Rhode Island state lawmakers are considering a bill that would make it more difficult to remove books from school and public libraries.
“People are afraid to put certain kinds of books on their shelves, books by LGBTQ plus authors, books by Black, indigenous, and people of color,” said Rhode Island-based author Padma Venkatraman.
Venkatraman is the co-leader of the Rhode Island chapter of Authors Against Book Bans. She’s pushing for the passage of the Freedom to Read Act, which aims to prohibit library materials from being censored.
“I think the most important thing that the bill will do is to stipulate in Rhode Island that writers have a right to write whatever they wish. That illustrators have a right to illustrate whatever they wish,” she said.
It’s a right Venkatraman said Rhode Islanders can’t take for granted, given the rise in book bans nationwide in recent years. According to the American Library Association, there were 821 attempts to censor library books and materials in 2024. The majority of those demands – 72 percent – came from pressure groups and government entities; 16 percent came from parents.
“The most important people that I think are being hurt are the children because one of the most wonderful things about books is that you can put yourself in someone else’s experience for a little while,” Venkatraman said.
The proposed law requires that all public and school libraries have a policy for requesting that books be reconsidered. For instance, if a book in the children’s section is challenged, at least one librarian who works in that library would review the book’s appropriateness and decide if the book needs to be moved to a different section or removed entirely. Decisions can be appealed.
Beatrice Pulliam supports the bill. She’s the deputy director at the Providence Public Library and the president of the Rhode Island Library Association.
“Parents are well within their rights to decide what their kids can read,” Pulliam said. “The issue is taking an individual’s choice and applying it broadly to other children and other folks’ ability to access the material.”
The Freedom to Read Act has drawn passionate voices on both sides of the issue. At a state Senate hearing in March before the Committee on Education, most people spoke in favor of the bill, but Senate Minority Leader Jessica de la Cruz (R- District 23) did not support it. She said there’s no issue with the way book challenges are currently handled.
“Republicans are all for freedom to read any book you want, but I would say that when it comes to school-aged children, there needs to be some oversight,” de la Cruz said.
Under the proposed legislation, authors and librarians – among others – could sue government bodies that enforce censorship.
De la Cruz said, “What this law does, though, is that if a parent objects and they bring it to the school committee, the school committee can then be sued by the librarian, and the librarian could sue them, which is completely possible that a librarian would do.”
The bill states damages per censored work would be between $500 to $5,000.
“School committees and cities and towns are very strapped for cash so I don’t think that school committees would bring it to a lawsuit or have the lawsuit heard out in court because they don’t have the funds to do so,” de la Cruz said.
The legislation would also shield librarians from being sued by someone unhappy with their decision.
Pulliam said, “Library budgets are finite and the idea that a library would then have to pay legal fees to protect staff … is just kind of beyond the pale.”
According to a list compiled by the Rhode Island Authors Against Book Bans, 35 books have been challenged across the state since 2020. Most were unsuccessful.
“We’re in a blue state here. There’s a lot of library support. Everyone has a story of how, you know, their library experience shaped them as a child. So, it was – it was surprising. But now we’re aware,” Pulliam said.
The bill would limit requests to reconsider books from school libraries from students who go to that school or their parents or guardians.
Venkatraman said, “It does make it more difficult for just some random person to come in with a whole list of books that they haven’t read and (say), ‘You need to ban them,’ which was happening and is happening, including in our state.”
The books that people have tried to ban in communities across Rhode Island include “Nineteen Minutes” by Jodi Picoult, which follows the unfolding of a school shooting; “Gender Queer” by Maia Kobabe, a graphic novel that explores that author’s gender identity and sexuality; and “The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian” by Sherman Alexie. It’s about a boy who lives on an Indian reservation.
Supporters of the Freedom to Read Act say the local challenges mirror what’s happening nationally. According to the American Library Association, “[t]he most common justifications for censorship provided by complainants were false claims of illegal obscenity for minors; inclusion of LGBTQIA+ characters or themes; and covering topics of race, racism, equity, and social justice.”
Venkatraman said the increase in book challenges nationwide has affected her financially.
“I have seen that after this era of increasing censorship, my school visits have dropped by 50 to 75 percent compared to the pre-censorship era, if you will,” she said, adding that it pertains to visits all over the country.
She shared a recent experience with a school in Washington state surrounding her latest novel, “Safe Harbor.”
“All of their teachers, all of their staff read the book, loved the book. And then they decided that ‘Safe Harbor’ could not be their one school, one-book read as they had been thinking, because the kids in ‘Safe Harbor’ are immigrants,” Venkatraman said.
It tells the story of an immigrant girl from India who rescues an injured seal from a Rhode Island beach with a Mexican-American boy. Venkatraman said, “That is the arc of the story.”
Venkatraman said she was told the reason her book was not selected was that “the kids were immigrants and immigration was part of something that they did not want to discuss.”
Venkatraman said that’s an example of soft censorship. In her case, the book wasn’t purchased because there was fear it would be challenged.
According to the Knight Foundation, two-thirds of Americans oppose efforts to restrict books in public schools. Still, six in 10 survey respondents saw age appropriateness as a legitimate reason to restrict students’ book access.
When asked about the biggest misconception that supporters and opponents have of the other, de la Cruz said, “I’ve never wanted to ban a book. I don’t care how crazy the book is to me or how offensive. If it’s out there, then people can read it and make a decision on the content that they read. But I take objection with having content that may not be age-appropriate for children.”
Supporters of the bill, like Venkatraman, said students don’t need to read books they or their parents may find objectionable. But that shouldn’t prevent another student from accessing it.
“If you don’t like the book, shut it. Don’t take it off the shelf for everybody else,” Venkatraman said. “And also when we talk about gender and sexuality, I mean, when a child is, let’s say, not getting a talk that is open about sexuality at home, if they go and try to find the, whatever answers to the questions in a book, I think it is so much safer than if they try to find answers on the internet or try to find answers in real life not knowing what they’re doing.”
The bill is still being reviewed by the Rhode Island General Assembly, but Larry Berman, the spokesman for House Speaker Joe Shekarchi, said he anticipates action will be taken before the session ends in June.
