The North Carolina School Library Media Association (NCSLMA) submits this public statement to express deep concerns regarding House Bill 636, titled “Promoting Wholesome Content for Students.” Our organization represents over 2,000 school librarians and educators across North Carolina, and we are committed to upholding the constitutional rights of students, parents, and school library professionals in exercising local control over access to a developmentally appropriate and enriching range of materials in line with that school community's needs and interests.
As school library professionals, we are dedicated to thoughtful collection development in school libraries, and we believe that House Bill 636 introduces unnecessary and constitutionally troubling constraints that risk infringing upon students’ and parents’ First Amendment rights and our own professional integrity.
NCSLMA is especially concerned with the following aspects of House Bill 636:
-
H636 creates a system where school library materials can be rejected or removed based on vague and subjective criteria, such as being deemed “pervasively vulgar” or containing “descriptions or visual depictions of sexual activity.” Likewise, the bill editorializes language like “high value” and “appropriate” in ways that will be impossible to apply consistently and fairly. These terms are undefined in the context of educational and literary value. They may lead to the exclusion of constitutionally protected works, particularly those addressing the realities of adolescence, identity, or history. As the Supreme Court affirmed in Board of Education v. Pico (1982), school boards may not remove materials from libraries simply because they dislike the ideas contained within them.
-
By allowing any county resident, not just parents or school stakeholders, to challenge materials and requiring re-review with just ten written objections, the bill opens the door to ideologically and politically motivated censorship campaigns. It shifts the focus of school library curation from educational and pedagogical goals developed by trained professionals to compliance with community pressure of dubious origin, regardless of the academic or developmental merits of the material. Likewise, employing laws like the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) is legally misplaced. CIPA governs internet filtering for computers and devices used in schools and libraries receiving federal e-rate funding. It has no bearing on the selection of books or other materials for library collections. Its inclusion in House Bill 636 serves no operational purpose and appears designed only to invoke federal law in a way that could intimidate educators and mislead the public.
-
The proposed statewide database of “rejected” library materials raises serious concerns about stigmatizing specific titles and authors, potentially creating a de facto blacklist that discourages open inquiry and exploration of diverse perspectives. This approach is not aligned with the educational mission of public schools and libraries, which already exercise local control over selecting which materials are most appropriate for their communities. House Bill 636 would also subject book fairs and donated books to impractical outside vetting and approval processes. These restrictions undermine school literacy efforts and create logistical and financial barriers that will limit students’ access to books and opportunities for independent reading.
House Bill 636 requires that materials “balance financial cost with need,” but provides no definitions or standards for how to apply this criterion. This lack of clarity introduces the risk of arbitrary decision-making and could be used to reject high-quality but controversial materials. Additionally, the broad administrative mandates of House Bill 636, such as establishing advisory committees, maintaining searchable rejection databases, and conducting public notification and comment periods, will create new fiscal burdens for school districts. These implications suggest that the bill should be referred to the Appropriations Committee for a fiscal note and further review.
While we share the goal of ensuring appropriate and high-quality materials in our schools, this bill moves beyond reasonable oversight into a framework that risks chilling free expression, undermining professional library standards, and inviting costly, unnecessary litigation against school districts. We urge members of the Senate Judiciary and Senate Education Committees to consider the unintended consequences of House Bill 636 carefully, and we request that H636 be left off the calendar this session. The North Carolina School Library Media Association and our partner organizations are eager to work collaboratively with lawmakers to advance policies that genuinely support student learning, parental engagement, and educator expertise.
