WE don't like it! Ban it!

 

Bookbook - Geo G. Epp, copyright

In Texas (I read in the news,) public and school librarians are stressed right now over what books may remain on their shelves and what books may have to be removed. The choices will be driven by legislation and whatever enforcement mechanisms the state deems necessary. The selection of reading materials to be banned centers on issues of sex and gender this time, and whatever influence a book might have in promoting a liberal attitude toward gender fluidity. Underlying the controversy is an assumption that reading a book in which a trans-gender person is pictured positively might raise children’s questioning of their own gender identity and/or innocently embarking down a path that will leave them gender-identity confused or damaged.

We have a history to refer to in this regard. Examples galore exist where book banning/book burnings, have occurred in an attempt at suppressing unpopular developments socially, culturally or politically. Stifling objectionable ideas, speech, activities by force seems to be a predictable response to change, particularly in volatile times like the “world war years” in Europe, for example.

I find it ironic that accusations of “cancel culture” (generally aimed at the liberal population) is so clearly exemplified by the book banning segment of the public in the USA. Seems to me,  these are the same people who accuse the fictitious “woke” cohort of cancelling (banning?) right wing expressions of opinion. I agree with Jordan Peterson on little more than this one thing: we need liberalism to help us adapt to changing conditions, and we need conservatism to help us regulate the pace of our adaptation. For one to gag the other by, for instance, banning their written speech, is surely unwise for this reason alone.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t books in which gay and/or trans people are depicted positively written for different reasons than for unsettling cis-gender persons? We all know how traumatic school can be for kids who don’t fit conventional norms; good teaching doesn’t pretend the differences are non-existent or meaningless; its aim is to guide the class and each child in it toward a life of social acceptance and personal dignity. One important goal of public education according to the Canadian PeopleforEducation.ca organization is to “Build a society that values the wellbeing of all its members.” To teach children a healthy approach to the wellbeing of the student in the next desk isn’t in question, even though how and when to teach this remains a relevant consideration.

We must be careful here. Book burning and banning have never, ever done more than stifle the efforts of a community to adapt in changing times. For that, both educational expertise and parental involvement are crucial. Setting the standards for what is and what isn’t justified in the classroom is not well served by legislated enforcement.

But some humility and some compassion on the part of us who have embraced the need for educating for “a society that values the wellbeing of all its members” (emphasis mine) wouldn’t go amiss. The advocates for banning and burning are reacting to fears that are currently being stoked, namely that multiple conspiracies are at work against citizens’ interests, in this case through the children. Unless we dialogue openly and for however long it takes—with parents and teachers and administrators facing each other across friendly tables—the children will suffer for our fearful responses to charges that are educationally illegitimate.

And as I’ve conjectured before, aren’t we all in favour of book banning at some level? Isn’t it true that our controversies only arise because we disagree on the threshold where acceptable and unacceptable divide? I agree with those who would maintain that Hustler Magazine has no place in an elementary or high school library. I would not agree that Huckleberry Finn should be taken off the high school curriculum because of racist content. To become a culture that attends to the wellbeing of every person, our upbringing must show us the face of racism, sexism, ageism, etc., so that we may learn empathy for those who are different. A kind of “walking a mile in their shoes.” Books provide the stories; teachers are trained to understand their students well enough to make of the stories learning experiences that promote “a society that values the wellbeing of all its members.

It’s a bit of truism that books don’t jump off shelves and read themselves to people; the patron of a library chooses what book will and what book won’t be taken home. This principle doesn’t provide comfort in the case of the internet, where any child with a smart phone is accessible to those who would wish to use him/her/them wrongfully. There the stories do jump off the shelves and present themselves to wide-eyed innocents without the benefit of a responsible adult interpreter. Resolving that kind of intrusion into children’s development is going to be a much more complex issue than simple book authorizing/banning has ever been.