This editorial was published by the Lewiston Tribune and written by Tribune Opinion page editor Marty Trillhaase.
If you think the anti-library movement will ever be satiated in the Idaho Legislature, you may want to consider what Sen. Cindy Carlson, R-Riggins, has to say.
Promoting the latest effort to remove books she deems “harmful to minors,” Carlson explained the situation to the Senate State Affairs Committee this way:
“Whatever you feed the human brain, it learns to love. Harmful material hijacks a child’s brain and focuses the body’s attention until it climaxes and creates a desire to repeat the process.
“When this process occurs during the all-important adolescent years, the brain creates deep neural pathways that are ruts that crave the harmful materials resulting in an adult brain that craves the supernormal stimulus of harmful material.
“Harmful material tends to teach that sex is selfish, violent. Sexual consent is not necessary. Sexual partners are objects for pleasure and sex is expected.”
When you adopt such a stark reality, you aren’t going to let much get in your way.
Certainly not public opinion. There isn’t much that 69% of Idahoans agree on, but trust in professional, educated librarians is one of them, according to the latest Boise State University Public Policy Survey.
If you doubt it, consider the various legislative hearings on bills to keep so-called “harmful materials” in libraries beyond the reach of minors. Aside from Carlson’s assertions and those of the Idaho Family Policy Center’s Grace Howat, everyone who has spoken up — including those at last week’s hearing — pointed out one flaw after another in the measure, such as:
It incentivizes outsiders — people with no ties to the community, school district, library or even the state — to scour through library shelves and file complaints. Under that system, a minority will dictate to the vast majority of parents what their children can see and read in a library.
Although the most a library can be fined for refusing to move a book out of the children’s or young adult sections is $250, the cost of mounting a legal defense would be much more, to say nothing of the expense of maintaining liability insurance.
Separating minors — whether they’re in high school or preschool — from “harmful materials” would be a budget-buster. Does this mean hiring staff to monitor young readers and the collection? Would it require erecting barriers between children, young adult and adult sections? And how do you reconcile imposing those kinds of restrictions on the First Amendment rights of children and their parents?
Would taxpayers go along? You can’t be sure, even in larger communities such as Lewiston, where repeated efforts to pass a library bond failed. For libraries in smaller communities, it’s likely a physical and financial impossibility.
And if library resources are going into those kinds of efforts, what suffers will be the library’s core mission as one of the few places where kids can congregate in a safe, nurturing environment where they can explore and learn.
Other than Carlson’s acolytes and a few lawyers, who wins from a law like that?
Granted, this latest version is a far cry from the infamous House Bill 666, which threatened to prosecute librarians who didn’t comply. But it may not matter. Some librarians already see the writing on the wall.
Thrown on the defensive, libraries may go through their collections and remove anything that’s even questionable.
You could certainly expect to see an accelerated exodus of librarians to other states where the Legislature isn’t looking over their shoulders.
Then there’s Jeff Kohler’s solution.
A trustee at the Meridian Library District, Kohler told the State Affairs Committee that he would stop minors at the library door — unless they brought a parent along.
“We couldn’t risk the legal liability otherwise,” he said.
If slapping an R rating on Idaho’s library doors is the end game here, why can’t Sen. Carlson be honest about it?
Certainly, that would be much simpler than putting everyone through all these legal and political machinations. — M.T.
