As many of you know it’s Banned Books Week, a week-long event celebrating our great nation’s freedom to publish and read and a reminder of the perils of constraining the free exchange of thought. The website Banned Books Week even has an interactive map of the books that have been challenged and banned in the last couple of years.
Banned Books Week has not been without controversy as the Wall Street Journal published a chiding editorial about the celebration, noting that very few books have actually been banned in the last couple of years, which in the opinion of the editorial shows that the ALA has far more power over what kids read than the parents who (almost unanimously unsuccessfully) challenge books.
While I don’t particularly agree with much of the editorial, I do think it raises some interesting points for discussion.
Censorship and book-banning was certainly an important issue pre-Internet, when libraries and bookstores (if you were lucky enough to have both) were the only places where books could really be acquired. But these days the Internet has made any book readily available. Is the issue of censorship as pressing as it used to be, when the banning of HUCK FINN at a library meant a kid really couldn’t read it? Is the editorial correct that if censorship means actually suppressing a book’s availability, it is moot in the Internet age?
And perhaps more importantly, where is the line between parental and public discretion vs. censorship? Should public libraries stock everything and let patrons decide what is inappropriate? What about books that, say, incite prejudice or that the majority of a community feels is inappropriate for children?
Who should decide?
Lots of questions!
mightymur@gmail.com (Mur Lafferty) says
Saying that censoring a book in a school or library is moot now that we have the Internet is like saying racism is moot since we have an African American in the White House. Can resourceful kids still get the book? Sure. Does censorship attempts still do harm? Definitely.
Censorship sends a message about trust, that people do not trust us to read books and not become delinquent, or forever tainted, or harmed. It also says they don't trust us to raise our kids properly – Do they really think Huck Finn saying the N word will cause my kid to start saying it, when we-the real people in her life- teach her to respect everyone?
Fawn Neun says
I'd honestly like to have the last say about what my kids can and cannot read. I'd rather have the library stock everything and leave it up to me. I'm downright permissive when it comes to literature, I want the freedom to remain that way. History is full of violence and hate crimes, we still should learn about it. Sometimes the moral majority thinks Venus Rising from the Sea is obscene. Not for them to say when it comes to educating my children.
And yes, probably pretty pointless in the internet age, unless you have a bastion of parental controls and widgets and supervised access, etc.
C.D. Reimer says
When I going to junior high school in 1984, Mad Magazine had a cover of Alfred standing in front of a snow back, looking back over his shoulder, and "1984" was in yellow on the snow. My classmates and I spent an entire year pestering the librarian to see the copy, and, when the vice principal took it away, we demanded an explanation as to why the cover was so offensive. We never got a straight answer. 😉
Yamile says
I have the ultimate say in what my kids read. They're still very young, and hopefully when they're old enough to get whatever books they want, they will use good judgement and choose things that will edify them. When I was young I read whatever I lay my hands on; my parents had no clue what I read and what I was interested in. But at the same time it bothers me when people won't even give a book the benefit of doubt because someone gave it a bad review (ie: Harry Potter, Da Vinci Code, etc)
Censorship curtails the liberty to read whatever a person wants.
But, I don't want my little kids to be bombarded by pornography and violence. I control what comes into my house.
bethanyintexas says
I agree that parents should definitely be having a say in what their kids read, but I also think that if a particular book goes against a school's policy then it makes sense for the school not to want the book.
There's so many ways to acquire books these days. It's not like if someone really wants a book that they couldn't get it. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's been my experience. (Unless the book is out of print and even then you can find some of those things on amazon.com and sometimes on ebay or other sites).
Sometimes both sides go too far (whether for a book or against a book).
Shaun Hutchinson says
The problem I have with censorship is that (to me) it's really more about parents expecting others (libraries, book stores etc) to do their job for them. Growing up, my mother's motto was that when there wasn't money for anything else, there was always money for books. The caveat was that she did her best to know what I was reading. Of course I snuck some books in there that I wanted to read without her knowledge, but for the most part, she kept the books out of my hands that she thought were a little too mature for me.
And I think that's the line we should draw. One person's trash is another's treasure, but treasure seekers won't have anything to find if censors put everything they hate out with the trash.
Parents NEED to be more present in their children's book. I know parents are busy, but they can't shirk their responsibilities and then expect others to do it for them. That's not fair to their kids of the kids they could possibly deny a great book.
Ink says
My parental discretion means I have the discretion to decide what my kids read – not decide what's available for someone else's children. I won't tell them what their children can and can't read, and I'd be happy if they offered me the same respect.
I might concede a parental permission required for certain books if kids are taking them out by themselves. I think that's a more realistic debate, anyway.
joelle says
For every book that people get worked up about, there are dozens on the shelf that no one even knows about that could incite riots if anyone read them. That's why trying to control what goes on the shelf is laughable.
I lived in a small town in the buckle of the Bible Belt and they had Chris Crutcher on their shelf. I read Laurie Halse Anderson, Julie Anne Peters, and more "books of a questionable nature." Why were they allowed? Because this small town, no network library subscribed to a leasing service and every six months they sent back their YA and got a new box of them. No adults were reading these books except probably me. Certainly not the librarians. And yet, there were people in this town irate over Harry Potter…sacrilege!
As far as parental discretion vs. censorship goes – to me, it's parental discretion when they keep their own kids from reading something and censorship when they try to keep me from reading something.
Anonymous says
Just the word, "inappropriate" makes my skin crawl.
Am I the only one who remembers that the late (yet? hoping, still, not yet soon enough), never great, Nancy Reagan was responsible for giving this dreadful (the vulgar synonym being, piss elegant) its currency.
Semiotic revulsion aside, the value of "appropriate" has been wholly negated by the decentralized net. The fact is, with barely any industry or effort, one can see a whole range of horrifying images on the net. Those images far exceed whatever images words might convey.
So, the fact that book "banning" still exists really underscores the power of books / the word. I find the power and horror implicit in Anne Frank's Diary – she is, essentially, a little girl who is being hunted – far more disturbing, even today, than Judy Bloome or Stephanie Meyers. Banning/censorship tends to glom onto the most obvious books, too: I doubt these self-appointed moralists would even know a Clarice Lispector from a Helene CIxious, or Michel Foulcault. And that trio is far more "radical" than whatever sort of soft-core, vampire porn that gets philistines up in arms.
It's curious, too, in a recent NYTimes Magazine article about gay kids coming out in middle school, Gay-Straight Alliances have flourished on school campus' largely because of a religious (conservative) driven effort to insure groups (like theirs) could assemble. When I got to that part in the article, I LOL & thought, 'be careful what you wish for … '
MattDel says
I agree with Mur. Censorship still denies access to books, no matter what age you're in.
It doesn't deny all access like it used to, but it does make it harder to find the book that you want to read. Some random person having a knee-jerk reaction to something they're uncomfortable with should not have the power to censor any form of the written word. Instead, here's a thought … pay attention to your children and what they're reading (preaching to the choir, yes I know).
I have that same opinion with all media though, having worked for a newspaper for a few years. You the parent always have a choice — turn off the tv, block the website, put the book back when your kid picks it up.
/rant
Joel Q says
I totally agree with freedom of speach, even if it means porn and other bad stuff is available. Because it means everything is available.
A library should consider its community (which is paying for it) when suppling books. It can always get books from another library, that it doesn't want to keep in stock.
Or libraries could also keep certain books off the main shelves that might be offensive to the majority of the community.
But parents should know what their kids are filling their minds with, books, music, TV, movies and internet.
Lydia Sharp says
I think public facilities such as schools and libraries have every right to do what they feel is beneficial for the community as a whole. It's still up to the parents to make decisions for/with the children as individuals.
If a child is not allowed to read a certain book at school, so be it. I'm not going to fight it. He/she can read the book at home. The problem I do see with that, though, is that they lose out on the teacher's input as a professional (which can be golden) and discussion of the piece in a group setting with peers.
Ann Victor says
Living in a country which once banned "Black Beauty" (South Africa) I'm against external censorship of any kind.
Freedom of choice is essential. There may be times when we make mistakes but – if we allow others to choose for us what is right and wrong – how are we ever going to become emotionally mature and responsible human beings?
CKHB says
One of my favorite children's books is on the ALA's most-challenged list. I'm lucky to live in a liberal town that put this book in the front display where I could find it. And I'm lucky to be sufficiently well-off to afford a computer so that I can buy the book online for my daughter even if it disappears from my town.
But I fear that somewhere out there, a library or school doesn't have the energy or resources to fight every fight. Why buy this book for the kids' section if parents are objecting and they don't have enough funds to buy all the books they want anyway? Why not just move on to the next book on their wish list? And then the kids in that town will miss out on a book that I think is valuable, wonderful, and the kind of book that I actively look for when buying books for my daughter. And if I lived in that town, I might never know the book existed.
I think that censorship is wrong, and I'm thrilled that most challenges fail… but what about the ones that succeed?
Dara says
I'm along the lines of parental discretion. Censorship to me is like the government playing Big Brother. It gets touchy because there are certainly subjects I don't want my future kids reading, but if those are banned, what's to stop them from banning other books that go against a certain political view or standpoint?
I think too it's probably pointless if they did ban them because of the Internet. Of course, that's assuming our country doesn't go the route of communitst China and block sites. But I'm praying that never happens!
I also agree with Bethany earlier in that both sides sometimes go too far.
Such tough questions!
melissa @ 1lbr says
I think banning a book from a library is still preventing some people from getting it. Saying any book is readily available on the Internet says any person with the spare cash, a computer or other ereader can purchase it. That excludes a lot of people that a library serves.
Libraries are very far from being able to "stock everything" especially with the economy and budget cuts. It is always at the discretion of the librarian what goes into the collection. And every librarian should consider the community and population when acquiring books; if there is sufficient demand, a book should be added, whether or not someone objects to its content.
D. G. Hudson says
Censorship in the wrong hands can be a tool for suppressing what is different. When left to government agencies, the criteria seems to get muddled by religion, lobbying, and personal preferences of the board set up to decide what is acceptable.
IMO, parental responsibility should include being aware of what your kids are reading. Don't leave that to someone else. I don't like the idea of censorship when it's based on what might occur – the fear factor.
We should all have the freedom to decide what we want to read, and not have our choices narrowed by someone else's idea of what is appropriate. I don't support censorship, but a rating for children and middle grade books might help some parents.
Controversial topic here, Nathan.
Matilda McCloud says
I never had to censor my kids' reading material–mainly because I trusted the school, the local library, children's book publishers, book clubs, children's sections of bookstores not to stock or publish books with gratuitous violence etc. I don't think I ever came across a book that I felt I needed to censor (and I don't think it's right for parents to try to impose their views on others in public libraries, schools etc).
I did semi-censor James Bond and similar video games because the violence was so appalling in them. (I say semi-censor because my sons luckily preferred Pokemon and Super Mario Bros and were grossed out by these uber-violent games).
Mira says
I disagree with the Wall Street article. The article takes the stance that the ALA is trying to stop people from complaining about books.
There is a very wide difference between complaining, asking for parental controls and banning. Banning stops not only your own children from reading the book, but other people's children as well.
Banning is a form of social control, which restricts information and potentially restricts freedom of thought. It's unfortunate that people in this country forget the sad consequences of social control -there is such amnesia about the very persecution that led to the formation of the U.S.
So, the ALA is right to celebrate it, I believe. It reminds us, in a time of freedom, that we need to cherish and value that freedom.
Because the pendulum swings. We have freedom of thought now, and our legal system upholds it, but how easily that could be lost, given the right factors. Certain situations incite fear and anger, which lead to things like trying to control how other people think.
That is one of the reasons NOT to ban books, of course, because an educated public is much less easy to manipulate.
Fortunately banning is close to impossible – over the long term. I don't believe there has ever been a book which was sucessfully banned – a book that disappeared forever. Internet or not, people find a way to get access to the information.
And I just realized, Nathan, that this post may be interpreted as political (although I intend it to be sociological). So I understand if you delete it – but this really is what I have to say about the topic, so I'll risk it.
Christy Pinheiro, EA ABA says
Although it's true that the idea of a "banned book" seems like a thing of the past to us, please remember that for at least 75% of the world, it's still a stark reality. Even Democratic nations like Mexico experience a more sinister type of censorship– the censorship of fear. Where newscasters and reporters frequently get gunned down for expressing their views about the Narco-trafficers.
And the censorship that occurs in the United States might be the worst of all– we all know that the media frequently supresses stories that are contrary to its interests, financial or otherwise.
sex scenes at starbucks says
I'd think it would be tough to find someone in this country FOR banning books or infringing on speech. Where it gets sketchy is "tax dollars", as in "I don't want my tax dollars spent on that trash."
I personally don't want my tax dollars spent on the TWILIGHT series. But I'm sure a lot of parents might not love BONE either, which my son loves. So my feeling is buy 'em all and let the parents decide. It'll all even out in the end.
Besides, you're asking WRITERS if we should cut sales of books, which is what banning does. I'm guessing it's pretty cut-and-dried in this crowd.
Bane of Anubis says
Ditto what Bryan said.
Ben Sloan says
Anything taking government money should not censor on the basis of content. Private companies, of course, can do what they want.
Except Glenn Beck books. Those should be banned everywhere.
Of course.
Stephanie Damore says
Yep, I'm with the majority here – leave it up to parental discretion. I like how Fawn said:
I'd rather have the library stock everything and leave it up to me.
As I said on my blog yesterday, to me it's an issue of Freedom of Speech. As long the material's not slander or causing unlawful behavior, then it should be tolerated – whether you personally like what someone is saying/writing or not.
Anonymous says
Although I am totally for a rating system to make a parent's job easier, I am totally against banning any book from a library.
Jenni says
A book will only incite prejudice if you are prone to it to begin with, in my opinion. If you read such a book and come away from it feeling more strong in your belief about how WRONG those opinions are, it then becomes a very positive reading experience. But if you go home and hear your parents making thinly veiled intolerant remarks (and even the most well-intentioned and seemingly open-minded among us have prejudice or one kind or another) then it might be reinforced and become a negative experience.
I think it is ultimately up to parents to engage in open dialogue with their kids. Explain why things are wrong or right or "inappropriate" or whatever word you choose. Know what they read, put your own foot down if you feel you must, suggest alternatives. Whatever. Every kid is different and every kid will have a different reaction to a story or theme or suggestion. You know yours best so do what is best for them. If you set a good example and teach them respect and honesty and right and wrong, you shouldn't need to feel so insecure about what outside influences are going to do.
And, always always be honest. Don't pretend you are perfect. Admit that you are human and that other people and characters are human as well. Accepting that mistakes and bad decisions are part of reality can really helps strip the stigma. When we expect perfection, when we do silly things like banning books to try to enforce and creation perfection where it doesn't exist, we are always going to be disappointed.
Thermocline says
I feel like I have to qualify my two cents with stating that I am against censorship.
Libraries are public institutions supported by and responsible to their local communities. It is completely understandable why a librarian might shy away from buying a book the vocal locals don’t want. Smaller libraries don’t have unlimited resources. Decisions have to be made. Maybe the choice not to deal with a particular book is the best choice out of the lousy options.
Motives get murky when people are involved. What one Convinced Soul calls “censorship,” another True Believer might call “a practical decision borne out of necessity.” Any town is better off having an open library with patchy titles than one closed because of moral principles.
Anonymous says
I think libaries should stock books they feel contribute to the knowledge of their community.
When it comes to children's books, I don't think stocking them is the end of the world to stock books that are not appropriate for every child, so long as they are appropriate and needed for some children.
Parents who complain about books in the library are, most often, lazy parents. They don't want to have the hard conversations with their kids or confront issues that are outside their comfort zone. Kids are going to learn things. They're going to learn them from other kids, from the Internet, from other parents, older siblings. And the key is to have open communication and be willing to talk about an issue that may be outside your comfort zone. The other thing parents who complain about the books, in many cases, do is believe kids understand things on an adult level. Kids understand things on their level. But, these parents often feel like they need to introduce adult concepts because something they're uncomfortable with has been brought up. (For example, some parents of young children object to books featuring gay couples on the grounds that this is sex education; that's just insane. The topic of sex is no more featured in these books than it is in Cinderella. People just get out of their comfort zone and imbuing adult thoughts into it.)
Lastly, I think it is important for libraries to carry books, even if they're not perfect. When my niece was 7, she came home with a book from the school library, with a title something akin to "My sister's a crack addict." (I apologize, as I don't remember the exaxt title). No one in her family is a crack addict and it's really not something her parents thought she should read about. But, we're not going to fault the library for carrying the book. Because, there's some kid out there who may need that book. And that kid probably can't afford to buy it. And so my brother sat down and explained to his duaghter that this is a bad situation, but nothing she needed to worry about, and life moved on for us. And hopefully, some little girl who really did need that book, got a chance to check it out, too.
CindaChima says
I think formal challenges are just the tip of the iceberg. I've had two school visits cancelled because my books contain (horrors) wizards. This was not reported in any formal way, and I think this sort of thing happens all the time. In one case, the president of the PTA refused to release funds for an event because she disapproved of magic.
A book that offends no one is likely not worth reading.
Michael Pickett says
Freedom of speach doesn't mean that everyone has to listen to you. Freedom of the press doesn't mean that everyone has to read what you've written. Censorship, the kind that we should be afraid of, is the kind that comes from the government, suppressing dissenting opinion, and the like. Libraries cannot stock every book published. That would be impossible. So, a libarian or a community has the right to choose what the library will stock. They can make their decisions based on any factor they want. It could be price, it could be how pretty the covers are, or it could be subject matter and content. That isn't censorship and it won't have much of a national impact if it's done on a local level.
Kristi says
It's my job as a parent to censor what MY children watch and read. I'll say again what I've said before – it's a slippery slope when you give your power away to another entity and think they'll do a better job of deciding what's appropriate. Every child is unique and has different needs.
What I've seen happen over and over again is someone shortening "what's right for their family" to just "what's right" and then trying to impose those beliefs on others – which often brings politics and religion into the discussion. I don't feel enough parents out there are focusing on parenting their own children – but that could be a byproduct of the number of kids I've seen in therapy. It's an easy out to let someone else decide what your children can read.
P. Grier says
Censorship? You mean when when the government disallows a book to be published or read, and to do so means one might be severely punished? How is that an issue in the US?
What the ALA seems to target are children's books that are not shelved in schools and libraries. That, to me as a teacher, is my job– to shelve my classroom (which has over 800 read for pleasure books in it) with books that will entice and engage the students. Since my goal is to educate, I choose the books in my classroom with that in mind. Since some topics are best left for parents to deal with, I don't shelve those books. What I allow on the shelves is at my discretion, because any of the consequences that might occur from what the books bring up, are mine to deal with, as well.
When we throw loaded words at every shadow of an instance, we weaken the word to something less than useless. Let's save the term, "censorship" for when we really find it, not for classrooms and children's libraries.
Margaret says
I fall firmly on the side against censorship by proxy. Limiting access for everyone on the assumption that some might be disturbed by the information seems so obviously wrongheaded that I can't understand how it got legitimized.
And the Internet definitely doesn't solve this problem. I'll give a simple example:
My son is in a myths and monsters literature class in high school. He's doing his project on dryads, which are often referred to as tree nymphs. Because of the other meanings of nymphs, he cannot do the Internet research for his project at school because the word is blocked.
But specific to books, it's not just controlling access for children. Considering how many adults read YA or children's books, that's saying that one member of the community can determine the appropriate reading for all other members regardless of age and ability.
I agree with Mur about access as well. Just because some people might be able to work outside the school and public library system to gain access to a particular book doesn't mean everyone can. Going back to my son, if he didn't have Internet access at home (as some still don't), he wouldn't be able to complete his legitimate project.
Hands-on guidance (while still a form of censorship) would involve parents in what their kids are reading. Having "authorities" make those calls for them only encourages distance and a lack of involvement.
In my house, the rules are these:
* You can read anything you want to.
* If it makes you uncomfortable, you can stop reading it (unless it's for school).
* If you have any questions or concerns, we'll discuss it.
Sure, I read a lot of things that were too mature for my age as a kid. But would my life have been improved by ignorance? That's why I have my kids talk to me if something bugs them rather than preventing them from being bugged in the first place.
Andrew the author says
Libraries largely receive funding from community or state. I’m inclined to believe that those funding bodies should have influence on what’s on the shelves.
The inference “Government funds it so it shouldn’t deny something to any of the people” seems silly to me. The government is supposed to be the enforcer of majority public’s agreed rules. If the community a governing body represents is made up of people who don’t want their middle schools stocking THE ANARCHIST COOKBOOK and DIARY OF ANNE FRANK, we shouldn’t be able keep it on the shelf because “they’re necessary viewpoints”. Unless we’re part of that community, in which case we vote however we like.
I’m against censorship: That’s how I vote and advocate in my community and on any level my tax money is paying for something. If there are enough of us who do so successful attempts of book banning will remain low.
Some people seem to think book banning is fundamentally wrong and should never be allowed. This implies some moral absolutism that is awfully reminiscent of the bigoted people who are pushing the bans in the first place.
Christine says
To Anonymous at 10:10 a.m., the concept of banned books was around long before Nancy Reagan popularized it. And as I recall, Al and Tipper Gore had their hand in the censorship debate as well, although I think they specifically targeted music.
I am all for parental discretion, and against censorship in general. But I do have one concern about the idea of parental discretion as discussed in the comments I've read so far: just how much time do parents have to read every darned book, or view everything the kids are seeing on the internet? While the kids are very young, sure, I could keep up. But now that my oldest is a voracious 15-year old reader, there's no way I have time to read everything she does.
I'm interested in the fact that little has been mentioned about the unintended consequence of banning books, as well. That is the "forbidden fruit paradox." Banning a book makes people want to read that book.
When THE GOLDEN COMPASS movie came out, for example, the Christian right boycotted the movie because in the book, "the author is an avowed atheist and the characters killed God." I have to admit, I went into my daughter's room and got a copy of the book so I could read it and see if that was true.
Amy says
I was a bit on the fence about the ratings system question, but this is an easy one: Parental Discretion, all the way.
The thing with books, especially those with controversial topics, is they are such wonderful launching boards for discussion. It will be SO much easier, and more effective, for me to talk with my children about a drug addict in a book and their feelings about that character rather than giving them some generic "drugs are bad" lecture. My children are young yet, so I do need to do some policing of what they read. I need to be able to censor (I prefer to use the term "postpone" since there will come a time when there's no book my children will not be mature enough to read), at times, within my own home. I need to have these "postponed" books available when the time is right for our family.
Perhaps some should read or reread Lois Lowry's The Giver. Forget about the shock factor in the book and really concentrate on this society which was created with the best of intentions. How much do we have to lose in order to live with no pain?
Sissy says
I can tell you that books are still removed from libraries all over the place. Especially school libraries. There is a process in place for the removal of the material, but I do get told to pull things off the shelf. Yes, savvy kids, or ones with more liberal parents, will just get it from somewhere else, but it still happens.
I certainly believe that parents should make those decisions. It should not really be my job to tell you what is right for your kid and their maturity level, but day after day I have to make those kinds of decisions when purchasing books for the library. How many "f" words is too many? Can the characters just kiss, or go a little further? Can I shelve a book where two men or two women kiss? I wish I could say I don't have to deal with it, but I do. It makes my job scary sometimes.
Susan Quinn says
You knew this was a can of worms when you opened it, right?
Right.
I had a conversation with my kids after reading the WSJ article, the upshot being that teachers and parents have an obligation to keep inappropriate material out of kids hands. 2 out of 3 kids agreed (the youngest wants more violence in his books than Mom's willing to go for).
My 5th grader's teacher's solution: Most books out on the shelf. Questionable books kept in a literal closet, which kids can check out with parental permission.
I think parents have the right, and the obligation, to make sure material is appropriate for their children, as they're the only ones that know their kids and values.
In a way this is a debate looking for a problem.
The problem is not that books are rampantly being banned from bookshelves, that vital literary resources are being kept from the children of our nation. The problem is the pervasiveness of "adult" themes (sex, violence, drugs) creeping down in children's literature and movies. While people maybe be (rightfully) aghast at the marketing candy cigarettes, or juice flavored alcoholic drinks to teens, there is not a similar level of concern about destructive behavior portrayed in media.
We don't need censorship to keep kids safe. We need responsible parents, and an assist from other gatekeepers, such as teachers and librarians. It's not censorship to say "check with your parents first".
bryngreenwood says
I think censorship always has been and still is a class issue. For children who have ready access to the internet and the resources to order books, etc., it's probably moot. There are still children whose socio-economic status limits their access to the internet and to books that might be challenged.
word verification: pantlik (the stage before you abase yourself so far you're willing to shoelik.)
Marilyn Peake says
I’ve been following lots of Internet discussion about banned books this past week until I finally stopped reading the flood of tweets about it on Twitter, many of which were angry rants. My impression is that the definition of "banning" has changed. I’m definitely against truly banning books in any kind of FAHRENHEIT 451 kind of way. I think that adults should be able to read any and all literature. Traditionally, libraries have always housed a wide range of literature, including controversial literature, but they’ve never been expected to house everything that anyone’s ever placed in print. Much of the recent discussion on Twitter has expressed outrage that middle school libraries aren’t willing to stock young adult books about very adult subjects and invite the authors of those books to speak with all their students, the discussion referring to this as school systems "banning" books. Since middle school children vary widely in their individual stages of development, some middle schools actually house sixth graders in a different part of the school building than eighth graders. While some middle school children engage in adult activities, others are still playing with Barbie dolls and G.I. Joes. We haven’t "banned" alcohol, but it’s still not allowed to be served in middle school lunchrooms. There’s a reason for that. Controversial young adult books are in no way, shape or form being "banned". Individual kids struggling with drug addiction and adult problems are free to purchase young adult – or even adult books – on those subjects, and parents are free to buy the books for them if they think the books will help them through their struggles. Also, while there are many wonderfully written young adult novels, some of the young adult books to which I’m referring are not great works of literature by any stretch of the imagination; they simply sell well among a large enough group of teens and young adults to make money.
To expand on my analogy regarding alcohol, I’m certainly not against drinking it. However, it bothers me that beer companies host beach parties with beer kegs for college students’ spring break, and that reality TV shows supply alcohol to young adults so that they’ll feel free to act out and make interesting TV. Just because something makes money doesn’t make it right.
Susan Quinn says
P. Grier – I am so glad we have teachers like you! And I do think many, many teachers think this way.
Erin says
I don't have a banned book story, but close. I wasn't allowed to watch MTV as a kid. And the first time I snuck over to a friend's house to watch it, the very first video I saw was "Jeremy" by Pearl Jam- a video in which a tortured kid shoots himself in the head, splattering his blood on the classmates who'd bullied him. …As a kid that was still recovering from a rough first year at a new school in which I'd suffered a lot of torment from the other kids, this video hit home in a terrifying way, and I was disturbed by it for days. I probably could've saved myself a few nightmares if I'd talked to my parents about what I'd seen, but of course I didn't because I knew I'd get in trouble and the MTV ban would probably continue in my house until college. But that experience taught me that censoring the art that kids are exposed to limits chances for important conversations and lessons. …If I ever have kids, I will never ban a book in my house, but if I feel something is controversial or could be sending bad messages, you can bet I'll be reading it along with them in order to discuss it, whether they like it or not.
Susan Quinn says
Also, I know from local experience that complaints about books in middle and high schools are sometimes not just about books available in the library, but books that are required reading in the schools.
This is almost the inverse of the banning issue – here the government (read: schools, because the government requires you to attend) is requiring children to read material that many in the community consider objectionable.
And Marilyn Peake – you are spot on!
Anonymous says
Yes, Marilyn, that was perfect!
Jason Kurtz says
Book censorship occurs when one person attempts to prevent another person from making the DECISION on their own to read or view material that is deemed permissible by the Federal government. If we truly live in a society where freedom of speech is valued, everyone should have the opportunity to make decisions for themselves.
One parent should not have the opportunity to control what another parent allows his or her child to have access to. Again, this is preventing a DECISION. This is really what Banned Books Week is about, the ALA making sure that parents know their rights and those individuals that try to take those rights away are wrong.
Public libraries have a responsibility as a branch of the government and public trust to provide a variety of material for public consumption. Book “banning” occurs when some patrons attempt to have material removed from the library, preventing other patron the ability to make a DECISION for themselves. Some of those materials will be objectionable to some patrons, but when has it ever occurred in all of humanity where everyone has agreed on everything?
It may be true that book banning on a national scale is no longer a common occurrence; however I can tell the “Wall Street Journal” editorial writer from personal experience that it happens on a local level, several times a year. And if it is happening here, it is happening all over. The statistics for book challenges at the ALA is a testament in itself.
Jody Sparks says
I want my kids to explore everything while they live with me so I can guide them about how our family's values fit into what they've read and what our responsibilities are to change anything that they come across that's unfair or cruel or just plain wrong. I just did a blog post on why I let my kids read anything.
"https://jodysparks.com/2009/09/19/im-not-the-goalie-im-the-net/"
reader says
Today getting your book banned by local libraries gets your book a ton of publicity and not much else as far a negativity.
Please, when (if) my book gets published, someone ban it!!
Cary says
I've consumed plenty of books of every genre and some alcohol when appropriate…or maybe borderline.
Peake just peaked. Not a perfect anology, but food for thought. Right on!
This industry will never die as long as we keep reading to and watching our kids.
Cary
http://www.insidethehedges.com
Laura Martone says
Hmm… what an interesting topic. Before today, I would've said "Yahoo!" to Banned Books Week – for I have always been a fierce advocate for non-censorship – but I must admit that the Muncy article has given me pause. I especially like his Ben Franklin quote – 'cause ol' Ben was right… how can you have an intelligent discourse without dissension?
While I get irritated on a regular basis by parents and teachers who want to ban books to avoid "tainting" the little ones… I must admit that, in a free country (as America is purported to be), people should be able to voice their opinions (no matter how hateful and/or misguided and/or revisionist they might seem).
Mark Terry says
I don't care for his editorial much for its lack of coherence and clarity, but…
Public libraries, I think, should stock what the consumers demand and what they can afford, as should bookstores. Then, in terms of children, it's the parents' responsibility to decide what is or is not appropriate for their children to read.
Which then brings me to school libraries, where it is generally accepted that the teachers and staff are "in loco parentis," that is to say, "in lieu of the parents." So they presumably make some decisions about what the professional educators, school board, and the community, deems is appropriate. Which sometimes runs into problems, because, as we know, there are a lot of crazy people out there that want to turn the clock back to, well, hell, in the U.S., some want to turn the clock back to the 1950s, or in Afghanistan where the Taliban and Al-Qaeda want to turn it back about the 1500s. I don't want either one of them running my life or choosing what I or my children can or cannot read.