Removing transgender books affects Rutherford library director search: 'Deeply concerned'
Rutherford County library officials lost a consultant for a director-search after deciding "to protect children" by removing books on transgender topics.
The Rutherford County Library System Board had been working with Deiters & Todd Library Consulting in Chicago to pursue director applicants to replace Rita Shacklett, who retired early in 2024.
First Amendment issue: Divided Rutherford County Library System Board bans transgender books 'to protect children'
The consulting firm's services remained prior to the March 17 majority decision in a 5-3 vote to "remove material that promotes, encourages, advocates for or normalizes transgenderism or 'gender confusion' in minors."
The same five in the majority of the board also voted to remove the picture book, "Me & My Dysphoria Monster" from the library system. The book is by author Laura Kate Dale and Illustrated by Ang Hui Qing.
"Deiters & Todd stepped away from the search because of recent actions taken by the board," consulting firm partner Jim Deiters told The Daily News Journal.
"As working librarians, we were deeply concerned by those decisions," said Deiters, adding that his firm returned the initial payment for the search to the library board. "Not an easy thing to do, but the right thing."
Library board chairman Phil King said a search committee soon will move ahead to examine applicants for the system's director job.
2023 book banning decisions: Library supporters upset by board pulling 4 books say they're 'fighting against censorship'
The board on Monday met in private executive session in Murfreesboro with Nashville attorney Robert "Bob" Burns "to discuss and seek input from counsel" pertaining to decisions to remove the books in question, he confirmed.
While the meeting took place within a conference room of the library system's administrative offices, two protesters upset by the decisions to remove books stood outside by the edge of the parking lot holding signs.
The sign Jessica Robertson of Murfreesboro offered the following message: "EVERBODY BELONGS AT THE LIBRARY."
"I don't know why they are taking books off the shelf that represent people who exist in this world," Robertson said.
Robertson recently told the board during the public comment part of the March 17 meeting that she's the mother of a transgender child.
Complaint upsets officials: Speaker complaint on book on transgender topic disrupts Murfreesboro school board meeting
Fellow book-freedom advocate Heather Ahmie of Rutherford County held a sign saying, "No room for BIGOTRY on our Shelves."
"Where does it end?" Ahmie told The Daily News Journal. "You can't start erasing people from the public library, which is there for everyone."
The board member's private executive session for legal counsel took place about a week before they meet next at 5 p.m. April 21 at Smyrna Public Library. The meeting agenda is yet to be announced on the library system's webpage.
'It was a hard decision': Murfreesboro school board bans book on transgender topic after December meeting disruption
The library board officials also have also faced complaints about the book removal decisions in letters from three national free speech advocacy organizations:
Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression in Philadelphia.
National Coalition Against Censorship in New York;
The Freedom to Read Foundation in Chicago.
Free speech challenges: Rutherford library officials draw national opposition for removing books on transgender issues
Burns, the library board's attorney, told The Daily News Journal that he thought the letters were reasonably well-written.
"I reviewed and considered some, but not all, of the information and points contained in the letters," Burns said.
'We are banished': Rutherford County Board of Education book banning upsets free speech advocates
The letter from the Freedom to Read Foundation came from Deborah Caldwell Stone, the organization's executive director.
Stone questioned why the board would remove books based on "moral and religious beliefs" of individuals and organizations, "even though other parents believe these books are important and valued reading materials for their children."
"Such viewpoint discrimination is both unconstitutional and problematic for public institutions, ascourts have consistently held that restricting intended readers' access to materials based on viewsexpressed in the books violates the First Amendment rights of library users of all ages," Stone said in her letter.
"The First Amendment protects each person's right to access and read any book in a public librarythat a reasonable person would view as having literary, artistic, political, or scientific value,whether for an adult or for a minor."
More book banning decisions: Rutherford schools removal of 160 more books draws opposition from 1st Amendment advocates
Reach reporter Scott Broden with news tips or questions by emailing him at sbroden@dnj.com. To support his work with The Daily News Journal, sign up for a digital subscription.
This article originally appeared on Murfreesboro Daily News Journal: Banning transgender books affects Rutherford library director search
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump administration closes iconic Dupont Circle Park during WorldPride against city's objections
The Trump administration has closed Dupont Circle Park for the peak weekend of WorldPride in Washington, D.C., fencing off a landmark deeply tied to LGBTQ+ history despite objections from local officials and organizers. Keep up with the latest in + news and politics. The National Park Service and U.S. Park Police barricaded the park Thursday evening. The closure, which extends through Sunday night, includes the central fountain, grassy areas, and sidewalks within the circle but excludes the surrounding streets, according to Washington's NBC affiliate, WRC. Earlier this week, D.C. Councilmembers Brooke Pinto and Zachary Parker announced that the Metropolitan Police Department had withdrawn its request to close the park following backlash from community members. But federal officials proceeded with the shutdown anyway and have not responded to requests for comment. Related: National Park Service won't close D.C.'s Dupont Circle during WorldPride after all, officials say 'I am extremely disappointed and frustrated that Dupont Circle Park will be closed this weekend despite MPD's commitment to keep folks safe there,' Pinto said in a statement to The Advocate. 'This closure is disheartening to me and so many in our community who wanted to celebrate World Pride at this iconic symbol of our city's historic LGBTQ+ community. I wish I had better news to share.' According to a June 4 Record of Determination obtained by The Washington Post, the National Park Service said that the closure was necessary 'to secure the park, deter potential violence, reduce the risk of destructive acts and decrease the need for extensive law enforcement presence.' Despite MPD's reversal, the U.S. Park Police doubled down. In a memo to NPS Superintendent Kevin Greiss, USPP Commander Major Frank Hilsher wrote that 'the threat of violence, criminal acts, and NPS resource destruction has only increased since MPD's original April 22, 2025, park closure request.' He referenced a local DJ advertising an unpermitted party at Dupont Circle and said, 'Less restrictive measures will not suffice.' The Capital Pride Alliance, which is organizing WorldPride events, told The Advocate it was not consulted about the decision. 'This beloved landmark is central to the community that WorldPride intends to celebrate and honor,' the group said in a statement. 'It's much more than a park — for generations, it's been a gathering place for D.C.'s LGBTQ+ community, hosting First Amendment assemblies and memorial services for those we lost to the AIDS epidemic and following tragic events like the Pulse nightclub shooting.' Dupont Circle during Kermadec/Shutterstock 'This sudden move was made overnight without consultation with the Capital Pride Alliance or other local officials,' the statement continued. 'No official WorldPride activities have been planned in Dupont Circle this weekend; thus, no events will be impacted.' While MPD had initially requested the closure, Chief Pamela Smith rescinded that request in a formal letter sent Tuesday. When asked for comment Friday, MPD spokesperson Tom Lynch told The Advocate, 'We have nothing to share beyond the letter rescinding the request, which we shared on Tuesday.' D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser did not respond to The Advocate's questions, but a spokesperson pointed to an appearance she made on local radio Friday in which she discussed the fencing. She said the closure represented a breakdown in coordination between federal and local authorities. 'I think I put this in the category of an unfortunate error,' Bowser told The Politics Hour with Kojo Nnamdi on WAMU. 'We had a communication with the Park Service… and it looks like at this stage, they're going to proceed with the closure, though we continue talks.' Pressed on whether the decision originated at the White House or with Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, Bowser said, 'I can't say that with any clarity. I do know, unfortunately, the public safety issue rose to the top over the cultural celebration.' She added, 'We don't control the NPS, though we will continue to try to lean on them for a different decision.' The Park Service has cited past incidents (none of which were linked to Capital Pride Alliance events), including $175,000 in damage to the fountain during Pride 2023, as well as a recent executive order from President Donald Trump instructing federal agencies to protect national monuments and public spaces. But LGBTQ+ advocates say the move appears politically motivated. The Partnership for Civil Justice Fund filed Freedom of Information Act requests this week seeking communications and records from the Department of the Interior, MPD, and the D.C. Mayor's Office. In a statement Tuesday, Executive Director Mara Verheyden-Hilliard called the decision 'a dangerous step and outside the legitimate authority of the Park Service.' Staff attorney Sarah Taitz said, 'The LGBTQ+ community and general public deserve to know how and why the decision to shut Pride out of Dupont Circle was made, and how and why that decision was reversed.' Though no official events were scheduled at the park, many saw its closure as symbolic — a federal message during a global celebration of queer life. 'World Pride will continue this weekend,' Pinto said, 'and it will be a time of celebration and commitment to uplift our LGBTQ+ neighbors.' Editor's note: This story has been updated with remarks from D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Lapeer library board mulls age restrictions on materials despite shaky legal ground
Members of Fight 4 the First Lapeer rally outside the Marguerite deAngeli Library on May 15, 2025 | Photo by Karen Braschayko As members of a Livingston County library board march toward restricting materials deemed inappropriate for children, a similar effort is brewing in nearby Lapeer County, part of what's become a renewed effort in the culture war over children's books, especially those with LGBTQ+ content. Some members of the Lapeer District Library Board have also been working to craft a policy to keep certain materials out of children's hands without running afoul of the law. The effort stretches back several years to 2023, as community members sought to have several books pulled from library shelves. Susan Hough, a member of the steering committee of Fight 4 the First, which advocates against censorship within the library district, said many of the books challenged deal with gender or LGBTQ issues. Among those books was the award-winning 'Gender Queer: A Memoir,' a frequently challenged graphic novel which details author Maia Kobabe's coming of age tale as a person who identifies as nonbinary and asexual. The source of the challenge stems from its inclusion of some drawings depicting nude characters and sexual scenarios, prompting opponents to label it pornographic. Lapeer County Prosecutor John Miller suggested he might file criminal charges against employees or library officials if the book was not pulled from shelves. However, Amy Churchill, who was serving as the director of the library at the time, retained the ACLU of Michigan as legal counsel. The organization sent Miller a letter warning that taking action would threaten First Amendment freedoms, and violate his ethical duties as a prosecutor. When the challenge against the book was rejected, Miller took no action. In the years since that incident, candidates with a conservative ideology have come to hold a majority of seats on the nonpartisan board, with some new members carrying ties to the initial book challenges. In February, Hough said members of Fight 4 the First Lapeer uncovered a memo while reviewing the board's public records responding to a request for an opinion on policies to restrict access to certain books, including proposals to move certain children's books to an adult section, or putting certain books behind glass or the circulation desk, requiring a patron to ask for access. 20FEB2025 Legal Memo Regarding Book Restrictions Anne Seurynk, an attorney with the Foster Swift law firm who the board had retained as counsel, warned that adopting any of the proposals would place the library on 'at best, shaky Constitutional ground' and would put the library at risk of being sued and losing. That could saddle the district with the cost of its own attorneys fees and the fees of their legal challenger. Seurynk also served as corporate counsel for the Cromaine District Library, providing them with a similar notice regarding its own efforts to sequester controversial materials. During a meeting of the Lapeer Tea Party in March, the board's Vice Chair John DeAngelis and Secretary Peggy Brotzke discussed efforts to limit the materials children can access. DeAngelis was unable to offer details on what these restrictions would look like, but told attendees that the board would be consulting with its attorney on the issue. He later offered a rough timeline of six months for presenting potential options. 'We don't want to get sued. We don't want to burn up our funds in attorney fees,' DeAngelis said.'We want to do it the right way, so it will take some time. It won't happen overnight.' DeAngelis and Brotzke did not respond to a request for an interview prior to publication, nor did board Chair Kari Kohlman. DeAngelis during the Board's March meeting put forward a motion to replace Foster Swift with a local firm, Rickard, Denney, Leichliter, Childers & Bosch, with DeAngelis saying he would like to use local counsel to keep the board's money within the community. The motion passed with support from Kohlman, DeAngelis, Brotzke and Trustee Carol Brown, despite protest from former board chair Bill Marquardt and treasurer Perry Valle. On its website, Rickard, Denney, Leichliter, Childers & Bosch describes its legal practice as 'advising and assisting individuals, churches, and other religious organizations in defending and taking full advantage of their religious freedom under federal and state law.' Other areas of practice include general civil litigation, representing individuals with small to medium-sized businesses, estate planning, real estate matters, zoning issues and other issues of land use. Based on Brotzke's information request for the library's collections policy during her first board meeting in February, Hough expects to see proposals to amend the district's collection policy soon. The board's next meeting is set for June 19, with Fight 4 the First Lapeer planning to hold a 'Read-In for Freedom' at DeAngeli Library the same day. The group held a similar rally in mid-May prior to a board meeting that ended up being canceled due to a lack of a quorum. Although Brotzke and DeAngelis focused their concerns on protecting children and ensuring they are unable to access inappropriate materials, Hough said the question of what is appropriate varies from person to person. 'That's why we have library professionals who have been highly trained in child development and in literacy and in book selection, who use many tools, including professional reviews, publisher's reviews, etc., as well as their own personal knowledge to select books and place them in – what are considered by a professional – an appropriate place in the library,' Hough said. When it comes to determining whether a book belongs in a library, Hough said she preferred to trust the professionals. 'I don't know about you, but I prefer to let my medical doctor guide me in medical decisions, and I prefer to let my attorney guide me in legal decisions. And I believe library professionals have the training and the expertise to guide us in what's appropriate,' Hough said. Hough further noted that libraries legally cannot have obscene materials on their shelves. While the Foster Swift memo makes clear that placing restrictions on materials could violate the U.S. Constitution, there's no such thing as First Amendment police, Hough said. That means there's no defense against these types of policies unless community members and free speech organizations are watching and willing to respond. Should the board move forward with the policies and face legal consequences, Hough raised concerns about how that could impact funding for Lapeer libraries. 'That's money that should be used to provide materials for our community, provide services, because it's way beyond books' Hough said, pointing to other benefits like internet access and community programs.'There's just so much in our library that enriches the community, and all of these attacks are going to end up having fiscal outcomes.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Protesters and journalists are barred from the outside of immigration court. Is it legal?
Activists and journalists gathered outside a federal immigration court in late May to do what they always do. The activists wanted to help migrants attending hearings know their legal rights, chastise immigration officers and show resistance to deportation efforts. Reporters wanted to bear witness, interview sources and share stories with the world about what was happening. Usually, assembling outside a court to protest, observe or report would be no problem. But May 21, private security told photojournalists and activists to leave the property. Phoenix police issued the same warning to activists May 28, and said they could get cited for trespassing — a criminal violation. By early June, a rope was installed to keep the public off the property, and "No Trespassing" signs were installed. That's because the immigration court isn't in a federal facility — it's in a private office building. Police officers said the landlord of the building had asked for people to leave if they did not have immediate business on the property. Advocates like Ricardo Reyes, the lead Arizona organizer for Common Defense, a veterans organization that defends migrants, were confused. He wondered: Since the courthouse is taxpayer funded, shouldn't the taxpaying public be given access and allowed to assemble outside? As of June 3, Phoenix police said the landlord had called three times to complain about trespassers but that no citations were issued. The effects of the warnings, however, were immediate. The advocates left the property and moved to a sidewalk along Van Buren Street. It was on the north side of the building, away from the entrance, which made connecting with migrants impossible. Activists continued to walk onto the private plaza, though, particularly when ICE made arrests. Reporters attending the hearings continued without restriction. But photographers and videographers, who aren't allowed in immigration courtrooms anyway, took to the sidewalk like the activists. Their ability to capture images of individuals entering the building was blocked. The First Amendment protects the public's right to assemble and the press's ability to report the news. But experts say the legal rights in this circumstance are extremely foggy. The fact the government doesn't own the land brings a host of complications. Plus, the right of the public to access immigration hearings isn't clear cut. "Right now, it's not all that clear because of the oddity of how this is all managed. Where the government's rights take over versus the landlord's rights, versus the other tenants' rights," Gregg Leslie, executive director of Arizona State University's First Amendment Clinic, said. Sign up for The Republic's American Border newsletter to get the latest immigration news every Thursday. The public's right to be somewhere, called "right of access," depends largely on whether land is public or private, Leslie said. The difficulty in this situation is that the government courtroom is on the third floor of a privately owned building with other tenants. While the public has a right to public land, that right doesn't exist on private land. But it can get more complex. "If it's private land owned for public access, there are certain allowances for there being greater public access to it," Leslie said. To that end, Leslie said it was "hard to believe" the plaza outside the building would be treated as private property, considering the public must have permission to walk through it on the way to court. Lease agreements might spell out how such circumstances should play out, Leslie said. The Arizona Republic requested but has not obtained the lease agreement. When The Republic called the Phoenix Immigration Court, the operator said she was not authorized to answer the question and hung up on the reporter. The U.S. Justice Department, the agency that houses immigration courts, directed questions from The Republic about why the court was inside a private building to the General Services Administration. The GSA, which manages federal government leases, said the government leases private property when "leasing is the only practical answer to meeting Federal space needs." In other words, leases are used when the existing federal property doesn't have space. In Phoenix, the federal buildings are downtown at 1st Avenue and Monroe Street, and 5th Avenue and Washington Street. The leasing company, Transwestern Real Estate Services, did not respond to questions from The Republic. Further clouding the public's ability to understand their rights are different interpretations for different parts of the building. Someone's right to be in the plaza versus the lobby or the third floor all varies depending on whether the space is considered "a traditional public forum," Leslie said. That means an area traditionally open to political speech and debate. Another challenge to the public's right to assemble or report at immigration court is there is no established First Amendment-based right of access, Leslie said. A typical federal courtroom is considered an Article III Court, meaning it was established under Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution and is thus subject to the First Amendment. "There is a right of access to those courts. You have a right to be there. You can be shut out, but (the government) has to overcome your presumption of a right to be there," Leslie said. But immigration courts, by contrast, are administrative. They're created by law and the same level of protections aren't applied. "Right after 9/11, there were fights over whether immigration courts had to be open, and two of the federal circuits came out differently, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear it," Leslie said. That lack of resolution has left the legal community in limbo. ASU's First Amendment Clinic is currently working on guidance trying to clarify what rights do and do not apply to immigration court. At the end of May, immigrants in Phoenix were seeing the government dismiss their case, only to turn around and immediately arrest them again — this time using expedited removal. That's a process that allows for deportation without a hearing. Advocates thought migrants deserved a warning, and went to offer help. "The people that are showing up are showing up in good faith. They have no idea they might get picked up by ICE as soon as their hearing is over, and they're not going to be able ... to have their families waiting for them at home," Reyes from Common Defense said. His group encouraged migrants to get attorneys, and told them about options such as requesting an extension for their case, or an appeal if their case was dismissed. The group also offered to accompany individuals, some of whom Reyes said were scared. But none of that was possible, he said, when they were shuffled to the sidewalk away from the building entrance. Reporters, including those at The Arizona Republic, have attended immigration court hearings intermittently for years as part of ongoing news coverage. The coverage serves myriad purposes, such as showing the public how government is carrying out President Donald Trump's deportation agenda. The information is meant to equip the public so they can make informed decisions. Disallowing photo and video reporters on-site has hindered the ability to show everything that's happening there. Taylor Seely is a First Amendment Reporting Fellow at The Arizona Republic / Do you have a story about the government infringing on your First Amendment rights? Reach her at tseely@ or by phone at 480-476-6116. Seely's role is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. Funders do not provide editorial input. This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Reporters, protesters barred from outside of Arizona immigration court
