“Books and ideas are the most effective weapons against intolerance and ignorance.”
― Lyndon B Johnson
The English language is a funny thing.
For instance, one word can be used in a variety of ways to describe different things. “Love” is a perfect example as the love you have for your sibling is not the same love you have for your significant other. And yet, we only have that one word to describe the various types of “love” one can feel.
It’s also true that one word can be used in a variety of contexts including as a noun, verb, adjective, etc. Sometimes even in the same sentence.
It’s what makes learning English so difficult. The implicit vs. explicit nature of whatever sentence is being constructed can make it very difficult for someone to interpret the actual meaning in the language used. Language that is open for interpretation or is subjective can be used and manipulated to fit almost any narrative.
You may be asking yourself why in the world I started the post talking about the intricacies of the English language?
The answer is simple:
Because the English language is currently being used in such a subjective way that it leaves the door open for manipulation.
A few laws have been passed in NC within the past several years that have used such language to make it easier to limit access to various materials certain individuals disagree with.
Starting with Senate Bill 49 in 2023 (Parents’ Bill of Rights), there have since been at least two other Bills introduced (though not signed into law as of this writing) that use the same subjective language to describe “inappropriate” or “harmful” materials for minors. Namely HB 595 and HB 636.
These Bills specifically use language such as “pervasively vulgar” and “harmful to minors” as descriptors because in doing so, certain individuals are able to challenge materials that they personally disagree with.
The justification used is because the authors of these Bills believe the average adult will agree the material fills that criterium. However, as library workers we know that every child reads and understands at a different level than their peers. Some children may be more advanced in reading than others and stopping them from reading material that will continue to develop their reading and comprehension will hinder their growth and development.
Likewise, stopping a child from reading a book that has individuals or scenarios different from their own, will hinder a child’s ability to develop empathy and understanding of the world around them.
So these laws being passed that create more avenues for books to be banned or challenged does nothing but ensure that as a society, we will move backward and not forward.
But I digress…
These Bills using subjective language have been brought forth across the country to give groups such as Moms for Liberty more opportunities to limit access to materials they disagree with.
However… For today’s story, we see the opposite occurring. And it’s truly beautiful.
Earlier this year, a blog post was written about Chapel-Hill schools not immediately adopting the policies as outlined in Senate Bill 49 due to the School Board Chairman disliking the parameters expected in the Bill. However, the school already had similar policies in place prior to the adoption of the Bill, and they adopted policies that aligned with the Bill shortly afterward.
This did not stop the House Majority Leader, Brenden Jones (pictured), from attacking and threatening the school system because he didn’t like the way they adopted the policies. He threatened all school systems across the state by threatening to withhold funding if the schools did not adopt the policies as he wanted them to.
Fast forward to the passing of the NC budget in July 2026. The full Bill, or “Budget Appropriations Act” can be accessed here, but for the purposes of our post today, we are only focusing on a small portion related to schools and libraries.
Senate Bill 257 expands on language in the Parents’ Bill of Rights by expecting schools to immediately adopt challenge review committees. These committees will be made up of school officials, teachers, media specialists, and parents. They will review all challenges to instructional and supplementary materials within a two-week period and make a determination for the School Board. The Board will have final say in whether any material is removed.
The Bill also lays out that parents will have the ability to limit what items their child has access to within the school.
Here is where it gets interesting…
The Bill outlines what instructional and supplementary materials are. These are items that are expressly used for the purpose of supporting the schools curriculum. This can include materials in classroom libraries or school libraries.
This does NOT include library books or materials used for recreational purposes. At least, according to the way I read it.
Nor was it how the Wake County School Board interpreted it when they read it.
As stated earlier in this post, vague language in Bills can be used in a variety of ways, and the Wake County School Board decided to use it for the purpose of limiting book bans and challenges.
The new policy, adopted by the board in September 2026, does not allow challenges to materials that are not considered instructional or supplementary. It does allow for parents to make decisions on what their own child is able to check out or have access to.
Now, one would think that this is a beautiful compromise. Parents still have a say in what their children can access, while allowing for a variety of materials to be readily available for those children who are able to access them.
Right?…. RIGHT???…
Wrong, apparently.
Reactions to this decision were mixed within the community, but perhaps no one had a bigger issue with this than the aforementioned House Majority Leader, who threatened Wake County Schools because, according to one article,
“Wake County Public Schools’ interpretation of the law is not correct,” he said. “The legislative intent was clearly to ensure that parents have a voice in what is allowed in their children’s school libraries. By eliminating a parent’s right to file challenges to inappropriate books, Wake County Schools are not only violating parents’ rights but also directly and intentionally removing those on the front lines who protect our children.” (Pomeranz, 2026).
The argument here being that random people know what’s better for your child than you do…?
Here is why I believe that not only did Wake County Schools make the right decision, I hope that other school districts follow their example:
What has been said repeatedly from every side of the book banning argument is that parents should have a right to make decisions on what their child accesses. This is very true. A parent should be involved in their child’s upbringing and have knowledge of what he/she/they are exposed to.
If a parent is raising their child in a Fundamentalist Christian household, then that parent probably doesn’t want their child reading something that contains witches. Totally understandable.
So the idea that a parent can tell the school, or the school library, they don’t want their child(ren) to access books or materials discussing that topic is very reasonable. Many schools already have policies in place that allow parents to do so. For those schools that don’t, it isn’t outside the realm of possibility to make that happen.
I’m with you so far, Mr. Jones. You and me, same page.
However, when it comes to the community at large being able to challenge materials in schools and school libraries, that’s where you lose me.
In the quote above, the argument is that parents won’t have the right to choose what is in their child’s school library. But it again begs the question: what happens when two parents disagree on what should be allowed? If that Fundamentalist Christian parent from earlier wants to ban Harry Potter because it contains witches, but a Wiccan parent wants their child to be able to access it, whose voice wins out? What happens when that Wiccan parent wants the Bible banned from the school because they don’t want their child to access it, but the Fundamentalist Christian parent wants it kept?
The idea that the community at large can request items be removed or banned from schools because they disagree with it does not allow for the fact that everyone is different. Public schools, funded by the public taxpaying citizens, have individuals of all walks of life who attend them. All backgrounds, religions, races, ethnicities, sexual orientations, socio-economic statuses, etc., are represented in public schools across the state and country.
No one person should have more of a say than another on what should be accessible in schools because no two people are going to agree on everything.
Arguments from right-wing activists usually say that if someone doesn’t like the books being removed from schools, then they can homeschool. Or take their child to the public library to check out a book. Or go and buy the book.
This requires that the other person continue to make “compromises” because of the voices of the few who are complaining.
Repeated polls and surveys (such as the one pictured here from CBS) have shown that the majority of the country disagrees with book banning. So the question becomes, if the majority disagree with it, why do laws continue to be passed that focus on book banning and limiting access for citizens?
In this case, the argument from Mr. Jones is that parents and citizens won’t have as much say in the “protection of our children.” But the question is why he believes, or anyone believes, they have more of a say in what your child accesses than you do.
Mr. Jones has made it clear he intends to go after Wake County Schools because of their policy and their interpretation of the law as it’s written. But as stated earlier in this post, using purposefully vague language means that Wake County Schools have not done anything that goes against what the law says.
Their policy will allow for challenges to be made to instructional or supplementary materials, and parents will have the ability to say what their own child can access from the library. It just removes the ability of anyone to challenge materials on library shelves that are not considered instructional or supplementary.
It will be interesting how this case unfolds over the next few months. According to at least one article, Wake County Schools have an attorney that looked over the policy before it was passed and confirmed that it followed the law as written. Thus, it remains to be seen what can be done to force the school district to alter the policy as it is written.
As always we will do our best to update as the situation unfolds, but at this time it doesn’t seem that much could be done. We will also update if any other school districts take a cue from Wake and update their own policies in a similar fashion.
I think one thing we can take away from this is that if language being used in Bills continues to be vague and subjective, the Bills will continue to be interpreted in whichever way the person perceiving them chooses.
If you have not heard it yet today, thank you for all you do for your community!
Resources:
Bohl, C. C. (2026, September 2). “Wake School Board Members Reluctantly Consider Policies on Religious Instruction, ‘Inappropriate’ Books”. Indy Week. https://indyweek.com/news/wake-school-board-members-reluctantly-consider-policies-on-religious-instruction-inappropriate-books/
Pomeranz, A. (2026, September 25). “Wake school library policy draws warning from NC House leader”. Carolina Journal. https://www.carolinajournal.com/wake-school-library-policy-draws-warning-from-nc-house-leader/
Schlemmer, L. (2026, September 16). “WCPSS passes policies on religious instruction and book challenges to comply with NC law”. WUNC News. https://www.wunc.org/education/2026-09-16/wcpss-wake-county-schools-religious-instruction-book-challenges-comply-with-nc-law
Walkenhorst, E. (2026, August 25). “Wake schools set to update policies on equity, book challenges after state budget”. WRAL News. https://www.wral.com/news/education/wake-schools-updating-policies-equity-book-objections-after-state-budget-august-2026/