolph and Moore Counties. These challenges are driven not by perceptions of literary value, but by biases against specific identity categories and against imaginary identity ‘agendas’ – as many proponents of library censorship are happy to say.
A recent House bill at the North Carolina General Assembly would dramatically increase the ability of vocal extremist minorities to restrict free public access to books and other publicly-held media. It also establishes a new justification for lawsuits against public schools, exposing them to ill-considered financial and legal risks.
More government oversight?
In April 2025, the North Carolina State House passed HB 636, entitled “Promoting Wholesome Content for Students.” The bill establishes advisory boards charged with approving new content for school libraries and reviewing objections to content currently held by school libraries. These boards would be comprised of five parents and five staff members, selected by the Superintendent. Any county resident – whether they have children in the school system or not – can file objections to titles held by these libraries on the grounds that a work is “harmful to minors.” HB 636 does not define this criterion, instead linking to GS 14-190.13, which establishes four criteria:
- The material depicts sexually explicit nudity or sexual activity
- That an “average adult” applying “contemporary community standards” would feel that the material encourages a “prurient” (excessive) interest in sex among minors
- That an “average adult” applying “contemporary community standards” would find the depiction of sexual nudity or sexual activity offensive and inappropriate for minors
- That the material lacks “artistic, literary, political, or scientific value” for minors
Although a reasonable application of these criteria would be unlikely to remove most challenged titles, HB 636 introduces an obvious risk of statutory abuse. Under the proposed bill, adults who oppose the existence of people belonging to those identity categories, and who view discussion of those people’s existence as offensive and inappropriate per se, can (as they have in the past) pressure school boards to remove titles per their personal whim. Not only would HB 636 give such a tiny minority the ability to impose their views on the public, but it would even offer them a cash bounty to try: the bill stipulates that any resident of a county can challenge public school units in court over their implementation of this policy, and entitles them to $5,000 in damages per violation, plus attorneys’ fees, if successful.
Offering cash prizes for tiny groups of ideologues to sue their local school system creates an obvious legal hazard for schools, which are forced to divert resources and taxpayer dollars from their central mission: educating and nurturing children.
Whose values; whose censorship?
A previous North Carolina law, Senate Bill 49 (the “Parents’ Bill of Rights”) has already sparked multiple instances of censorship. A Moore County school district ordered principals to remove books that included gay parents or gender-questioning children from circulation, claiming that this was necessary to comply with SB 49’s ban on instructing students about sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity prior to the fifth grade. In response, parents filed a Title IX complaint alleging discrimination and contending that a ban on teaching certain topics does not imply a ban on library materials in general. The Moore County Board of Education also voted to ban multiple books for what members described as vulgar content, including Nobel Prize winner Toni Morrison’s classic novel “The Bluest Eye.”
In Randolph County, one woman challenged the inclusion of a book which merely included a transgender character. The county library’s board of trustees voted 5-2 to retain the book, prompting the county commission to completely dissolve the board of trustees itself.
Finally, two counties have recently withdrawn from regional library systems after vocal minorities challenged libraries’ acknowledgement of Pride month and inclusion of books with LGBTQ+ characters. The Jackson County Commission voted to leave its regional library system, the Fontana Regional Library System (FRL), over a library’s Pride display; as did the Yancey County Commission, which withdrew from a regional association serving Avery, Mitchell, and Yancey counties.
Regional associations allow libraries to share materials, staff, and equipment, saving each county costs and increasing residents’ access to books, services, and information. Withdrawal from the system reduces each county’s ability to independently support services and imposes both higher costs and service costs on the newly independent libraries. These are not trivial costs, particularly for small, rural counties that do not have major tax bases to support independent library systems. Multiple employees in Yancey county lost employment after the County Commission’s decision and in Jackson County, the County Commission must now somehow shoulder $500,000 in new annual operating costs for an independent library services. The regional library director, who also served as director of the Jackson County library and has been an employee of the system since 1991, resigned following the decision.
It is difficult to fathom the reasoning behind choosing to levy heavy new costs on rural counties that are already under financial strain simply to demonstrate one’s opposition to a sexual identity. The loss of public library systems which have faithfully served generations of North Carolina families may be the latest casualty of unrelenting right-wing culture war. North Carolina, and particularly the residents of its rural communities, will be all the poorer for it.
