Summary

The undefined website discusses the controversy surrounding the removal of certain classic books from school curricula due to parental concerns over their potential to reinforce racism, juxtaposed with concerns over censorship and freedom of expression.

Abstract

In Burbank, California, educators were compelled to remove classic books like Harper Lee's "To Kill a Mockingbird" and Mark Twain's "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" from their teaching materials, following complaints that these novels could be harmful to Black students. This decision sparked debates on whether such removals amount to book banning, with organizations like PEN America opposing the action, citing the importance of these works in addressing historical racism and fostering open discussions in educational environments. The article also notes a shift in the ACLU's stance, with a prominent lawyer advocating for the censorship of a book on transgender issues, which contradicts the organization's historical defense of free expression. The broader implications of these actions suggest a trend towards ideological purity and a threat to free speech and critical thinking within society.

Opinions

The removal of the books is seen as a new level of censorship, with school administrators quickly acquiescing to a few parents' demands without considering the value of the literature in education.
The importance of the books is emphasized as they provide historical context on racism and enable safe and supportive environments for discussion and learning.
The article criticizes the overemphasis on potential harm, arguing that such a preoccupation is unproductive and could lead to the stifling of important discourse.
It is argued that the novels do not endorse bigotry but rather serve as a means to discuss contemporary racism, and these educational spaces need protection from dogmatic approaches.
The article highlights the tension between protecting individuals from harmful ideas and preserving free speech, pointing out that the ACLU's stance has shifted in a way that contradicts its historical mission.
The author suggests that giving in to the demands of those who find certain content offensive could lead to authoritarianism and sets a dangerous precedent for censorship.
There is a concern that book banning undermines critical thinking and the ability of individuals to engage with challenging ideas, effectively infantilizing society.
The article identifies a trend among some purportedly progressive groups who, despite advocating for openness, are seen as regressive for their intolerance towards differing viewpoints and their push for censorship.
The conclusion reiterates the importance of freedom of expression as a cornerstone of an open and fair society, questioning the true freedom of a society that restricts speech.

And Then They Came for Books

On the normalization of book banning

Source: Drawing from *The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn* by Mark Twain (1885)

Ideological warfare is more rampant than ever, particularly in post-modern societies — it seems people are more divisive, defensive, and reactionary. Our shift towards ideological purity has reared its head in various ways — one of these is through literature.

In September, middle and high school English teachers in Burbank, California, were told they would have to remove the following books from their curriculum: Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird, Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, John Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men, Theodore Taylor’s The Cay and Mildred D. Taylor’s Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry. The reason? A few concerned parents kicked up a fuss stating that the assigned literature was harmful for Black students.

While this isn’t the first time these books were embroiled in criticism, it certainly sets a new precedent for censorship; school administrators were quick to comply, conceding to the demands of a few parents, and removing the books from circulation entirely.

One of the parents who filed a complaint said, “Unless teachers have been specifically trained to teach these texts through an anti-racial lens, they are probably [emphasis added] reinforcing racism rather than dismantling it.” If we were to take this complaint to its logical conclusion, then we could argue that anything might be harmful, depending on who is propagating it and under what circumstance. Pre-occupying oneself about what might harmful is a futile, unproductive exercise.

Clearly the following bears emphasizing: the books are important because they expose racism in history, not propagate it. It is through these novels that students are able to learn about the world around them, and they are able to do so in a safe and supportive environment. They are also able to freely ask questions and have open discussions with their peers and adults about the subject matter without fear of repercussions. It’s so important to nourish these discussions as well as the environment in which these discussions are taking place. It is these spaces that need protecting from dogma. None of the five novels openly supports segregation or bigotry, rather they serve as vehicles for further discussion about contemporary racism.

PEN America, an organization that champions free expression through literature, created a petition opposing the book ban — and as of this writing, the ban is still in place with more discussions underway on the future of these books.

While there is a long history of book banning in the U.S. and around the world, amid this time of racial reckoning and social unrest, it seems more institutions have opted for heavy-handed intervention in order to placate the few, even if it means violating fundamental human rights in the process.

Since its founding in 1920, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has had a long history of combatting book banning. Being a civil liberties organization, they were principled from the outset — defending every American’s fundamental right to freely express themselves in a democratic society. By all accounts, they seemed to be the last organization standing that supports free expression.

Until recently.

Prominent ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio tweeted about Abigail Shrier’s book — Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters — about teenage girls and gender dysphoria:

“Abigail Shrier’s book is a dangerous polemic with a goal of making people not trans. I think of all the times & ways I was told my transness wasn’t real & the daily toll that still takes. We have to fight these ideas which are leading to the criminalization of trans life again. . . Also stopping the circulation of this book and these ideas is 100% a hill I will die on.”

Chase, who represents a civil liberties organization — which historically opposes banning books, wanted to stop the circulation of this book. In contrast, those who actually read the book have praised it for the author’s extensive research, interviews, and compassionate, well-rounded approach to a sensitive topic — quite the opposite of the ‘dangerous polemic’ that Chase describes.

Because of the few incredibly loud voices who expressed discontent, companies and publications alike took heed and conceded. Target temporarily removed Shrier’s book from its shelves due to a handful of Twitter complaints, while other outlets refused to review it altogether. The upside to this renewed attention towards Shrier’s book is that it’s selling a lot — and at one point it even topped Amazon’s best-seller list. As of this writing, the book is currently sold out in all major and local retailers (in my area it has been sold out for several weeks — though the audio book is still available).

Someone will always take offence and everyone comes with their own baggage: political affiliation, socioeconomic status, upbringing, genetic predispositions, education, and so on. And this is the crux of the issue. To limit certain voices while upholding others is a one-way track to authoritarianism. Once it starts, there is no limit to what can be censored, and this sets a dangerous precedent for otherwise free and open societies.

Banning books undermines the ability for people to think for themselves and to think critically about the issues we face. The purpose of these literary classics — among others — is to offer a safe medium to talk about serious, topical issues. And if these books were in fact ‘problematic,’ we should offer an environment where we are able to discuss why that is so. Otherwise, we run the risk of infantilizing swaths of people — and we are already seeing the repercussions of this.

This renewed effort to ban books reflects a trend among regressive leftists — they call themselves progressive, yet in the same breath, they vilify anyone who mildly disagrees or questions their contrarian ideology.

It’s not just books, either. We are witnessing a steady creeping censorship all across the board — in media, politics, educational institutions, online, etc. Books are just the latest collateral.

This bears repeating one more time for good measure: freedom of expression is a fundamental human right — it is central to living in an open and fair society. Without this right, there are no limits to the ways hegemonic institutions can alienate and punish individuals. When freedom of speech is undermined, then it is worth asking if the society we are living in is really that free after all.