North Carolina Library Association Statement of Concern Regarding House Bill 1043

May 8, 2026

As library professionals dedicated to fostering inclusive learning environments and protecting intellectual freedom, we strongly oppose the misleadingly titled “Curriculum Honesty, Compliance, and Child Safety (CHCCS) Act,” also known as H1043. This legislation poses a direct threat to the core mission of school libraries by conflating optional, independent reading materials with mandated classroom instruction and by systematically removing representation for diverse student populations.

Our primary concerns regarding this bill include:

• Erasure of Representation. The bill mandates that “instruction on gender identity, sexual activity, or sexuality shall not be included in the curriculum provided in grades kindergarten through fourth grade.” Elementary school libraries do not contain books or materials on any of these topics. Our libraries do contain materials that reflect the diverse lives and family structures that our students experience in their daily lives. 

• Misclassification of Library Resources. We find the bill’s definition of curriculum to be an overreach that ignores the optional nature of library resources. The legislation explicitly targets materials “not used as part of the standard course of study” and intended for “independent use” by students. Unlike a required textbook, a library book is a resource a student chooses to explore based on their personal interests and parental guidance. By grouping these self-selected materials under the same restrictive umbrella as the Standard Course of Study, the bill undermines the library's role as a space for voluntary inquiry and discovery.

• Punitive Measures and Mandated Censorship. H1043 creates a climate of fear through severe financial and legal penalties that will inevitably lead to preemptive censorship, as has been seen in other states that have attempted this kind of legislation. H1043 allows parents to seek damages of five thousand dollars ($5,000) per violation. Furthermore, if a library is found to be noncompliant, the school must provide evidence of a “cure,” which specifically includes the removal of electronic, print, or non-print resources from the library. Failure to remove these materials can result in the withholding of state funds from the central office administration allotment. These measures force school districts that are already resource vulnerable to prioritize financial survival over providing a well-rounded and representative collection of information.

• Fiscally Irresponsible. As with H805 and other adverse legislation targeting our schools, bills like this are rushed through and enacted quickly without thoughtful, well-developed guidance for practitioners, resulting in labor-intensive and costly changes to shared library collections and processes. Additionally, the liability this bill places on local school districts is fiscally irresponsible when our state has yet to pass a budget and federal funds are being redirected away from public schools. In places like Idaho where this kind of legislation exists, insurance companies are refusing to insure state entities in the resulting litigation efforts. It's reasonable to assume that if H1043 is passed, our counties, school districts, and local taxpayers would be on the hook financially for inevitable litigation with money we don’t have. 

The school library should be a sanctuary for exploration and a resource for all members of the school community. By mandating the removal of resources that reflect the wonderful diversity of North Carolina public school students and their families, this bill restricts access to information and discriminates against the very children it claims to protect. Additionally, this bill would in fact infringe upon parental rights, rather than protect them. What one family prefers their student not to read, another family considers essential. H1043 would remove parents’ right to guide their own children’s reading. We urge the General Assembly to recognize the distinction between mandatory curriculum and optional library resources and to protect the right of every student to find themselves and their family reflected in the books they choose to read.

North Carolina Library Association Statement of Concern Regarding House Bill 636  

May 13, 2025

The North Carolina Library Association (NCLA) respectfully submits this statement to express our deep concerns regarding House Bill 636, titled “Promoting Wholesome Content for Students.” As an organization representing over 1,000 librarians, library workers, educators, and supporters across the state, NCLA is committed to upholding the constitutional rights of students, parents, and supporting school library professionals in exercising local control over access to a developmentally appropriate and enriching range of materials in line with that school community's needs and interests.

While we recognize the importance of thoughtful collection development in school libraries and the need for transparency with families and communities, we believe that House Bill 636 introduces unnecessary and constitutionally troubling constraints that risk infringing upon students’ and parents’ First Amendment rights and the professional integrity of school librarians. Our core concerns are that the bill is a threat to constitutionally protected speech in schools, hazards schools and school districts with an overly expansive materials challenge mechanism, and creates a state-sponsored banned list that cannot remain viewpoint neutral over time.

H636 creates a system where school library materials can be rejected or removed based on vague and subjective criteria, such as being deemed “pervasively vulgar” or containing “descriptions or visual depictions of sexual activity.” Likewise, the bill editorializes language like “high value” and “appropriate” in ways that will be impossible to apply consistently and fairly. These terms are undefined in the context of educational and literary value. They may lead to the exclusion of constitutionally protected works, particularly those addressing the realities of adolescence, identity, or history. As the Supreme Court affirmed in Board of Education v. Pico (1982), school boards may not remove materials from libraries simply because they dislike the ideas contained within them.

By allowing any county resident, not just parents or school stakeholders, to challenge materials and requiring re-review with just ten written objections, the bill opens the door to ideologically and politically motivated censorship campaigns. It shifts the focus of school library curation from educational and pedagogical goals developed by trained professionals to compliance with community pressure of dubious origin, regardless of the academic or developmental merits of the material. Likewise, employing laws like the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) is legally misplaced. CIPA governs internet filtering for computers and devices used in schools and libraries receiving federal e-rate funding. It has no bearing on the selection of books or other materials for library collections. Its inclusion in House Bill 636 serves no operational purpose and appears designed only to invoke federal law in a way that could intimidate educators and mislead the public.

The proposed statewide database of “rejected” library materials raises serious concerns about stigmatizing specific titles and authors, potentially creating a de facto blacklist that discourages open inquiry and exploration of diverse perspectives. This approach is not aligned with the educational mission of public schools and libraries, which already exercise local control over selecting which materials are most appropriate for their communities. House Bill 636 would even subject book fairs and donated books to extensive vetting and approval processes. These restrictions risk undermining school literacy efforts and creating logistical barriers that limit students’ access to books and opportunities for independent reading.

The bill requires that materials “balance financial cost with need,” but provides no definitions or standards for how to apply this criterion. This lack of clarity introduces the risk of arbitrary decision-making and could be used to reject high-quality but controversial materials. Additionally, the broad administrative mandates of House Bill 636, such as establishing advisory committees, maintaining searchable rejection databases, and conducting public notification and comment periods, will create new fiscal burdens for school districts. These implications suggest that the bill should be referred to the Appropriations Committee for a fiscal note and further review.

We urge members of the Senate Judiciary and Senate Education Committees to consider the unintended consequences of House Bill 636 carefully, and we respectfully request that H636 be left off the calendar this session. The North Carolina Library Association stands ready to work collaboratively with lawmakers to advance policies that genuinely support student learning, parental engagement, and educator expertise. While we share the goal of ensuring appropriate and high-quality materials in our schools, this bill moves beyond reasonable oversight into a framework that risks chilling free expression, undermining professional library standards, and inviting costly, unnecessary litigation against school districts.