National Library Week (April 19–25) arrives each year with cheerful slogans about literacy, community and the joy of reading. But behind the celebration stands the American Library Association (ALA), an organization that has shifted dramatically from its original mission. Today, the ALA functions less like a professional association and more like an activist hub advancing a highly ideological agenda — one that increasingly conflicts with the values of American families and the constitutional rights of parents.
This is not speculation. It is openly acknowledged by the ALA’s own leadership. The organization’s recent president has publicly described herself as a “Marxist lesbian,” a label she embraces as part of her political identity and governing philosophy. Her statements are not the issue; her ideology is. When the head of the nation’s most influential library organization proudly aligns herself with Marxist principles — a worldview fundamentally at odds with parental authority, individual liberty and local control — it raises legitimate questions about the direction of the ALA and the policies it promotes.
And those policies increasingly undermine the rights of parents and the legal protections afforded to minors.
For more than a century, the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed that parents have the fundamental right to direct the upbringing, education and moral development of their children. Cases such as Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925) and Troxel v. Granville (2000) make clear that this authority does not originate with the state. Parental rights are fundamental, inferred by the Constitution in the rights bestowed on us by our Creator as opposed to being specifically enumerated.
Yet the ALA’s policy framework treats parents as intruders rather than primary stakeholders. The organization routinely encourages libraries to adopt policies that give minors unrestricted access to sexually explicit or developmentally inappropriate material, even over parental objections. When parents raise concerns, the ALA does not engage them as partners. It labels them “book banners,” “censors” or “extremists.”
This is not merely dismissive. It is legally backwards. Public institutions do not have the authority to override parental rights simply because an activist organization urges them to.
The left has executed one of the most effective rhetorical maneuvers in recent political memory: redefining any parental objection as a “book ban.” By collapsing all distinctions — between adult and minor, between access and placement, between removal and relocation — they have created a narrative in which even the most reasonable boundaries become authoritarian threats.
But the law draws distinctions for a reason.
Courts have long recognized that the government has a legitimate interest in protecting minors from obscene or sexually explicit material. Public schools and libraries are not required to provide children with unrestricted access to everything ever printed. They never have been.
Parents who object to graphic sexual content in a children’s section are not banning books. They are exercising their constitutional right — and moral duty, ordained to us by God — to protect their children.
The ALA’s “book ban” narrative is not a defense of freedom. It is a political weapon designed to silence parents and shield ideological content from scrutiny.
Public libraries and school libraries are funded by taxpayers and accountable to local communities. They are not private advocacy groups. Yet the ALA encourages libraries to adopt policies that elevate activist priorities over community standards and parental authority.
When a national organization with openly ideological leadership pressures local institutions to disregard parental concerns, it is not promoting intellectual freedom. It is undermining democratic accountability.
National Library Week, in this context, becomes less a celebration of literacy and more a branding exercise — a way to sanctify the ALA’s agenda and portray any criticism as an attack on libraries themselves.
The ALA’s recent president’s self‑description as a “Marxist lesbian” is not relevant because of her identity. It is relevant because Marxism is a political ideology that rejects the primacy of the family, elevates the state over parental authority, and views children as instruments of social transformation.
When the leader of the nation’s most influential library organization embraces that worldview, it is reasonable to ask how it shapes the ALA’s policies — especially its insistence that librarians, not parents, should determine what minors can access.
This is not about personal attacks. It is about transparency, governance and the ideological direction of an organization that wields enormous influence over public institutions.
Conservatives should be clear, confident and unapologetic:
Protecting minors from graphic sexual content is not censorship. It is a legal and moral obligation.
Parents have a constitutional right to guide their children’s education and exposure to sensitive material.
Taxpayer‑funded institutions must respect community standards, not override them.
The ALA’s leadership and policies reflect an ideological agenda, not neutral librarianship.
The “book ban” narrative is a political strategy designed to silence parents, not a reflection of legal reality.
National Library Week could be a unifying celebration of literacy and civic life. Instead, it has become a platform for an organization that seeks to redefine parental rights and reshape public institutions according to its own ideological commitments.
The debate is not about banning books. It is about who has the authority to protect children — and the law is clear: that authority belongs to parents.
Sheri Few is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation and the Founder and President of United States Parents Involved in Education (USPIE), whose mission is to end the U.S. Department of Education and all federal education mandates. Few speaks regularly on radio and television across the country and served as Executive Producer for the documentary film titled “Truth & Lies in American Education.” Few is also the host of USPIE’spodcast, “Unmasking Government Schools with Sheri Few,” which educates Americans on the various forms of indoctrination, harmful policies and affronts to parents’ rights occurring in government schools across the country.Listen to “Unmasking Government Schools with Sheri Few” on YouTube, Facebook, Spotify and X.
A Phoenix-area school district instituted a new policy requiring oversight of books in the classroom.
Queen Creek Unified School District (QCUSD) began enforcing the policy in January after its governing board approved it unanimously in December.
The policy required the district to restrict general access to materials containing sexually explicit content within school and classroom libraries; develop procedures for site-level review, inventory, and parental access to the inventory list of all classroom library collections; and establish an accessible opt-out procedure for school or classroom library materials not directly related to content, curriculum, or standards.
Although Arizona law has long prohibited exposing children to sexually explicit materials, Arizona libraries and schools continued to offer books containing sexually explicit materials under the defense of the necessity of educating children on topics of sexuality and identity.
Books with sexually explicit content offered to minors in the past by school libraries throughout the state have included titles popular nationwide: “All Boys Aren’t Blue” by George M. Johnson, “Gender Queer: A Memoir” by Maia Kobabe, “The Bluest Eye” by Toni Morrison, “The Perks of Being a Wallflower” by Stephen Chbosky, “Tricks” by Ellen Hopkins, “Looking for Alaska” by John Green, “Me and Earl and the Dying Girl” by Jesse Andrews, “Crank” by Ellen Hopkins, “Sold” by Patricia McCormick, and “Flamer” by Mike Curato.
QCUSD Board member Kelli Anderson introduced the classroom library oversight policy after recognizing that district policy on oversight extended only to school library books. In a press release, Anderson reported that the primary complaint from parents concerned the books brought into classrooms.
“Before this policy, complaints about classroom books were the number one issue I heard from parents,” said Anderson. “Since it went into effect, I have received zero complaints from parents.”
Anderson said QCUSD’s action should be adopted by all other districts in the state as best practice.
“[A]fter listening to parents and reviewing our policies, it was clear there was a gap that needed to be addressed,” stated Anderson.
Arizona Women of Action (AZWOA), a parental advocacy nonprofit and Arizona chapter of America’s Women, agreed with Anderson’s assessment.
“This policy closes a major loophole and restores trust between schools and families,” stated AZWOA in a press release. “It empowers parents, supports teachers, and ensures students are learning in environments that are transparent and accountable.”
According to AZWOA, at least one parent has already reported seeing a difference in school handling of inappropriate books. That parent allegedly told AZWOA that his elementary-aged child’s school contacted him prior to the policy compliance deadline to recover a classroom library book deemed inappropriate under the new policy.
The parent also reportedly said he wasn’t aware his child had access to such materials in the classroom.
At the beginning of last summer, the Maricopa County Library District piloted a “parental choice” program at the Queen Creek library enabling parents to choose which books, if any, their child may not check out.
Months later, in September, the county removed sex education books from the children’s sections to the adult non-fiction sections at 12 of its 14 libraries.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
America First Legal (AFL) has launched an investigation into the Flagstaff Unified School District #1 (FUSD) over its handling of a large-scale student walkout and anti-ICE protest on January 28, 2026.
AFL filed a detailed public records request with the district, demanding transparency about the event in which hundreds of students left school grounds without apparent parental notification or consent.
According to KNAU, approximately 700 to 800 students from multiple FUSD schools—including Coconino High School, Flagstaff High School, Mount Elden Middle School, and Sinagua Middle School—participated in a coordinated walkout beginning around 11:30 a.m.
Students marched more than a mile across busy intersections to Flagstaff City Hall, where they lined the sidewalks with anti-ICE messages protesting U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement policies. Students from some charter schools also joined the demonstration, which appeared to be part of a broader national action against immigration enforcement.
America First Legal’s request highlights serious concerns that school employees actively facilitated the protest by escorting students off campus and supervising the march, despite no evidence of prior parental consent or notification.
According to AFL, the district has not publicly disclosed when it first became aware of the planned event, how it prepared its response, the extent of staff involvement in organizing or assisting, or any disciplinary consequences for students who left class or school property without authorization.
The organization argues that these actions may have violated parents’ fundamental constitutional rights to direct their children’s education and upbringing, as well as Arizona’s Parenal Bill of Rights and related federal laws that protect pupil privacy and related rights.
“Parents do not surrender their rights at the schoolhouse gate,” stated James Rogers, Senior Counsel at America First Legal. “When hundreds of students are permitted to leave campus during the school day for a political protest, families deserve complete transparency about who approved it, how it was supervised, and why parents were not notified.”
The public records request, submitted under the Arizona Public Records Law, seeks a wide range of documents from August 1, 2025, onward. These include:
Records of FUSD employees who organized or participated in the protest.
Communications and preparations related to the event.
Details on how students and staff were processed back onto school property that day.
Policies on students leaving campus and any parental consent communications.
Social media posts, flyers (including one titled “Walk Out Against ICE”), and messages via platforms like ParentSquare.
Rachel Griffin, Attorney at America First Legal, added: “Schools exist to educate children, not to sideline parents, and certainly not to indoctrinate students. This investigation seeks basic answers about how this political protest was handled and whether the district respected parental rights and the rule of law. America First Legal will bring the truth into the light.”
Ethan Faverino is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Arizona Senate Republicans are refusing to let a parental rights bill die under Gov. Katie Hobbs’ heavily-used veto pen.
Senate Republican leadership revived the legislation through a concurrent resolution, passed out of committee on Wednesday. This legislative pathway allows the slim Republican majority to avoid another inevitable veto from the governor.
SCR 1006 from Senate Majority Leader John Kavanagh (R-LD3) directly challenges the supremacy of transgender-affirming policies and practices within schools.
“Parents have a fundamental right to know what’s happening with their kids at school, and students deserve privacy and safety. No 14-year-old girl should be forced to stand naked in a shower with an 18-year-old man who thinks he’s a girl,” said Kavanagh. “Families shouldn’t be sidelined, and schools shouldn’t be forced into confusion. This reflects what most Arizonans already believe, and it gives them the final say.”
If passed, the resolution would have voters decide whether to require schools to obtain parental permission prior to engaging in transgender-affirming behaviors: referring to a minor student by a name other than the one listed on school records, or referring to a minor student using pronouns that differ from that student’s biological sex.
Voters would also decide whether public schools must provide reasonable accommodations: access to a single-occupancy or employee restroom or changing facility for any individual unwilling to use the facility designated for their biological sex.
Lastly, voters would decide whether individuals could sue public schools for subjecting them to transgender-affirming policies, such as encountering an individual of the opposite sex in a restroom or changing facility designated for their biological sex, or being required to share sleeping quarters with a person of the opposite sex.
Gov. Hobbs vetoed two bills that contained these legislative provisions last year (SB 1002 and SB 1003). In identical letters, Hobbs said the state had more pressing matters than asserting parental rights over transgenderism within schools.
“[These] bill[s] will not increase opportunity, security, or freedom for Arizonans. I encourage the legislature to join with me in prioritizing legislation that will lower costs, protect the border, create jobs, and secure our water future,” said Hobbs.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
Arizona State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne hailed a unanimous decision by the Arizona Court of Appeals that reinstates a lawsuit against the Mesa Unified School District (MPS), reinforcing parental rights in cases involving children’s gender identity.
The ruling allows parents to pursue legal action against public schools that withhold critical information about a child’s intent to identify as a gender different from their biological sex.
“Schools are not substitutes for parents, and they have zero right to withhold information that parents are entitled to know,” said Horne. “Arizona law is very clear on the right of parents, and they should be informed when a child expresses a desire to be identified as a sex other than the one to which they were born. The Court of Appeals was unanimous in their decision allowing a lawsuit filed against the Mesa school district by a parent to proceed. I am very pleased that the Court made the correct ruling to defend parental rights and remind schools they should follow the law or risk legal action.”
The case is of a parent whose daughter, referred to as “Megan” (a pseudonym), was a student at an MPS junior high school during the 2022-23 school year. According to court documents, MPS had implemented “Guidelines for Support of Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Students” since at least 2015. These guidelines included procedures for school staff to support students asserting a gender identity different from their sex assigned at birth, such as updating their name or pronouns in internal systems without necessarily notifying parents.
In “Megan’s” situation, school personnel allowed her to use the male name “Michael” among teachers and students, while deliberately avoiding updates to the district’s electronic system to prevent automatic parental alerts.
The guidelines instructed staff not to disclose a student’s transgender status or gender nonconforming presentation without the student’s consent, even to parents.
This included options for students to specify whether their identity could be shared with school leadership, teachers, or peers—but parental notification was not mandated unless a change was requested in the school’s internal system.
“Megan’s” parents discovered the name change in October 2022 and confronted the school officials. In a December 2022 meeting with the principal, they learned that the school had intentionally bypassed the notification system to keep the matter secret.
The principal admitted that even if the parents had requested updates on name changes, pronouns, or gender-related issues, MPS policy prohibited informing parents.
The parents demanded that all staff cease using “Michael” and revert to Megan’s given name, but at a February 2023 meeting with teachers, all but one continued using the preferred name.
The parents further claimed that the school’s actions encouraged Megan to lie to her parents, straining the family relationship and delaying necessary mental health support.
Once her parents were fully informed, Megan was able to speak openly with them and a mental health counselor. Within a month, her issues were resolved, and she became comfortable presenting herself as female and using her given name. The lawsuit, joined by MPS board member Rachel Walden, alleges violations of Arizona’s Parents’ Bill of Rights, which protects parents’ authority over their children’s upbringing, education, health care, and mental health. It also cites prohibitions against public employees compelling children to withhold information from parents, requirements for advance notification on sexuality-related instruction, and bans on mental health screening without consent.
Ethan Faverino is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
