Book Censorship News, June 26, 2026

***

“Won’t Someone Think of the Children” Q&A 

Kelly: Creating leveled card access has been one avenue by which public libraries are “compromising” with those seeking to censor materials and hinder library access. It’s been a way to address concerns about “inappropriate material” that young people may access in the physical and/or digital library. 

What should libraries consider before taking this step? What do they need to do with their policies, what should they consider in terms of their role in the community and as an institution, and what legal ramifications could they run into? Perhaps there’s a chance to talk here, too, about what happens when libraries install new leveled cards and every person under the age of 18 now needs to reapply for a card and do so with the permission of a parent or legal guardian. 

Amy: I want to first acknowledge that, for some libraries, state or local regulations being introduced around leveled card access for minors are completely out of their control and in some cases tied to essential funding. Libraries cannot always afford to be cavalier or leave budget dollars on the table; and they may feel that leveled card types are a compromise which demonstrate good-faith cooperation and can protect the collections from being targeted further. 

Expiring all youth cards and forcing minors to reapply with parent/guardian permission means that some kids and teens will not be able to restore their accounts and will lose library access. Libraries may need to take this step in order to protect themselves legally. Regardless, libraries should look for opportunities to reframe families’ understanding of the library. 

Here are some operational considerations for libraries to communicate who are being pressured into taking this step: 

• That the library is organized into age-appropriate sections, and that the online library catalog is a tool for parents to explore what’s available, filter content by age or other preference, and request specific materials for pickup which match their family’s values. 
• That the children or teen’s section of the library may contain materials that do not align with every family’s needs, wants, and values. Parents who want an ironclad assurance of what their children are looking at and checking out should accompany them to the library. 
• That unaccompanied minors in the library will not be monitored by library staff; and staff will not intervene when patrons of any age are browsing the collection or using library computers. Adults who want to supervise their child’s use of library resources should accompany them to the library. 
• That–while children and teen’s computers in the library are often filtered for explicit sexual content and violence–children will have access to the broader internet while using the public computers with their library card. Parents who want an ironclad assurance of what their children are looking at online should accompany them to the library. 
• That libraries contract with many vendors to provide access to online databases and other online tools for research and learning. The library does not have ownership over how this content is leveled in the same way it does over physical books shelved in the library. Parents who want to be sure that their child is accessing content appropriate for their family’s values via library databases should supervise their usage.  

… Start to notice a trend? 

Other considerations for libraries setting policy or rules around leveled card access:

• Until what age should these restrictions be in place? How is that age determined by the library? 
• How should libraries check that the accompanying adult is the child’s parent or legal guardian? 
• For minors who live in multiple households, how should the wishes of different parents be rectified? 
• Should libraries require that all minors be accompanied by an adult in order to enter the library? How is this to be policed?
• If a minor has a child themselves, do they still need their own parent’s permission to get a library card and determine access? 

Truly the best approach: visit the library together. Support your child’s curiosity and guide your child’s selection. Talk with your child about what you will permit them to read, view and check out. Rely on library staff expertise to recommend material selections based on your wants and needs.

Protecting the Collection vs. Protecting Privacy Q&A

Kelly: What happens to the privacy of young readers–something guaranteed by the Library Bill of Rights and upheld as crucial to the library ecosystem–when they are limited to cards that require parental permission/access? How can libraries juggle the requirement of parents needing to sign for young reader cards with protecting what those young readers check out from parental viewing? Can they? How can this be squared with the huge value libraries place on privacy? 

Amy: First and foremost, requirements for parent/guardian signatures or other adult authorization for minor library card accounts should be strictly scrutinized for legal necessity in service to the library’s operations, with the purpose of that signature clearly communicated to the public. 

Many libraries collect a parent/guardian signature as consent to be the “guarantor” on the account, meaning the adult promises to be responsible for library materials on behalf of the minor (as minors cannot legally enter into a contractual agreement with the library). The definition of the exact age when a “minor” becomes an adult varies by state, but typically this takes place when the minor turns 18. 

By that logic, libraries must then give the parent/guardian access to what’s checked out on the minor’s record, up until the minor turns 18. Kids and teens no longer have a guarantee of privacy. 

It gets trickier when libraries must adhere to age-neutral terms of confidentiality of library records as required by state law or regulation. Libraries who are compelled to protect the privacy of library use regardless of age should consult a lawyer in order to thread the needle on privacy as it applies to minors. However, libraries who are advised to (by their local counsel) or forced to collect a parent/legal guardian signature as guarantor might also want to consider: 

• Is the library’s standard course of action to take legal or some other form of official action against patrons who do not pay their bills for library materials? What is the cost to the library to take this action, as compared to the cost of the materials? Libraries could, instead, consider simply blocking the account until lost or damaged items are paid for. Libraries should then also consider the period of amnesty, until state or local regulations, under which patrons fines and fees can be cleared from the account (for example, after 10 years). 
• Can libraries use data to justify this approach? Are materials on youth accounts returned late or lost more frequently as compared to standard adult accounts? How many youth accounts carry long overdue materials never paid for, in comparison to adult accounts? 
• Can the library tighten up the terms for release information on a minor’s account to the stated “guarantor”, without violating youth privacy? Has staff been trained to release information in the record only to the listed parent/guardian, and only after an ID check? Has the library provided staff with clarity around how to add or replace a parent/legal guardian into the account? Can staff be permitted to only share the number of overdue items and their cost to replace in a minor’s record, without sharing the titles of the items?
• Does the listed parent/legal guardian in the account carry any other account authority, or can the minor accountholder protect their own privacy by updating their PIN, barcode, notification preferences, or opting in or out to a saved reading history?
• Will the library protect confidentiality of any library “records” unrelated to the timely return of library materials, such as program attendance, inquiries received online or in-person at the service desk, computer use, photo/audio/video footage, or any other documented patron interactions, including but not limited to any visual observations made about the minor or otherwise other knowledge of library staff? (except in cases of mandatory reporting).

Kelly: Something I hear in my own work with libraries is the differences that small libraries face vs. suburban libraries vs. urban libraries in terms of their collections and what they can or cannot do with their materials policies. Can you talk to some of the differences you saw in your research when it comes to library cards for young people in different sized libraries? 

Amy: Yes, depending on the actual library, it stands to reason that:

• Some libraries may be strictly funded through property taxes and have state or local requirements mandating proof of residential eligibility.
• Smaller libraries will have limited resources to support remote signup, much less also verifying eligibility as needed.  
• Underfunded libraries with tight collections budgets must consider the risk of losing physical materials they may be unable to replace, and all libraries to some extent are aware of the risks of non-eligible patrons accessing expensive online databases and digital collections.
• Small, rural or mid-size libraries will have limited training and legal support for policy development, and limited resources to support staff, trustee, and/or community education around library values as supportive of equitable access to library collections and services.

BPL’s Library Card Access research combined with the data collected and cataloged from Books Unbanned teen testimonials has demonstrated the layered and compounding barriers faced by young people, especially teens, to access both free and relevant books through their local library. Young people are most impacted by:

• Eligibility requirements (ID and address requirements) – minors often don’t have a photo ID or another way to prove residential eligibility. 
• Parent/guardian signature requirements – older kids and teens, especially those allowed to be in the library unaccompanied, may not have a parent or guardian willing to sign for them or available to visit the library to do so. 
• Old fines & fees following them into young adult years and adulthood – some libraries do not allow for account renewal, checkout, or even digital or public computer access unless the account is in “good standing”; minors may not be able to pay off those accumulated fees; and how long must a minor carry the obligation of paying for materials lost and not paid for more than 5, 10, or 15 years prior? 
• Requirements to apply at the local public library in person – minors typically have limited access to transportation.
• Limited library coverage – minors may live in an area not covered by any free public library jurisdiction (meaning they may only have access to a nearby library for a fee, if at all); or their local library may have very limited or reduced hours not compatible with their schedule. 
• Limited library collections – in general, libraries may not actively be maintaining their collection for teen readers as compared to that of adults and children (and the diversity of those collections are likewise limited); minors typically have little/no disposable income and can’t buy their own books. 

This is why coordination, whether formal or informal, with the local school district is essential to maintain youth access to the public library. The recently announced partnership between Chicago Public Schools and Chicago Public Library is one robust example, allowing student IDs to serve as library cards, eliminating the need for any additional paperwork or application process.

Unfortunately, we’re also seeing attempts to undermine these kinds of partnerships, like in Des Moines Public Library and Des Moines Public Schools (and the subsequently failed bill proposed in Iowa to outlaw such collaborations). Not to mention the alarming trend to defund and devalue school libraries altogether.

Parents Rights Vs. Rights of Minors Q&A

Kelly: The people and the legislative authorities who’ve been key players in censorship since 2021 have found every means by which they can restrict access to materials and work toward defunding and destabilizing libraries. One of those movements has been to restrict or outright remove the ability for libraries–and the librarians working in them–to be engaged with the American Library Association. Membership isn’t the only thing being prohibited; so, too, are policies and procedures that libraries have used for decades to ensure that their libraries are fulfilling their purpose. What can library workers in institutions like these, which aren’t subscribing to the Library Bill of Rights and other foundational philosophies and practices, do when it comes to ensuring they provide as much access to their materials and services as possible, both to adult and youth users? What about libraries which can and do work within ALA frameworks but which are still creating restrictions and barriers through their library card policies? 

Amy: Even libraries who are fully subscribed to the foundational values and ethics laid out in ALA’s Bill of Rights and Freedom to Read Statements struggle to make sound legal and operational decisions to advance access while employing good stewardship of our buildings, services, and collections; also while creating a welcoming place for all users of the library and protecting the safety and well-being of staff. It’s a tall order! 

Regardless of ALA affiliation or not, it’s generally seen as best practice that a library has a list of standard policies on the books and reviews and reissues each of those policies at a minimum every five years. 

Public-serving staff should take note of the times when they might be denying eligible patrons from library service due to vague, outdated, or inequitable library card rules; then, make sure to review their library’s existing registration policy (if there is one) and review the standards for service issued by their state’s governing agency (you can start by asking your state library association). Advocate with your administration for change. 

Looking Forward, Revisiting and Restructuring Q&A

Kelly: Do you have examples of good library card policies you believe can be models for libraries looking to update their own? 

Amy: Library policy work is never a one size fits all model. But a well-thought out registration policy (or set of policies) should address the following elements at a minimum:

• Terms of cardholder eligibility 
• Eligibility verification
• Terms of account creation
• Terms of account expiration and renewal (if applicable) 
• Terms of access across account types
• Patron data collection and management 
• Patron account management 
• Confidentiality of library records  
• Terms of policy revision 

Brooklyn Public Library’s Card Access Policy framework, free to request, contains a set of policy briefs, recommendations, and a policy workbook to help libraries work through and establish operational procedures meant to support the implementation of their registration policies. For example:

• Who is eligible for a standard adult library card, and under what terms of access? (temporary residents? adult patrons with caretakers or legal guardians? those who live outside the service area but who go to school, work, own a business, or pay taxes in the service area? tourists, visitors, and guests? patrons displaced due to emergency situations like natural disasters or public health emergencies?)  
• How does the library verify proof of eligibility for a standard adult card? What must the patron provide? Why or why not? 
• Does the library require registration in-person? What realistic options or workarounds can be offered for those not able to visit the library in-person? 
• Does a minor need to be of a minimum age to receive a library card? Why or why not?
• How does the library determine if the individual is the minor’s parent and/or legal guardian?
• What patron data is requested and stored during library card registration? What data is essential for library operations? Why or why not?
• What are the terms under which a patron’s account is deemed “inactive?” Do library cards expire? Why or why not? What are the terms for renewal? 
• What is the process for a patron to update their account information? Does the library allow any account actions to be taken over the phone? Why or why not? 
• How does the patron’s account standing affect their ability to access other library services? Why or why not?
• What is the library’s schedule for patron maintenance/cleanup in the integrated library system (ILS)? (merging accounts, note cleanup, missing fields, reviewing blocks). What is the library’s policy around purging inactive patron accounts?
• Are library card policies and procedures clearly written down, regularly reviewed, and easily accessible to staff?
• What information does the library provide about its services to new cardholders? How is this information provided? Is this information available in other languages? Why or why not? 

As with any library policy, the library’s values should be clearly stated along with clear, objective regulations for policy application. Operational procedures (e.g. determining eligibility, creating a patron account) – of which there can be many in this area of operations! – should be documented and available to staff so that the “rules” can be applied uniformly and without bias. 

Staff working on the front-lines, particularly those who make library cards day in and day out, are the most valuable asset to a library when revisiting its registration policies. Your staff will be able to tell you which patrons are experiencing the most barriers to access. Who are they regularly turning away? 

Kelly: If a library believes that they have top-notch policies and procedures when it comes to where and how young people can get library cards, what are a couple of additional things you’d suggest they consider updating or improving? Everything is always a work in progress, and it can be easy to believe when you’ve been doing good that there’s not more room for improvement. 

Amy: I’ve touched upon many of these in detail already, but here are the most crucial policy and procedural considerations to prioritize and protect youth access to the public library:

• Business/legal purpose of the parent/guardian signature – up to what age is this needed and why?
• What are the official workarounds for minors who cannot provide a parent/guardian signature?
• What are the terms for determining youth eligibility (How is residential proof determined, and what considerations can be made for minors without an ID or proof of mailing address? Is there an age minimum to get a library card, and why? Is there an ability minimum, like printing or signing one’s name, and why?)
• What are the terms for collecting fines & fees on the minor’s account? How long does that obligation to pay stay linked to the minor’s ability to use their library card? What are the terms of amnesty for youth accounts? 
• What are the terms of access (restricted borrowing from sections of the library; and blocking access to computers, online resources, meeting rooms, or other services due to existing fines and fees?). Note that ALA’s Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights: Access to Library Resources and Services for Minors states that libraries can make reasonable exceptions to restrict access, like to multipurpose rooms, expensive/rare materials, or high cost circulating items or technology to protect the safety of minors or financial liability to the library.
• What are the terms of account management and ownership? Who holds the authority to make updates to the account, the minor or the parent? 
• What are the terms of privacy?  
• What is the library’s unattended children in the library policy? 

Kelly: Conversations about library card policies and leveled library cards can feel in the weeds to those who don’t live, breathe, and work in libraries. But they affect everyone, even and especially people who may not have access to a public library for various reasons. Can you talk about why the average person should care about these things and where/how they can think about them in a meaningful way? 

Amy: Libraries are funded with public dollars. A library’s policies communicate the rules under which that organization operates, and those policies should demonstrate objective fairness and accountability of how taxpayer money is used to serve the public. 

The rules determining access to the library’s resources and services should likewise reflect the library’s stated mission. Libraries stand to serve the public good – we all pay into the concept of the library so that we may all benefit. And the collections, programs and services offered by a library model the democratic principle protected by the First Amendment: that we all have a right to receive information and decide for ourselves what we think and believe. But as ALA’s Freedom to Read Statement says, and as we’ve seen firsthand in the past five years, Intellectual Freedom is continuously under attack. The statement, first published in 1953, goes on to say:

Private groups and public authorities in various parts of the country are working to remove or limit access to reading materials, to censor content in schools, to label “controversial” views, to distribute lists of “objectionable” books or authors, and to purge libraries. These actions apparently rise from a view that our national tradition of free expression is no longer valid; that censorship and suppression are needed to counter threats to safety or national security, as well as to avoid the subversion of politics and the corruption of morals.

Within the bounds of its determined service area, who a library chooses to accept, welcome, and grant access to is a reflection of who belongs in that community. Key stakeholders–staff, the board, even members of the library’s community–may argue the most emphatically as to why the policies determining access are fit as they stand. Yet here are some general recommendations for libraries as they seek to serve the public good: 

• Library card registration policies should be designed to create as much access to library resources and services as realistically possible. 
• Registration policies and procedures should be regularly reviewed to ensure that rules and regulations are structured to benefit both patrons and the library. 
• When structuring registration policies and processes, libraries should consider how access to collections and services benefits the community overall, instead of solely focusing on perceived risk to the library’s assets. 
• Library card signup should not carry penalties or restrictions for assumed behavior (for example, that certain patrons are more likely to lose materials or return them late). 
• Libraries should train their staff to execute the registration process in a positive and welcoming way. 

Just recently I was speaking with a colleague who spent many years working in a public-serving role before moving to administration. Even though I’ve been working on this issue in depth for many years, their words were so invigorating and moving to me:

When I worked in the branches, I sent probably hundreds of people home when they didn’t have the proper ID over the years. Some might have browsed the stacks for 30-40 minutes and carefully chosen books to borrow, only to be told that they couldn’t get a card. Many of these people never tried again to use the library.

***

Amy Mikel is the Senior Director of Customer Experience at Brooklyn Public Library, leading BPL’s circulating print, media, eBook, and database collection strategy as well as the policies which govern patron account management and materials circulation. Amy was recently honored with the American Library Association’s Medal of Excellence for her work researching and advocating for library card access, and was part of the team named Library Journal’s “Librarians of the Year” in 2023 for creating the Books Unbanned Freedom to Read campaign.

For additional resources and insights into Mikel’s work on library card registration policies, as well as the research that helped spark her work, explore the following:

Book Censorship News: June 26, 2026

This week’s roundup is shorter for two reasons. First, it only captures stories through Wednesday, June 24. Second, this time of year always slows down, as the school year has wrapped up in most places across the country.

• This piece at The Progressive on the problem of banning books in schools is worth a read, even if it doesn’t cover anything particularly new. Seeing this kind of continued coverage matters because the issue hasn’t–and isn’t–going away.
• It’s sure been neat seeing churches develop ways to promote books being banned, especially as many bans have been falsely attributed to their religion. Here’s a new Little Free Library at a Sun City, Arizona, church that is dedicated to banned books.
• Similarly, a new bookstore/cafe in Orlando, Florida? Dedicated to banned books and to performance–whether or not that performance is drag.
• Humble Independent School District (TX) plans on reducing the number of people allowed to serve on the book banning committee library book review committee. Why? Too many people is too many opinions. That’s a wild idea, isn’t it? Almost like why there are professionals hired to do this job.
• Texas’s proposed mandatory reading lists can’t even get the Bible passages they insist on including (in public schools) correct.
• Remember how the president of the board of directors for Timberland Regional Libraries (WA) saw his wishlist for the library leaked and it was basically turning the public library into a republican safe space? And local republicans have been salivating over the idea because it’s what they’ve been itching to do nationwide? Such “beiging” of the library isn’t popular with the Union nor patrons, who pay the taxes for the it.
• Here’s another great piece about Timberland Regional.
• Earlier this year, you may recall I wrote about how YA books are being removed from YA sections in public libraries. 404 Media has added to the conversation, noting that this is where and how public libraries are being legislated (as opposed to where legislation is much more direct against school libraries).
• “The Mississippi Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal from the Hinds County School District in a case involving an assistant principal who was fired after reading a children’s book to a second-grade class.” This is good news, though the damage to the career and livelihood of Toby Price is still significant.
• An anti-LGBTQ+ book, pro-censorship board member of the Washoe County Library board (NV) has resigned. Too bad this board has done a lot of damage to the library and its leadership already.
• Despite hours and hours of testimony, the Texas State Board of Education has given tentative approval to a required reading list for public school students that’s infused with Bible passages and is mostly male and white. This, to be clear, is not the same thing passed last year, which is a Bible-infused curriculum that public schools can opt into and get financial rewards for. This one is required.