North Carolina’s adoption of the so-called “bathroom bill” (House Bill 2, also known as the Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act) on March 23 has been rightly denounced for building bias and discrimination into state law and barring cities from extending protections for transgender individuals. It should go without saying that wholesale bigotry against members of a group is unacceptable and unconstitutional. This legislation is a travesty and an assault on our civil liberties.

The reaction was swift, with organizations, corporations, and big names such as Bruce Springsteen expressing opposition. The protests packed an economic punch: cancelled events, boycotts, and decisions by some companies to take their business elsewhere. (An early tally can be found on the New York Times site.) At press time, North Carolina was projected to lose more than $500 million through 2018 as a result of the bill, according to the Center for American Progress.

Among those protesting were library organizations.

“This legislation is a plain statement of the State of North Carolina’s willingness to permit intolerance and discrimination against GLBTQ citizens,” wrote American Library Association (ALA) president Sari Feldman, Association for Library Service to Children (ALSC) president Andrew Medlar, and ALA Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Round Table (GLBTRT) chair Peter Coyl in a March 29 joint letter to North Carolina governor Pat McCrory. “House Bill 2 contradicts the fundamental values of the American Library Association (ALA) and undermines civil rights and the fundamental principles upon which libraries are founded.”

The Association of Research Libraries (ARL) added a statement on April 12. “The potential impact of these and similar proposed bills is a threat to our patrons, to our employees, and to the core mission of our profession as we endeavor to create safe spaces for open dialogue and opportunities for intellectual, artistic, scientific, historical, and philosophical advancement that will improve our society and world,” it read.

On April 4, the Special Libraries Association (SLA) said it was reconsidering Charlotte as the location for its 2018 conference. And as this column went to press, the ALSC board was convening to determine whether to cancel its institute planned for September in that same city. [On April 18, ALSC announced the decision to cancel.—Ed.] As board members discussed, this is a feasible option because ALSC has the ability to absorb the costs associated with cancellation, as it is not overly reliant on this single source of revenue. The thoughtful comments from the ALSC board made me proud of the rich discourse around these issues occurring in the field.

Another strand of protest came from the kid lit community. Some 269 authors and illustrators of children’s literature cosigned a letter published April 1 via LJ sister publication School Library Journal that referred to HB2 as “reprehensible” and pledged to stand by the young people of North Carolina. “Now more than ever, we stand with you. With all of you,” it read in part. “We will continue to stand with you, to stand for you, and to speak out on your behalf against laws and lawmakers that would deprive you of your rights.”

This resonated for me, as libraries and librarians in North Carolina and other places with similar legislation will need to keep serving their communities despite any boycotts from beyond state lines. As they grapple with how to respond within their institutions (do you make all bathrooms gender neutral, for example?), they must help the individuals who make up their communities respond as well, recognize and avoid groupthink, and for those impacted directly cope with the climate of hostility. It strikes me that libraries are the key to moving forward toward a more inclusive society.

I am appalled that there are so many people in our country who remain fearful of difference and who are seemingly bent on reversing advances in human rights. Enter libraries. Information is the antidote to the fear of difference that drives legislation such as the “bathroom bill.” Information builds insight; fosters empathy through the ability to witness the lives of those oppressed by this and similar bias laws; and fuels the courage to make needed change.

If there is a silver lining here, it can be seen in the broad-based rejection of this effort to embed intolerance in law. The joined voices are a testament, as well, to how far we’ve come in instilling positive, inclusive policy to support the wide-ranging diversity of human experience among us. Let’s make the free society we claim to have a reality for those who have been disenfranchised. It’s up to each of us to make sure we don’t lose ground.