Librarians, authors, and others are speaking out against a leading provider of school library software after it announced yesterday that it is considering an optional add-on that would help schools and librarians comply with new and pending legislation that requires parents be allowed to know of and control access to the books their children check out—which could out and endanger LGBTQ students.
The Destiny Library Manager software from Illinois-based Follett School Solutions (which was acquired last fall by private equity firm Francisco Partners) is “the leading library management system for K-12 schools worldwide,” it says on its website, and is in more than 71,000 schools. Britten Follett, the company’s CEO of content, yesterday posted a statement in response to the new legislation:
Regardless of our individual opinions of these bills, Paul [Paul J. Ilse, Follett ‘s CEO of software] and I – along with every one of us at Follett – are committed to our customers, many of whom are asking for our support in complying with these new laws.
Based on the multitude of requests, feedback, and input from our Destiny Library Manager customers in multiple states, we are considering offering an optional add-on module within Destiny that would enable a school district or librarian to comply with state legislation by allowing parents to manage the materials their child has access to at their school. If developed, this will be opt-in functionality for users. We will never ask nor require our customers to implement or use anything of this nature.
Such legislation includes bills like Oklahoma’s HB 4014, which explicitly gives parents’ access to their children’s library records. It also encompasses legislation like Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” bill, which among other provisions, gives parents the right to access any of their student’s education and health records (which is being interpreted as including library records). This legislation is part of a greater host of educational gag orders sweeping the country, often disguised as “parent’s rights.” The Forsyth County School District in Georgia has already been talking with Follett about solutions such as automatically e-mailing parents notifications of what books their children check out or restricting students’ access to certain books based on parents’ requests, reported the Forsyth County News on March 11, explaining, “For example, a parent could request that a student not be able to check out a book tagged as LGBTQ in Destiny.”
Marshall Breeding, an independent consultant and widely cited authority on library technology, seems to have spoken with Follett representatives about this and writes in his Library Technology Newsletter, “Follett states that they plan to create optional functionality that can meet these new requirements in a way that minimizes potential infringements on student privacy and censorship of library materials.” He adds that schools will have to request these modules, which “are not expected to be included in the standard installations of Destiny.”
Follett’s posted statement continued:
So, we would ask that instead of creating an environment of divisiveness, that we come together and be a positive voice for this very important topic, whether we agree with those laws, disagree with those laws, or otherwise – they are the law and require compliance. A much more powerful, positive voice could be for all of us to promote the great authors, the great books, and the great work that all of you are doing.
Is the company indeed trying to find a middle ground? Britten Follett in fact sits on the board of the EveryLibrary Institute, a nonprofit “dedicated to ensuring continued public and political support for library funding,” and a companion organization to the EveryLibrary political action committee (PAC), which has been fighting against book bans, even providing the crowdfunding platform that helped a Mississippi library raise money when the Mayor withheld funds because he objected to LGBTQ books on the shelves. It is unclear what her involvement may or may not have been in working against the bans.
But is a middle ground here even feasible or right? Librarians and others aren’t buying it. Many spoke out in response to Follett’s statement:
- Author Robin Stevenson (who has written many queer-inclusive books) tweeted, “This is such BS. Follett is making a choice here, and it’s the wrong one. If you don’t agree with the law, you don’t have to go out of your way to enable others to follow it. How about a statement supporting ethical library practices and kids’ right to access the books they need?”
- Author Phil Bildner (who has also written queer-inclusive books), tweeted, “If what Follett is planning is accurate and comes to fruition, the impact this will have on queer kids will be devastating.”
- Librarian Erin Lee wrote at LinkedIn, “Sorry, but I’m more concerned about the lives and safety of gay kids than I am about being ‘divisive.’ What you are doing is aiding and abetting in the surveillance of gay kids by abusive parents. That is the only practical use of this tool. It is not about ‘compliance.’ It is not about putting trust in the educational professionals who have selected the books in their school library’s collection. No, it’s about giving in to the loudest group; the group screaming that reading a book will make their kid gay.”
- Librarian Molly June Roquet tweeted, “Wild that @FollettLearning is criticizing librarians for creating an ‘environment of divisiveness’ and instead demanding we ‘come together’ to support Follett in building tools that directly contradict library privacy ethics and put queer kids in danger. Completely unacceptable.”
- Librarian Christie Burke tweeted, “Librarians value their students’ privacy. It’s a primary professional tenet. Beyond that, student readers are humans with agency, and personal choice is crucial in recreational reading. (Not to mention safety issues for some kids.) You need to scrap this effort YESTERDAY.”
- Matthew Noe, president of the American Library Association’s Graphic Novels & Comics Round Table, tweeted, “You want us to ‘come together’ and enable software that conflicts directly with our core values as librarians and out our young patrons at risk. Refusing to do so isn’t divisive. It is necessary.” He then corrected a typo but added: “That was meant to say ‘put our young patrons at risk,’ but since outing them is a very real risk here… it works that way too.”
- Dr. Jennifer Moore, associate professor at the University of North Texas and a former school librarian, tweeted, “Legitimate question: how is violating student privacy, forcing some students into uncomfortable situations, and forcing other students into emotionally and/or physically violent situations unifying and positive?”
The company also announced it is having a webchat on Monday, April 4, at 4 p.m. CT (5 p.m. ET) where Follett and Ilse will discuss the topic further, saying, “We’d love to hear from you and would love to set the record straight about ways in which we can better work together.”
Perhaps setting the record “straight” wasn’t the term they should have used. I suspect the discussion will be … lively.
[Updated to add: A petition to Follett has been started here.]
[Update, 4/4/2022: The company issued a statement late last Friday, however [screenshot here, courtesy of librarian Alex Brown], stating that after “continued feedback and discussions with librarians and industry partners,” they are not proceeding with plans to develop this module. The scheduled webchat has been cancelled. The company stressed its belief in the American Library Association’s Library Bill of Rights and that it “takes very seriously” the feedback it received. It will “continue to work directly with impacted districts” to understand the new laws. Follett has deleted its original post above and its tweet below. A screen capture of the post is available here.]
Read more responses to the company’s statement in the thread below.
https://twitter.com/FollettLearning/status/1509186020213936138