Defending Access to Books: Why Public Review and Policy Guardrails Matter
Book bans threaten intellectual freedom. Freedom to Read Project advocates for transparent, fair policies ensuring public review, stakeholder appeals, and limits on unjustified removals.
In recent years, the fight against book bans has intensified, with a record number of state laws passed that dictate what materials can be made available to students in libraries. These laws, often written vaguely to avoid accusations of viewpoint discrimination, leave significant discretion to local authorities. Unfortunately, many of these laws also carry severe penalties, which leads to over-compliance and self-censorship. At Freedom to Read Project, a parent-led nonprofit dedicated to fighting book bans and ensuring access to diverse literature, we believe strong policy guardrails are essential to prevent unjustified removals and protect intellectual freedom.
Why Policy Guardrails Are Necessary
Policies surrounding book reconsideration and removal must be clear, fair, and protective of intellectual freedom. Without proper safeguards, books are often removed due to a small but vocal group of objectors, rather than through a fair and thorough evaluation process. To counteract this, Freedom to Read Project advocates for policy guardrails that ensure transparency, equity, and community involvement in the review process.
1. No Removal Without a Public, Committee Review
One of the most dangerous aspects of book bans is impulsive removals—instances where books are taken off shelves before a fair review process occurs. Every objection that meets the criteria for reconsideration should go through a public committee review where the book is considered in its entirety before any decision is made. A hasty removal process, often influenced by political pressure or personal biases, strips communities of their right to access diverse literature and critical perspectives.
2. Prioritizing Review Based on Circulation
When multiple books are submitted for reconsideration, priority should be determined by circulation data—meaning that books most frequently checked out by students or patrons should be reviewed first. This ensures that high-demand materials receive careful consideration rather than being arbitrarily removed for extensive periods of time.
3. Stakeholder Right to Appeal
If a book is removed, it’s crucial that all impacted stakeholders (parents, students, educators, and librarians) be given proper notification and the right to appeal within 15 calendar days. The final decision should not be dictated by a select few but should reflect broad community involvement. In many objection policies around the country, only the objector has the ability to appeal a decision, so a fear-based decision to remove in response to an objection cannot be further considered, even if the community at-large supports retention.
4. Limiting the Frequency of Repeated Challenges
To prevent repetitive censorship attempts, a final decision on a book’s status should remain in place for 3-5 years unless a significant legal change justifies reconsideration. This prevents the same books from being repeatedly challenged (and, in some states, removed while awaiting its next review) based on shifting political climates.
5. Parental Rights for Their Own Children—Not Others
Parents have the right to determine reading boundaries for their own children, but not for others. No single individual should have the power to restrict access for an entire community. A fair objection process ensures that challenges must follow advertised procedures rather than being dictated by personal bias.
Ensuring Transparency Through Public Access
Transparency is key in preventing unjustified book bans. Libraries and school districts must maintain a public, searchable database of all book objections and review outcomes. If challenges occur, community members should have access to relevant documentation to understand the reasoning behind any decision.
Additionally, requiring a thorough reconsideration form helps ensure that objectors have read the book in its entirety and are not submitting challenges based on hearsay or selective excerpts. This process should include open-ended questions that require objectors to demonstrate basic comprehension of the book’s content before their challenge is considered legitimate.
Preventing Abuse of the Objection Process
Book bans are often driven by a small group of individuals submitting large numbers of objections to overwhelm the system. To prevent this, the Freedom to Read Project supports limits on the number of objections per person—such as restricting each individual to one objection per month. This helps prevent bad-faith efforts to flood libraries with challenges and ensures that each request receives proper attention and scrutiny.
Furthermore, objectors should be responsible for defending their objections. Policies should require individuals to personally present their case rather than outsourcing the responsibility to legal representatives or advocacy groups. This ensures that objections are genuine concerns rather than politically motivated efforts to suppress information.
Why These Guardrails Matter
Book bans affect everyone—students, educators, parents, and the broader community. Removing books from shelves without due process is a form of censorship that silences a variety of voices, erases history, and stifles intellectual growth.
At the Freedom to Read Project, we believe that every book should be evaluated on its full content and merit, rather than removed impulsively due to fear, bias, or misinformation. Policies that require public review, transparency, and fair expectations for objectors help protect everyone’s right to read—not just the preferences of a select few.