1 week Ago By Chicago Tribune
In the Dec. 8 article “Schools pick local control over grants,” the superintendents interviewed seem to be misinformed about how Illinois’ anti-book banning law is written to protect its schools and libraries. The purpose of this book banning bill is to protect local control.
This is to ensure that school districts and licensed school librarians are the ones choosing which materials, including books, are available to students, not outside political groups or organizations. This bill means that no books will be removed from a school library without properly being evaluated by members of the school staff, administration and board. Nowhere does the American Library Association Library Bill of Rights state what material will be added to the school library or say that books can never be removed.
Every district in the state is guaranteed local control by adopting this as part of its board policy. This works for both sides of the political spectrum. The statement protects a school’s ability to maintain control of materials being taught and ensures that challenged materials are evaluated fairly and that a school doesn’t just give in to public pressure to remove books from library shelves.
A district can adopt the ALA version or write its own Right to Read statement, which some districts have done. The bigger question should be — in districts that do not agree with this idea, who is selecting the books for the students? Do they have a licensed librarian who knows the school curriculum and is choosing materials to support student learning? Licensed school librarians have both teaching degrees and 18 additional hours of coursework specifically in school library management that includes appropriate material selection and integration of print and digital resources into the curriculum. Sadly, more than 50% of schools in Illinois do not have a licensed librarian on staff.
In Chicago Public Schools, that number is even higher. It’s been shown for decades that school libraries staffed with licensed school librarians lead to higher test scores and increased overall literacy levels. Hopefully, the districts that have refused to adopt the policy and therefore refused additional library funds have licensed school librarians on staff to ensure books provided to students are age-appropriate with positive professional reviews and/or connections to support the board-approved curriculum.
As children’s author Lemony Snicket wrote, “You cannot have a really terrific library without at least one terrific librarian.” — Gail Meyer, advocacy chair, Association of Illinois School Library Educators The Dec. 8 article about school districts forsaking grants to maintain local control over book bans is missing important information.
Public Act 103-0100, the anti-book banning law, assists libraries in Illinois that have in place transparent policies to ensure local control and guard against censorship and malicious actors seeking to ban books and erase the identities of people of color and people who are LGBTQ+. The secretary of state put this law in place with the support of the legislature as a direct response to the abusive, coordinated attacks on libraries and the freedom to read. Groups such as Moms for Liberty and Heritage Action have sought to hijack control of community institutions to advance racist, homophobic agendas.
We have seen Illinois libraries such as Lincolnwood and Downers Grove be targets of these attacks. Right-wing groups such as the Illinois Freedom Caucus used this law to push familiar rhetoric. The fact is that this law codifies local control of libraries.
However, there is more than one way to ban a book. Extremists have also employed efforts to defund libraries and librarians as another tactic to exert control over communities’ access to information. The real story that merits investigation is the absence of librarians and robust information literacy programs at most public schools in Chicago.
In 2013, Chicago Public Schools had more than 450 librarians. This year, the number of positions has been reduced to fewer than 100. This means that most CPS schools do not have a librarian to carry out district policies and teach the increasingly vital information skills needed in our digital landscape.
School districts that say they support intellectual freedom and access to information must fund certified librarian positions. If a school system does not fund a library, it creates the same outcome as that sought by the book-banning extremists — closing libraries, preventing library access and curtailing the freedom to read. The Chicago Teachers Union is bargaining to return a certified librarian to every school because a library is an irreplaceable educational resource.
Public Act 103-0100 is a bulwark against extremists who seek to censor information in public schools. Certified librarians similarly protect schools from groups that seek to weaponize information and harm marginalized groups. Public Act 103-0100 is a welcome tool to help Illinoisans safeguard our shared community institutions.
— Tara Donnelly, Chicago I wish to differentiate between outright book banning and restrictions based on readers’ age and maturity. For a school library, responsible adults should vet what actions and values are portrayed in a book. Every societal norm for adults does not have to be given as an option for students.
Restrictions do not equal banishment. Schools, librarians and educators bear important guidance functions. Do not let political rhetoric take away or confuse the real issue at hand.
A comprehensive and detailed look is in order for all reading materials while still maintaining fair representations that augment instruction. Those in responsible positions must do the job thoroughly! — Al Theis, Tinley Park In the debate over the Electoral College, its vital role in protecting minority voices is often overlooked. While many argue for the abolition of the Electoral College, the Electoral College ensures that all voices, especially those of less populous states and minority communities, are fairly represented.
One key benefit of the Electoral College is its ability to balance power between smaller and larger states. Without it, presidential candidates would focus less on the minority population since they would require only the support of communities in more populous states. The current system compels candidates to campaign across the country’s diverse regions, ensuring that regions with fewer people but significant political interests have a more equal voice in the election process.
The Framers of the Constitution prioritized this balance when they established the Electoral College in Article II, Section 1, designing a system that values the people’s will and interests of the states, which guarantees that smaller states are not marginalized. In a 2020 column, “Abolish Electoral College? Sure, and why not let ‘majority rule’ on the Bill of Rights?” John Kass highlights the dangers the rule of majority poses on liberty through rhetorical questions and analogies. In other areas of the Constitution, this principle of protecting the minority is present.
For instance, the constitutional amendment process requires collaboration between minority and majority parties and state approval, ensuring a broad consensus before extreme changes are made. While the Electoral College is not perfect, it serves as a vital safeguard to ensure that the voices of minority groups are considered. Reforms could improve the current system, but complete abolition could undermine the fair representation that the Electoral College was originally designed to protect.
— Jesus Aguilera Santoyo, Mundelein Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email [email protected] ..
