Library Materials the Latest Victim of Cy-Fair ISD’s Conservative Supermajority
Cy-Fair ISD’s Board of Trustees, a 6–1 hyper-partisan conservative supermajority, has become a firehose of bad news for residents who want quality public schools that serve everyone and reflect the diversity of the community. In addition to the massive budget cuts being forced on the district by Governor Abbott and other pro-voucher Republicans and the recent vote by 6 conservative trustees to censor science textbooks, the Board of Trustees is also revising its policy governing library materials to further empower itself at the expense of the district’s professionals. I’m not a lawyer, but I did my best to read the new policy proposal not only like a lawyer, but also like a trustee who wants to remove books from libraries. Here is what stood out to me as I tried to make sense of the policy and identify how it can be used to further the agenda of those who want to remove books that don’t align with their personal religious or political worldview.
The “Objective,” or initial, part of the policy seems to function like a “Preamble” that states principles, but those principles don’t have any legal force or weight. For example, it sounds good when the policy states, “materials should also represent diverse viewpoints and cultures appropriate to each campus to ensure their campus collections embody the unique backgrounds of the student population.” Two things to notice: 1) the word should, and 2) this exact language was removed from the “Collection Development Standards” in the original document. Meaning: this language initially had the force of being a standard for selection but is now just a nice sentiment at the beginning of the document.
The next paragraph states, “The oversight and ultimate responsibility for the review, inclusion, and final reconsideration of library materials is vested in the Board of Trustees.” This is a change in policy that I find alarming given that the current board brazenly voted 6–1 to censor science textbooks based on the recommendations of a single Cy-Fair resident who lacked the professional qualifications to perform the review. In short, I do not trust this board when it comes to instructional resources or library materials.
For example, in the revised policy’s “Collection Development Standards” section, I find it troubling that they removed “include accurate and authentic factual content from authoritative sources” as a selection standard. What is the possible objection to this language? Another selection standard revision includes striking the word “teacher” and replacing it with “parents” and “community members” in reference to who recommends books. I can understand adding more people to the list, but why remove teachers? Do their recommendations not matter? Strange stuff.
Let’s move onto the “Challenged Resources” section of the policy. Here’s where things get both confusing and interesting. It states an individual “may challenge a library material maintained in the District’s library collection on the basis that the library material fails to meet the standards set forth in this policy.” So, since the language about “diverse viewpoints” and “embody[ing] the unique backgrounds” of students is no longer a selection standard, it means specific texts cannot be defended on these grounds. On what grounds can a text be defended or removed? We will get to that.
Under the “Guiding Principles” section of “Challenged Resources,” the policy states that, “A complainant may raise an objection to a library material used in the District’s library program, even though the professional staff selecting the materials… adhered to the objectives and criteria for library materials set out in this policy.” Read that again. Even if the library material was selected in accordance with the policy’s selection standards, the text can be challenged. For example, if a text with representations of the LGBTQ+ community, narratives about racism during the Civil Rights Movement, or information about the history of gender discrimination was purchased based (in part) on the policy’s selection standard that the text “Represent[s] the ethnic, religious, and cultural groups of the state and their contribution to Texas, the nation, and the world,” a Cy-Fair resident could still challenge it.
The first step would be an “Informal Reconsideration” at the campus level. The individual could then request a “Formal Reconsideration” at the district level, which would involve the creation of a Reconsideration Committee. The revised policy strikes the word “shall” and replaces it with “should generally” in regards to whether a campus librarian is on the committee. It further strikes from the committee’s members “instructional staff…familiar with the challenged material’s content” and replaces them with an administrator and parent. Perhaps this revised committee composition allows for more efficiency but it is worrying that the individuals who presumably know the most about the resource wouldn’t necessarily serve on the committee.
After completing the review, the policy states that the “committee shall meet and determine whether the challenged material conforms to the principles of selection set out in this policy.” Why is that the committee’s ultimate task if the policy itself says that a book can be challenged even if it conforms to the selection standards? Someone can challenge a book, even if its selection adhered to the policy, then the policy requires a committee to determine if the book conforms to the policy’s selection process? This appears non-sensical and a complete waste of time. The Reconsideration Committee can determine that the book conforms to the policy, but then the complainant can simply appeal the decision and take the matter directly to the Board of Trustees, which the policy states have “ultimate responsibility” for reconsideration.
So, let’s imagine a process like this has played out over a 2-month period concerning a book about the LGBTQ+ community, the history of white supremacy, or women’s rights. The book was selected in accordance with the policy’s selection standards and process. The campus defends the book. The Reconsideration Committee confirms that the book conforms to district policy. Now, the book’s fate is in the hands of the Board of Trustees. What can they do at this point? Can they decide to remove the book? Yes.
The policy states that, “the major criterion for the final decision on challenged library materials is the appropriateness of the material for its intended use.” Okay, who defines appropriateness? What defines the intended use? The “Objectives” section seems to provide a definition for intended use when it states, “In accordance with state and local guidelines, the purpose of library collections is to enrich and support the state and local curriculum.” Meaning: the board of trustees can review all library materials through the lens that their “intended use” is to “enrich and support” the TEKS. So, even if a book was selected following the standards set forth by district policy, they can remove it simply because the book’s topic is not found within the TEKS. Or, they can simply label the book as an example of “Critical Race Theory” or “Gender Identity” and reject it. The book has no “appropriateness” because it is not tied to the state’s curriculum standards, whose “enrichment and support” is the “intended use” of all library materials.
It may take time, but under this policy the Board of Trustees can remove lots of books that represent “diverse viewpoints” because the book’s content is not found within the state’s curriculum or because they mischaracterize it. As the policy itself says, “materials should represent diverse viewpoints,” but in the end they don’t have to. The “Acquisition Procedures” in the “Collection Development Standards” seem to give the Board of Trustees the power to pre-emptively block texts they disagree with. It states that, “Any library material acquired or being considered for purchase by the District shall be posted on the District’s website for at least thirty (30) days prior to the book being included in a District library. Each acquisition list shall be provided to the Superintendent and the Board of Trustees at least five (5) days prior to posting on the District’s website.” What exactly can the trustees do during those five days? It is unclear, to me at least, what guardrails exist to prevent the trustees from unilaterally preventing the purchase of a library material.
What remains consistent throughout the policy is the new reality that the Board of Trustees possesses “ultimate responsibility for the review, inclusion, and final reconsideration.” To borrow language used to describe how the Voting Rights Act works, it appears that this policy has a “shield” and a “sword” that can be used by the Board of Trustees to remove and block books they disagree with for ideological reasons. The “shield” is the Board’s power to prescreen and block the purchase of new books it disagrees with. The “sword” is the Board’s power to remove existing books in the final reconsideration review, even if the book was selected properly by professionals in accordance with the policy. The Cy-Fair ISD Board of Trustees is attempting to centralize as much power in its own hands as possible by taking that power away from professional educators and librarians. They have already proven again and again that they cannot be trusted with such power.
Is this an inappropriate power-grab by partisan and ideological trustees, or simply the valid exercise of power after two consecutive election victories by candidates running openly as conservative Republicans? One resident, commenting on the CFISD Parents for Librarians Facebook page about the censorship of science textbooks, stated, “The voters voted and elected 6 board members who represented their conservative values…liberal ideologies were on the ballot. The voters decided that those ideologies are not welcome in Cy Fair. The current board is doing exactly what the voters who voted for them expect of them.” Clearly, some Cy-Fair residents believe to the victors go the spoils! If you win, then you can just impose your agenda however you see fit.
This type of “tyranny of the majority” is what the American founders aimed to avoid when drafting the U.S. Constitution. It is also not a power dynamic that conservatives approve of when Democrats win elections. We now see routine accusations that voter fraud rigged the election, or even violent attempts to overturn the results. When Democrats use their power, it is denounced as tyranny. When Republicans do so, it is simply the machinery of democracy or the “will of the people” (regardless of how low voter turnout might have been).
James Madison stated in Federalist #51 that “In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger.” This is where the notion of “majority rule, with minority rights” comes from. The concept generally applies to civil liberties and civil rights, but also to the policymaking process (ex: Senate filibuster). Yes, sometimes the majority uses its votes to pass policy over the objections of the minority, but the policymaking process is designed to encourage cooperation, collaboration, and compromise. One would think that a local school board, whose trustees are technically non-partisan, would be the epitome of such an approach to policymaking.
In Cy-Fair ISD, it appears that some conservatives believe winning an election gives them the right to disregard the other half of the community and exploit the policymaking system to impose their values and beliefs on everyone else. As Abigail Adams famously said, “Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could.” The partisan extremists on the Cy-Fair ISD Board of Trustees are the latest evidence that Adams was correct. Far from being the liberty-loving patriots they imagine themselves to be, they now have more in common with the ideological censors of the regimes in China, Russia, and Iran. What a shame, as our Republic recently marked the 80th anniversary of D-Day, that so many Americans are unwittingly promoting the type of authoritarian control that thousands sacrificed their lives to defeat.
