Book bans: Let’s ring in a new year of non-censorship

As 2023 dawns, Ray Bradbury’s groundbreaking work about censorship, “Fahrenheit 451,” will celebrate the 70th anniversary of its publication. The question is, will this milestone year be greeted with rejoicing that the United States has not become the dystopian world Bradbury created in 1953? 

He was inspired by Nazi book burnings, the McCarthy era, and ideological repression in the Soviet Union. Given the current challenges to the freedom to read, particularly for young readers, any commemoration of this anniversary would be tinged with a certain amount of irony. According to PEN America, in one year, between July 2021 and June 2022, 1,648 unique book titles were banned in 32 states. 

These newly banned books join “Fahrenheit 451,” which was both banned and re-released in a sanitized form. Among the titles recently pulled from library shelves are picture books for young children, such as “Julián Is a Mermaid” by Jessica Love, and books for teens and young adults, such as “All Boys Aren’t Blue” by George M. Johnson. Despite being found on numerous “best books” lists, both books were banned because of their LGBTQIA themes.  

The banning of children’s books, like Prohibition in the 1920s, the “Just Say No” drug education in the 1980s, and the ever-present “Abstinence Only” sex education programs, is doomed to fail in its attempt to restrict the content to which young people have access. Children are innately curious and nothing brings attention to a topic like telling them it is forbidden. Publicized book bans often lead to increased sales. This is also not a case of “what they don’t know won’t hurt them.”

Restricting children’s access to books limits opportunities for them to connect to people who look and act differently from them, and to learn to understand challenging parts of U.S. history. This hinders their development of critical thinking skills.

As a university educator, author, former elementary school teacher and parent, I have seen the power of diverse and complex books to engage children in meaningful and thoughtful conversations. Children are much more aware, informed and competent than some may assume. Books can be a source of joy, curiosity and intrigue for children and their families — not something to be hidden away.

Regardless of opinions on the content of specific books, and their appropriateness for children of certain ages, it is critical to oppose any attempts to remove books from library shelves. This is not simply because many do not want to live in Bradbury’s dystopian society, but also because book bans serve as a distraction from the real conversations about how to educate children to be thoughtful consumers of various sources of media.

Individuals routinely make decisions about what types of print and digital media to consume. Some may turn away from a graphic image in the newspaper; some may choose to watch a silly comedy after a frustrating day of work. After the initial COVID lockdowns and the conclusion of the 2020 presidential election season, for example, many people were less likely to watch the news and instead chose comedies to fill their entertainment time. Simply taking books away from children prevents them from learning how to make these important choices.

In a structured environment like a classroom, or in a home where children and their family members can discuss books, children can be taught to interrogate texts and images they find in the books they are reading. Teachers and parents can ask questions and guide children as they learn to consume a “text diet” that includes books that reflect their beliefs and others that expose them to the realities and complexities of the world in which they live. 

The ability for children to think critically about texts and have trusted adults they can talk to when something confuses or concerns them is a better solution than ill-conceived book bans. Attempting to keep difficult topics away from children is as easy as putting “the toothpaste back in the tube.”

Texts are available in various formats across platforms — for example, “Julian is a Mermaid” is read aloud on YouTube, and “All Boys are Not Blue” is an audiobook downloaded to a digital device. While there are parental controls that keep the most graphic content away from children, published books are relatively easy to find, even if they are banned in a school or library district. Adults who closely monitor their children’s access might be surprised to see what they encounter online. For this reason, teaching children to manage difficult topics in a supportive environment must be a priority.

Few may argue that every book is appropriate for all children at every stage of their lives. Television shows, video games and movies all have ratings, and the children’s books at the local library are likely separated into categories such as “everybody,” “junior” and “teen.”

Parents and guardians make decisions daily about what is best for their children based on their knowledge of their children and their personal belief systems. These choices are completely divorced from calls to ban books. Book censorship says that no child in a school or community should be allowed to read a text and that the material is so bad that, figuratively, the book should be “burned.” 

In 2023, we have a choice regarding what side of history to be on — the side of fruitless book bans that represent content found easily through a simple internet search, or the side of the “fireman” from “Fahrenheit 451,” who said: “We need to really be bothered once in a while. How long is it since you were really bothered? About something important, about something real?”

Perhaps 2023 is the time for all individuals to be bothered by something they read, and to use that discontent as a starting point for important conversations in their homes, schools and communities.

Katherine Kapustka is an associate professor of education at DePaul University, the co-author of “Integrating Social and Emotional Learning with Content: Using Picture Books for Differentiated Teaching in K-3 Classrooms,” and a Public Voices Fellow at The OpEd Project.