Thousands of books have been removed from schools and libraries over the past several years, often accompanied by stormy public meetings and acrimonious debate. But there is a quieter way books have been pulled from libraries — a process called weeding.
The practice is standard for librarians, a regular part of keeping their collections current. Traditionally, weeding involves removing books that are damaged, out of date or haven’t been checked out in a long time. This makes room for new editions and titles that are of more interest to the community.
Now, three years into a surge in challenges and removals of books from libraries, weeding is sometimes being used to remove books because of the viewpoint they express or the story they tell. The issue is now working its way through the court system.
Advocates say that, increasingly, administrators and library board officials are using this approach to avoid the public spectacle of formally pulling them because of their content.
“When you remove a book because you believe it’s critical race theory, or portrays LGBTQ lives or because you believe it’s too vulgar,” said Deborah Caldwell-Stone, Director of the American Library Association’s Office for Intellectual Freedom, “that’s not weeding. That’s censorship.”
In recent years, the number of books that have been restricted or removed has surged around the country, fed in part by conservative organizations, lists of books that circulated on social media and state laws that have decided what kinds of books are appropriate for children.
Those in favor of restricting access to certain titles say they are trying to protect children from encountering difficult, inappropriate or sensitive topics while they are alone in the library, or at school without guidance from their parents. Those who oppose these restrictions say libraries should represent a wide range of viewpoints.
Usually, removing a book from a school or library because of its content requires a process. That can include extensive public notice and input as well as board meetings, which can get volatile and heated.
Weeding, on the other hand, is part of the day-to-day work of maintaining a collection. Librarians do this largely on their own, though most libraries have weeding policies and criteria to help guide the choices.
One common standard is called “MUSTIE,” which stands for Misleading, Ugly (damaged or worn out), Superseded (by a newer edition), Trivial, Irrelevant (to the community) and Elsewhere (meaning the material could easily be found someplace else).
The work is essential to keep collections in good shape. Caldwell-Stone said that librarians never know what they’re going to find when they go into a library’s book return drop box — and generally, they try to sort through it while wearing gloves. She was once told that a book was returned with a strip of bacon pressed between the pages as a book mark. That book, for example, had to go.
Two lawsuits have recently taken up the practice, and how it is being used.
According to a suit filed in federal court this year, officials in Nassau County, Florida removed or restricted access to 36 books in its public school library after members of an organization called Citizens Defending Freedom said they were inappropriate for children. County officials said they removed most of the books because they violated a state obscenity law.
Three of those books did not go through the usual process, according to Lauren Zimmerman, a partner at Selendy Gay, and one of the lawyers who filed the case. Instead, they were weeded. Among them was a picture book called “And Tango Makes Three,” about a penguin family with two penguin dads.
The district said it weeded its only copy of “Tango” because of a “lack of circulation,” the lawsuit said. But according to court documents, it had been checked out at least five times in the previous five years, while thousands of other books in the district’s public libraries that had not been checked out at all during that period were not removed.
The other weeded books were “Ghost Boys,” about racism in the United States, and “Almost Perfect,” a coming-of-age story about a high school romance involving a transgender student, according to the court documents.
The Nassau County case settled last month and all three books will go back on the shelves, along with 21 others. The remaining 12 books will be available for checkout to students who are at least 18 years old, or who have permission from their parents. A lawyer representing Nassau County did not respond to requests for comment.
“It took generations of work by countless individuals for books like ‘Tango’ to make it onto shelves of libraries,” said Justin Richardson, one of the authors of “And Tango makes Three,” who was a plaintiff in the lawsuit. “We’re simply not going to sit by and let them take them off.”
Another instance where weeding has landed in court is a case that began in Llano County, Texas, and is now in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. According to court documents, public library officials removed 17 books, including “Caste,” by Isabel Wilkerson, which is about race in the United States, and “It’s Perfectly Normal: Changing Bodies, Growing Up, Sex, and Sexual Health,” by Robie H. Harris and Michael Emberley, which has illustrations of sex and masturbation.
County officials said those books were weeded. Lawyers for Llano County have asked the court to reverse a 29-year-old precedent on the issue. They’ve argued that while none of these books were removed because of their content or viewpoint, library officials have the right to do so. Removing books is not a violation of patrons’ rights, the lawyers argued, because the government is not obligated to supply books in the first place. The government is not allowed to stop you from accessing books, but it doesn’t have to help.
This summer, a three-judge panel ruled, in a split decision, that books could not be removed based on their viewpoint. But a few weeks later, the 5th Circuit made an unusual choice: It would rehear the case, this time in front of the full court. Oral arguments took place last month, and a decision is expected in several months.
This article originally appeared in The New York Times.