Anderson County residents and trustees spar over review of juvenile library books

The Anderson County Library Board heard more than a dozen speakers on library materials for young readers and agreed on a stepwise review after debate about what titles belong in juvenile sections.

At the meeting, the board asked each library’s director to send trustees the lists of juvenile titles that staff had pulled for review after guidance from the Tennessee Secretary of State’s office. The trustees voted to have two trustees and the local director review the pulled lists at each branch and return to the full board next month with recommendations.

The dispute drew sharply different views from residents. Avery Chandler, a sixth-generation county resident, urged trustees to remove material he described as harmful to children, arguing the board must "uphold moral Christian principles" and telling trustees, "you owe your obedience to Christ." In contrast, Heather Wilson of Clinton told the board, "These families deserve to be represented in literature that is available in their public library," and urged trustees not to remove books solely because some patrons objected.

Library staff and other public commenters raised procedural and legal concerns. Elijah Byrd, who said he works at the Clinton Public Library but spoke as a resident, said he has "been witness to and been informed of numerous and broad spectrums of what I would consider unethical behavior from numerous board members," and urged the board to follow the library’s collection-development policy and state law. Several speakers asked the board to consult the county law director before making final decisions.

Trustees described the review as targeted to juvenile sections and tied to a recent letter from the Secretary of State that quoted a presidential executive order asking libraries to check for gender-ideology materials in children’s sections. A trustee said trustees had already asked librarians to remove or set aside titles they believed might fall into the described categories; the board’s approach is to narrow those lists for full-board consideration rather than have every trustee read every pulled item.

Board members and directors provided counts and estimates: one branch reported about 45 pulled juvenile titles, another reported about 11; trustees estimated the total across branches at roughly 80–90 titles to be reviewed. Trustees said the process should focus on whether items meet the library’s reconsideration criteria and whether they are properly categorized (for example, a title intended for young adults should not be shelved in the juvenile section).

Trustees also discussed public involvement in the review. Some board members argued that initial cataloging and narrowing should be handled by directors and two trustees, with full-board deliberation on a short list of disputed items; others argued for broader trustee involvement up front. The law director was asked to advise on whether trustees’ collection-review work could create Sunshine Law risks if members share opinions outside a public meeting.

The board directed librarians to provide lists of the pulled juvenile titles to trustees within days; trustees will have roughly a month to individually review items (without deliberating with one another), and the board expects to consider consolidated recommendations at its next regular meeting.

The board also discussed training and the collection-development policy, which, in its written form, endorses the American Library Association’s Library Bill of Rights and related ALA statements — a point several commenters cited when urging trustees to respect professional selection standards.

The board’s next regular meeting is scheduled for April 9, when trustees expect to report back on the narrowed lists and decide whether any titles need formal reconsideration under the library’s policy.