Conservative Christian activists are using a week in which U.S. librarians highlight the danger of banned books to protest the refusal of high school libraries to accept donations of books such as "The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage and Parenting," or books presenting homosexuality as a reversible condition. It's a clever protest, organized by the group Focus on the Family.
The problem is that public school librarians are government employees, and so the role of the state in sanctioning one set of ideas over another comes into play. In the end, librarians who are hired by the representatives of taxpayers should have the right to make these calls, and they are deciding not to include books they consider hurtful and misleading. And religious conservatives certainly have a right to protest.
It's a valid question as to whether there is value in providing access to the anti-gay point of view on the shelf next to books supportive of gay equality. How can anyone learn to respond to arguments they have never really read or heard? Yet children are certainly prone to hurtful and hateful behavior, and public schools are not exactly adept at teaching dispassionate approaches to hot button issues.
The issue, of course, is made increasingly irrelevant by the internet, where content (so far) is not regulated by the state, and which allows children and adults to see all sides of social arguments, even (and too often) at the extremes.
26 Comments for “Banned Books?”
posted by Bobby on
“librarians who are hired by the representatives of taxpayers should have the right to make these calls”
—Really Miller? So when libraries choose not to stock pro-gay views, do they also
have the right to make those calls? No they don’t! The ACLU will sue them. Just like evangelical organizations sue if they won’t stock their books.
Librarians are not representatives of the taxpayers, they did not ran for office, they’re nothing more than government employees, and when a government employee does a bad job, he or she can get fired.
And they DO NOT have the right to let their own personal biases get in the way of deciding what to stock. They have to serve the community, that means the entire community, that means stocking Mein Kampf, anything by David Duke, Stephen King, Karl Marx, Fidel Castro, and whatever else people want to read.
Your attitude is precisely why I hate public libraries. At amazon.com, I can find any book I want. That’s freedom.
Your attitude scares me. You sound like the nazis who used to burn books to prevent people from getting bad ideas. In fact, the same book burnings are taking place today, schools no longer teach Huckelberry Finn or Tom Sawyer or Gone with the Wind or most of the great classics BECAUSE of uber-sensitive nazis that want to prevent children from reading the great works. Shame on you fucking censors!
posted by Caitlyn on
Books should not be banned. Period. The library has a ready-made defense because they were not removing books from the shelves, just not accepting a donation. They could easily say it was because they had no shelf space. But clearly, the real reason was because they did not want to be seen as ‘discriminating’.
People should realize that having these materials does not amount to discrimination. Many orginizations do things like this to attempt to be politcally correct because there are so many pointing fingers out there. But in the attempt they are squashing intellectual freedoms.
posted by Jorge on
Take an elementary school library. There are some books that simply are not appropriate for children, like books discussing sex.
The same rational distinctions can be applied to any public school library. Books that encourage activities such as drug use and unsafe sex should not be placed in such easy reach of teenagers who do not have the experience and temperment to make the best judgments about what is safe and unsafe. Schools have an obligation as the surrogate parents of their students to promote good character and teach students to reject what is wrong. They would be commiting neglect if they failed to set the proper example.
People may disagree on where to draw the line. Obviously homosexuality is one of those topics. But the fear to draw that line is no excuse for permitting perversion.
Sorry, but there are some freedoms the schoolyard gate does block.
posted by Midwest girl on
I’m sorry, Jorge, but I resent your statement that obviously homosexuality is one of those topics. What about gay students in schools, who can not find out healthy information on where to turn if they think they are gay? Where can they learn about themselves? I’ll bet you were just waiting for some queer person to jump on your statement that allowing books on gayness is the equivalent of “permitting perversion.” Living in a lie, denying your true biological self, living in a country where the fear of getting the snot kicked out of your for something that is inherently a part of you (gayness) is perversion. It’s a perversion that in my school students can research promiscuity, prostitution, drug use, and the key terms “sexual perversion,” but the filters block the word gay.
People need to realize that the queers among us will not “convert” anyone. You either are, or you are not. And if more people read books and could discover that gay people are not a threat, and if more gay youth could read books that would help them figure out who they are (as opposed to finding it out through experimentation) we would be living in a better place.
posted by JimG on
How about this as an idea. Schools are really not “public libraries”. They are not intended to serve the public at large but exist mainly to assist students in their school studies.
If the subject is something that is not addressed by the school, like sexuality and/or religion (when not being taught as an academic) then does the school have a legitimate argument against stocking such material?
Because if the school DOES teach Faith issues or sexual issues then the library shelves must be thrown open, eh?
If the school curriculum and library sticks to matters like reading, writing, arithmatic, geography, civics and history, could it then stay out of the “social issues” fray.
If, for instance, the school and the library stuck to books only about civics, the Constitution, and the stucture of government, then it stays out of that fray, but still gives the student every foundational piece of information that the young student needs to then go further, into the society (and to the Public Library) and make up their own mind. And this way the school stays out of making/swaying public policy.
Perhaps?
posted by Gerald on
To JimG:
Such an interesting high school you envision: one where students are not to encounter or discuss controversial “social issues” because we don’t want our young people to have any ideas about “making/swaying public policy.” Wouldn’t that be messy! Just when do you imagine that students should deal with “social issues?” After they graduate?
The fact is, had people actually read the article, that this “protest” was a publicity stunt organized by religious zealots who want their religious books in the schools. The county has a policy for how it evaluates all books by the same standards, including two positive reviews from professionally recognized journals. Their titles couldn’t meet their standards. Library officials even tried to help find books that meet the county standards. But, as with many blinded by myth and superstition, it wasn’t good enough. NO NEWS.
posted by ETJB on
(1) If you are going to require public libraries to include ‘both sides’ on the gay rights issues, then why not ‘both sides’ of say, other civil rights issue? Racial, religious and ethnic minorities? The disabled?
(2) It all depends on whose Constitutional rights someone claims are being violated. Minors typically have fewer rights then adults and on school grounds they appear to have even fewer rights. Are the rights of adults — parents or community members — being violated?
posted by avee on
Gerald: this “protest” was a publicity stunt organized by religious zealots…
Careful, such a dismissal can easily be aimed at gay activists, who brag about getting the media to their “zaps.” And if protests weren’t intended to garner media attention, just what would be the point?
posted by Priya Lynn on
Bobby said “Shame on you fucking censors!”.
Take a valium Bobby. You keep seething with anger like this you’re going to die young.
posted by Craig2 on
High schools and public libraries should certainly stock both sides of the issue. Especially the latter. It saves us having to fork out our hard-earned money when we can simply borrow the antigay library book painstakingly work through it, and devise rebuttals of their dubious evidence-based work.
Trust me. Free speech has its strategic advantages when it can be used as a context to weigh the substantive value of antigay texts and devise accurate evidence-based alternatives.
Granted, I’m speaking from a context where the New Zealand Christian Right has antigay propaganda imported from the United States, and this material is also available on websites.
It does work quite well against their satellite movements overseas, or so I’ve found.
As for the issue of readership age, simply tailor the content to the permissible level.
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
posted by MIchigan-Matt on
Call us silly, but when did we, as a society or a community, empower low level educators like school librarians with the power to decide whether or not controversial books will be housed on a school’s library shelf?
When did the taxpayers, who fund the purchase of these books, invest that power in the school librarians? Isn’t that rightly the job of the school’s administrators and locally elected board to determine?
When did “making students feel good” replace the main criteria of curriculum needs as the purpose behind purchasing books for a school library? Or is this more of the gayLeft’s ValidationActionAgenda -whereby validation of being gay drives all decisions touching on gay students?
Frankly, to me, this is another example of where the gay civil rights movement has hitched its pony to yet one more liberal activist agenda item that has little to do with gay civil rights. Kind of like abortion. Or affirmative action. Or mandatory union dues.
I know, I know, there’s the ancillary notion that some poor besotted gay soul is floundering in a school and happens upon a good gay book in aisle 15, thereby awakening their inner gay voice and finding empowerment, validation and safety in the sanctuary of community… but my hunch is that’s about as likely as finding toleration and acceptance of gayGOPers at an HRC-Obama rally.
We wouldn’t have these silly legal challenges from the farRight or farLeft if school libraries purchased books that pertained to curriculum needs and not prostelyzing.
And the three major reasons for banned books being pulled from shelves? Explicit sexual language, racial bigotry and graphic violence… not validation of the gay lifestyle -as our up-in-arms gayLeft activists would like to project.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Michigan matt said “the three major reasons for banned books being pulled from shelves? Explicit sexual language, racial bigotry and graphic violence… not validation of the gay “lifestyle” -as our up-in-arms gayLeft activists would like to project.”
and
“When did “making students feel good” replace the main criteria of curriculum needs as the purpose behind purchasing books for a school library?”
Apparently matt is okay with making racial minorities feel good by banning books with racial bigotry, but doing the same for gays is going too far.
And matt, where is your proof that these are the three major reasons books are banned?
The truth is that contrary to matt’s assertion that books are not banned due to “validation of the gay “lifestyle” -as our up-in-arms gayLeft activists would like to project.” the gay affirming book “And Tango Makes Three” topped the ALA’s list of most challenged books in the U.S. this year:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/may/07/news.culture
Now matt, when you answer try to stay on topic and deal with the questions and points raised rather than resorting to personal attacks. I haven’t insulted you so let’s see if you can rise to the standard I’ve set for you.
posted by Jorge on
I’m sorry, Jorge, but I resent your statement that obviously homosexuality is one of those topics.
Then resent it, but face reality. There is a very basic dispute on whether and how much it is appropriate to talk about homosexuality in schools, and it is going to come up every single time. Many if not most people in the US see homosexuality as a perversion. Many and I hope it is most people see having to hide your homosexuality out of fear to be deplorable. Question: what are you going to do about it? Deny reality? Well then I don’t think you’re gonna be making yourself very useful.
You seem to be misunderstanding my point. What I am saying is that just because people want to ban books on homosexuality because they are “inappropriate” or perverted is no excuse
to throw out the baby with the bathwater and say it is never a good thing to restrict books that are inappropriate for children. There are some places where we must take a stand and say this is right, and this is wrong.
posted by Jorge on
Gerard: All right, I’ll admit I didn’t read the article in question. “Peer reviewed articles,” though, what an amazing objective measure.
Except when those peers are predominantly liberal and judge a book’s merit based their own slants and biases, such as being against anything that expresses that there is a moral point of view, that authorities should be behaved rather than questioned, that the ideal family is a two parent family consisting of a mother and a father. You reject these ideas together as liberal-slanted academics have done, and it becomes very difficult to split them apart, to say one is legit and one is not. This lends credence and authority to a counter-movement that represents a different alternative that is at once traditional and hostile to gay interests. This is one of the prices of associating gay rights with the liberal-progressive movement.
posted by Jorge on
I quoted you wrong. I mean the positive reviews from “professionally recognized journals” bit.
posted by ETJB on
I would argue that a public library, probably has much more pressure to adhere to the First Amendment then one attached to a public school and thus primarily seeking to serve students, teachers and, maybe, parents.
If it is a question of presenting both sides, the solution is simple. Their are a entire series of books that present both sides of an issue and ask the reader to criticial think both sides. They are often called “Opposing Viewpoints” or “Pro Con” books.
If certain content is deemed to be objectionable for a certain age group, then require a parent or guardian’s permission. Simple.
posted by Bobby on
“Take a valium Bobby. You keep seething with anger like this you’re going to die young.”
—The problem, Priya, is that people don’t get angry, they get used to things. That’s how fascism spreads, today you’re removing your shoes at the airport, tomorrow the government will decide what books you can read.
The nazis burned and banned books to prevent “corrupt” ideas from contaminating the collective. Those school librarians are playing the same game. If you want schools to store “Heather has two mommies,” you have to allow them to store “How Heather became a breeder through Jesus” or something like that from the christians.
Bigotry builds character, it helps the weak become stronger. Gays teenagers who don’t prepare for the homophobic world by reading what the enemy is saying, face a lot of hardship. Censorship must not prevail.
posted by ETJB on
So then, bobby favors teaching kids all about Holocaust denial, the “joys” of white supremancy, and how to grow and smoke your own weed and meth. Nice, that.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
PrincessPriya offers: “Now matt, when you answer try to stay on topic and deal with the questions and points raised rather than resorting to personal attacks.”
Umm, 3 noteworthy points for you Princess,
1) I’m not the one who starts each post with the “liar” taunt that is famously yours and yours alone;
2) I’m not the one who the IGF editors had to remind recently that using your famously favorite terms of “liar”,”lying” etc is a cause for deletion at IGF;
3) you’ve now start your liar taunts with so many names that the litany of IGF commenters and writers may soon exceed the parameters of the NYC phone book.
I think I’d be more concerned about your trend and reputation here instead of trying to preemptorialy raising issues about others as you did above.
Second, you write: “I haven’t insulted you so let’s see if you can rise to the standard I’ve set for you.”
Let’s see, I guess in YOUR mind it’s ok to wildly mis-state someone’s opinion (like with this line): “Apparently matt is okay with making racial minorities feel good by banning books with racial bigotry, but doing the same for gays is going too far”.
I see that as an insult, Princess, even though you attest that it isn’t. What I wrote was that “making students feel good” had evidently replaced the primary role of school libraries (note, Princess, it’s school, not public, libraries that we’re speaking about here; they have a different mission, different role).
You took that and twisted in a way meant to isolate me from other gays by falsely claiming that I think it’s ok for minorities to be validated, but not gays. I think that insult falls under the rubric of “Hey, look over here, Matt isn’t really one of us…” that so many gayLeft types like you are quickly inclined to invoke and apply.
Almost as quickly as BarryO uses the “racist” card and Hillary used the “sexist” card.
Didn’t you see that as an insult? Was it intentional, Princess? I saw it as an insult and I think, invoking the Duke lacrosse team hooker doctrine, I get to determine what’s an insult because I’m the victim, no?
Glad to respond to your other questions -I’d like some clarification on this point, first.
posted by ETJB on
The valid point, albeit not always nicely put, is a public school legally obligated to offer books that present both sides of every single issue?
If the answer is yes, or no, then the implications do go beyond the issue of what textbooks in a public school library may or may not say about being gay.
posted by Bobby on
“So then, bobby favors teaching kids all about Holocaust denial, the “joys” of white supremancy, and how to grow and smoke your own weed and meth. Nice, that.”
—Yes, ETJB. A world where you can form your own opinions without government interference, what a radical idea! But you’re afraid, like most people, you fear free speech, you want everything to be controlled. Like that movie The Stepford Wives, a nice world where everyone only says and thinks nice things. You have a lot in common with homophobes, they also want a “nice” world where everyone is a breeder and all gays go back into the closet. They’re the ones that fought to get “Heather has two mommies” removed from school libraries. It’s funny how when a minority becomes powerful, they become just as bad if not worse than their enemies.
You know, I’m glad I’ve visited white supremacists websites and read Mein Kampf, I’m glad I know what I’m up against. If you did that research, you would end up loathing collectivism and embrace individualism to the fullest extent.
posted by ETJB on
Bobby, admits to wanting to teach kids to support Holocaust denial, white supremancy and how to grow and use illegal drugs. I can not say I am too suprised, given the lack of basic morality and common sense decency you have demonstrated here.
Minors do not have the same rights as adults. Freedom of speech has never meant that you can say or do whatever you want, whenever you want.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Michigan matt said ” I’m not the one who starts each post with the “liar” taunt”.
I didn’t call you a liar in my previous post so you’ve lied once again when you claim that I start EVERY post calling you a liar. You don’t want to be called a liar then stop lying, its that simple.
Your long winded attack on me is a feeble attempt to change the subject from your false claim that books are not banned due to “validation of the gay “lifestyle”” when in reality the gay affirming book “And Tango Makes Three” topped the ALA’s list of most challenged books in the U.S. this year:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/may/07/news.culture
posted by Priya Lynn on
Bobby said “If you did that research, you would end up loathing collectivism and embrace individualism to the fullest extent.”.
Bobby you need to go away and think about this for a substantial period of time. The needs of the individual and the needs of society must be balanced, one can’t emphasize one to the exclusion of the other and have justice, fairness, and freedom.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Michigan matt said ” I’m not the one who starts each post with the “liar” taunt”.
That’s because unlike you I don’t lie and any attempt by you to call me a liar would be transparently dishonest. And in fact you are a liar so its not an insult to state the truth.
You do however start most posts you direct to me with the attempted “princess” insult, trying to imply that I’m vain and superficial. With the possible exception of Northdallas, no one insults people remotely as much as you. Compared to you I’m the epitome of civility.
posted by Bobby on
“Minors do not have the same rights as adults.”
—They do have the right not to be politically indoctrinated by Bush-hating teachers, or left-wing radicals. But I guess you don’t mind a return to the 1950s as long as liberals are in charge.
From your point of view, fascism is ok as long as the left runs the show. So if someday your leftwing friends want our kids to pledge allegiance to mother earth, under nature, that’s all fine and good.
“Freedom of speech has never meant that you can say or do whatever you want, whenever you want.”
—Actually, it means exactly that. It means you can call Bush a monster, deny the holocaust, start a Satan worshiping website, attack the Pope and do pretty much anything other than inciting violence. But you see, gays like you don’t appreciate free speech because you already have it, and you can’t remember a time when you didn’t have it.
Gays like you are no different than the homophobes that used to ran the show.
Instead of being happy for all the freedoms we have, now you want to censor others, shut down websites, control books. You’re no different than Roy Cohn and McCarthy.