Bonnie Wallace speaks during a meeting of county commissioners in March. (Sergio Flores for The Washington Post)
“In early November, an email dropped into the inbox of Judge Ron Cunningham, the silver-haired head chair of the governing body of Llano County in Texas’s picturesque Hill Country. The subject line read 'Pornographic Filth at the Llano Public Libraries.'
“'It came to my attention a few weeks ago that pornographic filth has been discovered at the Llano library,' wrote Bonnie Wallace, a 54-year-old local church volunteer. 'I’m not advocating for any book to be censored but to be RELOCATED to the ADULT section. … It is the only way I can think of to prohibit censorship of books I do agree with, mainly the Bible, if more radicals come to town and want to use the fact that we censored these books against us.'
“Wallace had attached an Excel spreadsheet of about 60 books she found objectionable, including those about transgender teens, sex education and race, including such notable works as Between the World and Me, by author and journalist Ta-Nehisi Coates, an exploration of the country’s history written as a letter to his adolescent son. Not long after, the county’s chief librarian sent the list to Suzette Baker, head of one of the library’s three branches.”
(Annie Gowen. “Censorship battles’ new frontier: Your public library.” The Washington Post. April 17, 2022.)
You just knew it was coming. Censorship of our public libraries is the latest ultra-conservative Republican answer to the ills of society. Republican opposition to children’s books about LGBTQ parents, what they judge as “pornography” or “critical race theory, and anti-racism literature is now driving more of them to seek seats on library boards.
According to the website of Rachelle Ottosen, a recently elected conservative library board member in Kootenai, Idaho, public libraries don’t need to be “an extension of scriptural knowledge only, but they sure shouldn’t be forcing taxpayer funding of Satanic agendas that lead to the destruction of our nation.”
In 2020, a conservative Republican state legislator, Ben Baker (Missouri), created quite a stir in library circles when he introduced the Parental Oversight of Public Libraries Act, or House Bill 2044. The bill calls for the creation of elected five-member panels who would provide oversight on books held in public library collections to ensure that the titles offered are appropriate for children (i.e., not sexually explicit). The bill also calls for community input, meaning the public would be called upon to suggest titles that should be excluded from public library collections accessible by children.
To top it off library staff who “willfully” refuse to comply could be fined up to $500 or jailed for up to a year. (And, as if that’s not enough, libraries could lose their funding).
What books require oversight according to HB2044?
“Age-inappropriate sexual material,” any description or representation, in any form, of nudity, sexuality, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or sadomasochistic abuse, that: (a) Taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest of minors; (b) Is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community with respect to what is appropriate material for minors; and (c) Taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.”
(Kimberly Rues. “A Politician Wants to Censor Books and Throw Librarians in Jail. It’s a SlipperySlope.” https://www.edsurge.com/news/2020-02-11-a-politician-wants-to-censor-books-and-throw-librarians-in-jail-it-s-a-slippery-slope. EdSurge. February 11, 2020.)
Of course, library advocates have voiced their concerns with this proposed legislation. From the American Library Association Office of Information Freedom: “Missouri House Bill 2044 clearly proposes policies and procedures that threaten library users’ freedom to read and violate our deeply held commitment to families’ and individuals’ intellectual freedom, as expressed in ALA’s Library Bill of Rights,” said Deborah Caldwell-Stone, the OIF director and the executive director of the Freedom to Read Foundation in a statement.
Caldwell-Stone continued …
“Public libraries already have procedures in place that assist parents in selecting materials that fit their family’s information needs, while not censoring materials or infringing upon the rights of other families or patrons to choose the books they want and need.”
For those watching the GOP, none of this is surprising. Of course, we all know that thinking is the enemy of authoritarianism. Even basic literacy and math skills are viewed as a threat because they open the door to critical thinking. Above all else, Republicans do not want a population armed with critical thinking skills. Instead, the party nurtures anger and emotional reaction. Why? They prefer a populace that’s kept ignorant because they are prone to blindly following authority.
Wallace’s list in Llano County, Texas, was another salvo in a censorship battle that is unlikely to end well for proponents of free speech in this county of 21,000 nestled in rolling hills of mesquite trees and cactus northwest of Austin. Leaders have taken works as seemingly innocuous as the popular children’s picture book In the Night Kitchen by Maurice Sendak off the shelves. (The book has a drawing of a naked child that is only "pornographic" to people who think all nudity, even children's nudity, is about sex.) They have closed library board meetings to the public and named Wallace the vice chair of a new library board stacked with conservative appointees – some of whom reportedly did not even have library cards.
(Amanda Marcotte. “Banning math books and attacking libraries: Republicans ramp up their mission to spread ignorance.” Salon. April 18, 2022.)
A movement that started in schools has rapidly expanded to public libraries, accounting for 37 percent of book challenges last year, according to the American Library Association. Conservative activists in several states, including Texas, Montana and Louisiana have joined forces with like-minded officials to dissolve libraries’ governing bodies, rewrite or delete censorship protections, and remove books outside of official challenge procedures.
(Amanda Marcotte. “Banning math books and attacking libraries: Republicans ramp up their mission to spread ignorance.” Salon. April 18, 2022.)
Dangers
If we start to have information and books that only address one viewpoint okayed by just one group, we lose diversity of thought and diversity of ideas. Conservative Republicans practice emasculation of any alternative view. For example, they are currently demonizing teachers as groomers of what they believe are dangerous ideological concepts. They wish to cut any reference to opposing thought out of public schools. How easy it is to imagine their efforts will actually breed illiteracy and significantly damage every child's right to education?
Such censorship produces “plain vanilla” thinkers – those who become conditioned to thought control and no longer bother writing or expressing what they think would be anyway censored. They eventually practice dutiful self-censorship and yield to a system and authority of control. How would it be possible to challenge your own preconceptions in such a world? Vanilla only – no chocolate, no strawberry … and kiss your mint chocolate chip and rocky road alternatives goodbye.
A dilemma faces the learner: good and evil are not easily recognizable. They are interwoven with each other to such a degree that discernment requires thorough examination and critical thinking. No one argues that the ultimate goal of education is a moral one, but how do we help individuals learn to explore and wrestle with these intertwinings and then make reasoned, defensible, and compassionate choices?
Seeking truth puts learners on a path filled with contradiction and gray areas. Yet, censorship actually short-circuits the process. Under such controls, individuals are incapable of reason and choice. Instead of allowing and encouraging, individuals to venture out and engage opposing ideas, the censor wants them merely to accept his or her own particular political, social, or religious beliefs.
To foster reason and choice, we cannot impose a singular curriculum or a singular perspective. And, we cannot simply avoid the difficult questions. Rather, we – parents, teachers, community members – must foster a climate that engages differing opinions.
No one said learning to reason is easy. The most important concepts require rigorous study. As an ex-teacher, I can assure you that each student is a unique human being struggling with self-identification and his or her personal application of knowledge. Of course, we teachers want to develop the potential of everyone in the classroom, and I can't imagine doing this by squeezing every brain into an insipid curriculum lacking any adornment. Time and again, my students found novel ideas to be engaging and sufficiently challenging to their preconceptions. These concepts often led them to further self-discovery and higher thinking processes.
Postscript
I have had students read the following three books in my Best Sellers Class and tell me that the books were the first novels they ever read. All three books were among the favorites of students in my class. In addition, year after year, each ignited lively discussions of what conservatives may consider controversial and objectionable topics such as race, social inequality, euthanasia, profanity, the nature of humanity, disabilities, and, of course, censorship.
The American Library Association Office for Intellectual Freedom records attempts to remove books from libraries, schools, and universities. These three books I taught in my class – Of Mice and Men, To Kill a Mockingbird, and The Lord of the Flies – are on the “Radcliffe Publishing Course Top 100 Novels of the 20th Century” that have been banned or challenged.
Here is a history of attempts to remove these novels – books that were in the curriculum of my sophomore class at Valley High School in rural Southern Ohio …
Of Mice and Men, by John Steinbeck
Banned in Ireland (1953); Syracuse, IN (1974); Oil City, PA (I977); Grand Blanc, MI (1979); Continental, OH (1980) and other communities.
Challenged in Greenville, SC (1977) by the Fourth Province of the Knights of the Ku Klux KIan; Vernon Verona Sherill, NY School District (1980); St. David, AZ (1981) and Tell City, IN (1982) due to "profanity and using God's name in vain."
Banned from classroom use at the Scottsboro, AL Skyline High School (1983) due to "profanity." The Knoxville, TN School Board chairman vowed to have "filthy books" removed from Knoxville's public schools (1984) and picked Steinbeck's novel as the first target due to "its vulgar language."
Reinstated at the Christian County, KY school libraries and English classes (1987) after being challenged as vulgar and offensive.
Challenged in the Marion County, WV schools (1988), at the Wheaton Warrenville, IL Middle School (1988), and at the Berrien Springs, MI High School (1988) because the book contains profanity.
Removed from the Northside High School in Tuscaloosa, AL (1989) because the book "has profane use of God's name."
Challenged as a summer youth program reading assignment in Chattanooga, TN (1989) because "Steinbeck is known to have had an anti business attitude." In addition, "he was very questionable as to his patriotism." Removed from all reading lists and collected at the White Chapel High School in Pine Bluff, AR (1989) because of objections to language.
Challenged as appropriate for high school reading lists in the Shelby County, TN school system (1989) because the novel contains "offensive language."
Challenged, but retained in a Salina, KS (1990) tenth grade English class despite concerns that it contains "profanity" and "takes the Lord's name in vain."
Challenged by a Fresno, CA (1991) parent as a tenth grade English college preparatory curriculum assignment, citing profanity" and "racial slurs." The book was retained, and the child of the objecting parent was provided with an alternative reading assignment. Challenged in the Rivera, TX schools (1990) because it contains profanity.
Challenged as curriculum material at the Ringgold High School in Carroll Township, PA (1991) because the novel contains terminology offensive to blacks. Removed and later returned to the Suwannee, FL High School library (1991) because the book is "indecent"
Challenged at the Jacksboro, TN High School (1991) because the novel contains "blasphemous" language, excessive cursing, and sexual overtones.
Challenged as required reading in the Buckingham County, VA schools (1991) because of profanity. In 1992 a coalition of community members and clergy in Mobile, AL requested that local school officials form a special textbook screening committee to "weed out objectionable things." Steinbeck's novel was the first target because it contains "profanity" and "morbid and depressing themes."
Temporarily removed from the Hamilton, OH High School reading list (1992) after a parent complained about its vulgarity and racial slurs.
Challenged in the Waterloo, IA schools (1992) and the Duval County, FL public school libraries (1992) because of profanity, lurid passages about sex, and statements defamatory to minorities, God, women, and the disabled.
Challenged at the Modesto, CA High School as recommended reading (1992) because of "offensive and racist language." The word "nigger" appears in the book.
Challenged at the Oak Hill High School in Alexandria, LA (1992) because of profanity. Challenged as an appropriate English curriculum assignment at the Mingus, AZ Union High School (1993) because of "profane language, moral statement, treatment of the retarded, and the violent ending."
Pulled from a classroom by the Putnam County, TN school superintendent (1994) "due to the language." Later, after discussions with the school district counsel, it was reinstated.
The book was challenged in the Loganville, GA High School (1994) because of its "vulgar language throughout."
Challenged in the Galena, KS school library (1995) because of the book's language and social implications.
Retained in the Bemidji, MN schools (1995) after challenges to the book's "objectionable" language. Challenged at the Stephens County High School library in Toccoa, GA (I995) because of "curse words." The book was retained.
Challenged, but retained in a Warm Springs, VA High School (1995) English class. Banned from the Washington Junior High School curriculum in Peru, IL (1997) because it was deemed "age inappropriate."
Challenged, but retained, in the Louisville, OH high school English classes (1997) because of profanity.
Removed, restored, restricted, and eventually retained at the Bay County schools in Panama City, FL (1997). A citizen group, the 100 Black United, Inc., requested the novel's removal and "any other inadmissible literary books that have racial slurs in them, such as the using of the word 'Nigger.'"
Challenged as a reading list assignment for a ninth grade literature class, but retained at the Sauk Rapids Rice High School in St. Cloud, MN (1997). A parent complained that the book's use of racist language led to racist behavior and racial harassment.
Challenged in O'Hara Park Middle School classrooms in Oakley, CA (1998) because it contains racial epithets.
Challenged, but retained, in the Bryant, AR school library (1998) because of a parent's complaint that the book "takes God's name in vain 15 times and uses Jesus's name lightly."
Challenged at the Barron, WI School District (1998). Challenged, but retained in the sophomore curriculum at West Middlesex, PA High School (1999) despite objections to the novel's profanity.
Challenged in the Tomah, WI School District (1999) because the novel is violent and contains obscenities.
Challenged as required reading at the high school in Grandville, MI (2002) because the book "is full of racism, profanity, and foul language."
Banned from the George County, MS schools (2002) because of profanity. Challenged in the Normal, IL Community High Schools (2003) because the books contains "racial slurs, profanity, violence, and does not represent traditional values." An alternative book, Steinbeck's The Pearl, was offered but rejected by the family challenging the novel. The committee then recommended The House on Mango Street and The Way to Rainy Mountain as alternatives.
Retained in the Greencastle-Antrim, PA (2006) tenth-grade English classes. A complaint was filed because of “racial slurs” and profanity used throughout the novel. The book has been used in the high school for more than thirty years, and those who object to its content have the option of reading an alternative reading.
Challenged at the Newton, IA High School (2007) because of concerns about profanity and the portrayal of Jesus Christ. Newton High School has required students to read the book since at least the early 1980s. In neighboring Des Moines, it is on the recommended reading list for ninth-grade English, and it is used for some special education students in the eleventh and twelfth grades.
Retained in the Olathe, KS ninth grade curriculum (2007) despite a parent calling the novel a “worthless, profanity-riddled book” which is “derogatory towards African Americans, women, and the developmentally disabled.”
To Kill a Mockingbird, by Harper Lee
Challenged in Eden Valley, MN (1977) and temporarily banned due to words "damn" and "whore lady" used in the novel.
Challenged in the Vernon Verona Sherill, NY School District (1980) as a "filthy, trashy novel."
Challenged at the Warren, IN Township schools (1981) because the book does "psychological damage to the positive integration process" and "represents institutionalized racism under the guise of good literature." After unsuccessfully trying to ban Lee's novel, three black parents resigned from the township human relations advisory council.
Challenged in the Waukegan, IL School District (1984) because the novel uses the word "nigger."
Challenged in the Kansas City, MO junior high schools (1985). Challenged at the Park Hill, MO Junior High School (1985) because the novel "contains profanity and racial slurs." Retained on a supplemental eighth grade reading list in the Casa Grande, AZ Elementary School District (1985), despite the protests by black parents and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People who charged the book was unfit for junior high use.
Challenged at the Santa Cruz, CA Schools (1995) because of its racial themes. Removed from the Southwood High School Library in Caddo Parish, LA (1995) because the book's language and content were objectionable.
Challenged at the Moss Point, MS School District (1996) because the novel contains a racial epithet. Banned from the Lindale, TX advanced placement English reading list (1996) because the book "conflicted with the values of the community."
Challenged by a Glynn County, GA (2001) School Board member because of profanity. The novel was retained. Returned to the freshman reading list at Muskogee, OK High School (2001) despite complaints over the years from black students and parents about racial slurs in the text.
Challenged in the Normal, IL Community High School's sophomore literature class (2003) as being degrading to African Americans.
Challenged at the Stanford Middle School in Durham, NC (2004) because the 1961 Pulitzer Prize-winning novel uses the word "nigger."
Challenged at the Brentwood, TN Middle School (2006) because the book contains “profanity” and “contains adult themes such as sexual intercourse, rape, and incest.” The complainants also contend that the book’s use of racial slurs promotes “racial hatred, racial division, racial separation, and promotes white supremacy.”
Retained in the English curriculum by the Cherry Hill, NJ Board of Education (2007). A resident had objected to the novel’s depiction of how blacks are treated by members of a racist white community in an Alabama town during the Depression. The resident feared the book would upset black children reading it.
Removed (2009) from the St. Edmund Campion Secondary School classrooms in Brampton Ontario, Canada because a parent objected to language used in the novel, including the word “nigger."
The Lord of the Flies, by William Golding
Challenged at the Dallas, TX Independent School District high school libraries (1974).
Challenged at the Sully Buttes, SD High School (1981). Challenged at the Owen, NC High School (1981) because the book is "demoralizing inasmuch as it implies that man is little more than an animal."
Challenged at the Marana, AZ High School (1983) as an inappropriate reading assignment.
Challenged at the Olney, TX Independent School District (1984) because of "excessive violence and bad language." A committee of the Toronto, Canada Board of Education ruled on June 23, 1988, that the novel is "racist and recommended that it be removed from all schools." Parents and members of the black community complained about a reference to "niggers" in the book and said it denigrates blacks.
Challenged in the Waterloo, IA schools (1992) because of profanity, lurid passages about sex, and statements defamatory to minorities, God, women and the disabled.
Challenged, but retained on the ninth-grade accelerated English reading list in Bloomfield, NY (2000).
No comments:
Post a Comment