
Some background:
The state of Ohio’s budget passed the other day with the stated intent to cut spending and reform public services. You can read about it here. Teachers’ pensions, infrastructure, and Medicaid were all in the crosshairs. The budget also carries policy changes. The use of the budget to enact policy change is a new and controversial way for lawmakers to pass laws. This budget, believe it or not, defines for the Ohio legislature what a woman is. Very strange for a budget.
Libraries are experiencing an unusual and unwelcome impact from the budget, too. To librarians, it looks a lot like censorship.
Update July 1st, 2025: Gov. Mike DeWine removed this item from the budget. It was, in part, because of phone calls and letters from the citizens of Ohio. Local activism and community support work. Let’s keep telling lawmakers what we as citizens want – because, like libraries, they work for us.
And now let’s talk about SEX and libraries!
First off, what is a library? A library is a public institution that provides resources to members of its community. These free resources can be programs, books, media, access to printers, homework help, or just a place to exist without being charged for taking up space. A library is beholden to the members of the community precisely because it is funded by the community. Unlike in a corporation, a public institution does not have to make money and that’s why libraries work – because there isn’t a middle man. People want services – people get services.
A library school chum of mine had a mid-class discussion breakdown where he expressed his utter exasperation for the vast number of library customers wanting to read “bodice rippers.” Maybe he was disappointed by the lack of requests for books on the history of Civil War field artillery, I don’t know. It’s clear, however, that public librarianship was not for him.
As much as reading for enjoyment disappointed my classmate, it puts off an uncountable number of others. Many people associate libraries with SEX and not intellectualism, which, in my opinion, says more about them than books. They fear the bodice reaper. When the retired school teacher quietly walks through the front doors of the library and brazenly checks out a book with a witch in 1770s clothing on the cover, they judge. “Maybe that book has SEX in it,” they may be thinking. “And boy,” they may continue to think, “bodices might be RIPPED”. And wouldn’t it be scandalous if the men who removed them were ripped too. But as we know, with libraries, what people want, people get. Unlike the retired school teacher, these bodice bounty hunters and their state representatives want to put a stop to all this “scandal” (and also seem to be getting what they want). Their big fear is for the kids; what if children get hold of a saucy witch romance with SEX on page 127?
Which brings us to why reading about sex is better than just about any other form of PERVERSION (please, read this in a funny voice too) that young people can be exposed to. TV for instance, bombards the watcher, young and old, with unwanted images: gore, violence, explicit adult situations… sharks. We are at the mercy of whatever’s on cable when we flip on the set. Once seen it cannot be unseen.
You see, books are not the same at all. You need patience to get to the saucy parts. And most books don’t even have a saucy part (but a lot of children’s books do have sharks!). Children, and adults, myself included, don’t always have the time or drive to start reading a new book, let alone get to the three juicy paragraphs where he whispers in her ear and gently removes her petticoat. Come on! If this isn’t what we’re looking for when we pick up a book, we can just as easily put it down. If this kind of writing disturbs us, we have the brakes built in. Which looks something like: I’m bored and I want to get a snack and go to bed early. Easy as that, folks.
Again, the vast majority of books (they sometimes call this type of book non-fiction), don’t even have SEX scenes. Not even one, I swear.
Besides, when we attack libraries, we are losing something. SEX aside, the value of books, and encouraging young people to read is pretty undeniable at this point. Books provide kids with all sorts of benefits, not just the ability to learn anything. How cool is that? Books bombard you with words that teach you to speak better, listen better, and thoughtfully explore both your own and others’ motivations and feelings. To quote LeVar Burton from the hit and totally precious kid’s show, Reading Rainbow, “you don’t have to take my word for it,” it’s in a book.
Or in this case, it’s in the New York Times, BBC, and scholarly articles. These publications say reading can make an amazing difference in our lives (read the articles here, here, and here). The evidence shows reading can increase your intelligence, boost your mental health, help you cope with uncomfortable emotions, and get this–Readers live 2 years longer than non-readers. That’s right, reading even extends your life. Wowie guys, let’s get reading!
LeVar Burton also said, “all literature is political.” As a kid, watching his cute show, I would have wondered what he meant, but I get it loud and clear now. Books aren’t just politicized because of what’s written inside. Most politicians go to expensive colleges and study law or business. I’m just gonna say, you havetogo to the law library to get through law school and probably even read a book or two. So, they know the value of libraries. And I don’t care to get all conspiratorial about it because it’s a complicated system, but it sure is fishy that these types would thrive in higher education, in part because of university libraries, and then turn around and smush the institutions that helped them. They pull libraries into the limelight to apply pressure on them and strain their ability to function. Librarians (and, let me check my notes, performers that make reading appealing for kids) are the perfect group to sequester and vilify – these policies and their justifications manufacture the accused’s crimes just to make an example of them. The policymakers want to look strong in the face of a non-threat. How lazy, unproductive, and small they must be to aim their arrows at the powerless instead of the real beasts.
Okay, libraries are something I care about, and maybe you don’t feel as strongly. I feel that the loss of libraries would hit us harder than we think, but the real rub is that we’ve seen all this before. Libraries aren’t the only ones that are grouped and defined as “other” and then painted with a big old red target. Immigrants, LGBTIQ+, neurodivergent people, and other vulnerable minority groups are often recipients of political finger-pointing. Groups that are considered “different” can easily be labeled “threatening” because people fear what is different (almost as much as bodice rippers). Being small in number means that these groups can’t defend themselves at the polls. Instead, they get slandered, scapegoated, and intimidated with litigation.
It’s not just about libraries, y’all.

Leave a reply to SmallWords Cancel reply