Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Library Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House advances bill setting statewide rules for school library materials after hours of debate
Summary
A bill to establish statewide criteria and a community advisory process for school library materials drew hours of floor debate over censorship, parental control and litigation risk; an amendment to change committee structure failed and the House passed the measure.
Representative Francis Jackson of Moore County, sponsor of HB 636, told members the bill creates “a statewide criteria for media materials on the school property,” adds a 10-member advisory committee of five school employees and five parents, requires school-board votes on recommended materials, and directs rejected items to be posted online. He said the measure is intended to protect children and increase parental involvement.
Opponents warned the measure would amount to a book ban in practice. Representative Laura Budd said the bill "is a messaging bill" that risks government censorship and "is the start down the slippery slope of censorship," arguing trained librarians and local processes already handle objections. Representative Marcia Morey (Durham) said the bill "is simply a book ban" and described the logistical impossibility of committees reviewing millions of items statewide.
Representative Guilford Quicke offered an amendment to remove a fixed 10-member community library advisory committee, arguing large districts could not reasonably staff and process the required reviews. That amendment failed, 49–57, after members debated whether parental involvement or local librarianship is the better safeguard.
Supporters, including sponsor Jackson and Representative Mark Reeder, argued the bill does not ban books from public access and instead places school-library availability under local and parental control; Jackson said "You will not find the word ban in there" and described the measure as trusting parents and school boards.
House members also raised cost and litigation concerns. Representative Phil Reuben and others warned the complaint-driven review procedure and the statute’s broad definitions expose school districts to costly lawsuits; Representative Marcia Maury cited cases in other states where similar laws produced sustained litigation and litigation costs for school districts.
After extended debate, the House voted to end debate and proceeded to a recorded vote. HB 636 passed its third reading and was sent to the Senate.
The chamber’s next procedural step is transmittal to the Senate; members observed that local school boards, superintendents and county libraries will remain the first line of review under the bill’s complaint process.
