Supervisor Gould made the right decision to reject certain books

Dear Editor,

I am writing to express my full support for Supervisor Gould’s decision to reject the inclusion of sexually explicit materials in our county library’s children’s collection, and to address the misleading characterization of this decision that has been circulating in our community.

First and foremost, this was not a “book ban.” To call it such is, frankly, propaganda. The book in question “The Beautiful Something Else” by Ash Van Otterloo remains freely available for purchase on Amazon, in bookstores, and through various online retailers. Bridget Lewison acts as if she is not able to purchase this book for her own children from Amazon; No one has been prevented from obtaining this book. What Supervisor Gould did was exercise appropriate oversight over what our county library formally accepts as part of its collection, a standard, routine function that library staff perform every single day.

It is worth noting that this review came about because the donation in question was a significant monetary gift, which is precisely why a supervisor was asked to review the materials being donated. This is standard due diligence, not censorship. Library manager Bryan Frieberg routinely declines donations; old or damaged books, outdated magazines, and materials deemed unsuitable, without any public outcry. In fact, citizens regularly walk away from the library counter with the very same materials they attempted to donate because their own donations have been rejected. This is a normal part of library administration.

Supervisor Lingenfelter made an important point: it is not the role of the government to parent the children of this county. However, it is absolutely within the purview of the Board of Supervisors to exercise oversight over what materials are formally accepted into a publicly funded institution. The library already has established policies and a Library Bill of Rights that govern the handling of inappropriate materials. Supervisor Gould’s review was entirely consistent with that framework.
Bridget Lewison’s remarks went well beyond a simple disagreement with the decision. She implied that the supervisors were unpatriotic and in violation of free speech principles, a dramatic overreach that fundamentally misunderstands the role and responsibilities of the Board. Lewison stated at 2:56:23 “The moment you destroy opposing voices you destroy the foundation of democracy” which has nothing to do with a responsible decision to reject; Her statement in fact makes no sense, what are the “opposing voices” she speaks of in regards to a rejected book? In reality, it is precisely the job of the supervisors to protect and maintain a safe environment for all library patrons, especially children. Their responsibilities include the behavior of patrons, the cleanliness and safety of the facility, the adoption of appropriate policies, the maintenance of acceptable noise levels, and ensuring cooperation between the public and library staff. These are not acts of censorship, they are acts of governance.

Labeling a routine administrative rejection as “censorship” inflames public sentiment and obscures the facts. The word “ban” implies restriction of access in fact, Ms. Lewison used several examples of propaganda, but access to this book has not been restricted in any way. It was simply not added to our county library’s collection. Ms. Lewison, like any member of the public, remains free to purchase this book through Amazon, any number of bookstores, or other retailers at any time.

The Mohave County Library District is supported by taxpayer dollars, and the citizens of this county have every right to expect that facility to be a clean, safe, and appropriate environment for all patrons, particularly children. The Board of Supervisors has both the authority and the obligation to make decisions that reflect that responsibility. When situations arise that affect the taxpaying public, it falls squarely within the supervisors’ purview to act, and that is exactly what Supervisor Gould did.
The Board needs to stand firm in support of Supervisor Gould’s decision and to reject the use of emotionally charged language designed to mischaracterize responsible governance as something sinister. Our community deserves honest, accurate discussion. Not political theater.