The new school year is barely a month old, but the “book ban” hysteria machine is already in overdrive. Chicken Little is a voice of reason compared to the shrill voices warning that limiting the access of second graders to sexualized content somehow threatens the republic.
Stirring up false arguments about book bans, however, does allow various activist groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union to fundraise in the midst of the commotion. The American Library Association also trots out fearful messaging about book banning as part of its annual “Banned Books Week,” complete with merchandise sales and fundraising appeals. PEN America joins in the fun with its latest sky-is-falling report that 3,362 books were banned in schools last year, claiming that any restriction of books is “eating away at the foundations of our democracy.”
The ACLU calls for its supporters to “combat an unprecedented, coordinated effort to ban books,” claiming that book bans have increased 40 percent in the last year. Of course, nowhere in the fundraising appeal does the ACLU provide sufficient nuance and context to explain what exactly constitutes a book ban. But the organization is quick to shriek that most supposed bans involve “titles by and about people with marginalized identities.”
The ACLU might well be correct in pointing out that the controversy over books is unprecedented and coordinated, but that goes both ways. Parents groups questioning content only swung into action after recognizing an activism to change reading lists and push ideological hobby horses. All actors in this drama have a right to express themselves. It’s the American way.
The major flaw in the argument warning about book bans is that the people who are questioning the content of a school curriculum or the children’s section of a public library aren’t really seeking to “ban” books. The issue is simply what is suitable for the intended audience of kids. Children are vulnerable in a broad sense. That’s why kids are already protected from many societal influences, let alone being prohibited from buying cigarettes, alcohol and so on.
The reality is that the so-called banned books listed by the ALA and PEN America are still widely available for purchase and in countless libraries around the country. Parents who want their kids exposed to certain kinds of sexualized or cultural messages can still acquire those books and read them to their kids as bedtime stories. They just don’t have the “right” to have the taxpayer money of schools and public libraries used to put that content in front of other people’s kids and attempt to shut up opposing voices.
Discretion in the selection process of kids’ books is not the same as banning. Selection decisions are made all the time by professional educators and librarians, and most of those decisions are made sensibly and meet the needs of the communities they serve. But the selectors are not infallible and aren’t entitled to have the final say in all situations. Heck, even NFL referees are subject to having their decisions challenged, and reversed when a bad call is made.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom recently signed a new state law that prohibits local school boards from removing books that contain “inclusive and diverse perspectives.” Illinois passed legislation last summer that financially penalizes public libraries that remove or restrict books because of “partisan or doctrinal” concerns. Of course, deciding what constitutes “inclusive” or “partisan” is quite undetermined, and left to the powers that be. It would also seem these new laws mean any book that ever gets in a library collection must forever remain there. Finally, these constitutionally questionable laws suggest the judgements of the librarians and educators who build library collections are quite sacrosanct.
Demonizing concerned parents as extremist book banners and lumping them with the various despots who really did ban books does harm to the rhetorical sphere. The intentional mischaracterization of what should be a needed and reasoned debate about what constitutes suitable content for youth has gone off the rails. This national discussion should be about proper curation of reading materials in schools and libraries. Curation means some materials get included and some don’t. The materials left out are not being “banned,” and the national dialogue would be enhanced by that realization.
Jeffrey M. McCall is a media critic and professor of communication at DePauw University. He has worked as a radio news director, a newspaper reporter and as a political media consultant. Follow him on Twitter @Prof_McCall.