In terms of "but is the library stocking enough books on conservative views", who knows what that even means. Is there a book out there that serves as a sufficient counterpoint to Roots? Does a library have to offer The Turner Diaries if they're going to stock Dawn?
As to the question “what about books I think are really bad?” I don’t see how that’s much different than what these parents are asking.
And personally, I would expect high school libraries to have Lenin’s “What is to be done?” and Hitler’s “Mein Kampf.” I wonder how many do?
The trick is generally what defines "Good" and "Important". Just because a book presents a counter-perspective, it doesn't mean the book is worth stocking because the book isn't "good" (filled with inaccuracies, lies, whatever). But sometimes, even a "bad" book is "important". But sometimes it's not. So edge cases abound.
But, just as a check, the Chicago (super liberal city run by super liberal everything) public library system does have "Woke Racism" available.
As does the Austin system.
High School libraries are more limited, so they're obviously not going to have every book, and I'm sure gaps exist for any ideological/partisan view.
By and large I agree with them. But, I don’t think that when the people running a public institution disproportionately represent one cultural perspective, we should automatically trust what they believe about what is “good” or “important,” especially when they are making decisions over the objections of another group in the public. Like I said above, I don’t think you should dismiss a person’s perspective only because if immutable characteristics, but when one group controlling an institution treats its own preferences as an objectively correct “view from nowhere” you should be suspicious. I was persuaded to this idea by my fellow lefties, who seem to forget it entirely when the group running the institution is like them (college educated. Likes PBS) and the group objecting is one they don’t like (conservative white Christians).
“People like me have views that are right and good and children of The Other will be better off if we can teach them the backwards, ignorant values of their parents are wrong” is the view of the “parents should have no say” crowd of today and the “Indian residential schools are a good idea” crowd of the past.
If a person thinks that to the greatest degree possible the preferences of conservative / working class parents shouldn’t hamper access for other kids, i’m with them. If they think “the experts” who happen to be the same SEC / social class as themselves are neutral arbiters of goodness, I think they should reflect on what that generally looks like.
As for Austin and Chicago, we’re talking about public schools here. A context where parents who aren’t well off are forced to send their kids to be taught by agents of the state. It is a much bigger deal if the public schools only represent the views of the liberal college educated class.
My main issue with this story, and stories like it, is that parent's aren't arguing "we need the library to stock more books which present my beliefs in a favorable light".
They're generally arguing "I don't want books available to any child that present anything I don't personally agree with."
So, yes, absolutely, we should be cautious about institutional ideological blinders.
But I'm under no obligation to take serious anyone whose response to those blinders is to limit access instead of expand access.