Opinion: Anderson Library System Doesn’t Need Policy Revisions
Greg Wilson/Anderson Observer Editorial Board
While the rest of Anderson County is finding progressive ways to serve all citizens, the Anderson County Library Board seems bent on taking one of the county’s crown jewels in a direction that neither reflects the bulk of those who use the library or the community at large.
The board is set to consider a revised library collection development policy at the June 16 meeting which is aimed at restricting or removing materials in the juvenile and young adult (to be changed to teen area) sections of the library. It will also raise the age of the teen section to 17 from the current 16 years old requirement.
There are multiple issues of concern, including a potentially narrow board agenda driven more by politics than concern for those in the county using the library, including those under the age of 18.
But first, it’s important to note what the Anderson County Library System is already doing to make sure the collections in children and young adult sections of the library are both proper and properly managed.
Children under the age of 13 are not allowed in the library without adult supervision, and cannot check out books without an adult. This allows a parent or guardian to vet any books or other materials children check out from the library. There is no need for new rules or guidelines in this area, since all concerned seem to suggest parental guidance is the most important factor in deciding what individual children can or cannot read.
The current move by the board seems more aligned with religious and political agendas that in assuring parents make the decision on what materials their children can access.
This is reflected in a number of ways. Of the past six board appointments, at least two said they didn’t use the library, one has missed half of the meetings and another said at the first board meeting he attended it was his first visit to “the new library,” which was built in 2000.
As a patron of the library for more than 60 years, and one who helped unbox books as a toddler because of a kind librarian, it is concerning that the county council would appoint members who are either unfamiliar with or in an adversarial relationship with the library. But that is what five of the past six appointments have been, as council expanded the board with two at-large members to “better represent Anderson County.”
Of the past three appointments, only one holds a four-year degree and none have any direct experience applicable to library issues and management or suggest they are regular patrons of the library. Two are lacking university education, increasing the ability to meet the increasing demands and challenges that would be valuable in serving the public library in the current political climate.
One of the new members, who now serves as vice chairman of the library board, ran for the South Carolina House Dist. 8 seat in 2016, suggesting at that time that there is no room for compromise in politics.
The most recent addition, who was appointed by a council member with the claim of keeping “a balanced board,” admitted she does not use the library.
Though the library does not release information on card holders, the Observer has learned not all of the members of the board hold a valid and unexpired library card.
This group may not be the best choices for setting policy for the Anderson Library System, but due to the strange law that allows council members who serve two-year terms to appoint library board members to four-year terms (council cannot remove them once appointed) makes accountability tricky.
The genesis of what we face locally is from a the national political agenda, driven by such groups as “Moms for Liberty” (a group that started as an anti-mask group during the pandemic) which have mobilized and put forth candidates and volunteers to challenge books in the library they deem inappropriate, especially in the children’s sections of libraries across the country. The group is responsible for 72 percent of book censorship efforts in the United States in 2024, challenging 4,190 titles last year, a dramatic increase from the average of 46 titles annually between 2001 and 2020.
Meanwhile, in the Anderson children’s library section, which has more than 35,000 volumes, over the past 12 months not one selection has been challenged. Not one.
The reason for this is the Anderson County Library does not offer any books or materials that appeal to the prurient interest of children under the age of seventeen in the juvenile or teen sections of the library. These juvenile and teen collections do not contain materials that influence or promote action by a minor that is contrary to South Carolina Law. Period.
The current process of challenging materials seems aimed at encouraging more challenges. Any owner of a current library card would be able to challenge any book in the library, which would then go to a committee for review and, if the patron did not like the decision, appealed to the board. Any book in the library can be challenged.
The board is seeking to add the provision that any book challenged has to be flagged at checkout and a parent must sign special consent form to check it out.
There are so many holes in this policy it’s hard to figure out where to start.
For example, if a patron challenges the Bible, saying they find the excessive sex and violence in the book offensive, and the library review agrees, it will be moved out of the children’s and juvenile sections and reshelved with adult books.
This hyperbolic example shows how arbitrary the process can be. It would require herculean efforts by library staff to be at the whim of any disgruntled patron who doesn’t like a book and files a challenge just to be ornery or is being put up to the challenge by an outside group. And don’t think that won’t happen, it is already happening in other places.
Challenged materials that the patron disagrees with the library review about will be sent to the board. This is far too much bureaucracy. What if 100 books are challenged in 2025, will the board take the time to read all 100 before making a decision? If they don’t, where is the accountability?
The purpose of a library board is not to appease the political dogma of an individual, but to help the librarians provide a superior collection at the public library for all members of the community, which includes those who do not share their current own beliefs or line up with their agenda.
Building a solid collection of materials is the heart of any library system, and should be taken both seriously and with consideration toward all community citizens. The current approach seems to be aimed at books dealing with sexual identity, or books that explore racial themes, particularly those that depict the experiences of people of color, are the chief target of criticism.
With guidance from the South Carolina Library Board and with a nod toward regional and local materials, the Anderson library has proven for decades their ability to vet collections based on an educated and informed approach to serving the community.
A “E Pluribus Unum” approach recognizing it is the parent’s responsibility to monitor the materials their children read and watch, not the library board, continues to be the best path forward. Parents mostly know their children and those materials for which their children may or may not be ready to consume.
It would be the height of naivety not to recognize the smartphone in the room. Almost half of all 8–12-year-olds own a smartphone and 91 percent of those 13-18 have a smartphone. These figures do not even include those with iPads and other tablets or computers with internet access. A 2024 student suggests that around 40 percent of parents monitor their kids' cell phone usage. To not recognize the dichotomy of children with access to the most extreme material in the world in the palm of their hands while wringing hands over a book that challenges a particular religious or political viewpoint is foolhardy.
Whether the board received uniformed or overly cautious legal advice, or are just working on a template agenda set by national groups, it’s time to step back and recognize the dangers of such a narrow approach to public library collections.
The last thing we need is the erosion of intellectual freedom and access to information. The removal or restriction of books based on political or ideological viewpoints rather than professional selection criteria (e.g., literary merit, relevance, demand) leads to a curated collection that reflects only a narrow set of perspectives, often rejecting the materials reflecting race, gender, and LGBTQ+ topics. Books by or about marginalized communities are disproportionately targeted, denying those communities the opportunity to see themselves represented and denying others the chance to learn about different experiences.
This approach also means patrons, especially students, are deprived of a wide range of viewpoints and information necessary for critical thinking, informed decision-making, and understanding complex issues.
Libraries should not have to self-censor their acquisitions to avoid controversy, leading to a less robust and comprehensive collection, even before external challenges arise.
Such an approach can damage the library's reputation and trust, something the Anderson Library System has spent decades constructing. When a library is perceived as biased or politicized, its standing as a neutral, trusted institution for information is severely undermined. Community members may lose faith in its ability to provide unbiased resources. This can lead to the alienation of community members and groups whose perspectives are excluded or whose materials are challenged may feel unwelcome and disenfranchised, leading to a decline in library usage from those demographics.
The additional pressures can lead to increased stress and morale issues on the library staff who already face immense pressure, criticism, and even threats for upholding professional standards or for simply having certain books in the collection. This can lead to burnout, high turnover rates, and a "culture of fear." It can also drain the time and resources that should be dedicated to serving patrons, developing programs, and maintaining the collection are instead diverted to dealing with book challenges, public debates, and legal issues.
Politicized decisions can sometimes lead to lawsuits from patrons or organizations advocating for intellectual freedom, further straining library resources and reputation.
The library’s mission is meant to serve the entire community, providing access to information and resources for all ages and backgrounds. Politicized collections fail to fulfill this fundamental mission. Ther is no need to stifle education by restricting access to certain subjects or viewpoints, a politicized library hinders educational goals and the development of well-rounded, informed citizens.
The board might also want to consider the unintended consequences of restricting materials. Politicized book challenges often draw more attention to the challenged books. News coverage and social media can increase the circulation of these "banned" titles, sometimes leading to higher sales and wider readership than they would have achieved otherwise. While this might seem positive for the books themselves, it doesn't negate the underlying censorship and the negative impacts on the library as an institution.
Politicizing book collections transforms the library from a beacon of open inquiry and community resource into an instrument of a particular ideology, ultimately diminishing its value and relevance to the broader public.
Let’s hope the board considers these issues before their June 16 meeting, with an eye toward serving all of the county’s citizens and not just those in their personal circles or those whom they might receive a complaint by email.
The Anderson County Library has a proud tradition of serving the community reaching back almost 120 years. After the formation of the Anderson Library Association in 1900 at the City Hall, the Carnegie library was built in 1908 where many of us were patrons until the move in 1972 to the current building occupied by the Anderosn County Museum. The current main branch location, one of the most striking in the state, opened 25 years later and continues to expand and serve. The citizens of Anderson County deserve a library that continues the historic calling as a place of learning and reliable information.
Let’s hope we are not witnessing the beginning of an erosion of that legacy.
