06 December 2023

WI Republicans: "libraries must tell parents what books their children are checking out"

"Wisconsin senators in the Mental Health, Substance Abuse Prevention, Children and Families Committee debated over SB597 and SB598 which would require public and school libraries to notify parents within 24 hours anytime their kids under the age of 16 check out materials.

[One state senator] believes this bill will not stop curious kids.  “A child doesn’t have to check material out at the library,” Senator Johnson said. “If there’s something that they really want to read and they don’t want their parents to know, they could just sit in the library and read it without having to check it out at all.”..

“A parent who has signed for a child and has access to the child’s card can check to see what that child has checked out at any time,” Elias said. Although the bill is in its early stages, librarians could not help but wonder about the cost. “It is a pretty significant impact on libraries and again has an undetermined fiscal impact for us in terms of reprogramming all of our computer systems.”
The bills are not likely to pass, since Democratic Governor Tony Evers is a former educator, and will likely veto them.  Here's some additional commentary/analysis:
When asked by committee members, the senators denied that the bills were intended to restrict or ban books. But those are exactly the concerns the bills – and others like them – have raised during the last legislative cycle. Since 2020, conservative parents and school officials have taken a keen interest in books that feature LGBTQ topics or characters, certain aspects of American history including  slavery and Native American genocide and other social justice topics. Conservative organizing has driven a wave of book purges in school districts, banning, restricting, or relocating hundreds of titles.

In Wisconsin, multiple school districts have seen those efforts guided by a list of “inappropriate” books compiled by parent groups. Sen. Jesse James (R-Altoona), who chairs the committee alongside vice chair Sen. Rachael Cabral-Guevara (R-Appleton), was provided a version of this list when he was still an Assembly representative. James was sent the list by a parent who said she’d found sexually inappropriate books, as well as material teaching “our kids to hate cops and their white skin.” The parent suggested passing a law to remove protections for librarians so they could be  held criminally liable for providing inappropriate reading materials to children. James and other Republican lawmakers worked on drafts of legislation that would expose library and school staff to felonies for providing “inappropriate” or “obscene” material to young students. Dittrich and Quinn stressed that their bills are not intended to persecute librarians or teachers...

“How hypocritical that Wisconsin Republicans, the party of ‘small government’, want to ban books and know what every individual is checking out from the library,” said Senate Minority Leader Melissa Agard. “This Orwellian-inspired overreach is chilling and intimidates our librarians and educators under the facade of parental rights. Senate Democrats do not support these GOP efforts to stifle learning and limit access to information.”

13 comments:

  1. I find the left's dedication to removing parents from the development of their children troubling.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How does this do so?

      Delete
    2. Where in the article does it say any such thing is happening?

      Delete
    3. The part where parents knowing what their children reading is apparently a bad thing

      Delete
    4. Calling that “removing parents from the development of their children”.is at best an exaggeration. And even children deserve some right to make some decisions for themselves. Especially since some parents make terrible decisions. Homeless minors should be a bigger concern than what kids might read.

      Delete
    5. 1.: lol at the idea that there is ‘a left’ in the US that’s substantial and organised enough to influence anything except maybe a stray district or two.

      2.: removing parental *monopoly* on their children’s entire information intake would be a more apt phrasing, and since parents don’t have any reasonable claim to such a monopoly, everything sounds perfectly in order.

      Delete
    6. As another data point, we live in a rural area of a mostly rural state and our library defaults to not keeping any record of who has borrowed what, other than any material currently 'on loan'. There is an option to choose to keep a log for oneself via the online app, but it comes with a warning that the list could become vulnerable if government agencies demanded the information.

      Libraries are usually in the forefront of protecting human rights and civil liberties, including those of the most vulnerable in our communities (which includes children, who are individual human beings, not property solely under the jurisdiction of their parents).

      Delete
    7. Of course parents have a monopoly on their child's education. Please explain how you have any sort of say in how I raise my child.

      Delete
    8. You don't "have a monopoly" on your child's education unless you intend on keeping them locked in your basement. They're going to be exposed to things you're not aware of and/or outside your control every day, whether you like it or not, and a good bit of that education is better handled by someone other than the parents. That's why we have teachers, doctors, and other professionals. Your job as a parent is to help guide them through all of this to become happy and successful adults. Sure, you can impose some limits and protect them from some things, but injecting yourself in every aspect of their lives doesn't do anyone any favors.

      Delete
    9. You’re using the word “monopoly” to mean absolute control, which you don’t have. Your child is an individual, not an object and not your property. A lot of factors, including culture, contribute to your child’s education and development. Also if you harm your child, even if you think it’s in their best interest, you can and should lose your parental rights. And despite what you may believe some conservatives do harm children.

      Delete
    10. what the two anons above me said. furthermore, countries with a more reasonable grasp on the rights of children interpret the right of the child to an education that is not going to disadvantage it in life as a ban on homeschooling. (that said, even the US managed to ascertain that the rights of parents exist only insofar as they relate to parental duties. where there is no specific duty, there is no right.)

      the rights of children are an aspect of human rights that the ‘parents’ rights’ movement is aiming to curtail or oppose, usually for fear that their children might not end up sharing some of their views without a parental monopoly on everything their children get exposed to – nowadays often in the news for attempting to ban age-appropriate books or education. the reader is free to speculate what exactly these views might be, but the ‘parents’ rights’ guise to curtail children’s human rights is big with US republicans and vladimir putin.

      tl;dr: the child’s right to freedom from a bigoted upbringing supercedes any bigot’s imagined right to indoctrinate their offspring.

      Delete
  2. “A parent who has signed for a child and has access to the child’s card can check to see what that child has checked out at any time,”

    In the county library system (among the top 20 library systems in the country by circulation) where my wife is a librarian, children 14 and under are issued a library card that is linked to their parent's account. Parents have easy access to view what the child is checking out because it is on their account. 14-18 need a valid picture ID to start their own account. If they have no ID, then a parent or guardian over 18 with a photo ID must accompany the teen to start the account. This has been the policy for the 31 years (she started in 1992) she has worked there and it wasn't new when she got there. She says no one has ever complained nor can she remember any issues or discussion of changing the policy. Not sure if this is the policy throughout the state, but other counties likely have similar policies.

    Also, children 10 and under must be accompanied by an adult when visiting a library. There has been discussion of raising this to 12 or 14 because of the poor behavior exhibited by unaccompanied children. Three branches have already instituted this policy (14 and under).

    ReplyDelete
  3. "The library card is *the* emblem of a child’s standing in civic life:
    their direct access to a public service, not mediated or controlled by
    others. The library card grants rights to the politically voiceless and
    powerless. It’s more radical than the idea of democracy itself."

    Via: https://mastodon.social/@corsent/111557638885215931

    ReplyDelete