Good morning,
BANNING OF BOOKS, REDUX
I’ve been railing for a while about not only the intellectual dishonesty of restricting the availability of books (and, for that matter, ideas), but also the sheer futility of the same. As the New York Times reported this week, these bans have expanded beyond school libraries to encompass public libraries. The year 2022 saw the most titles challenged in public libraries and 2023 is going to beat that record. As the article reports, “most of the challenged books were by or about people of color or L.G.B.T.Q. people” PEN reports a 33% increase in school and classroom book removals in the 2022-2023 school year.
First, I think most of us can agree that written material should be available to all adults. Banning books in schools is, however, a highly disputed matter. Some believe people such as I are overstating the issue of book banning, noting that the books are not being banned—merely restricted from youth. Nice try on the semantics, but it is a ban nonetheless.
If someone wants to put disclaimers on books as to their content, like we do with movies and TV shows, I’m probably okay with that, as these disclaimers can provide some direction to parents.
Here are my arguments against restricting access to written material:
Ideas will set us free. The free flow of knowledge and the open marketplace of ideas are critical to a functioning, free press and democracy. Ideas that are broadly available can be considered, discussed and debated in the “open marketplace of ideas.” One needs to learn beginning at a young age how to be a critical thinker. One must be exposed to diverse opinions and experiences. The greater the exposure to different ideas and different people’s experiences, the better. One does not need to be a communist to read Karl Marx. One needn’t be Christian to read Aquinas. One needn’t be Black to appreciate James Baldwin. There is a dangerous trend in America today that suggests if it isn’t “down the middle” 1950s American white ideas, these ideas necessarily are bad or “un-American.”
It’s impossible to set standards or decide. How do we decide? What you think is objectionable may not be objectionable to me. Who decides and what standards are used? Who should be entrusted with these decisions? School boards? City councils? State legislatures? Teachers and school administrators (I vote for the latter!)?
It’s an intrusion into parenting. Those seeking to ban books that educators shouldn’t be able to foist upon young minds books that might be profane or might pollute their young minds with difficult ideas. They believe they should step in and establish “standards” for the community. But in trying to establish broad standards, without regard for the pedagogical aspects of reading choices, they impose themselves as substitutes not only for teachers, but for other parents. I don’t believe educators have made it a secret what literature they available to students. If parents are attentive, they can discuss the books with their children and contribute their value judgments. When parents restrict what ALL children within a class or school district can read, they are making parenting decisions for everyone else. In fact, their philosophical, religious, and/or puritanical view is foisted on the majority of people who are trusting in their children being exposed to ideas by educators who presumably are invested in using this literature to improve reading ability and comprehension, enhance critical thinking, and expose children to other cultures, experiences and ideas. It is the book banners who are interfering with the right of others to parent.
It doesn’t work. Kids will find anything if they try hard enough. It is tough to quell curiosity. When I was a kid, my mother dropped me at the public library to read. I’d go into the children’s section but after a while would find myself wandering into the young adults section and later into the books reserved for adults. This exploration was in itself educational. Today, nearly everything, from the merely provocative to the profane and the downright disturbed and dangerous is available on the Internet. Nowadays, wandering into the adult section—or worse—is just a few keystrokes away.
It’s better to treat kids like adults. I have always believed the adage I got from my father that if one wants children to grow into adults—and learn to make good life choices—one must expose children to new ideas and situations and treat them like adults. We can help inform their choices and discuss their options. If, however, we deny them exposure, they will just get exposed later on their own, without having had the parental guidance along the way.
It’s not a pretty look. As we look to increase democracy and freedom around the world, we must contend with people around the world seeking to point out the shortcomings in our own behaviors. The cynical denial of freedom and the restriction of speech in America evidences a hypocrisy that will be seized upon by others.
SHAKESPEARE—EARLY PORNOGRAPHER
Who hasn’t taken a class in English Literature and found the words and circumstances in Shakespeare’s plays subversive and bawdy? Shakespeare wrote to entertain and inform the people of the late 16th and early 17th centuries. He had to appeal both to the high-minded and the masses. A little off-color sold well, as it does today.
But those seeking to keep young minds pure are seeing Shakespeare as something darker—shameless profanity! And so in the enlightened State of Florida, Shakespeare is being edited and abridged to remove the objectionable parts. It is worth reading this:
“Make Shakespeare Dirty Again,” by Drew Lichtenberg (Opinion guest essay, Aug. 14):
THE SHAME OF RESTRICTING SHAKESPEARE
Through debate coaching, I have had the pleasure of watching young minds grasp an idea and run with it. No doubt professional educators feel this singular emotion regularly, particularly when a student can wrestle with a difficult text or formulate a critique of a book.
In many states, teens’ access to literature is being curtailed—through prohibiting the reading of certain literature or through sanitizing its comments, so that the student only is permitted to read content deemed acceptable to a particular parent body or political group. Here’s what an English teacher had to say about Florida’s recent actions in this regard:
“I feel sorry for students in Florida. Shakespeare has been revered across the globe for his wit, his wordsmithy and his deep understanding of human nature.
Thanks to Gov. Ron DeSantis, it seems that the celebration, appreciation and lamentation of the human condition in its entirety, which is what has made Shakespeare last all these centuries, may be removed from what is presented to Florida students. What an intellectual and cultural crime!
The Elizabethans did not live long by our standards, falling prey to disease and poor sanitation, but they enjoyed life as seen in the flourishing of the arts in the English Renaissance, which included the bawdy sexual innuendo and bodily-fluid humor as well as rapturous poetry and mellifluous madrigals. Shakespeare has captured this spirit as no other has so far.
I am an English teacher, and my favorite part of the curriculum I teach is watching my students get the double entendre and puns (with a little guidance) of the spicier wordplay and situations as well as watching them moved by characters’ struggles and victories in the Shakespeare plays that we study in full.
My students are 13 and 14 years old. They are neither shocked nor offended. They encounter much saltier language and images on TikTok.” –Jean Gilroy
I agree with this teacher. The bard has a great deal more to offer young minds than the performative artists on TikTok.
Have a great day,
Glenn
1. If a parent doesn’t want their children to read a certain book they can make that determination. But they can’t make that decision for other parents and children.
2. My philosophy of child rearing was to treat my young sons as adults, only smaller. It worked as I am proud of their character as adults
Totalitarianism is easier to achieve when the nation's intellect is controlled. Books that inspire "dirty" thoughts are meant only for old white men whose loss of potency makes them useless in bed, but nevertheless eager to screw the American public behind Washington's closed doors. Regrettably, nearly half the nation seems excited by the prospect. What gives?