The Alabama Public Library Service is once again pursuing changes to its administrative code, this time to classify materials promoting gender ideology or the concept of more than two genders as inappropriate for children.
If the code changes were to be ultimately approved, local libraries would not be allowed to shelve such materials in children or youth sections without risking state funding.
Former APLS board chair Ron Snider cast the lone dissenting vote against pursuing the changes, and harshly criticized current chair John Wahl and member Amy Minton.
“It appears that what we have going on is … we have one board member (Minton) that has officially announced she is running for political office and John, you’re thinking about running for political office,” Snider said. “I’m afraid what is happening is the APLS is being used as a platform to boost your positions off the backs of libraries in this state.”
Wahl began the APLS board meeting on Thursday by emphasizing his commitment to the First Amendment and his hatred of censorship, reiterating his stance that both sides of the library debate simply want to protect children from inappropriate materials. Snider took issue with Wahl’s statement.
“You make an eloquent statement that you’re not in favor of censorship, but in fact, the majority of what you have done is censorship,” Snider said.
Once the proposed code changes are published, there will be a 45-day comment period before the board can consider whether to ultimately adopt the changes. The last code change process had a 90-day comment period and the agency received more than 6,000 public comments.
The other major question looming before the APLS board on Thursday was whether to restore state funding to the Fairhope Public Library after it moved some challenged books and declined to move others. With one book still left to review, Wahl suggested putting off that decision until the next meeting.
Critics continue to charge that the library is ignoring APLS requirements with its refusal to move books they feel meet the definition of “sexually explicit” as formally laid out by the APLS at its May meeting.
Snider criticized the board’s passage of the definition, arguing that it holds no weight on state funding as it is not part of the actual administrative code.
“Now by fiat, without process, we have now defined requirements that are not in the code, and I think that is highly improper,” Snider said.
Wahl disagreed and claimed that the definition was originally sent to libraries soon after the code changes passed, and that the official memo from the board came because some libraries did not receive that definition initially. Wahl also claimed that the definition can be found in other state and federal codes, although he has only been able to point to a federal statute with two definitions of sexually explicit conduct meant for defining child pornography.
