It may be that the only thing SB2158/HB2774 does is show how worried Ferrell Haile is about winning his primary election.
The fake conservative Haile has a strong primary opponent who has the added bonus of being endorsed by the proven conservative John Rich.
So because Haile has voted to reward illegal aliens with the state public benefits of in-state tuition (the 2015 bill that passed the Senate but failed in House by a single vote), and the more recent reward of commercial and professional licenses, he now has to pretend that he really is opposed to endorsing Biden’s agenda on illegal immigration.
Haile’s SB2158 is going to require all the state agencies which btw, are funded by the legislature’s appropriations, to tell the legislature how much illegal immigration costs the state.
Does this mean that the legislature plans to send Biden a bill?
But Haile’s real hypocrisy or the fact that he really doesn’t know squat when he votes on immigration related bills and just does follows the marching order from Randy McNally, Jack Johnson, the NFIB or the Chamber, is exposed in his new bill.
Haile’s new bill would add yet another definition of “illegal alien” to the Tennessee Code. The bill says:
(g) As used in this section: (1) “Illegal alien” means an alien as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 101(a)(3), who is present in the United States without lawful immigration status and therefore subject to removal pursuant to federal law. An alien granted parole under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5), temporary protected status, deferred action, deferred enforced departure, or similar exercise of administrative grace or prosecutorial discretion is not deemed to have lawful immigration status;
These are the very same “illegal alien[s]” that in 2022, Haile voted to give them state public benefits.
For example, “deferred action” in Haile’s definition applies to DACA recipients. The DACA and temporary protected status folks were the two groups of illegal aliens who Shane Reeves told the Senate were the intended beneficiaries of his 2022 commercial and professional licensing bill.
Never mind that Reeve’s bill, now law, rewards many other groups who have no lawful immigration status because his law applies to any illegal alien who has work authorization.
What Haile and his cronies may not be prepared for though is the dollars and cents response likely to be generated by the very emboldened pro-illegal immigration groups in Tennessee. Just watch the response from TIRRC and their counterparts like Catholic Charities of TN which the legislature gifted with $7.3 million dollars to help them expand into new Tennessee territory. https://klp.wnv.mybluehost.me/tn-state-funds-catholic-charities-infrastructure-for-refugee-resettlement/
As far back as 2016, pro-legal and illegal advocacy groups like the Republican heavy Partnership for a New American Economy (later shorted to New American Economy), were churning out state reports to show how much money the legal immigrants and the “undocumented”, aka, migrants without lawful immigration status, were generating for state coffers.
For example, the 2016 NAE Tennessee report says that over 10,000 “undocumented entrepreneurs” generated $244.3 million dollars and overall in 2014, Tennessee’s “undocumented immigrants” earned $2.1 billion dollars, paying the tidy sum of $71.1 million dollars in state and local taxes, “leaving them with $1.8 B in spending power.”
Now of course this report says nothing about the remittance money that diverts a large portion of that discretionary cash. Has anyone’s state legislator ever mentioned the $625 million in 2020 and $748 million in 2021, that permanently left Tennessee’s economy in overseas remittances?
The American Immigration Council (AIC) which advocates for legalizing illegal aliens, issued its own report regarding “immigrants” in Tennessee. Their report claims that the subset of “undocumented” have paid $267.1 million in taxes with $104.2 million going to state and local taxes leaving these same households with $2.5 billion in spending power.
Of course what’s not clear from any of these reports is how much of the “spending power” is recycled public assistance which illegal aliens who have U.S. born children are able to access along with tax breaks like the child tax credit.
On the House side, freshman legislator Jake McCalmon (R-Franklin) is carrying HB2774, the companion bill to Haile’s bill.
McCalmon’s bill has a bunch of co-sponsors including several, who, like Haile, voted in 2022, to give illegal aliens the state public benefit of commercial and professional licenses. Just like Haile, House members Rebecca Alexander, Michele Carringer, Bud Hulsey, Iris Rudder and Clark Boyd, are now supporting a bill in which they effectively admit that the same groups they call out as “illegal aliens” and who they think cost the state money, are the very same ones they rewarded in 2022.
Haile is another uber liberal Republican running for re-election to his state Senate seat. He should be sweating because he has an uber CONSERVATIVEprimary challenger in Chris Spencer who is endorsed by the uber CONSERVATIVE John Rich along with other known solid conservatives.
YAY, YAY, AND MORE YAY!
And Haile should be very worried because he cannot either hide, deny or justify his terrible, anti-conservative vote record.
Incentivizing illegal immigration and rewarding state public benefits to people who have no lawful immigration status – Ferrell Haile is as bad as the blue state governor of Massachusetts whose program of “tuition equity” will give college financial aid to illegal aliens or the GOP leadership in the U.S. Senate whose leaked draft border deal with the White House would continue releasing illegal border crossers, providing them with work permits and the continued abuse of granting parole which Tennessee AG Skrmetti has sued to stop.
Haile is just another uber liberal Republican who boasts about being “recognized with a perfect voting record for supporting small businesses by the National Federation of Independent Business organization.”
NFIB, along with the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce were among the lobbyists pushing the Shane Reeves bill awarding the state public benefit of commercial and professional licenses for anyone with federal work authorization even if they have no lawful immigration status.
Haile’s “perfect [NFIB] voting record” included voting YES for SB2464, the bill signed into law by Bill Lee. This may be the single worst bill passed by Republicans which abets the disastrous and destructive immigration policies and practices of the Biden administration.
One year after Haile was crowned “champion of commerce” by the TN Chamber of Commerce, he voted YES for the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce supported bill (SB612), giving the state public benefit of in-state tuition to students without lawful immigration status.
Anti-parent vaccine bill – it gets even worse for Haile. In 2020, Haile answered some of Ballotpedia’s Candidate Connection questions including this one:
What characteristics or principles are most important for an elected official?
His response – “Truth, honesty, and integrity”.
So “truth, honesty and integrity” must be the reason that Haile, as vice-chair of the Senate Health & Welfare Committee, voted YES for the Richard Briggs HPV vaccine bill that would have authorized and expanded the options for healthcare providers to not just treat minors for STDs, but to provide “treatment to a minor to prevent STDs, without the knowledge or consent of the parents or legal guardians of the minor.”
The treatment to prevent STDs was exposed in the House to include giving the HPV vaccine to a minor without parental knowledge or consent.
Don’t for one minute forget that Becky Massey, another member of the Senate Health & Welfare Committee, also voted for this bill.
This bill alone, should be the one the ends the political careers of both Massey and Haile.
Becky Duncan Massey has votedto reward illegal aliens and against parental rights – keep reading.
On August 1, 2024, conservative candidate Monica Irvine https://monicairvine.com/ is planning to primary the lefty Republican state Sen. Becky Duncan Massey.
Coming from a long line of Tennessee politicians, Duncan Massey’s first run for the state senate, was more like inheriting her political due. Of course Duncan Massey pretends that her tight connections with the ELITES of East Tennessee (EETs) haven’t figured into her own election wins.
Why would the common man think that being connected to the Haslams, didn’t matter? Surely it didn’t make a difference in Duncan Massey’s name recognition that her father John Duncan was Knoxville’s mayor for five years, followed by a 23-year stint (1965-1988), in the U.S. House of Representatives, and then have that seat inherited and occupied by Massey’s brother for another ten years.
First elected in 2011, Duncan Massey serves as the senator for District 6 which covers Knoxville and Knox County.
2011 is the same year that Bill Haslam was elected governor. And to no great surprise about how the EETs operate, he was endorsed by Becky’s dad, then sitting Congressman, John Duncan. Haslam named Duncan as an honorary campaign co-chair.
This past October, Massey announced that she will run for re-election to the Tennessee State Senate. The next month and right on cue, Bill Lee reportedly headlined a fundraiser for her.
Of course Bill Lee wants more lefty Republicans like himself but to no great surprise, there is likely an even more important quid pro quo at work.
Guess who now chairs the Senate Transportation Committee?
In 2017, Duncan Massey was just a member of the Senate Transportation Committee. That was the year of Bill Haslam’s “IMPROVE Act” which only passed with legislator sleight of hand in both the House and Senate.
Haslam’s gift to Tennesseans was a 7 cents per gallon tax increase on gasoline and a 12 cents per diesel gallon tax increase.
Predictably, Duncan Massey was a YES vote all the way, including the shenanigans in the Senate committee.
Now Massey is the Chair of the Senate Transportation & Safety Committee and again, predictably, helped push through Bill Lee’s “Transportation Modernization Act”. This $$$ pet project of Lee’s includes the “choice” toll lanes so you can pay more to use the roads you are already taxed to pay for, to get to work on time. And to help put Tennessee on the globalist map, “choice lanes” will use public-private partnerships.
Elitist Liberal Massey has a history of troubling votes
In 2015, Massey voted to give the state public benefit of in-state college tuition to illegal aliens like DACA recipients. Massey was a YES vote in the Senate. (SB612). Republicans were just as bad in the House but failed to pass it on the floor by a single vote.
Haslam was a BIG supporter of wanting to reward people without any lawful immigration status (like DACA), with state public benefits. While multiple other in-state tuition bills floundered over the years, there is little doubt that when given the opportunity, Massey would have been a YES vote.
Predictably, Massey was a YES vote on the Shane Reeves commercial and professional licensing bill rewarding anyone with unlawful immigration status and work authorization, with access to this state public benefit (SB2464). This may be the single worst bill passed by Republicans which abets the disastrous and destructive immigration policies and practices of the Biden administration.
But the vote that by all rights should ring the death knell of Massey’s political career, was her YES vote in 2022 as a member of the Senate Health & Welfare Committee, for Richard Briggs’ HPV vaccine bill (SB148). This bill could be a case study in legislator duplicity and disdain for the people who put them in office.
This bill would have authorized and expanded the options for healthcare provides to not just treat minors for STDs, but to provide “treatment to a minor to prevent STDs, without the knowledge or consent of the parents or legal guardians of the minor.”
The treatment to prevent STDs was exposed in the House to include giving the HPV vaccine to a minor without parental knowledge or consent.
Massey, McNally, Briggs
SB148 was of course filed as a caption bill because the actual language and intent of the bill was so heinous that had it been publicly known from the time it was filed, it would most likely have failed in the Senate committee. As it was, once the actual language and intent of the bill was revealed in the House, it was stopped.
Massey and Briggs both promote themselves as “conservatives”.
Massey’s website claims she reflects “family values” and “your values” which could be true if you support rewarding illegal immigration and eroding a parent/guardian’s rights to protect and care for their minor children.
In the House, Bob Ramsey was the HPV vaccine bill sponsor and it was rumored that this bill helped kill his political career which started when he was first elected to the general assembly in 2009.
Massey was first elected in 2011 – the HPV vaccine bill should also end her political career.
In July 2023, Massey reported having just under $500,000 in her campaign fund. And yet Bill Lee still needed to endorse and help fundraise for her???? Makes absolutely no sense unless Massey has plans beyond the state Senate.
Nothing changes unless the players in the General Assembly change. Send Monica Irvine a few bucks and help her oust the ELITIST liberal Becky Duncan Massey.
In an April interview, titled “America has a God, Not a Gun Problem” Tennessee General Assembly House member Joe Towns, a Democrat from Memphis, sounds like he either hasn’t read or doesn’t agree with the ideological talking points being used by the Justins and other members of the House Democrat Caucus when it comes to what they call “gun violence”.
As the interview moves along from the expulsion of the two Justins, Rep. Towns says:
“Those issues that they’re talking about everybody’s concerned with those issues. Truly people don’t know what the hell to do. Folks don’t know how to stop people and it’s not necessarily guns that’s doing the hurt and the harm in our community. What you have in this country is a heart problem.”
Towns says the “heart problem” is about hate and all the terrible things that come from it.
Regarding violent crime in Memphis, Rep.Towns believes that “most of the killing is being done by children today, 13, 16, 18, 20” and refers to “recent statistics that show that most violent crime is being committed by juveniles.”
And he again emphasizes that “it’s not just one thing, it’s not just guns”.
Rep.Joe Towns (D-Memphis)
In the case of Nikki Goeser’s murdered husband, it was a person with mental illness.
During Thursday’s floor session, Majority Leader William Lamberth, sponsor of HB7003, explained that his bill would allow for lifetime orders of protection from felons convicted of violent crimes which would now include aggravated stalking.
Lamberth referenced Nikki Goeser’s situation to explain why his bill should become law.
While in prison, the man who murdered Nikki’s husband Ben, continued to stalk her by writing letters from prison and yet, earned an early prison release because of “good behavior credits”. In July, he received an additional sentence in federal court for stalking, tacking on an additional year of prison time.
Rep. Carringer (R-Knoxville) stood to voice support for Lamberth’s bill while also thanking Nikki who is her constituent, for her efforts with bills like HB7003.
Rep. Joe Towns also stood in support of Nikki and passionately described his disgust about what happened to her and her husband. Towns said he knew Nikki and worked with her at the capitol where she was on staff; he clearly thought highly of her and his sincerity about what happened to her should not be questioned.
Towns described seeing Nikki’s “broken-heartedness after her husband was murdered” and as he continued, he became visibly worked up, saying it is:
…unconscionable, unthinkable to have to deal with a sap-sucker harassing you after something like that. What I think is happening today is you’re saving two lives because in some situations in neighborhoods, if you’re stalking my sister or my mother you won’t need the police – okay, because there are some of us that would so something to you about messing with our families. So you savin’ two lives by doing this [bill]. You can take that anyway you want to I don’t care how you take it. I’m just letting you know what the facts are okay with me and mine. Don’t mess with me and mine….it’s unconscionable and unpardonable to terrorize a woman after you murder somebody in their family. The police are slow there are some people who’ll get to you before the police get to you…
Rep. Towns sounded like he was in favor of using “street justice” which The Free Dictionary defines as “the punishment given by members of the public to people regarded as criminals or wrongdoers”.
The self-absorbed Tennessee House member Justin Jones speaks in regurgitated leftist talking points.
Listening to him on the House floor and in media interviews, shows his extreme racist and biased lens without which, he would have no platform. For him, racism and bigotry is a one-way street, as in, like Jones if you identify as black, then you cannot or ever be, a racist.
Jones accused House members who voted to expel him as a “racist vote” and enforcement of the House rules of decorum as a “white supremacist system”.
His accusation of racism and bigotry would be laughable if not so pathetically hypocritical in that he leveled these accusations while talking to Al Sharpton, a black man widely known for his extreme hatred, racist comments and bigotry against Jews.
The resolution was originally introduced by Joe Scarborough who at that time was a Republican from Florida; he is now a leftist MSNBC talk show host – same network as Sharpton’s show. Statements in the resolution include:
Whereas the Reverend Al Sharpton has referred to members of the Jewish faith as ‘bloodsucking [J]ews’, and ‘Jew bastards’;
Whereas the Reverend Al Sharpton has referred to members of the Jewish faith as ‘white interlopers’ and ‘diamond merchants’
In 1991, Sharpton helped to incite a vicious riot in the heavily New York Jewish neighborhood of Crown Heights. Sharpton led “a parade of rioters who burned the Israeli flag and chanted ‘Death to the Jews,’ Sharpton rose to national prominence when he delivered a revoltingly anti-Semitic eulogy at Cato’s funeral, thundering that the Jewish residents of Crown Heights practiced apartheid, were only there to further the global Jewish grip on money and power and must therefore ‘pay for their deeds.’”
A recent piecein American Thinker poses the question of whether Hakeem Jeffries, the first Black minority Speaker of the House, is a racist. “Like many blacks, he may believe he can’t be a racist because blacks don’t have the “power to effectuate their prejudices,” or when blacks slur whites, they aren’t slurs because they’re truisms to achieve equity. Jeffries’ position highlights why American anti-racism programs won’t be successful until they eliminate that mindset and, instead, encourage blacks to be honest about their racism.”
The article quotes Walter Williams, a conservative economist and himself a black man, who refers to Al Sharpton as a “race hustler”, a term used to describe someone who uses race to inject tension, division and cultivate hate between and among people of different races. Williams wrote that “race hustlers of any color hurt the country“.
Before yesterday’s House floor session, Jones had already labelled voting as racist and the Republican side of the aisle as a system of “white supremacy”.
Looking for racism under every rock and from every Republican without which Jones has no platform, during yesterday’s floor session, Jones said that Rep. Jason Zachary’s bill, HB158, is a bill based in “white fragility”.
Zachary’s bill prohibits school districts, higher education or the state Department of Education from requiring implicit bias training for educators.
Predictably, the bill passed both the House and Senate on party lines and will make its way to Bill Lee to decide whether he will sign it into law or let it go into law without his signature.
Showing his immaturity by taunting and baiting Republican members, Jones makes it clear that he has no respect for the institution or members who do not share his political and/or social justice platform.
When Jones called House member Rep. Sabi Kumar “the brown face of white supremacy”, was that implicit bias or race hustling? Sadly for Jones, name-calling and using racist slurs will not earn him any degree of respect or create any bridge for credible dialogue that may move his issues of concern forward.
As most people probably know, our state legislators and the governor take an oath to uphold both the Tennessee and US Constitution. Per Article X, Section 1 of the Tennessee Constitution:
Every person who shall be chosen or appointed to any office of trust or profit under this Constitution, or any law made in pursuance thereof , shall, before entering on the duties thereof, take an oath to support the Constitution of this State, and of the United States, and an oath of office.
I ______________do solemnly swear that, as a member of this, the One Hundred Thirteenth General Assembly of the State of Tennessee, I will faithfully support the Constitution of this State and of the United States, and I do solemnly affirm that as a member of this General Assembly, I will, in all appointments, vote without favor, affection, partiality, or prejudice; and that I will not propose or assent to any bill, vote or resolution, which shall appear to me injurious to the people, or consent to any act or thing, whatever, that shall have a tendency to lessen or abridge their rights and privileges, as declared by the Constitution of this State. So help me God.
The Governor takes the following oath:
I,________________, do solemnly swear that as Governor of the State of Tennessee, I will support the Constitution of the State of Tennessee and the Constitution of the United States, and that I will perform with fidelity and faithfully execute the duties of the office of Governor to which I have been elected and which I am about to assume, to the best of my skill and ability. So help me God.
So they are to defend the rights of their constituents in accordance with both state and federal constitutions. And while people can and do have different understandings on what the constitutions mean, recent history tells us that the vast majority of Republicans in the Tennessee General Assembly claim to believe in the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the clearly implied idea of nullification of unconstitutional federal actions.
The proof that they claim to believe in that is found in the vote of HJR9005/SJR9005 as amended in late October of 2021 (www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/112/Bill/SJR9005.pdf.) Note: The Senate adopted House Amendment 9023 and that is the language passed.). Most of the current members were in the legislature then.
This resolution was sponsored by House Speaker Cameron Sexton and LT Governor Randy McNally. Looking at the record posted on the state site, almost all Republican senators and representatives present that day voted for the resolution. Both resolutions had numerous co-sponsors. The only recorded “no” votes came from liberal Democrats. However, Governor Lee refused to sign the resolution.
This resolution was in response to federal overreach during the government-created COVID crisis.
Some of the issues cited were presidential executive orders mandating COVID-19 vaccinations of federal contractors and subcontractors, forcing healthcare workers to get vaccinated if the their facility treated MEDICARE or MEDICAID patients, and attempting to force OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) to require routine testing for employers with more than 100 people, to name a few.
The response in the resolution is clearly based on the Federalism upon which our nation was founded.
Here are just a few examples:
WHEREAS, federalism is described and analyzed in Bond v. United States, 564 U.S. 211 (2011), in which the United States Supreme Court declared that the federal system rests on the insight that “freedom is enhanced by the creation of two governments, not one”; and
WHEREAS, the Court further stated that this freedom is enhanced “first by protecting the integrity of the [two] governments themselves, and second by protecting the people, from whom all governmental powers are derived”; and
WHEREAS, federalism serves “to grant and delimit the prerogatives and responsibilities of the States and the National Government vis-a-vis one another . . . [and] preserves the integrity, dignity, and residual sovereignty of the States”; and
WHEREAS, this federal balance “ensure[s] that States function as political entities in their own right”; and
WHEREAS, “[b]y denying any one government complete jurisdiction over all the concerns of public life, federalism protects the liberty of the individual from arbitrary power. When government acts in excess of its lawful powers, that liberty is at stake”; and
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court in National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012), further analyzed federalism and the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and
WHEREAS, the Court acknowledged that a government’s “police power” is the general power of governing, possessed by the states but not by the federal government as the federal government only possesses enumerated powers listed in the United States Constitution; and
WHEREAS, the Constitution’s express conferral of some powers for the federal government makes clear that it does not grant others, and the federal government can exercise only the powers granted to it; and
WHEREAS, the independent power of the states serves as a check on the power of the federal government; by denying any one government complete jurisdiction over all the concerns of public life, federalism protects the liberty of the individual from arbitrary power; and
WHEREAS, the announced executive orders and COVID-19 Action Plan are attempts by the federal government to coerce the State of Tennessee and its citizens in violation of both the United States Constitution and the Tennessee Constitution; and
WHEREAS, each member of the General Assembly has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of Tennessee and the Constitution of the United States; and
WHEREAS, if the federal government intends to overreach its authority to the point that it assumes the traditional constitutional role of a state legislative body, it is only fitting and proper that the very existence, as well as the depth and breadth, of this federal power be condemned and challenged not just in a court of law, but also through actions of the General Assembly to nullify such federal overreach; now, therefore
Before we cover what the legislature resolved to do, it’s important to note some key points the established up to this point in the resolution.
The authority of the federal government is limited to the enumerated powers listed in the US Constitution. (That is true even though the federal government regularly exceed their legitimate powers.)
The independent power of the states was designed to serve as a check on the power of the federal government.
That check on power is not limited to public condemnation and court challenges where one branch of the federal government gets to decide the limits of power of another branch of the federal government over the state(s) “but also through actions of the General Assembly to nullify such federal overreach”.
Yes, they used the “N” word, nullify – a word of which we should all cheer the use, and even more so, real action by our state against federal overreach.
They identified the actions that were a violation of the U.S. and Tennessee Constitutions – in this case, executive orders and the COVID Action Plan.
Last but not least, they stated “each member of the General Assembly has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of Tennessee and the Constitution of the United States”.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE, THE SENATE CONCURRING, that the State of Tennessee condemns any attempt by the federal government to penalize citizens of this State in an effort to enforce an unconstitutional mandate regarding COVID-19 vaccinations or other COVID-related restrictions and requirements.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that it is the right of the Tennessee General Assembly to enact such legislation as it deems necessary to nullify actions taken by the federal government regarding COVID-19 when those actions violate the United States Constitution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Tennessee General Assembly urges the Attorney General and Reporter of the State of Tennessee to initiate or intervene in one or more civil actions on behalf of the State of Tennessee or, in the alternative, seek appropriate relief in a federal court of competent jurisdiction regarding COVID-19 mandates issued by the federal government, and any actions taken by the federal government, including the President of the United States, the head of any department or agency, or any other employee of the executive branch of the federal government, in violation of federal law or as prohibited by the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, or any other statutory or constitutional provisions of the United States or the State of Tennessee, with respect to the implementation or enforcement in this State of any provision of the federal government’s mandate that requires citizens of this State to either receive a COVID-19 vaccination or submit to routine testing.
The key point made in the resolution is that it is the right of the Tennessee General Assembly to enact such legislation as it deems necessary to nullify actions taken by the federal government when those actions violate the United States Constitution. In this case, the violations were due to policies and actions related to COVID-19.
The resolution also urges the attorney general to take legal action on behalf of the state.It references the 10th Amendment, which states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the states respectfully, or to the people.”
While this resolution deals with COVID-19, the violation of rights and abuse of power could be any policy or practice by the federal government that violates the Constitution according to our state legislature.
Now, nearly 18 months later, the legislature has the opportunity – and many, including this writer, would say the duty – to enact legislation that establishes processes to nullify federal action when needed.
HB0726/SB1092 (https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=HB0726 ) by Rep. Hulsey and Sen. Bowling does just that. The legislation creates more than one method of nullifying federal actions that violate the Constitution. It can be used to nullify federal overreach in the future and or to deal with ongoing actions that are unconstitutional. It, however, does not identify any specific federal action to nullify. It is a tool, a mechanism that every sovereign state should have ready to utilize when needed.
Furthermore, the intent of the legislation aligns perfectly with the resolution previously passed by both houses of our General Assembly. Unfortunately, Governor Lee not only refused to sign the resolution, he is on record as opposing HB0726/SB1092.
Apparently Lee cares more about federal funding than upholding his oath to the Constitution. Lee’s actions are contrary to his claim to support the 10th Amendment when he was running for office.
I encourage everyone to listen to Rep. Hulsey’s outstanding presentation of the bill:
Though resolutions have no teeth in and of themselves, they are intended to declare the belief, desire and intent of the legislature.
Our legislators have sworn an oath to uphold both the U.S. and Tennessee Constitutions. Many willingly signed the resolution clearly and accurately stating the limits of federal power, and the duty of the state legislature to intervene when the federal government exceeds that power. They have declared, and rightfully so, nullification as a legitimate and required remedy.
The importance of this legislation cannot be overstated. If it fails, our state is likely condemned to even more federal overreach and coercion. If it succeeds, then it is more likely that other states will be inspired by the Volunteer State and pass similar legislation.
Restoring our country requires returning to the limited government designed and intended by the Founders. DC will never fix DC. It is too far gone and corrupt. Only the states can restore our Republic and protect our rights.
Those who supported the resolution in October of 2021 sent the right message. We will soon know if they meant it.
What you can do!
The senate version of this legislation SB1092 is scheduled for the Senate State and Local Government Committee on Tuesday, March 14th. It has to get through this committee.
Please call the following committee members on Monday and ask them to support this legislation. Be polite. If there is no answer, leave a message. The committee hearing begins at 10:30 in Senate Hearing RM1.
Chairman Sen. Richard Briggs 615-741-1766
Vice Chair Sen. Page Walley 615-741-2368
2nd Vice Chair Sen. Mark Pody 615-741-2421
Sen. Ed Jackson 615-741-1810
Sen. Adam Lowe 615-741-1946
Sen. John Stevens 615-741-4576
Sen. Ken Yeager 615-741-1449
HB0726 will be in the State Government Committee on Wednesday, March 15th . The committee hearing begins at 10:30 in House Hearing RM 1.
Last year 35 House and 15 Senate Republicans voted to help Democrats pass Republican Shane Reeves’ bill that makes illegal aliens with temporary federal (as in Biden administration) work authorization, eligible to obtain commercial and professional licenses. Helping to advance Biden’s agenda on illegal immigration, Tennessee Republicans have enabled illegal aliens to now becomelicensed teachers, doctors, lawyers, plumbers, general contractors, etc.
Bill Lee of course, rushed to sign it into law.
Sen. John Stevens and Rep. Andrew Farmer, both of whom are lawyers, both voted for the Shane Reeves bill to reward illegal aliens with this state public benefit. It apparently didn’t matter to these two Republican lawyers that the illegal aliens they have rewarded, do not have lawful presence for purposes of getting state public benefits.
Surely they knew, being lawyers and all, that being granted work authorization by the federal government doesn’t change an illegal alien’s immigration status or make them somehow lawfully present in the U.S. for purposes of getting state public benefits.
While Sen. Reeves may not have understood that his target group of Obama’s DACA recipients are not lawfully present for purposes of getting state public benefits, how is it that two lawyer-legislators didn’t know this? Or did they know and chose anyway to vote in favor of rewarding DACA illegal aliens with a public benefit?
Regardless, the bill that Bill Lee signed into law applies to other illegal aliens with work authorization beyond DACA recipients.
Rep. Farmer is pretty soft when it comes to bills dealing with illegal immigration. Hypocritically, when one of the bills sponsored by Rep. Dan Howell dealing with the Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) being smuggled into Tennessee was in the committee Farmer was chairing, and after Howell admitted that UACs have no lawful immigration status but lamented that his new child care license is “all that we can do” in the face of federal jurisdiction over immigration, Farmer reminded everyone that the federal government has “exclusive jurisdiction even though we are a sovereign state”.
But there is no federal mandate to give illegal aliens state public benefits like professional licenses. Farmer also voted YES in 2015, to give illegal aliens the state public benefit of in-state tuition; the bill failed by a single vote in the House.
While Stevens voted NO on the 2015 in-state tuition bill, he did vote YES on the UAC bill last year.
Word has it that a bill giving the public benefit of in-state tuition to illegal aliens may have enough support this year to finally pass. Reporting as of 2018, noted that at least five states that give illegal aliens in-state tuition also allow them to get a license to practice law.
Will Tennessee become state #6?
Regardless, Stevens and Farmer deserve to be asked why they want to help illegal aliens become licensed to practice law in Tennessee.
On January 24, 2023, twenty states led by Texas, filed a lawsuit challenging the Biden administration’s new program to bring hundreds of thousands more illegal aliens into the U.S..
Tennessee is one of the states suing. The other nineteen states are Texas, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, South Carolina, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.
Tennessee is represented in this lawsuit by the new Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti.
These states are asking a federal court in Texas to “enjoin, declare unlawful and set aside the Department [of Homeland Security]’s lawless parole program.”
The parole program addressed by this lawsuit will allow up to an additional 30,000 aliens per month (or 360,000 per year) from Venezuela, Ukraine, Cuba, Haiti and Nicaragua, into the United States without explicit authorization from Congress.
Critically as it relates to Tennessee, migrants admitted under this this new illegal Biden program, will be automatically eligible to apply for work authorization and can stay in the United States for up to two years.”
The Shane Reeves “Workforce Expansion Act” passed by Republicans and Democrats and signed into law by Bill Lee, says that if you have work authorization, you are now eligible for commercial and professional licenses in Tennessee.
Tennessee Republicans have made work authorization the golden ticket for illegal aliens.
The lawsuit
The lawsuit document is structured with each state stating how the new program causes “substantial harm” to their state.Tennessee’s portion begins on p.27 of the lawsuit in paragraph 124.
Eight of the supposedly “red” states, Tennessee included, use illegal alien population data from the Migration Policy Institute, a self-described non-partisan think tank whose funders include, the George Soros Open Society Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Migration & Refugee Services, the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant & Refugee Rights, the Ford Foundation, the U.S. State Department, the Catholic League Immigration Network, the National Conference of State Legislatures and the JM Kaplan Fund, just to name a few.
Influence Watch describes the Migration Policy Institute as “a think tank that produces research and policy analysis advocating for permanent legal residence for undocumented immigrants in the United States and increased legal rights for migrants and refugees worldwide.”
MPI has also advocated that state and local governments need to provide better services for Unaccompanied Alien Children (UACs), with an emphasis on legal representation to help ensure that illegal alien minors can stay in the U.S..
None of the twenty states that are suing use the relevant data from conservative immigration sources like FAIR or the Center for Immigration Studies.
Census-based estimates of illegal aliens living in Tennessee range from FAIR’s 162,000 (218,000 with their U.S. born children), as compared to MPI’s outdated 128,000.
In citing cost of public school education in Tennessee no mention is made directly about the annually escalating cost in the millions to teach English to non-English speaking students who may also be illiterate in their native language but the lawsuit does refer to the “approximately $46.7 million [expenditure] on healthcare coverage for undocumented immigrants in its CoverKids (CHIP) program”.
Bad proofreading? “Undocumented immigrants” is the left’s language.
As the lawsuit explains, Biden’s new parole program requires new illegal aliens to have a U.S.“supporter” act as a sponsor. The lawsuit explains that “supporters” can include “individuals with Temporary Protected Status [TPS] and beneficiaries of deferred action (including DACA)”.
FAIR makes clear, that both TPS and DACA recipients “have not been granted ‘lawful status’. Rather, federal immigration authorities have acknowledged their unlawful presence and are opting to temporarily defer their removal from the country.”
This means that Biden’s new program would enable illegal aliens in Tennessee to sponsor bringing new illegal aliens to Tennessee.
Texas governor Abbott puts it simply – Biden’s new program is “flat-out contrary to federal law”. Tennessee’s “Workforce Expansion Act” is also contrary to federal law, and worse yet, abets Biden’s destructive immigration programs and policies.
Attorney General Skrmetti is taking on the new Biden program – any chance he’ll address what Tennessee lawmakers have done to his own state?
Republican state lawmakers like Rep. Mark White, Sen. Todd Gardenhire, Rep. Patsy Hazelwood, and others, have long been advocating for the interests of illegal aliens.
Not to be outdone, last year Tennessee’s pro-illegal-immigration lawmakers and enough Republicans including House caucus chairman Jeremy Faison, joined Democrats in advancing Biden’s agenda on illegal immigration by officially making federal work authorization the golden ticket for illegal aliens to settle in Tennessee.
GOP Sen. Shane Reeves and Democrat House member Bob Freeman convinced enough Republicans to help Democrats pass “The Workforce Expansion Act”. And of course, Bill Lee rushed to sign it into law. (consider that former Nebraska Republican governor Pete Ricketts recently appointed to take Ben Sasse’s seat in the U.S. Senate, vetoed a similar bill passed by his state legislature. Ricketts said it wasn’t fair to immigrants who followed the law to come to the U.S. Unfortunately, the foolish legislators overrode his veto).
The new law gives illegal aliens with federal work permits the public benefit of getting commercial and professional licenses.
In typical fashion, Tennessee’s lawmakers didn’t bother to consider the far-reaching implications of this new law or consider how it advances the left’s agenda on illegal immigration.
In fact, “The Workforce Expansion Act” rewards federal work permits being issued under a Biden immigration program thatisn’t legal.
So using federal work authorization as “cover” to justify appeasing NFIB and the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce no longer passes the smell test.
Tennessee’s new law directly abets Biden’s border program granting parole to Venezuelan, Ukranian, Cuban, Haitian, and Nicaraguan migrants – a program which immigration experts note will continue to flood the country with “‘up to’” an additional 30,000 aliens per month (or 360,000 per year) into the United States without explicit authorization from Congress. Aliens paroled into the United States under these programs will be automatically eligible to apply for work authorization and can stay in the United States for up to two years.”
This program among others like Obama’s DACA program, violate U.S. immigration law meaning that illegal aliens are granted immigration benefits that Congress never authorized them to receive. Simply put, these groups of illegal aliens have no legal or lawful access to these benefits.
At the same time, GOP lawmakers focused on advancing the interests of Obama’s DACA grantees, have chosen to deliberately ignore the fact that these individuals also have no legal, Congressionally authorized immigration status. They are also ignoring the fact that in July 2021,a Texas U.S. District Court ruled that the DACA program was procedurally and substantively invalid and in violation of U.S. immigration law. This ruling was affirmed by the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.
And yet, Tennessee’s state government voted to give the DACA illegal aliens a state public benefit.
It’s difficult to understand why Tennessee legislators support facilitating illegal immigration. In 2018, GOP Rep. Patsy Hazelwood tried to kill the anti-sanctuary city bill to protect crime committing illegal aliens from deportation and in 2015, Rep. Pat Marsh was glorifying illegal aliens as the “star athletes” and “star students” while he was voting to give them the public benefit of in-state tuition.
It remains to be seen when Rep. Mark White and Sen. Todd Gardenhire once again try to secure in-state tuition for illegal aliens. The big question on this issue is whether they will ignore another federal law that would require Tennessee to give in-state tuition to any U.S. citizen from any state if they give in-state tuition to illegal aliens. How would in-state tuition advocate former gubernatorial candidate now UT President Randy Boyd feel about the lost dollars?
When it serves their purposes Tennessee lawmakers defer to federal jurisdiction over immigration. But when they pass laws which gratuitously advance the interests of illegal aliens, they are effectively nullifying U.S. immigration laws. It’s bad enough that the Biden administration is doing everything in its power to side-step, over-ride and openly violate the immigration laws that are supposed to protect U.S. citizens, but why are Tennessee lawmakers helping Biden with that agenda?
Lt. Gov. Randy McNally who supports giving in-state tuition to illegal alien students is concerned that“we’re headed for a downturn in the economy”. And yet, he voted to make Tennessee more attractive to the cheap foreign labor awarded with Biden’s work authorization instead of protecting jobs for Americans and legal immigrants.
Former Chairman of The U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, U.S. Congressman Barbara Jordan, a black Democrat from Texas, better represents Tennessee voters concerned about the impact of illegal immigration, than the current Republican super-majority Tennessee General Assembly.
Jordan was known for looking at illegal immigration through the lens of the “national interest”. As Chairman Jordan told a House committee in 1994, “for immigration to continue to serve our national interest, it must be lawful. There are people who argue that some illegal aliens contribute to our community because they may work, pay taxes, send their children to our schools, and in all respects except one, obey the law. Let me be clear: that is not enough.”
When will GOP lawmakers step up and follow Barbara Jordan’s lead?
Part 2 of this series is focused on the Tennessee Association of School Librarians’ banned books campaign.
The Tennessee Association of School Librarians (TASL) “Banned Books Week” campaign is coming to schools beginning September 18th. Self-described activist school librarians will dare students to “rebel” by reading an so-called “banned book”. Updated AASL (American Association of School Librarians) national school library standards adopted by TASL, endorse banned book lesson plans and displays in schools.
Murfreesboro, TN
The three-tiered library organizations’ “Banned Books Campaign”
Under the guise of “celebrating the freedom to read”, the ALA (American Library Association), the AASL, and TASL push the “banned books week” campaign as part of a political agenda generally described as a “left-of-center approach to public policy”.
Led by the ALA which co-launched the banned books campaign, library associations have been pushing the banned books campaign for 50 years and have helped spread its popularity to bookstores and schools. Restrictions applicable to digital collections are under attack as well.
The “banned books” campaign is based on what the ALA ’s Office of Intellectual Freedom (OIF), deems “censorship” in any form which they say means removing a book from the library collection or in the case of “soft censorship”, restricting access to a book. TASL has likewise taken a forthright stand on censorship of books in school libraries.
It is not censorship, however, when a librarian declines to add certain materials to the library’s book collection. Nor was it censorship in 2019, when Katherine “Katie” Ishizuka and Ramon Stephen, founders of The Concious Kid, instigated a takedown of Dr. Seuss books based on allegations of racism. Their attack on the books convinced the National Education Association to remove Seuss from the Read Across America annual celebration in schools and instead, shift the focus to “diverse” books including “books about race, gender identity, and various other left-wing causes”.
The following year, Ishizuka was appointed editor-in-chiefof the School Library Journal (SLJ).
In a recent SLJ article titled School Librarians Must Lead the Ongoing Conversation About Problematic Titles and Library Collections, Nashville school librarianErika Long (who also serves as an AASL State Level Leader for TASL), says that when a librarian decides to remove a book it’s “basic [book] collection development”.
As another librarian put it, “[w]henever a book diminishes human beings through harmful stereotypes or racist language or imagery, that book has no business being on a school library bookshelf”.
In other words, librarians decide the which books make it into the library’s book collection and when librarians make value judgments to remove a book, it can’t be censorship because they were taught in school that “there’s pedagogy behind” these decisions.
The AASL is enthusiastically pushing “banned books week” out to state chapters like TASL whose website features past banned books displays from elementary, middle and high schools across Tennessee.
The TASL’s September 2022 Conference agenda
TASL’s 2022 annual conference will take place this year a week before ‘banned books week”. Many of the sessions align with the updated AASL Standards adopted by TASL including:
“ProjectLit + Ways to Advocate Through Book Clubs” presented by Nashville Cane Ridge high school librarian Tyler Sainato who will describe how she helped students become political activists around perceived anti-LGBTQIA+ legislation. Sainato was featured in a recent School Library Journalarticle centered around promoting the perceived needs of LGBTQIA+ students, including transgender students in elementary school. (political activism is a target goal of TASL’s advocacy directed at students).
Tennessee elementary school librarian Caroline Mickey (Alpine Crest Elementary School in Red Bank, TN), will talk about “Being an Ally” and “Activism for Introverts”. Mickey’s posted bio states that, “[s]he has been on a personal mission to expand her horizons and learn about her privileges so that she can acknowledge and work to help others recognize theirs. Caroline was recently quoted in a Washington Post article for standing up to book bans in front of her school board. She had recently become the chair for the EDI [equity, diversity & inclusion] Committee…
”Mickey describes her “Being an Ally” session here -“As educators, we are constantly learning howto better support our students. Our BIPOC and LGBTQIA+ students need to know they arewelcome in our spaces, we will respect them, and that their stories will be shared and reflected onthe shelves. My presentation dives into librarianship and activism and how we can be there for ourstudents.”
Three Tennessee school librarians (one from Rutherford County and two from Davidson County), will talk about state law related to school libraries and promote ideas to celebrate “Banned Books Week” in schools.
Dr. Cindy Welch, Clinical Associate Professor, UTK, School of Info Sciences, will speak about how “[i]ncreased scrutiny and edgier-than-ever diverse and inclusive materials has made it harder – and even hazardous – to do the best job for our children. This session will review related intellectual freedom policies and speak to strategies for stocking elementary school libraries, and continuing the good fight.”
The library associations define “Intellectual freedom” as “the right of every individual to both seek and receive information from all points of view without restriction. It provides for free access to all expressions of ideas through which any and all sides of a question, cause or movement may be explored.”
Defending Intellectual Freedomisthe AASL’s guide to assist school librarians using the AASL Standards to help students access LGBTQ+ materials. Along with the activity guide, the AASL provides a detailed chart to support the expansion of LGBTQ+ school library book collections and instruction for students regarding the materials.
The working definition of “intellectual freedom” assumes no information or curation bias on the part of the librarian and that information representing “all sides” on topics such as gun control, legalization of marijuana, abortion and transgenderism, would be easily accessed in the school library. Suggested sources in the “curate” activity guide for students to use to verify information, suggest otherwise.
Similarly, the guide’s suggestion that students use the “ACT UP Method” to validate information should be questioned. As described in the AASL guide, “[t]he primary function of the ACT UP method goes beyond evaluating the credibility of sources. It helps learners to push against privilege and break out of the dominant narrative search cycles”. The “ACT UP” author describes the intent behind the method:
To ACT UP means to act in a way that is different from normal. Normal is defined as heteronormative, white, cisgendered, male and christian (just to name a few). Normal means patriarchy and the systemic oppression of marginalized groups.
To ACT UP means to actively engage in dismantling oppressions.
To ACT UP means pushing against dominant narratives, oppressive hierarchies of knowledge production, and academic ivory tower definitions of expertise and scholarship.
The “Banned Books” campaign and the AASL Standards
This year’s “Banned Books Week” theme is “books unite us, censorship divides us”, a theme which fits well with the new AASL Standards.
TASL, Tennessee’s state chapter of the AASL has been training school librarians in the AASL Standards even though these standards have not been adopted by either the Tennessee Department of Education or the State Board of Education. Regardless, the ALA and AASL require that any school librarian preparation program that wants ALA or AASL accreditation “must” use the ALA/AASL school librarian preparation standards which “reflect the ideals and language in the AASL [National School Library] Standards.” In fact, the first school librarians preparation standard requires that the AASL Standards be part of their training.
As explained in Part 1, the AASL Standards are supported by AASL activity guides which are written by teams of ALA “emerging leaders” who are librarians with fewer than five years of experience.
In one activity for example, AASL’s suggestion for school librarians confronting a book challenge is to “facilitate and share lesson plans that incorporate banned books”.
TASL’s current president agrees that school librarians should follow state law as it applies to the Age Appropriate Materials Act which was passed this legislative session. Lindsey Kimery, coordinator of library services for Metro Nashville schools, past president of TASL and chair of the AASL Chapter Delegates, likewise conceded to this bill and is confident that “TASL members do not purchase obscene or pornographic materials for school collections”.
It may, however, depend on whether books currently in Tennessee school libraries like Gender Queer, Lawn Boy and TASL recommendedFlamer meet the state law’s definition of obscenity or pornography.
In her May 2022 article posted in the American Libraries Magazine, Kimery tells how members of TASL and TLA “worked nonstop to counter [HB1944] this harmful legislation” which would have made the state’s obscenity law apply to school libraries and possibly result in books which violate the “harmful to minors” law, being removed from the school library.
Kimery is opposed to book bans, “worried that young readers could loose access to ideas and information in their schools” including,“titles written by or about marginalized communities, such as racial minorities or students who identify as LGBTQ”.
Rep. Sam Whitson introduced Kimery in committee to speak in support of his bill to reinstate a state-wide school library coordinator within the Department of Education.
Court rules that removal of book from school library is not a book ban
Inflammatory book ban rhetoric and school displays may get attention from staff and students, but telling the school community that the books are “banned” is misleading at best. For that matter, school administrators and school boards should question the propriety of the school library being used for any library associations’ political campaign. School administrators and school boards should carefully probe claims that students’ rights are violated when books are removed from school libraries.
In C.K.-W. v. Wentzville R-IV School District, an August 2022, federal case filed by the ACLU challenging a Missouri school district’s policies regarding book challenges and the removal of books from a school library, the court held that “[a] school district does not ‘ban’ a book when, ‘through its authorized school board’, it ‘decides not to continue possessing [a] book on its own library shelves”.
Two school board policies were involved in this case; one policy permitted school librarians to remove materials “ based upon the contribution to the education program and the age appropriateness of the materials”, while the other policy permitted a committee to review complaints challenging library materials resulting in possible removal.
Plaintiff C.K., a minor student’s case was filed by her parent, T.K. They claimed that the books, three of which were removed indefinitely violated students’ First Amendment rights “by restricting their access to ideas and information for an improper purpose.”
Law Professor Eugene Volokh, recognized as “one of the nation’s top experts on First Amendment law”, provides an instructive analysis of the case, concluding that as to K-12 public school libraries, “the [court’s] decision seems legally correct to me.”
This case is important for several reasons especially as it relates to Tennessee’s Age Appropriate Materials Act and Public Chapter 1137 (which sets forth the age appropriate standard), and the continued reliance by the three-tiered library associations on the Supreme Court’s case Board ofEd. v. Pico, an earlier school library book removal case also filed by a student.Generally, the library associations cite the Pico case for the proposition in Justice Brennan’s plurality opinion that “school officials can’t ban books in libraries simply because of their content” and that students have a “right to receive ideas [as] a necessary predicate” to the exercise of their First Amendment rights.
What the library associations don’t disclose about the Pico case is that it was not a majority opinion and as Volokh points out the decision has no real value as legal precedent.
According the most generous reading of the Pico case as it applies to a student’s First Amendment right to “receive ideas”, Volokh concludes that the takeaway from Justice Brennan’s plurality is that:
“‘local school boards have ‘a substantial legitimate role to play in the determination of school library content’ and that districts have ‘significant discretion’ to determine the books available in school libraries.” School boards, however, cannot remove books “simply because they dislike the ideas in the books”. But, books can be removed according to Pico, based on “‘educational suitability’ or if the books are ‘pervasively vulgar’”, the latter reason agreed to by all the Supreme Court justices.
In the same vein, the Wentzville court held that vulgarity and educational suitability “are at the heart of the determination of the ‘age sensitivity’ determination”; in other words, when books may or may not be age appropriate.
The AASL Standards activity guide for the shared foundation “curate” also recognizes that assessing books in the school library should “be appropriate for the subject area and the age ability level, learning styles, and social, emotional and intellectual development of the students for whom the materials are selected”.
The point is that a book may be removed from the school library without violating students’ rights, nor can the removal of a book honestly be labeled a book ban, ergo, school displays of “banned books” are nothing more than political propaganda.
Using students to advance political advocacy
As TASLsays, “students are at the heart of [TASL’s] work, and our purpose is to help them grow academically”. Students are also used to advance the political objectives of the three-tired library organizations.
For example, the School Library Journal is trying to help FIRE (the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression), find student plaintiffs to sue school districts and challenge decisions made regarding books removed from school libraries. FIRE admits to the weakness of the Supreme Court’s decision in Pico and is trying to help get lawsuits filed that might weaken school board authority related to school library book removal.
Students are included in TASL’s advocacy wheel which includes ideas such as helping students form student-led groups. Examples provided include, ProjectLIT, Sustainable Schools, Urban Green Lab, GSA [Gay-Straight Alliance].
A Knox County middle school librarian describes the purpose of a Project LIT book club is to both encourage reading but use the opportunity to “facilitate discussions on diversity, bias, and other relevant social issues.” In this particular book club students whose parents declined consent for the chosen book may not have been aware that the non-consented-to book’s content and themes were still part of the book club’s session.
Similarly aligned to the AASL Standards, a school librarian-supported, student-led banned book club was launched this year at a Georgia high school.
Tennessee law that may impact book challenges
PEN America uses “educational gag order” to characterize state laws which seek to counter the three-tier library association agenda related to advancing the elements of critical race theory, gender diversity and sexualization of students playing out in school libraries.
In 2021, the Tennessee General Assembly passed a law prohibiting the teaching of concepts that derive from critical race theory (T.C.A. 49-6-1019(a)), including for example, that “[a]n individual, by virtue of the individual’s race or sex, is inherently privileged, racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or subconsciously”.
And yet, after the law was passed, TASL joined the “Teach Truth” campaign and published a recommended book list which included two books by Ibram X Kendi, one of the most vocal proponents of the elements that comprise critical race theory. It should be of equal concern that TASL has thrown their support to the Zinn Education Project, linked of course to Howard Zinn whose work has come under serious and credible scrutiny.
Public Chapter 1137, passed during the 2022 legislative session requires the Tennessee Textbook Commission to issue guidance for local school districts for reviewing library materials to ensure that the materials are appropriate for the “age and maturity levels of the students accessing the material and that the materials are suitable for, and consistent with, the educational mission of the school”. The Textbook Commission is also authorized to receive an appeal of a local school board’s decision regarding a book challenge.
Public Chapter 1002, also passed during the 2022 legislative session ensures that Tennessee’s “harmful to minors” obscenity law applies to digital and other online resources provided to students. It is important to note that the law removed the education exception that blocked the obscenity law from applying to materials in schools.
Public Chapter 744 dubbed the “Age-Appropriate Materials Act”, requires each public school to maintain and post on the school’s website a list of the materials in the school’s library collection. It also requires each local board of education to adopt a policy to establish procedures for the review of school library collections.
Conclusion
Using its library standards, the AASL which describes school librarians as “change agents”, has issued a charge to school librarians to wage a social justice campaign, create student activists, collaborate with educators in their school buildings and use the AASL standards to influence them.
TASL has adopted these standards and is using the standards to train school librarians. AASL and TASL suggest that school librarians should have the power to be the sole and independent determiners of what books reside in a school’s library and which ideas and books our children should be interested in and read.
School displays claiming that selected books have been “banned” mislead students, teachers and visitors to the school. The displays undermine the value parents and legal guardians bring to a student’s learning, the same parents and legal guardians who educators say they want involved in a child’s education.
Some might argue that pushing the idea of “banned books” invites acrimony between students and their parents and guardians, or undeserved distrust of elected officials. Displays that encourage students to inappropriately “act like a rebel” use the school library for a political agenda that is not really about “freedom to read” but rather, a protest against compliance with constitutionally sound state laws.
