URGENT: CALL TO ACTION FOR SOMERSET COUNTY

This is a call to action for you to support your fellow school librarians who will find themselves taking award winning, much needed titles out of their library and finding that they are unable to order books for their library unless they meet requirements set by a new board policy.

You can take a look at the proposed policy and the proposed whistleblower policy designed to prevent teachers from doing their jobs at this link.

Essentially, the school libraries will be stripped of books that are inclusive, tackle any difficult subjects, etc.  We are doing a vote no campaign to the board of education members.  

Somerset is taking public comment on the policy and have set up a special webpage: https://www.somerset.k12.md.us/article/2112241

We are also asking you to call attention to this proposed policy:

• Write a letter to the editor to one of the local newspapers.  Here are some great tips for writing a letter to the editor.
• Share this information on social media with the #SayNotoPolicies700&500
• Make a phone call to the central office and let them know you disagree with these cuts. (410) 651-1616 - let’s flood the phone lines.
• If you are on the Eastern shore and can sign up to speak against these policies at the April 15, 2025 board meeting, please email and ask to speak. [email protected]

Below are the email addresses for the members of the board of education in Somerset County.

• Matthew Lankford, chair: [email protected]
• Andrew Gleason, vice chair: [email protected]
• William McInturff: [email protected]
• Mary Beth Bozman: [email protected]
• Allen Ford: [email protected]
• Dr. Ava Taker-Mitchell, Superintendent: [email protected]
• Marc Shifanelli, Board Attorney: [email protected]
• Gordana Shifanelli, Board Attorney: [email protected]

Talking Points on Selection Policy:

Risk of Censorship and Limited Perspectives:

This policy prioritizes "materials that are free of bias," but by doing so, it risks excluding books and resources that present diverse, complex, or controversial viewpoints. Education should encourage critical thinking, but the policy's emphasis on "objectivity" may inadvertently limit students’ exposure to diverse perspectives and complex issues. For example, the policy suggests removing materials that deal with controversial topics such as sexuality, anti-religion, and “victimhood.” This could result in the censorship of important, relevant educational materials on LGBTQ+ rights, religious diversity, and social justice issues, which are essential for fostering a well-rounded understanding of the world.

Potentially Excluding Essential Content on Real-World Issues:

By prohibiting materials that discuss issues such as "victimhood, rebellion, lawlessness, anarchy," and other complex social issues, this policy risks excluding books that address real-world struggles such as systemic inequality, activism, and social justice. These are important discussions for students to understand the world around them and their role in shaping society. The policy could prevent students from engaging with literature that explores topics like civil rights movements, historical injustices, or even novels that tackle personal struggles and resilience, which are vital for emotional and social development.

Potential Bias in "Objective" Material Selection:

The policy stresses selecting materials that "present objectively" on racial, ethnic, religious, and gender issues. However, what is considered "objective" can often reflect cultural biases or the perspectives of a particular group. If materials are selected based on the perspective of a narrow educational or ideological framework, the result is the exclusion of diverse voices and perspectives. For example, a curriculum that prioritizes "objectivity" may neglect works by authors or creators from marginalized communities whose voices might challenge mainstream narratives.

Undermining the Role of Libraries as Safe Spaces for Exploration:

School libraries serve as a safe space where students can explore a wide range of ideas and perspectives. By restricting access to materials that are seen as promoting certain behaviors or ideologies, the policy undermines the role of libraries in fostering independent thought and inquiry. Libraries are places where students should be able to encounter a variety of ideas, including those that challenge their beliefs. The policy’s focus on preventing "negative" traits could inadvertently create an environment where only certain viewpoints are tolerated, stifling the diversity of thought.

The Danger of Limiting Student Agency and Autonomy:

The policy takes a top-down approach to determining what is deemed appropriate for students to read, potentially undermining student autonomy. Young people should be encouraged to explore topics that interest them and that will help them grow intellectually and emotionally, rather than being restricted by a narrow set of criteria established by the administration. The inclusion of materials that "instill hope and foster good decision-making" could be seen as an attempt to impose specific moral values on students, rather than giving them the tools to make informed decisions for themselves.

Infringement on Intellectual Freedom:

The policy goes against the spirit of intellectual freedom, which is a cornerstone of educational philosophy and the American Library Association's Library Bill of Rights. The bill asserts that libraries should not restrict access to materials based on their content, as long as they meet educational standards. This policy's restrictions could be seen as a violation of students' right to access a wide range of information and ideas. The selection process that relies heavily on reviews from "parents, taxpayers, and professional judgment" may reflect the personal biases of a specific community or group, leading to the exclusion of valuable educational materials. 

The Policy May Exclude Valuable Materials for Critical Thinking and Emotional Growth:

While the policy aims to avoid materials that "discourage" students, it could inadvertently exclude books that challenge students to think critically, face difficult topics, and engage with complex emotional and social issues. For example, novels that address grief, mental health, or trauma might be excluded for being perceived as "negative," even though they are crucial for developing emotional intelligence and empathy.

Talking Points for the Whistleblower Policy:

Lack of Clear Definitions:

The policy lacks clear, specific definitions for key terms such as "fraud," "waste," "abuse," and "policy violations." Without clear definitions, there is room for interpretation and potential misuse of the policy. Employees and others may feel uncertain about what constitutes a reportable incident, leading to confusion and hesitation in reporting.

Unclear Scope of Protection:

The policy mentions protecting individuals who report “fraud, waste, abuse, policy violation, or unlawful or improper acts,” but the scope of what is covered under "policy violation" is vague. There is potential for this lack of clarity to result in ambiguity over what kinds of actions are protected from retaliation and which may not be. It’s crucial to specify the types of misconduct or unethical behavior that employees can report without fear of retaliation, to ensure comprehensive protection. 

Possible Uncertainty About Retaliation Protections:

Although the policy prohibits retaliation, it does not outline what specific protections or actions will be taken to safeguard whistleblowers. Without a clear, detailed process for addressing retaliation, employees may fear that retaliation could still occur, or that reporting will not lead to meaningful change. A detailed mechanism for reporting and investigating retaliation would encourage more individuals to come forward without fear of negative consequences.

Lack of Confidentiality Assurance:

The policy does not explicitly mention the protection of whistleblower confidentiality. For employees to feel comfortable reporting sensitive issues, they need assurance that their identity and any personal information will be kept confidential. Without such protection, individuals may feel they are putting themselves at risk by reporting unethical behavior.

Limited Clarity on Investigative Process:

The policy mentions investigating “fraud, waste, abuse, policy violations,” but there is no detailed description of how these investigations will be carried out. Employees may be unsure of the process, which could discourage whistleblowing. Clear guidelines on the investigation process would build trust in the system and encourage more reports.

Potential for Abuse by Supervisors or Administrators:

While the policy prohibits retaliation, it does not mention any safeguards to ensure that the individuals investigating the claims (like supervisors or administrators) are impartial. There’s a potential for abuse, especially if a report involves a higher-level staff member or administrator. The policy should outline steps to ensure that investigations are unbiased and fair.

Overemphasis on “Good Faith” Reporting Could Lead to Disqualifying Valid Complaints:

The requirement for reports to be made in "good faith" could inadvertently disqualify valid reports that come from individuals who may be disgruntled or have personal issues with the organization, even if the allegations are true. There needs to be a more nuanced understanding that the validity of reports should be assessed based on evidence, not on the perceived motivation of the whistleblower.

No Clear Consequences for Failure to Investigate or Address Complaints:

The policy does not lay out clear consequences for failing to investigate complaints or for mishandling the whistleblowing process. Without this clarity, the policy may be ineffective, as those in charge of responding to complaints might not take the matter seriously or may allow issues to persist without proper resolution.

Absence of Proactive Prevention Measures:

While the policy focuses on reporting violations and misconduct after they occur, it does not address any preventive measures or educational programs to inform employees about ethical conduct or how to avoid violations in the first place. A more comprehensive approach would include ongoing ethics training and a culture of openness where employees feel safe to discuss concerns before they escalate into issues requiring whistleblowing.

No Mention of External Oversight or Accountability:

The policy does not mention whether or not there will be external oversight of the whistleblower process. For increased accountability and transparency, it would be beneficial to include a third-party organization or independent body that can review the process and ensure that it is functioning properly without bias or corruption. 

MASL is asking you to please take action to support students and school librarians in Somerset County. We will also be sharing this to social media and ask that you share as well.