Earlier this week (Nov 7, 2023), residents of the rural town of Pella, Iowa, narrowly voted against increasing the Board of Trustee's power over public libraries. "Resolution 6442" failed to pass with 2,042 no votes against the 1954 yes votes. This resolution would have given the Board the power to ban, among other books, the book "Gender Queer: A Memoir," by Maria Kobabe. Ultimately, while this resolution failed to pass, it is only one of many similar attempts to restrict the freedom of libraries all over the nation.
In many states, libraries are under siege. In Santa Rosa, Florida, just a day prior the vote in Pella, members of the far-right "Moms for Liberty" group marched to the local sheriff's office demanding a police probe into a school library that allegedly contained a young adult novel with "risqué" passages -- likening it to the adult Playboy magazines. It should be noted that the book in question, "Storm and Fury" by Jennifer L. Armentrout, is rated for ages fourteen to eighteen by Barnes and Noble. Thankfully, the case went nowhere, with the sheriff county simply closing the case. However, the basis on which the Moms for Liberty filed their complaint, HB 1069 - which requires schools to remove books alleged to contain sexual content until the complaint resolved, and the "Don't Say Gay" laws - which prevents the teaching of sexual orientation until after high school - are still rampant throughout the state, with other states copying. 1,400 similar incidents were recorded in Florida last year, with 625 in Texas, 333 in Missouri, and 281 in Utah.
Until decisive action can be taken, scenarios like the ones in Florida will only continue to happen. Narrow, reactive votes can delay the inevitable, but I believe governments on all levels should be proactive. Libraries represent an accessible hub for knowledge, and restricting this knowledge will certainly raise concerns over violations of the First Amendment. Can librarians and teachers talk about LGBTQ+ even informally? These concerns are not even limited to the LGBT community; this can form a precedence for deniers of American history. What if a governmental authority insists the Civil War was not because of slavery? I may just be paranoid, and this may just be a slippery slope, but I do not want to find out.
-Janus Sucharitakul
Sources:
https://who13.com/news/pella-voters-narrowly-reject-resolution-to-give-city-council-power-to-restrict-public-library-books/
https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/florida-moms-for-liberty-member-demands-criminal-investigation-over-fantasy-novel-18181127
https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/new-sex-education-bill-closer-to-becoming-law-in-florida-but-what-does-that-mean-for-students/3002814/
14 comments:
I think it's pretty crazy how people are trying to remove schools and libraries, and it is also pretty concerning, especially since it is happening in multiple states. I agree with what you said about the slippery slope since people might see this as an opportunity to remove other books with things they don't like, and it's pretty scary to think about. Still, I guess it is good to see that people are standing up to these restrictions.
I agree that giving the government the power to restrict books in public libraries has the potential to go off the rails and it just seems counterintuitive to ban literature in places where learning and gaining knowledge is supposed to be the objective. If people want to continue the historical trend of each generation being smarter and more informed, knowledge shouldn't be gatekept. Even if people disagree with the message of a book, they shouldn't inhibit the ability for other people to read the book.
The dilemma I see here is similar to that of discussions about the scope of governments in general. When given too much power, governments begin to enact more and more restrictions. When the government is given too little power, individuals begin to exercise their freedom to the extreme. Either side could potentially be a slippery slope: libraries may become some sort of way to spread propaganda or libraries may have increasing amounts of pornographic images that people can do nothing about due to the governments desire to maintain civil liberties. Neither of the extremes are desirable, and so some balance must be formed, regardless of the political turmoil. Lots of political discussion is better than none at all. Lawmakers just haven't drawn the line yet for what belongs and doesn't belong in a public or school library.
In regards to the book "Gender Queer: A Memoir," Kobabe stated that the reason she wrote the book was to be an "adult nonbinary role model, when that's something [e]* lacked when [e] was a child"(NBC News). Although I have not read the book before, I feel like having sexual illustrations were not necessary to achieve the same goal.
*Kobabe uses (Spivak pronouns (e/em/eir)
I agree with Janus and those who replied to this story on the absurdity and lack of freedom in banning books that simply reference sexuality, especially since the same communities banning them are so willing to reference love between a man and a woman to their children.
To Anthony Yan, I don't necessarily disagree with you but I would also ask if the extreme of restricting civil liberties is nearly as bad as "pornographic images"? The article you reference by NBC points out that the single sexual illustration in the book is also an ancient sexual depiction on display in the Museum of Oxford. Aversion to images such as simply the depiction of genetailia is a one deriving much from the abrahamic religions. The question of whether women in Saudi Arabia should be forced to wear Hijabs is a similar question of inappropriate images for society. Meanwhile, some african societies are comfortable with revealing almost any part of the human body except the ankles. Although it is in a much different place along the spectrum it is still subjective and much outside of the regularity of one's own society seems an extreme. While this somewhat religious aversion to certain material likely reasonates with America's 63% chrisitian population, it still brings a religious view into the government. While it would be much easier if the bias was less engrained in society and more in religion, as it would be more clearcut and seperate from government. Nevertheless it may be unpopular, but I think that lumping these aversions to explicit material, swearing, and other things we do to "protect" our children, into the government is a mistake, the values one decides to raise their children with are up to the them, but involving the government only leads to controversies like whether you can have a book with one photo of a penis in a public library. School should have the ability to cover all topics, be open to mature discussion and not hide away from topics like these in some feeble attempt to hide things seen as unfavorable from children. They will always find out, whether actually innaproriate or just regarding sexual orientation, hiding it only serves to hinder the progress and opinions of society.
I agree that the banning of books in public and school libraries is restricting the freedom that is given to US citizens by the first amendment. Libraries are like a sacred place where young and old people go to read, learn, and get lost in stories. There should be no limit on what people read but I do think that there is specific ages where certain books should be kept or categorized into. The book "Gender Queer: A Memoir" by Maia Kobabe, is a book that contains very detailed images, images that young children should not be seeing. Although I do agree with Gabe A that school should have the ability to cover all topics, I do think that some books may be too graphic for some school levels like elemantary school to have. Again schools and teachers should be allowed to talk about the LGBTQ+ community because that community is a very important community in this point of time and specailly in this generation, although if parents don't want thier young child to be seeeing very detailed images of the human body then that should also be respected.
While I do agree that some books may be too graphic for a school audience, I want to highlight a slight distinction -- that being the fact that people tried banning "Gender Queer: A Memoir from a public library, not a school one. To this end, there should be no need to ban information, especially one that as Anthony quoted, would be "an adult nonbinary role model, when that's something [Kobabe] really lacked when [she] was a child." Furthermore, I can not fathom libraries as a major source of propaganda in any way, shape, or form, even in the lens of a slippery slope argument. The physical action of even heading to the library to check out a book makes any proliferation of propaganda ineffective, especially when one considers that everyone has access to the internet in their pockets. No one would force anyone to read a book of this nature; they would have to locate and check it out with purposeful intent. To this end, I do not see a reason to forbid knowledge that can potentially guide and benefit someone in the way Maia Kobabe wishes.
https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-life-and-style/author-gender-queer-one-banned-books-us-addresses-controversy-rcna8991
Libraries are clearly for the public as a source of information. There are plenty of books that one may consider inappropriate for children, whether thats graphic, violent etc., of course even if historical; yet of course those are allowed. Traumatizing books about history for example, may be more sensitively received, yet they are published because they are true and people need context within the real world. Romantic/sexual novels and also the Gender Queer memoir are also simply context or information for anyone curious, and shouldn't be withheld. To remove books from a public library is a clear obstruction of the First Amendment, and regardless people and students should be trusted by their own judgement once they consume the information from such media. It feels like a slippery slope, as these arguments feel inflicted simply because the far right is afraid of things changing, or afraid of a world outside of their "comfortable norm." Furthermore, not speaking of LGBTQ until after high school seems ridiculous, as gay people obviously exist and homosexuality is a biological truth, as seem throughout all animals and nature.
It's really interesting to me that this debate is so heated given that so much controversial information is already easily accessible, and becoming more so, through the internet. Banning books that answer questions that people have about controversial topics from credible sources like libraries will likely only push people to look for answers on the internet, which for the most part is completely unmoderated and way more inaccurate. This outcome doesn't seem appealing to anyone involved. Even despite obvious problems with restricting freedom of speech, banning these books doesn't make sense to me.
I agree with Ava's point--removing books does harm one's First Amendment. To take away their right to learn, and to diminish one's sense of curiosity is not fair. Sensitivity/ the level of appropriateness for a book is subjective, people have a sense of what they can and can't read. There are much more important problems in the world than just banning books that may be against someone's beliefs, or ideals, or are just deemed as an abnormal topic.
I remember hearing on Fox News, one of the news reporters was discussing books about Menstrual Cycles for young girls, and the woman claimed that it was promoting rape ideations and that they should soon ban similar topics furthermore. I just think that is totally absurd, young girls should really have the right to learn more about themselves because periods occur to all women.
I find this interesting because on the Politics Project I discussed how some states were banning books in their school library. Personally, I do not agree with the idea of banning books in school, as the entire function of school is to educate students. In life, you won't always agree with everyone and every idea you come across, but it is still incredibly important to be exposed to them so that you can learn and develop your opinions. When students are only exposed to ideas that they are already being told to support, they never get to challenge assertions and come up with their own ideas. This is robbing students of an incredibly important aspect to education. However, the idea that this has now extended to public libraries is even more ridiculous. Public libraries are supposed to contain all information that anyone might possibly want to know, and are not meant to be somewhere that opinion takes precedent. Again, this is robbing people of their right to information, something that begins to mirror 1984, a scenario I hope will never come to fruition.
The recent vote in Pella, Iowa, rejecting Resolution 6442 shows a growing concern about giving library boards more power to control what books you can read. Having events unfold like the "Moms for Liberty" protest against a book due to its distaste for its content is revealing a bigger problem in society. Passing limiting bills on libraries will make it harder for people to freely access information in schools, which cripals society. If we as a country don't have access to simple knowledge then we inherently limit the possibility of growth. Incidents like these happening in different states highlight the need for quick action from the government. Banning books is nothing new. Throughout history, the limit on books or even the burning of books… has been a reflection of the importance of knowledge and freedom to read whatever someone wants to read. Libraries need protection from unnecessary rules that might violate our right to free speech. But this isn't just about LGBTQ+ topics; it could set a bad precedent for how we teach history. It's important to address issues to keep our schools open to diverse perspectives and uphold our freedom of expression.
As do the people who have commented, I agree that banning certain books from libraries is not a good idea at all. In the classroom, teachers in public schools teach what the state wants them to teach, and teachers in private schools teach what the school wants them to teach. But students still seek education and learning outside of class, and one common way is through reading---checking out books from libraries. If you ban certain books from libraries, you're restricting what students see and can potentially learn or gain a new perspective from. Even if educational resources aren't being restricted to a large extent because of the easy accessibility of massive amounts of information through the internet, just the idea/notion is very concerning in and of itself.
I share the view that prohibiting certain books from libraries is not a favorable approach. In public schools, teachers adhere to state-mandated curricula, while private school educators follow the school's guidelines. However, students actively seek additional knowledge beyond the classroom, often turning to reading and library resources. Restricting certain books in libraries limits students' exposure and potential for learning diverse perspectives. Although the impact may not be significant due to the abundance of information on the internet, the concept itself is troubling and raises concerns.
Post a Comment