Ed\u00a0Tibbetts<\/a>, a longtime reporter and editor in the Quad-Cities, is the publisher of the Along the Mississippi newsletter<\/a>, where this article first appeared<\/a>. Find more of his work at\u00a0edtibbetts.substack.com<\/a><\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If only Iowa\u2019s school librarians possessed the wisdom of a trio of judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The judges overturned a preliminary injunction<\/a> against Iowa\u2019s three-year-old book ban law on April and abruptly dispensed with the idea it was vague and difficult to apply.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Such contentions, the judges said, were \u201cunavailing<\/a>.\u201d Which seems strange. Especially since one of the defendants in the case before them actually admitted there was confusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<\/span>\n\n\n\n \u201cTalking with educators, there\u2019s\u00a0a lot of confusion<\/a>,\u201d Iowa State Board of Education President John Robbins said in 2023.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Of course there was confusion. Lawmakers and the governor weren\u2019t even accurate about the law they passed. They\u00a0said<\/a>\u00a0they only prohibited books with \u201csexually explicit\u201d content, even though the law didn\u2019t say that. The law banned books with visual depictions or any \u201cdescription,\u201d explicit or otherwise, of a sex act. But legislators didn\u2019t explain what they meant by a \u201cdescription.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Merriam-Webster\u00a0dictionary<\/a>\u00a0says that a description is a \u201cdiscourse intended to give a mental image of something experienced.\u201d Republicans failed to give any guidance how to apply this definition. They just assumed Iowa\u2019s librarians were in on their groupthink.<\/p>\n\n\n\n They were not.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As a result, schools removed\u00a03,400 books<\/a>\u00a0from library shelves. Some of those books only alluded to a sex act. Others weren\u2019t clear what act they were implying. Others were more direct. As it turns out, some books with only subtle references were removed, even as others with passages that clearly evoked explicit mental images of sexual activity\u00a0remained<\/a>\u00a0on the shelves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Apparently, all this was \u201cunavailing\u201d to the trio of judges. Iowa\u2019s school librarians, they suggest, shouldn\u2019t have been confused at all.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Of course, the librarians\u2019 judgment may have been clouded by the fear that their livelihoods were at risk if they got it wrong. The law included\u00a0punishment<\/a>\u00a0for violations, and it\u2019s not like Republican leaders in Iowa have been very forgiving of educators lately. Criticism about the late Charlie Kirk has led to some\u00a0harsh discipline<\/a>\u00a0for a number of teachers. This, in turn, has prompted lawsuits, claiming violations of free speech.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It\u2019s hard to tell what will happen next with Iowa\u2019s book ban law. The case now goes back to the district court, which already has ruled twice against it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It appears the law\u2019s vagueness is no longer a central part of the legal case. Instead, the courts have been wrestling with what standard to apply in deciding whether the law is constitutional.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In overturning the injunction, the appellate court stated its preferred standard<\/a>, and in doing so, said school libraries bear the \u201cimprimatur\u201d of the school and are part of its curriculum.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I find the court\u2019s argument unavailing. Here\u2019s why:<\/p>\n\n\n\n When I explored the shelves of my school\u2019s library in the 1970s, I never once thought that all the books I found there were sanctioned\u2014or bore the imprimatur\u2014of the district. Quite the contrary. Kurt Vonnegut\u2019s controversial book, Slaughterhouse Five<\/em>, was subversive to the prevailing view. It wasn\u2019t the only one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Today, I don\u2019t believe that many lawmakers in the legislature would consider the Koran to bear the imprimatur of Iowa\u2019s 300-plus school districts. Yet it is freely available to students in some school libraries in this state. I suspect there are other books, too, that neither lawmakers nor local school boards would probably associate themselves with\u2014much less endorse or make a part of the curriculum.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This isn\u2019t surprising. Libraries are places where a wide range of ideas are on offer\u2014not just the ones the state promotes or requires in order to get a diploma. It\u2019s a place where an assortment of authors and voices speak, not just those in synch with school leaders and staff.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For now, the lawyers will continue to argue over the legal merits of the book ban law. But for Iowans who don\u2019t hang on the pleadings and decisions of the various courts, a more fundamental principle is at issue. One that lays squarely at our feet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There is a movement afoot in this country to control what kids, even those on the cusp of adulthood, can read. It doesn\u2019t have anything to do with literary merit. Or even decency. It is about a group of conservative parents who are trying to force their will on others. On school districts and, ultimately, on other families.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This has been going on for several years. Mostly, it\u2019s the right that has been\u00a0instigating<\/a>\u00a0these battles. But sometimes the\u00a0left does it, too<\/a>. Either way, trying to impose a \u201cpall of orthodoxy<\/a>,\u201d as a court once put it, is fundamentally opposed to the American experiment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In Iowa, having failed to force their views on individual school districts, conservative activists ran to sympathetic legislators and the governor for help. But instead of just targeting books and materials clearly inappropriate for younger children\u2014as they\u00a0could easily have done<\/a>\u2014Republicans overreached. They now seek to enforce an overly broad law that forces on all Iowans the views of some of the state\u2019s most conservative activists.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the process, this has led to thousands of books, some\u00a0classic works<\/a>\u00a0of literature, being swept up and placed off-limits. (In some districts, this now includes Slaughterhouse Five<\/em><\/a>.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n The kids of conservatives won\u2019t be able to get access to these books, but neither will other kids.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Why?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Because some parents have more clout than others.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This may be the way things work at the Iowa legislature, but it\u2019s not how we should operate school libraries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Editor’s note from Laura Belin: Here is the full text<\/a> of the Eighth Circuit panel’s ruling in the Penguin Random House et al<\/em> lawsuit. Judge Ralph Erickson, appointed by President Donald Trump in 2017, wrote the opinion, joined by Judge Jonathan Kobes (appointed by Trump in 2018) and Judge Lavenski Smith\u00a0(appointed by President George W. Bush in 2002).<\/p>\n\n\n\n In a separate case brought by Iowa Safe Schools, which you can read here<\/a>, the same judges lifted the injunction on the school book ban and the “don’t say gay or trans” teaching restrictions from grades K-6.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n