Restoring Trust in School Libraries Starts with Transparency

The specifics of "book banning" matter, and avoiding honest conversations about sexually explicit content only further erodes the public's trust.

Editor’s Note: This article discusses the content of certain books available in school libraries, including sexual content involving minors.

A Connecticut State Senator has proposed legislation to stop so-called “book banning” and to protect librarians from what he describes as “crazies… suing because they’re not getting their way.” While this framing may attract headlines, it risks flattening a complex issue. The term “book banning” is often used imprecisely, conflating reasoned concerns about age-appropriate materials in public schools with efforts to suppress ideas based on ideology.

There is an important distinction between removing a book from a school library through a deliberative process and banning its publication outright. In the public school context, where resources and exposure are curated for minors, those differences matter—and they deserve careful consideration.

On its surface, the Senator’s bill, Proposed Bill 523, includes some commonsense protections. It affirms that books should not be pulled simply because some find them offensive. It calls for a formal review process and clear criteria for selecting and removing books. It also seeks to protect librarians acting in good faith from unwarranted lawsuits – important, since librarians typically don’t act alone in book selections and shouldn’t be scapegoated for broader institutional choices.

But the bill fails to grapple with a more difficult reality: what happens when school library materials clearly cross boundaries most parents would find unacceptable?

In Darien, part of the same district represented by the sponsoring senator, books currently available to students include graphic illustrations and detailed descriptions of sexual behavior involving minors. Among them:

• A cartoon of two minors performing oral sex on one another

• A pictorial account of a young boy, whose penis is exposed underneath a Batman t-shirt, urinating on another minor in bed

• Another cartoon, this one featuring a game during which a group of boys masturbate into a soda bottle while daring one another to drink the contents

• Detailed instructions about various masturbation and self-stimulation techniques

Why are such materials included in school libraries? In many cases, these images appear in graphic novels or cartoons, possibly because illustrated content is less likely to be legally categorized as pornographic. But whether textual or visual, this material is far more explicit than the controversial classics often cited in censorship debates such as Catcher in the Rye or Huckleberry Finn. Books that sexualize minors demand a separate conversation, not a blanket defense under the First Amendment.

Advocates who claim that opposing any book in a school library amounts to a First Amendment violation are oversimplifying a nuanced legal and ethical question. Labeling concerned parents “book banners” is a rhetorical strategy that dismisses valid objections rather than engaging with them.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a civil liberties group, provides a more balanced framework. Their analysis of Board of Education v. Pico—a key Supreme Court case—offers helpful guidance:

• School libraries should consider age appropriateness more carefully than other types of libraries

• The First Amendment limits arbitrary censorship, but doesn’t require schools to stock every available book

• Books not part of the curriculum warrant less scrutiny but still deserve community input

• The motivation behind a removal request matters: objections to graphic sexual content differ from efforts to suppress ideas or viewpoints

• A transparent process and clear definitions are essential for fair decision-making

Not all controversial books are equal. There’s a meaningful difference between literary references to sex in service of a broader narrative and gratuitous depictions of explicit acts involving minors. Likewise, concerns about these depictions differ fundamentally from discomfort with books addressing racism, LGBTQ+ families, or other sociopolitical themes.

Like FIRE, I believe schools should be places of intellectual curiosity and diversity of thought. But that also means respecting a broad range of parental perspectives. No single authority should unilaterally determine what is appropriate. A well-structured review process, involving parents, teachers, and administrators, is essential for building consensus and trust.

The Senator behind Proposed Bill 523 has warned against “curtailing children's ability to get an education” and compared book challenges to historical acts of book burning. That’s a serious claim. Yet it's worth asking whether the graphic passages cited above have any real educational value—or whether questioning their presence is truly an attack on knowledge.

For generations, children learned about human anatomy, relationships, and emotional health without illustrated manuals in their school libraries. The assumption that such materials are vital for mental health education in public schools is a recent and debatable development.

Parents in districts like Darien often don’t realize what’s on school library shelves. When they raise concerns, they’re met with vague affirmations about mental wellness rather than direct responses about specific content. That undermines public trust—not just in school boards, but also in the many well-intentioned educators and librarians who had no role in selecting these books.

To rebuild trust, school systems must allow for open, transparent conversations. Officials who object to “book banning” should also be willing to publicly acknowledge and justify the inclusion of graphic materials under their jurisdiction.

The introduction of highly sexualized books into school libraries is a relatively new phenomenon. It happened quietly, often without parental input. Continuing to defend these materials without a broader community mandate risks eroding support for school libraries as a whole.

The burden is now on public education leaders to restore confidence. A thoughtful, inclusive review process—and honest conversations about what belongs in a taxpayer-funded school—are long overdue.

We welcome you to share your thoughts on this piece in the comments below. Click here to view our comment section moderation policy. 

The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism or its employees.

In keeping with our mission to promote a common culture of fairness, understanding, and humanity, we are committed to including a diversity of voices and encouraging compassionate and good-faith discourse.

We are actively seeking other perspectives on this topic and others. If you’d like to join the conversation, please send drafts to submissions@fairforall.org.