Opponents of Iowa book ban law critique proposed administrative rules

DES MOINES – A handful of Iowans expressed their opposition to a state law, and its proposed administrative rules, that bans certain books from school libraries during a public hearing Wednesday.

Iowa Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds signed the law — Senate File 496 — last year that bans books with descriptions or visual depictions of any of a defined list of sex acts from school libraries. It also prohibits any instruction on gender identity or sexual orientation before seventh grade and requires school districts to notify a student’s parent if the student requests to change their name or pronouns, among other provisions.

Penalties for the law were set to take effect Jan. 1, but a federal judge temporarily blocked the most controversial portions last week after multiple groups sued state officials over the law.

Commenters on Wednesday said the proposed administrative rules did not go far enough in clarifying the intent of the legislation and would lead to far too many books being removed from school library shelves. Iowans will have another opportunity to comment on the proposed rules at 10:30 a.m Thursday at the Grimes State Office Building in Des Moines.

In his order blocking the law until litigation is settled, U.S. District Court Judge Stephen Locher called its mandates “wildly overbroad.”

“The sweeping restrictions in Senate File 496 are unlikely to satisfy the First Amendment under any standard of scrutiny and thus may not be enforced while the case is pending,” Locher wrote in the ruling.

Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds and Attorney General Brenna Bird said last week they were disappointed in the ruling and vowed to continue defending the law.

“Instruction on gender identity and sexual orientation has no place in kindergarten through sixth grade classrooms,” Reynolds said. “And there should be no question that books containing sexually explicit content — as clearly defined in Iowa law — do not belong in a school library for children.”

What do the rules say?

Thomas Mayes, the Department of Education’s general counsel, noted the injunction during Wednesday’s public hearing and said “any action that the state board takes in response to this public comment is, of course, bound by any current law.” Should the law be allowed to take effect, the proposed rules would govern how schools must implement it and how the state would enforce penalties.

While the rules are mostly in line with the text of Senate File 496, they clarify that a “reference or mention of a sex act in a way that does not describe or visually depict” the act is not prohibited from school libraries.

The rules also apply only to a library that a school has direct control over, and schools with libraries that serve multiple grades must ensure that students have access only to material appropriate for their grades.

On the portion prohibiting instruction on gender and sexual orientation, the department stipulated that a “neutral statement regarding sexual orientation or gender identity” does not violate the rules.

The rules state a school board would receive a written warning on the first violation, and on the second violation, the superintendent and employees of the school could receive disciplinary action.

Commenter calls rules ‘weak and meaningless’

Five people, all opposing the law and current rules, spoke at the first of two public hearings on the proposed rules Wednesday.

Sara Hayden Parris, a member of Annie’s Foundation, a group that opposes library book restrictions, said the rules are “weak and meaningless,” and the legislation was “poorly written” and discriminatory.

She pointed to the judge’s injunction as evidence the law violates the First Amendment and said the rules do not go far enough in clarifying what is and is not allowed in school libraries.

“Even with the proposed rules, the law has a staggeringly broad scope, such that the dictionary and Iowa Code are likely prohibited books in Iowa schools,” she said. “There was no way the board could have successfully provided meaningful clarifications surrounding SF 496.”

Iowa Republicans have repeatedly defended the law as a measure to remove pornography and graphic sex from school libraries.

Republican House Speaker Pat Grassley said in a statement when the law was challenged in court that Republicans stand behind it.

“The sexualization of children in schools does not have a place in Iowa,” he said. “This is a responsible and reasonable law that I believe all Iowans could get behind if the far left and the media would stop playing politics and accurately represent what is actually in the law.”

School advocate requests stronger language

Margaret Buckton, a lobbyist for the Urban Education Network and Rural School Advocates of Iowa, said at the hearing the department should add more clarification to the rules to ensure that classic literature that does not feature graphic sex is not removed from school library shelves.

Buckton said the sex act prohibition should be altered to ban “vivid or pornographic descriptions or graphic depictions of a sex act.”

She said that would make a clearer distinction between what is and is not allowed in school libraries.

“After passage of the legislation, the education committee chairs, the leaders of the House and Senate and the governor have all stated that the legislation was intended to prohibit pornography and obscenity in school libraries,” Buckton said. “The way the bill is drafted, it prohibits anything that is short of those definitions. Or it’s vague, and we don’t know.”

After the second round of public comments Thursday, the proposed rules will go before the Legislature’s Administrative Rules Review Committee. The committee is set to meet Monday, the first day of the legislative session, to review the rules.