In a world filled with months dedicated to celebrating a great variety of cultures and groups, it is particularly important that we not overlook Michigan Library Appreciation Month, which kicks off Oct. 1. 

People are generally familiar with all the benefits public libraries provide the communities they serve. As the Michigan Library Association (MLA) notes on its website: “Libraries are where curiosity meets opportunity, where questions turn into discoveries, and where every Michigander can explore, learn, and connect with their community.” 

That alone is more than enough reason to celebrate our libraries and vigorously support them. There is, though, at this moment in history, another reason to appreciate Michigan’s libraries and the people who staff them.  

For the past several years, there’s been a nationwide effort to suppress knowledge by banning books in local public libraries and schools.  Many of these challenges are focused on books that have LGBTQ+ themes and characters. Also frequently targeted are books that address systematic racism and historical injustices such as slavery and genocide. 

“The reports from librarians and educators in the field make it clear that the organized campaigns to ban books aren’t over, and that we must all stand together to preserve our right to choose what we read,” observed Deborah Caldwell-Stone, director of American Library Association’s Office for Intellectual Freedom. “Each demand to ban a book is a demand to deny each person’s constitutionally protected right to choose and read books that raise important issues and lift up the voices of those who are often silenced.” 

Librarians, along with groups like the ACLU, have been on the frontlines in fighting back against these attempts at censorship. The threat is so prevalent the ACLU of Michigan last year created an interactive map that tracks book bans and other forms of government censorship in our state. You can view that map here. 

Support “Right to Read” 

If you haven’t done so already, there is an easy and effective way to engage in the fight against censorship: Join “MI Right to Read”, a grassroots collection of concerned Michigan residents organized by the MLA. 

The MLA explains its motivation for fighting book bans this way: 

“Intellectual freedom is a core value of the library profession and a basic right in our democratic society. Our goal is to secure Michiganders’ right to read through proactive legislation that protects First Amendment rights and contest any legislation that infringes those rights, oppose attempts to ban books from Michigan libraries, educate the public about the right to read, and ensure that librarians across Michigan will be entrusted to continue to do their jobs and serve the needs of all individuals and communities.  

“We believe that while a specific book may not be the right fit for one person, it may still be the perfect fit for another. No one individual or group should make sweeping decisions that take that process of careful consideration away from the experts and that choice away from readers.” 

It is a widely shared belief. A poll commissioned by the MLA last year found that nearly 80% of the people surveyed said they approved of the work Michigan libraries are doing. 

“In 2023, survey results affirmed that a strong majority of Michiganders support their public libraries and have no appetite for censorship,” stated Dillon Geshel, Interim Executive Director of MLA. “These new (2024 survey) findings point to increased support for public libraries and the freedom to read, and send a strong message to lawmakers, stakeholders, and library boards: Michiganders want their libraries to remain a gateway to knowledge for all, free of censorship.” 

You can join the fight by going here and signing the MI Right to Read petition, which calls on Governor Whitmer and the Michigan Legislature to defend the freedom to read, support library workers, and protect critical statewide library programs. 

By: Mark Fancher

Last month, the ACLU of Michigan filed a lawsuit against the City of Warren and various police officers on behalf of Christopher Gibson, who, on a December night in 2022, was found wandering coatless and confused in the dark, coping with the challenges of a mental health crisis.   

He was a man in desperate need of help.   

When he was stopped at around 2:30am by two Warren officers responding to a gas station attendant’s call to 911 about a man acting erratically, Mr. Gibson tried to make the arresting officer understand that what he needed in that moment was help. His mother, able to reach the same officer through her son’s phone, emphasized that psychiatric care was urgently needed.    

“I was going through it man,” Mr. Gibson said. “Well,” came the reply from the officer, “you picked the wrong city to go through it in.”    

No doubt about that.  

Over the next several hours, Mr. Gibson was repeatedly tasered, pepper-sprayed and physically abused, all while he was pleading for help or screaming in pain. As he fought for his life, he bit an officer on the arm. That triggered the mobilization of a brigade of officers, complete with riot shield and barking dog, to transfer him to another facility. Words can’t do justice to the horrors that followed. It’s best to see for yourself in this short documentary the ACLU released to tell the story of Mr. Gibson’s abuse at the hands of Warren police.  

Why this Case? 

It is tragic that police misconduct, often with a racial subtext, occurs too frequently, and sometimes with results that are far worse than those experienced by Mr. Gibson. Although the ACLU is often asked to intervene in various such cases, the organization must use discretion in case selection. Mr. Gibson’s case was pursued because it highlights so well the widespread failing of a system that relies on militarized police forces to handle calls concerning noise complaints, the unhoused, squabbling neighbors, individuals who are battling substance abuse disorder, or people who are suicidal. For such crises an armed response is not required, and every city should be able to call instead on social workers, mediators, drug treatment counselors, and other professionals with expertise not possessed by most patrol officers. A 2020 review of 911 calls in eight major cities estimates that up to 68% of calls “could be handled without sending an armed officer,” according to a report by the Center for American Progress and the Law Enforcement Action Partnership.  

Mr. Gibson’s case graphically highlights how ill-equipped police officers can be when interacting with people experiencing mental health issues. Mental health experts – not police officers with militaristic training and a militaristic culture – should be available to respond to situations like the one Mr. Gibson confronted. Until that happens, tragedies like his, sadly, will continue to occur.  A 2024 study by researchers at Johns Hopkins University found that mental or behavioral health conditions were associated with 23% (2,404) of all police shootings and 67% of those incidents were fatal. Another report found that people with untreated serious mental illness were 16 times more likely to be killed in a police encounter than others, with at least one in four fatal police encounters involving someone with a mental illness.   

Positive Changes    

If there is any good news, it is that police and sheriffs’ departments across Michigan -- in urban, suburban and rural areas alike – are increasingly recognizing the value of being able to provide unarmed response. More than 30 police departments and at least eight county sheriff's departments now have either social workers on staff or they contract with agencies that provide such professionals on demand.   

“The reality of it is we have training, but we're not mental health professionals,” former Detroit Police Chief James White told Michigan Public about the benefit of having mental health professionals working in concert with law enforcement. “I'm not the mental health police here, but we have a mental health crisis.”   

No one should ever face the abuse Mr. Gibson endured. He required compassion and treatment while in the throes of a mental health crisis, not pepper spray, handcuffs, tasering and physical trauma. His case makes clear, yet again, why Warren and other police agencies not only need to have mental health professionals to respond to – and prevent – the brutalization of mentally ill people at the hands of police, but also for the officers themselves to possess the professionalism, sensitivity and maturity required to make effective use of those resources when they are available.