DAYTON-Comments began back in August and continue to be heard by the County Rural Library District (CCRLD) Board of Trustees about content in the children's library. The January 23 meeting was no exception. For months now, those who object to the materials have claimed the content is inappropriate for children. Others have supported the materials and have pointed out that most of the challenged materials are written by or are about people who are LGBTQIA+ or are of a racial minority, and that the books provide important representation to kids who identify with them.

However, the issue with the books is more about content rather than subject to those who challenge the books in that they feel either a parent needs to guide the child while reading it, or that it is inappropriate because of its explicit demonstration of sexual acts, profanity, or violence. Those who support the books agree that parents should guide their children's choice of books and it should not fall to the library to do so.

During the meeting, Library Trustee Charles Belany recommended to the Board and motioned for them to place a freeze on purchasing LGBTQIA+ books for one year while the controversy gets sorted out. No one seconded, though fellow Trustee Michelle Smith acknowledged that some aspects of the books are not appropriate for all kids.

At the public comment portion of the meeting, one attendee made the demand that after months of hearing public opposition, the books should be moved to the adult section. Another attendee countered that the books are shelved in the appropriate section for the young adult audience they were written for.

Young adult books are written for adolescents and therefore are housed in the children's library.

Those in support of the books argue that kids as they grow need to learn about themselves from being represented in these materials and that parents are not always available or supportive. Library Director Todd Vandenbark affirmed this in his October 9 newsletter where he cited data reflecting the high risk of suicide among the LGBTQIA+ youth population due to mistreatment and rejection from peers and family. "Libraries...can step up and provide safe spaces and reliable information for LGBTQIA+ teens and young adults attempting to navigate the pain and difficulties they face today. If we provide solace among the stacks for our youth, we can hopefully prevent more of them from ending their own lives, alone and afraid."

But the books first came into question after parents saw colorful books on display in the middle of the children's library with their elementary school children. These books were at eye level for young readers. When they looked through the books, they discovered some with explicit sexual instruction with some illustrations. One was later challenged entitled, "What's the T," by Juno Dawson.

The library has a formal reconsideration of materials request process to submit a form that affirms the patron has read the book in full and asks them to cite specifically how it goes against the library's collection policy. This is impossible to do because there is nothing in the policy about content other than the overall content of the library should be diverse.

The director then has one month to read the book and make a formal decision about whether to remove, relocate or keep the book where it was. As a member of the non-profit organization, The American Library Association, the CCRLD is following their guidelines for book challenges verbatim.

Vandenbark decided to retain the book and other challenged books in their original locations with the exception of creating a new parent education section in the children's library to house the books on sexual education and race for young kids.

-File photo

The library policy states that once a decision is made by the director, the patron can appeal to the Board. Chairman Jay Ball announced during the meeting they had received a request to appeal the director's decision for "What's the T" earlier that day. Trustee Karin Spann asked that they take the month to review the book in full before making a decision that will follow policy.

The appeal will be heard on February 27.