The simple pleasures of small-town life, like bumping into an old friend at the market or exchanging greetings with a former teacher, have been tarnished for some by the harsh realities of political discord. One resident expressed nostalgia for the days when encounters were eagerly anticipated, rather than avoided due to divisive political posts seen on social media. This shift in social dynamics is not unique to one place; it’s felt in many small communities. Nevertheless, amidst these tensions, public libraries stand as rare neutral grounds where people of varying political beliefs can come together.

During the intense political atmosphere of the 2020 elections, I undertook a study on parenting in a Northern Appalachian town where three-quarters of the population supported Donald Trump. The parents I spoke with shared feelings of anger and sadness stemming from political disputes affecting their personal relationships and everyday interactions.

Amidst these deep-seated personal and communal rifts, my research published in Rural Sociology underscores the crucial role that public libraries play in democracy. These institutions, trusted by communities, face severe challenges from extreme partisan efforts that aim to alter public institutions through budget cuts and censorship. Protecting public libraries is crucial in the broader fight to uphold the integrity of democratic institutions.

Support Science Journalism

If you find value in this article, please consider supporting our acclaimed journalism by subscribing. Your subscription helps ensure the continuation of influential stories that shape our understanding of the world today.

Despite these challenges, public libraries continue to enjoy robust support. According to Pew Research, over 90 percent of Americans view libraries as essential community assets. Surveys by the American Library Association (ALA) indicate that a majority of both Republicans and Democrats oppose efforts to remove books from libraries.

Yet, public libraries are increasingly under financial pressure. In March, President Trump signed an executive order that threatened to dismantle the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), the only federal agency dedicated to supporting libraries and museums. This move reflects broader attempts to undermine public education, ranging from K–12 voucher programs to budget cuts aimed at university programs. These measures make it increasingly difficult for institutions to fulfill their educational roles effectively.

Moreover, public libraries are also facing censorship challenges that aim to sow division. Often orchestrated by organized political groups rather than individual concerns, the recent surge in book bans since 2021 mostly targets literature related to race, gender, and LGBTQ+ issues. These censorship efforts in public libraries align with legislative efforts to restrict how history, race, and gender are taught in schools and to limit diversity initiatives and academic freedom in higher education. From libraries to classrooms, these acts of censorship restrict access to diverse ideas and limit constructive engagement with complex societal issues.

These attacks are particularly detrimental in small, rural communities where a dominant political ideology prevails. With limited access to diverse media, cultural organizations, or specialty bookstores, it becomes challenging for residents to develop the critical thinking necessary for informed civic participation. Public libraries serve as vital portals out of ideological echo chambers, offering access to a variety of government documents, legislative records, and diverse media sources that enable informed decision-making and help combat misinformation.

In my research, rural Democrats and other political minorities reported feeling stressed, defeated, and sometimes threatened due to their beliefs. Libraries provide crucial services and access to broader resources for these individuals, as well as for others from diverse backgrounds or those facing adversity. Reducing funding for libraries or censoring content that reflects diverse experiences further marginalizes these groups and suppresses free expression.

Additionally, libraries naturally bridge social class divides. In my interviews, politically minority residents often relied on local colleges for parenting resources and political engagement, which some felt exacerbated a divide between the “haves” and “have-nots.” Public libraries, by contrast, are places where all feel welcome. They offer digital tools, career services, and cultural programs that foster positive interactions across different social and political groups, enhancing empathy and reinforcing a sense of shared community identity. In this way, libraries act as great equalizers.

Defending public libraries from financial and censorship threats is vital to maintaining social cohesion, intellectual freedom, and the foundations of democracy in vulnerable rural communities. The ALA encourages everyone to contact their federal representatives to oppose the IMLS executive order, share personal stories, write to local newspapers, and organize action groups. In small towns, where social bonds and mutual reliance are key, the erosion of trust and intensification of division are particularly harmful. Our libraries need us, just as much as we need them.

This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are their own and do not necessarily represent those of Scientific American.