Rutherford library board rescinds decision to remove books on transgender issues
Pending new board chairman Cody York called for the vote after he had persuaded the majority in March to remove the books on transgender topics "to protect children."
York prior to the June 2 vote said the board could face First Amendment legal challenges to the March decision. Those opposing include the National Coalition Against Censorship in New York.
First Amendment issues for students: ACLU warns Rutherford school board about removing 'Beloved,' other books from libraries
Legal counsel has advised the board about potentially losing a lawsuit based on the library system's policy to oppose censorship by the officials and allow parents to decide what books are permitted for their children, York suggested.
The book removing policy divided the board and audience members, including one holding a "No more book bans" sign. Heather Ahmie held a sign saying, "Literacy & Justice for All," to promote free speech during the meeting with over 70 people in attendance at Murfreesboro City Hall in Council Chambers.
York promised he'd lead the board in crafting new policies to protect children when he begins his term as chairman by July to replace outgoing chairman Phil King.
The roll call vote had two board members abstaining: Dina Piazza and King.
First Amendment issue: Divided Rutherford County Library System Board bans transgender books 'to protect children'
Before rescinding the March decision on removing books on transgender topics to protect children, the board heard about six speeches from audience members opposed to censorship.
There were audience members present who showed support for York and his position, but none of them came to the lectern to speak.
The speakers included Wonderland Rogers, who identifies as a transgender male. He questioned the majority's previous decision to remove books.
'You made it clear you want me to disappear," Rogers told the board.
Rogers also made an insulting remark alluding to York being in a white shirt, which is also what many audience members wear to show support for the book removal decisions.
Chairman King responded by saying he won't tolerate anyone making insults again.
April 2025 library board meeting: Rutherford Library Board delays vote to possibly rescinding vote to remove transgender books
Speaker Hannah Stromgren also questioned the board's previous decision to protect children as if "fearful that reading a book with a trans or gay character will turn kids trans or gay."
"When you read the Bible, did it make you want to throw babies against rocks?" said Stromgren, who noted the biblical scriptures include descriptions of incest, human sacrifice and murder.
"Reading a book with material that you personally don't agree with doesn't automatically create children that mirror those attributes," Stromgren said.
Free speech scholar Nadine Strossen: Rutherford school board violates law by removing books
Speaker Jessica Bruce urged the library board members to focus on the mission of the library system "to improve lives and empower its communities to explore, imagine and engage by providing information and technology."
"Your job is to represent the community and everyone in it," Bruce told the board.
"Everyone. That includes those of us in opposition. Each book the board has banned has been because of that book's LGBTQIA+ relationship and ties to the community. Your actions are not protecting any child. In fact, you are actually putting an entire demographic of children at danger."
Free speech issue: Rutherford library officials draw national opposition for removing books on transgender issues
The library board also heard from Tatiana Silvas, a 10-year English teacher for Rutherford County Schools.
"I am a passionate lover of books and their impact," said Silvas, who teaches at Stewarts Creek High in southwest Smyrna.
"However, I am always in support of a parent's right to choose what their child reads in my classroom."
Censorship: Rutherford schools removal of 160 more books draws opposition from 1st Amendment advocates
Although a supporter of parents making decisions on what their children read, Silvas said board members making decisions on removing books "seems excessive."
"The narrative of obscene content in our libraires is one perpetuated by certain board members and their army of community members," Silvas said.
"This group has also pushed the Rutherford County School Board into a legal battle with the ACLU, something they were warned of by a letter on September 16, 2024."
'We are banished' Rutherford schools book banning upsets free speech advocates
Silvas noted that the library board members have received warnings from national free speech organizations about the March decision to remove books.
Other communities, Silvas said, have faced thousands of dollars in costs to defend censorship decisions, including in Escambia County, Florida, and Crawford County, Arkansas.
"With our budget of $4.2 million each year, just one lawsuit could pull over 11% of our annual budget," Silvas said.
"This means that Rutherford County taxpayers will foot the bill if you choose to go to trial with this lawsuit and lose."
Censorship lawsuit: ACLU files First Amendment lawsuit against Rutherford school board for book bans
Prior to rescinding the March decision on removing books on transgender topics to protect children, the majority of the board in a 5-3 vote backed York to be the next chairman.
York had the support of board members Marzee Woodward, Susan Quesenberry, Piazza and Sam Huddleston, who's also Murfreesboro assistant city manager. All of them previously voted in favor of the March decision to remove books on transgender topics to protect children.
Fellow board member Kory Wells called for the minority position of having Lisa Brewer, who's also the elected Smyrna Town Court clerk, become the chairwoman of the board. Brewer also had the backing of vice chairman Rollie Holden to be the next leader of the board.
Wells suggested that York and herself as outspoken advocates on opposite sides of the transgender book issue would not make for the best leaders of the board.
'Deeply concerned': Removing transgender books affects Rutherford library director search
Board members and audience members should be "treating each other as neighbors" and "go sit with somebody on the other side," Wells said.
"That's our job," Wells said.
Wells also noted that the board has already faced $8,000 in legal fees because of the March decision to remove books on transgender topics to protect children.
King, the board's current chairman, abstained from voting on his successor for the library board.
Board member Benjamin Groce of Murfreesboro was absent from the June 2 meeting because of his legal work with the Smyrna government.
In March, Groce joined Wells and other members of the minority vote to oppose removing books on transgender topics.
Groce mentioned being an attorney and officer of the court with concerns about supporting unconstitutional positions.
August 2023 decisions by library board: Library supporters upset by board pulling 4 books say they're 'fighting against censorship'
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: Rutherford library board rescinds decision to remove transgender books
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
Judge dismisses part of lawsuit over ‘Alligator Alcatraz' immigration detention center
MIAMI — A federal judge in Miami dismissed part of a lawsuit that claimed detainees were denied access to the legal system at the immigration detention center in the Florida Everglades known as 'Alligator Alcatraz' and moved the remaining counts of the case to another court. Claims that the detainees were denied hearings in immigration court were rendered moot when the Trump administration last weekend designated the Krome North Processing Center near Miami as a site for their cases to be heard, U.S. District Judge Rodolfo Ruiz said in a 47-page ruling Monday night dismissing a 5th Amendment count. The judge granted the state defendants a change of venue motion to the Middle District of Florida, where the remaining claims of 1st Amendment violations will be addressed. Those include allegations of delays in scheduling meetings between detainees and their attorneys and an inability for the detainees to talk privately with their attorneys by phone or videoconference at the facility whose official name is the South Detention Facility. ACLU lawyer Eunice Cho, the lead attorney for the detainees, said the federal government reversed course only last weekend and allowed the detainees to petition an immigration court because of the lawsuit. 'It should not take a lawsuit to force the government to abide by the law and the Constitution,' Cho said. 'We look forward to continuing the fight.' The judge heard arguments from both sides in a hearing earlier Monday in Miami. Civil rights attorneys were seeking a preliminary injunction to ensure detainees at the facility had access to their lawyers and could get a hearing. Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis' administration raced to build the facility on an isolated airstrip surrounded by swampland two months ago in order to aid President Trump's efforts to deport people who are in the U.S. illegally. The governor has said the location in the rugged and remote Everglades was meant as a deterrent against escape, much like the island prison in California that Republicans named it after. The detention center has an estimated annual cost of $450 million. The state and federal government had argued that even though the isolated airstrip where the facility is located is owned by Miami-Dade County, Florida's Southern District was the wrong venue since the detention center is located in neighboring Collier County, which is in the state's Middle District. Judge Ruiz had hinted during a hearing last week that he had some concerns over which jurisdiction was appropriate. Attorneys for the detainees had argued that Ruiz's court was appropriate since the detainees were under the oversight of federal officials in the Miami regional office. Any transfer to another venue would cause a delay in a court decision. Ruiz noted the facts in the case changed Saturday when the Trump administration designated the Krome facility as the immigration court with jurisdiction over all detainees at the detention center. The judge wrote that the case has 'a tortured procedural history' since it was filed July 16, weeks after the first group of detainees arrived at the facility. 'Nearly every aspect of the Plaintiffs' civil action — their causes of action, their facts in support, their theories of venue, their arguments on the merits and their requests for relief — have changed with each filing,' the judge wrote. The state and federal government defendants made an identical argument last week about jurisdiction for a second lawsuit in which environmental groups and the Miccosukee Tribe sued to stop further construction and operations at the Everglades detention center until it's in compliance with federal environmental laws. U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams in Miami on Aug. 7 ordered a 14-day halt to additional construction at the site while witnesses testified at a hearing that wrapped up last week. She has said she plans to issue a ruling before the order expires later this week. She had yet to rule on the venue question. Detainees at the facility have said worms turn up in the food, toilets don't flush, flooding floors with fecal waste, and mosquitoes and other insects are everywhere. Civil rights attorneys also said officers were going cell to cell to pressure detainees into signing voluntary removal orders before they're allowed to consult their attorneys, and some detainees had been deported even though they didn't have final removal orders. Along with the spread of a respiratory infection and rainwater flooding in tents, the circumstances had fueled a feeling of desperation among detainees, the attorneys wrote in a court filing. Fischer, Schneider and Frisaro write for the Associated Press. Frisaro reported from Fort Lauderdale, Fla., and Schneider reported from Orlando, Fla.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Immigrants seeking lawful work and citizenship are now subject to 'anti-Americanism' screening
Immigrants seeking a legal pathway to live and work in the United States will now be subject to screening for 'anti-Americanism',' authorities said Tuesday, raising concerns among critics that it gives officers too much leeway in rejecting foreigners based on a subjective judgment. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services said officers will now consider whether an applicant for benefits, such as a green card, 'endorsed, promoted, supported, or otherwise espoused" anti-American, terrorist or antisemitic views. 'America's benefits should not be given to those who despise the country and promote anti-American ideologies,' Matthew Tragesser, USCIS spokesman, said in a statement. 'Immigration benefits—including to live and work in the United States—remain a privilege, not a right.' It isn't specified what constitutes anti-Americanism and it isn't clear how and when the directive would be applied. 'The message is that the U.S. and immigration agencies are going to be less tolerant of anti-Americanism or antisemitism when making immigration decisions," Elizabeth Jacobs, director of regulatory affairs and policy at the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that advocates for immigration restrictions, said on Tuesday. Jacobs said the government is being more explicit in the kind of behaviors and practices officers should consider, but emphasized that discretion is still in place. "The agency cannot tell officers that they have to deny — just to consider it as a negative discretion,' she said. Critics worry the policy update will allow for more subjective views of what is considered anti-American and allow an officer's personal bias to cloud his or her judgment. 'For me, the really big story is they are opening the door for stereotypes and prejudice and implicit bias to take the wheel in these decisions. That's really worrisome," said Jane Lilly Lopez, associate professor of sociology at Brigham Young University. The policy changes follow others recently implemented since the start of the Trump administration including social media vetting and the most recent addition of assessing applicants seeking naturalization for 'good moral character'. That will not only consider 'not simply the absence of misconduct' but also factor the applicant's positive attributes and contributions. 'It means you are going to just do a whole lot more work to provide evidence that you meet our standards,' Lopez said. Experts disagree on the constitutionality of the policy involving people who are not U.S. citizens and their freedom of speech. Jacobs, of the Center for Immigration Studies, said First Amendment rights do not extend to people outside the U.S. or who are not U.S. citizens. Ruby Robinson, senior managing attorney with the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center, believes the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution protects all people in the United States, regardless of their immigration status, against government encroachment. 'A lot of this administration's activities infringe on constitutional rights and do need to be resolved, ultimately, in courts,' Robinson added. Attorneys are advising clients to adjust their expectations. 'People need to understand that we have a different system today and a lot more things that apply to U.S. citizens are not going to apply to somebody who's trying to enter the United States," said Jaime Diez, an immigration attorney based in Brownsville, Texas. Jonathan Grode, managing partner of Green and Spiegel immigration law firm, said the policy update was not unexpected considering how the Trump administration approaches immigration. 'This is what was elected. They're allowed to interpret the rules the way they want,' Grode said. 'The policy always to them is to shrink the strike zone. The law is still the same.'
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Fifth Circuit halts West Texas A&M drag show ban as free speech lawsuit continues
A federal appeals court Monday blocked West Texas A&M University President Walter Wendler from enforcing a campus drag show ban, ruling that the performances are likely protected under the First Amendment. The 2-1 ruling from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reverses a lower court's decision upholding Wendler's 2023 cancellation of a drag show, which he argued was demeaning to women and compared to blackface. The decision means Spectrum WT, the student group that brought the lawsuit, can produce drag shows on campus while its lawsuit continues in a lower court. Judge Leslie H. Southwick, who wrote for the majority, said the context of the students' event made its message of supporting the queer community clear. 'The viewers of the drag show would have been ticketed audience members attending a performance sponsored by LGBT+ student organizations and designed to raise funds for LGBT+ suicide-prevention charity, ' wrote Southwick, who was appointed by George W. Bush. 'Against this backdrop, the message sent by parading on a theater stage in attire of the opposite sex would have been unmistakable.' [How plans for a West Texas drag show turned into a war over the First Amendment] The court concluded that Legacy Hall, where the drag show was scheduled to take place, was a designated public forum open to a variety of groups, including churches and political candidates. That meant banning drag shows targeted the content of the event, something the Constitution allows only in the rarest cases. Finally, the court found that students faced ongoing irreparable harm to their speech rights, noting Wendler had canceled another drag show planned for 2024 and declared that no drag shows would ever be allowed on campus. That conclusion gave the judges another reason to block the ban for now, since courts only grant such relief when plaintiffs have a strong case and risk being harmed without it. In March 2023, Wendler canceled Spectrum WT's drag show intended to raise money for the Trevor Project, a nonprofit that works to reduce suicides in the LGBTQ+ community. He explained in a letter to the campus community that he thought drag shows — where participants often use exaggerated clothing and makeup to explore, celebrate or parody gender roles — were misogynistic. 'As a university president, I would not support 'blackface' performances on our campus, even if told the performance is a form of free speech or intended as humor. It is wrong. I do not support any show, performance or artistic expression which denigrates – in this case, women – for any reason,' he wrote. In September 2023, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a President Donald Trump appointee and former attorney for a conservative legal group that opposed LGBTQ rights, sided with Wendler. The case arose as Texas lawmakers were also targeting drag more broadly. The same year, they passed a law restricting some drag performances in public spaces, but a federal judge later struck it down as unconstitutional under the First Amendment. West Texas A&M isn't the only campus to ban drag shows. This year, the Texas A&M System adopted a systemwide prohibition, and the University of Texas and University of North Texas systems enacted similar restrictions following pressure from conservative officials, including Tarrant County Judge Tim O'Hare. In March, however, a federal judge temporarily blocked the Texas A&M System's ban, allowing the 'Draggieland' event at the flagship campus to proceed, also finding that students were likely to succeed on their First Amendment claims. That lawsuit is also still working its way through the courts. Judge James C. Ho dissented in the West Texas A&M case. Ho, who was appointed to the 5th Circuit by Trump and is the former Solicitor General of Texas, wrote that Spectrum WT had not shown it was entitled to such an 'extraordinary remedy' as a court order blocking the drag show ban. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which represents Spectrum WT in the West Texas A&M case and the Queer Empowerment Council in the Texas A&M System lawsuit, hailed the ruling as a major victory for student speech. 'We're overjoyed that our clients will now be able to express themselves freely, and we'll be watching to make sure that President Wendler obeys the laws of the land while the case proceeds,' FIRE Attorney Adam Steinbaugh said in a statement. A spokesperson for West Texas A&M could not immediately be reached for comment, so it's unclear how the university will respond to the ruling. The case now returns to district court in Amarillo, where the fight over whether West Texas A&M's drag ban is constitutional will continue. The Texas Tribune partners with Open Campus on higher education coverage. Disclosure: West Texas A&M University has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here. More all-star speakers confirmed for The Texas Tribune Festival, Nov. 13–15! This year's lineup just got even more exciting with the addition of State Rep. Caroline Fairly, R-Amarillo; former United States Attorney General Eric Holder; Abby Phillip, anchor of 'CNN NewsNight'; Aaron Reitz, 2026 Republican candidate for Texas Attorney General; and State Rep. James Talarico, D-Austin. Get your tickets today! TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase. Solve the daily Crossword
