Resident Asks That Books With Sexual Content Be Moved From Township Library Shelves

---

A township woman has asked the Franklin Township Library to move some books with sexual content from library shelves to behind the librarians’ desks as a way to keep them out of the hands of children.

Michele Petersen has submitted two requests for books to be moved. The first, for the book “Gender Queer,” was denied by January Adams, the library’s executive director.

The second request, for the book, “Let’s Talk About It: A Teen’s Guide to Sex, Relationships, and Being a Human,” is still pending, although Petersen was told that she should receive an answer in several days.

“Gender Queer,” by Maia Kobabe, is a graphic novel about the struggles of a teen dealing with their gender identity. The book was reportedly the most banned book of 2021.

“Let’s Talk About It,” by Erika Moen and Matthew Nolan, is also a graphic novel. The book’s Amazon page describes it as “(c)overing relationships, friendships, gender, sexuality, anatomy, body image, safe sex, sexting, jealousy, rejection, sex education, and more, Let’s Talk About It is the go-to handbook for every teen, and the first in graphic novel form.”

Although she is the chairperson of the township’s Republican organization, Petersen said her requests have noting to do with politics.

“I’m just a regular member of the public,” Petersen wrote in an email. “This is not a partisan issue I hope. I hope this is an issue about protecting children from porn.”

In the letter denying Petersen’s first request, concerning “Gender Queer,” Adams wrote, “Much of my response to your comments and requests are based in large measure on the Library Bill of Rights and the Freedom to Read Statement that was first published by the American Library Association in 1953.  Specifically, moving certain books to another location within the library and not permitting children under the age of 16 to check out certain materials runs counter to both of these and so I am not planning on implementing either action.”

“Parents have every right and responsibility to guide and/or limit the reading choices of their children'” Adams wrote. “But those rights should not in any way inhibit the rights of other parents or guardians who wish to allow their children to view any materials of their choosing. This issue is at least partially controlled by FTPL’s policy of not issuing library cards to children without their parents or guardians signature which signifies permission.”

Adams said that even if she were to ignore the Library Bill of Rights and Freedom to Read Statement, moving the books would be logistically difficult. Adams also noted that the book is in the libraries’ adult collections.

“In addition, such a move would involve reading through the majority of the graphic novel collection and deciding which works meet the criteria to be placed elsewhere,” she wrote. “Since we buy books based on professional reviews that often do not mention parts of works that some patrons might find objectionable we have no way of knowing the actual contents before obtaining books.”

“Although not impossible, changing our automated system to block children under the age of 16 from checking out certain materials would be logistically extremely difficult,” Adams wrote. “It also raises the question of who would decide what materials would be blocked and why. In addition, it would put the circulation staff in the position of telling young patrons, possibly in front of other patrons, that they could not check out a particular item or items that they had brought to the circulation desk.”

“The library strives to encourage all to avail themselves of its resources and this would not support that philosophy,” she wrote. “Although it does not seem like it at first blush, it would also amount to censorship.”

Petersen appeared before the Library Board of Trustees at its March 27 virtual meeting to inquire about her latest request.

She said she wanted to make clear that she was not asking that any books be banned, just that those that she said contained pornography or obscenities be removed from the shelves and placed with the librarians.

“My request, to be clear, is to move the books, not remove the books,” Petersen wrote in an email after the meeting. “These books should not be banned. No books should be banned, ever.” 

Petersen told the Board that several books in the library contain pornography.

Petersen showed Board members pictures of what she found objectionable in the Moen book.

“Human genitalia in an aroused state. Oral sex. Anal sex,” she said. “This is a book for teens. These are deemed OK in our library. Here we have females with male body parts and males with female body parts.”

“My question is, can we please move these books,” she asked, noting that state law prohibits the distribution of pornographic or obscene material to minors.

Board president Nicholas Ciampa told Petersen that she would be receiving an answer soon.

There was a back-and-forth between Ciampa and Petersen when Ciampa tried to end Petersen’s comments, saying that she had been given “more than the usual time.”

“May I ask what the time limit is?” she asked.

Ciampa then allowed that no time limit had been specified.

Mayor Phil Kramer said that since no time frame had been specified, Petersen should be allowed more time.

“My question to the Board is simply this,” Petersen said. “Can we move these books that contain obscene content as defined by the law to behind the librarians’ desk so that only patrons 18 and up can only access them? These books really do need to be supervised.”

“I think it’s pretty clear that these books do contain obscene material,” she said. “And it’s not enough to assume that parents are going to supervise their child in the comic book section or any other area of the library, for that matter.”

“Parents should feel free and safe to have their kids in the library without having to worry about them coming across this in the Batman section,” she said.

Petersen then asked if she could be told then what the result of her second request was.

“The decision has already been made, am I correct in assuming that two of you made the decision?” she asked.

Adams then told Petersen of the process used to answer her request.

“It went to the collection develop committee, it’s a big committee, and in addition to the committee members, I also showed it to Nick, the president, and a few other members of the public who were kind enough to give me their opinion,” Adams said.

“The next step, if you’re dissatisfied with the response from the collection development committee, would be to go to the Board,” she said.

“But we’re all here now and you already have a decision and you can’t tell me what it is, I’ll have to wait another month?” Petersen asked.

“I’m finalizing the email,” Adams told her. “I’d much rather give you the reason in writing.”

“Is there a legal reason why you can’t tell me yes, the book will be moved or no it cannot be moved right now?” she asked.

“I’m not sure this is a legal issue, I think this is a preference that our director wants to communicate to you in a way that you won’t have to use your memory. It might be a long letter,” Ciampa said. “I would say you would probably get this response in three, four, five days.”

Your Thoughts

comments