logo
Why library books about transgender people are under fire in these two Tennessee counties

Why library books about transgender people are under fire in these two Tennessee counties

Yahoo09-04-2025
Following a record-breaking year of book bans across Tennessee, two Tennessee counties are fighting to completely remove library books that reference youth transgender issues, claiming they promote 'gender confusion.'
The Rutherford County Library System Board passed a policy on March 17 that required the removal of all material from county libraries that 'promotes, encourages, advocates for or normalizes transgenderism or 'gender confusion' in minors."
Meanwhile, Sumner County officials are following the same lead, with a nearly-identical change proposed to their Collection Development Management policy that will ban anything in county libraries that makes 'mention of pertaining, promoting, or subjecting a minor to transgender or gender confusion ideology.'
The changes also remove a number of references in the original library policy to creating 'balanced' collections, removal of the term 'constitutionally protected' materials, a ban on interlibrary loans of books that include minor transgender topics, and a ban on the usage of the American Library Association's resources for book curation.
It is set to be presented to the board for vote at the Wednesday evening meeting on April 9.
On Tuesday, a letter from the Hendersonville Public Library Director Alycia Neighbours leaked on social media announced her resignation, citing numerous policy changes and the "increasing demand to enforce policies that undermine both our Friends of the Library and the integrity of our collection."
"It is clear I can no longer, in good conscience, continue in this role," she said.
In a separate, public social media post, Neighbours said the letter was an "unedited draft," which was "meant solely for my governing board, sent from my personal email to my work email for editing, but was somehow shared publicly."
"Some people assume my resignation was because of 'this policy' or 'that issue,' but the truth is the work of a library director is far more complex than any single policy issue," she said in her post.
A number of major First Amendment organizations, including the National Coalition Against Censorship, PEN America and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, are pushing back against the Rutherford County policy, calling it 'viewpoint discrimination' and 'highly problematic.'
'As a federal appeals court once put it, a 'library is a storehouse of knowledge' — not a storehouse of government-approved ideas,' FIRE Director of Public Advocacy Aaron Terr said. 'Rutherford County should quickly turn the page on this ill-conceived attempt at censorship and restore the public's access to ideas of all stripes, no matter how objectionable some might find them.'
The policy passed in a contentious Rutherford County meeting last month.
Board member Cody York, who proposed the policy, said the aim was to "protect children."
Heather Cook, a Rutherford County resident who spoke at the meeting, said she was emulating St. Patrick by "shining a light into the darkness" and "standing for the truth in opposition to the deception of transgender ideology and gender confusion, which ultimately leads to gender dysphoria and the mutilation of our children."
"Evil is being accepted as good, and good is being called evil," she said.
The move is unique among previous book-banning attempts, Terr said, because it isn't intended to just age-restrict books from minors, but rather from all readers.
'This is censorship, plain and simple,' he said. 'The board is removing books based solely on their viewpoint or perspective, and that violates the First Amendment. The government cannot empty public libraries of books that promote 'transgenderism' any more than it could ban all books that promote traditional gender roles, Christianity or capitalism, or any other idea."
'Libraries don't exist to reflect the views of whoever happens to be in power,' he said. 'They exist to serve the public's right to freely access ideas and information.'
While the general trend of book bans — both in Tennessee and across the nation — is to remove books that are considered sexually-explicit, Terr said this policy doesn't even attempt to cloak itself in such claims.
'I think what some people might have in mind is that children's books that feature transgender characters, or books for young adults that feature transgender characters which might have some sexual passages in them are unprotected,' he said. 'But even those are protected by the First Amendment. And when the government starts picking and choosing what views are acceptable for library shelves, it's no longer a library. It's a propaganda factory.'
The removal and targeting of LGBTQ+ books facing accusations of being sexually explicit is a 'growing trend' across the nation, Terr said.
More: Race, sex and the Holocaust: As book bans grow across the state, some genres see more bans
'Efforts to restrict library content often take aim at controversial or politically sensitive topics like race and gender,' he said. 'So what's happening in Rutherford County fits squarely into that larger picture. There's a fine line between making a bona fide determination of age appropriateness and removing a book out of hostility to the ideas or perspectives that it contains.'
This fine line is addressed in the Rutherford County School Board's policy manual, which states 'Individual censorship may be exercised within the scope of the individual choosing materials for check out, but censorship or withholding of library materials for others within the community is not accepted within the institution of the public library.'
This policy is directly violated by the board's new decision, Terr said.
'Nothing in the board's publicly available policies allows for proactive removal of an entire category of books, let alone removal based on disapproval of a particular viewpoint,' he said. 'It's really no different than if they decided on their own to remove all books that promote gun ownership, or all books written by Republicans or Democrats. It's not the viewpoint that matters—it's the fact that they're discriminating against any viewpoint at all.'
More: 'Not enough kids in these meetings': Students weigh in as 1,100 books banned in Tennessee
Christine Emeran, the Youth Free Expression program director for the National Coalition Against Censorship, also criticized the county for ignoring its board policies.
'It is obviously highly problematic for board members to decide when and if they must comply with district policies, regardless of their intentions,' she said. 'It is particularly problematic for them to ignore reconsideration procedures, because doing so exposes the board to potential legal liability.'
With news that Sumner County is proposing a nearly-identical policy, Terr said it is important to stand up to such policies.
'If one county or city gets away with it, then nearby cities and counties may feel like they have permission to do the same thing,' he said.
Neither Rutherford County Library System board members nor Sumner County Library Board members responded to requests for comment.
The USA TODAY Network - Tennessee's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners.
Have a story to tell? Reach Angele Latham by email at alatham@gannett.com, by phone at 931-623-9485, or follow her on Twitter at @angele_latham
This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: Library books about trans people under fire in two Tennessee counties
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Man living next to Hispanic-owned business puts up sign urging Trump to deport his neighbors
Man living next to Hispanic-owned business puts up sign urging Trump to deport his neighbors

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Man living next to Hispanic-owned business puts up sign urging Trump to deport his neighbors

A North Carolina man who says he's upset about the business next door to his home has put up a sign in his yard asking President Donald Trump to deport people in his neighborhood. 'BUILD THE WALL/DEPORT THEM ALL/TRUMP START WITH MY NEIGHBORHOOD FIRST' reads the sign that Douglas Dietrich placed at his home in Grifton, Pitt County. The news was first reported by WITN. Dietrich lives next door to the automotive, aircraft and boat repair business Monkeys Garage, owned by Enrique Garfias. According to WITN, Garfias told them that he was a 'legal citizen of the United States' and that he found the sign offensive, since it was targeted at him. Garfias said he thinks there is racism behind Dietrich's sign. He added that Dietrich has problems 'not just with Hispanic people' but that he targets Hispanic people more, because 'he thinks he can do it to us.' 'There is so much hate already. I don't hate him,' Garfias said. 'He thinks he's right. People out there are gonna see what he's doing is not right.' Calls to Garfias' business and other phone numbers were not answered. A call by NBC News on Thursday to a number believed to belong to Dietrich disconnected before anyone spoke. When called again, the person who responded said 'Stop f---ing calling me' and hung up. Dietrich told WITN that part of the reason he was upset was because Monkeys Garage was able to operate in a residential neighborhood. He said that years ago he wanted to operate a business on the property where Monkeys Garage is, but was told by previous town officials he couldn't do so because it's in a residential neighborhood. The dispute has led to conflicting comments on social media as community members have weighed in. Dietrich said the social media attention leads him to want to keep the sign in place. There were questions raised over whether Dietrich's sign was in compliance with local regulations in Grifton and its extraterritorial jurisdiction, which is where Dietrich lives. 'Everyone has the right to freedom of speech,' Dylan Haman, town manager of Grifton, told NBC News. 'Whether anyone agrees with what the sign says or not that's up to the public and whether or not they think it's a neighborly thing to do is another question.' While the town of less than 3,000 has to respect Dietrich's right to freedom of speech, the town does have zoning rules about permit requirements, where signs can be located, their size and height, etc., Haman said. 'He can say anything from, 'I love Jesus' to political. We don't get into that because that's a First Amendment issue,' he said. A permit application for the sign was submitted Wednesday, Haman said. A determination on whether the sign complies with the local sign ordinance might come at the end of the week, the town manager said, adding that and 'there are some regulations about what's allowed in residential districts' that have to be considered too. Haman said there had not been considerations yet on whether the sign could lead to people targeting Garfias and his business or some kind of violence. 'We are not pro or against any political party ... We are just a town trying to provide service,' Haman said, who noted that the town board is elected in unaffiliated elections. 'We just encourage everybody to be more neighborly.' This article was originally published on Solve the daily Crossword

Journalist detained by ICE sues Noem, Bondi for his release
Journalist detained by ICE sues Noem, Bondi for his release

Yahoo

time3 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Journalist detained by ICE sues Noem, Bondi for his release

An Atlanta-based reporter detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement since June is suing Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Attorney General Pam Bondi, along with other administration officials, for his immediate release, the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia announced Thursday. Mario Guevara — a Salvadoran national and award-winning journalist who says he entered the country lawfully in 2004 — was arrested in June while reporting at a Georgia 'No Kings Day' rally. Despite an immigration judge ordering his release on bond in July, Guevara has remained in detention ever since his initial arrest after a government appeal, according to his Thursday petition, filed in a district court in Southern Georgia. Now, Guevara is detained at the Folkston ICE Processing Center in southeast Georgia, the only journalist in the country currently jailed as a result of reporting, he contends. 'The Government's continuing detention of Mr. Guevara on the basis of his journalism is intended to silence him, prevent him from reporting in the future, and retaliate against him for his past speech and reporting, in violation of the First Amendment,' the filing states. Guevara's attorneys say he left his native El Salvador in 2004 after fleeing 'violence and harassment for his work as a journalist,' and entered the country on a B-1 temporary business visa. His attorneys say he applied for relief from deportation in 2007. In 2012, the Board of Immigration granted a motion to administratively close the removal proceedings facing Guevara. He had not faced potential removal by the government since, his attorneys said. In court filings, they said he is 'legally authorized to live and work in the country' and has a pathway to a green card. The legal fight to free Guevara is taking place amid President Donald Trump's plans to increase deportations. ICE is set to grow dramatically under Trump. The agency is flexing funding from the administration's One Big Beautiful Bill Act to meet lofty hiring goals and reach 1 million yearly deportations. The agency is offering sign-on bonuses of up to $50,000, easing age restrictions for prospective applicants and hosting in-person hiring events to boost recruitment. And Bondi is pushing Democrat-led cities and states to drop "sanctuary" policies — all while the White House takes on a far more active role in policing the nation's capital. The Department of Justice declined to comment. ICE and DHS did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Guevara's suit. The Committee to Protect Journalists filed a declaration of support for Guevara this week, the organization announced Thursday. 'It is imperative that immigration authorities fully explain why he is still in detention,' CPJ Regional Director José Zamora said in a press statement. 'Keeping Guevara behind bars effectively ends the journalist's ability to report the news and sends a chilling message to others who want to exercise their right to share information, including recorded images, about what officials do in public.' Solve the daily Crossword

California's climate disclosure laws survive preliminary injunction request
California's climate disclosure laws survive preliminary injunction request

Yahoo

time3 hours ago

  • Yahoo

California's climate disclosure laws survive preliminary injunction request

This story was originally published on ESG Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily ESG Dive newsletter. Dive Brief: A federal judge denied a request from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups to issue a preliminary injunction on California's climate disclosure laws, set to require reporting beginning in 2026, according to court documents. In declining to grant a preliminary injunction, U.S. District Court Judge Otis Wright II, of California's Central District Court, also ruled in his Aug. 13 decision that the plaintiffs 'have not shown a likelihood of success on the merits' of allegations that California's Senate Bills 253 and 261 violate their First Amendment rights. The state agency tasked with implementing the laws has promised final regulations for both disclosures by the end of the year. Juge Gregg, partner at law firm Crowell & Moring, told ESG Dive Tuesday that 'companies won't get a reprieve from fast-approaching reporting deadlines.' Dive Insight: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, along with the California Chamber of Commerce and other business trade associations, sued the California Air Resources Board — the agency responsible for the laws — in January 2024. The lawsuit concerns California SB 253, which requires companies with more than $1 billion in revenue to report scope 1 and scope 2 emissions, with eventual scope 3 disclosures, and SB 261, which requires companies with at least $500 million in revenues to make biennial climate-related risk reports. The plaintiffs argued the laws violate their First Amendment rights by compelling speech. Wright, who previously denied a motion for summary judgment in the case, said the two laws implicate different levels of scrutiny to determine whether they violate the First Amendment, but based on the current record, Wright concluded the business groups are unlikely to succeed on the merits of the arguments against either law violating their rights against compelled speech. 'Plaintiffs argue they will be irreparably harmed by [the disclosures] because the laws compel speech in violation of the First Amendment,' Wright wrote. 'As Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the laws violate the First Amendment, they have also not shown irreparable harm.' Without the injunction, the arguments on the merits of the case are not expected before the court until early next year. CARB released a FAQ with guidance on how to comply with the laws last month, and entities covered by SB 261 are expected to submit climate-related financial risk reports by Jan. 1, 2026. In addition to the chambers of commerce, business associations American Farm Bureau Federation, Los Angeles County Business Federation, Central Valley Business Federation and Western Growers Association are also challenging California's climate disclosures. It's expected that they will appeal the ruling, but Gregg said in written comments that 'hoping that these reporting obligations will go away is not a good compliance strategy.' Instead companies should evaluate their reporting obligations, if they haven't done so. 'All eyes will turn squarely to CARB, which is already behind on its rulemaking,' Gregg said. 'Given that industry is still waiting for guidance from CARB, companies are going to have to carefully navigate their compliance obligations.' CARB is having its second workshop on the law on Thursday, and Gregg said the ruling raises its importance. Companies are still looking for clarity on key components of the law, such as basic scoping of who is required to report, how 'doing business in California' is defined and the potential for parent-level reporting relief, according to KPMG sustainability leaders. However, while CARB has reinforced that the 2026 reporting deadlines are here to stay, the agency has also looked to emphasize that it will not take enforcement action during the first year of reporting and is looking for companies to make 'a good faith effort.' Recommended Reading California's climate disclosure laws survive first legal challenge

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store