Several Republican lawmakers spoke out Wednesday against the effort to pass legislation designed to deter book banning in Connecticut libraries. They argue that parents should have direct input into which books are taken off library shelves, particularly regarding those that contain material about sexuality.
“The focus should really be on local parental control with the local boards of education,” said Rep. Anne Dauphinais, R-Killingly, ranking member of the Committee on Children and a member of the Education Committee.
Dauphinais was joined by Rep. Gale Mastrofrancesco, R-Wolcott, and Rep. Rob Sampson, R-Wolcott, during a press conference Wednesday.
Two stacks of books sat in front of the podium representing literature that concerns opponents of the legislation, including “Let’s Talk About It: The Teen’s Guide to Sex, Relationships, and Being a Human (A Graphic Novel)” by Erika Moen and Matthew Nolan and “You Know, Sex: Bodies, Gender, Puberty and Other Things” by Cory Silverberg. Both books were subject to pushback in Old Lyme in 2023, though the library ultimately voted not to ban them.
Mona Colwell, a mother of three, author and educator from Old Lyme, spoke at the press conference about two fantasy books she found troubling that her son brought home with themes related to drug use, violence, sex and suicide.
Colwell said she wouldn’t have a problem with those books being included in a public library in a section for adults. But she was horrified that a librarian recommended those books for summer reading for her 10-year-old, a child she said was young enough at the time to still believe in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy. She said that the books were approved by the American Library Association for kids 10 and up.
“Librarians choose these materials based on recommendations from the American Library Association. Librarians are not going to be able to read everything. But once you read it, you have to be thinking: is this appropriate for a 10-year-old kid?” Colwell said.
Two bills are currently under consideration, Senate Bill 1271, which would impact both school and public libraries, and House Bill 7014 which would only affect school libraries.
At a public hearing earlier this month, Sen. Bob Duff, D-Norwalk, who is co-sponsor of Senate Bill 1271, said Connecticut libraries dealt with 113 challenges to books in 2023 alone.
Duff said that bans “pave the way for greater censorship,” and that the debates that swirl around book banning distract from more substantive issues affecting children while creating stress for librarians.
Senate Bill 1271 is an attempt to create a standard process for considering whether a book should be taken off of a shelf when it is contested, safeguard against banning attempts based on certain types of objections, prevent excessive battles over a single book, and protect librarians from harassment. While it doesn’t rule out attempts by parents to weigh in on books they find inappropriate, it aims to ensure that the ultimate decision goes through a standard process and can’t be determined by any single individual.
To do that, the bill would prohibit public and school libraries from banning books because of the origin, background or views of the materials or its authors. It would require school boards and governing bodies of libraries to create a process for removing books that are of concern. Once a decision has been made on a book, the bill states that another review request cannot be submitted for three years.
The law is also aimed at protecting librarians by giving them immunity from being sued or prosecuted for good will actions related to their work, and it includes language that empowers them to sue others for harassment.
“We’re seeing librarians who are being bullied, they’re harassed, and some are being forced to quit because none of that is in their job description,” Duff told the Connecticut Mirror.
Duff said the bill is modeled on the Freedom to Read Act, which was signed by New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy in 2024.
During the Committee on Children public hearing, Dauphinais advocated for adding language to the bill that would prevent minors from accessing books that have “pornography, sexually explicit conduct, touching a person’s clothed or unclothed genitals, public area, buttocks, if such person was a female, breasts, a nude performance, or a person in a state of sexual excitement.”
Advocates of the bill say that librarians are trained to select literature appropriate for children and that pornographic material is never available in public libraries. They urged the public to trust librarians.
But opponents like Dr. Amy Chai who testified against the bill say that parental judgment should prevail over librarian’s license to curate what is available to children.
“What would happen if Connecticut’s school dietitians decided that children could eat whatever they want, without the knowledge or approval of their parents?” she said. “Perhaps they would sneak peanuts into desserts without labeling the allergens. Then children wouldn’t know what they’re getting until they bite into a peanut. Or perhaps the dietician would direct a small Muslim child to the table of banned sandwiches. ‘Aisha, why don’t you grab a banned sandwich?’ But when Aisha bites into it, she’s horrified, she’s just taken a bite of bacon.”
Advocates of the bill insist that such claims about the availability of sexually explicit material are overblown.
“Let’s be really clear, none of those books are in elementary or middle school, we are talking about a handful of high school libraries that have those on the shelf,” said Ellen Paul, the executive director of the Connecticut Library Consortium. “Obscenity has a legal definition in Connecticut general statute. There is absolutely nothing in libraries across the state that is obscene. If you don’t want to read a book, avoid that book. Talk to your children about this. But one parent cannot decide for an entire community what is acceptable for children to read.”
Duff, the bill’s co-sponsor, echoed this sentiment.
“Parents are responsible for their children but what you don’t want your child to see, doesn’t mean you should make that my child’s or my decision as well,” Duff said. “Because you don’t like a book doesn’t mean that I may not think that book is OK, and therefore because you don’t like that book, my child should not have an ability to read it.”
Members of the LGBTQIA+ community also testified before the Committee on Children about the importance being represented in literature that is available to young people. S.J Taylor, an author who contributed to an anthology about asexuality, said that such books are often targeted for banning.
“I don’t want children to feel that key parts of who they are do not belong in schools,” Taylor said. “The pushback that I hear regards books featuring any sort, any sort of queer representation on the page. Those are the books that I’m concerned about taking out of schools.”
The Education Committee heard public testimony on another book-banning bill on Wednesday. House Bill 7014 would require local and regional boards of education to establish a submission process for complaints about books and create committees to review those complaints. It would also restrict the reasons that such committees can remove books, for example prohibiting the removal of books based on the author’s race, nationality, political views or gender identity.
Paul, of the Connecticut Library Consortium, testified before the Education Committee on Wednesday. “It’s very clear that these bills balance our First Amendment rights to read with our First Amendment right to redress of grievances, and most importantly protect our constitutionally protected freedoms, and I think this is something as Americans that we should all be able to get behind.”
Dauphinais started Wednesday’s press conference by saying that the intent is not to ban books. Paul pushed back on that.
“They are talking about banning books,” Paul said in an interview. “When you remove a book from school library, it doesn’t matter if it’s available in the public library or on Amazon, you have banned that book.”