Once Upon a Pen

If you have been following any news about education or literature this past year, you have surely come across numerous articles about book banning.  Along with a couple of other topics that I will be writing about in the near future, this one has been one of the most compelling and divisive.  It isn’t the first time, of course. Book banning discussions have risen and fallen in the news for many years.  Typically they are in response to controversial juvenile books that have captured the attention of parents, such as the Harry Potter series. 

I admit that I have a lot to say on this topic, especially since I support both sides of the argument in certain ways.  For example, there are certainly many books for parents to be upset about.  No one paying attention can have failed to notice that most secular publishers, authors, teachers, and school librarians really don’t care how parents feel about the books that they put into the hands of young people.  On the other hand, I also believe in both freedom of speech and freedom of the press, and I am adamantly opposed to allowing those with power the ability to control public access to any ideas and information. COVID made that danger clear to us all.

But the book banning issue hasn’t been my primary concern this past year as much as a fundamental question at its root:  What is “book banning”?  Who is the authority on the term’s meaning, and do “pro-banners” and “anti-banners” really mean the same thing when they discuss the removal of books?  Perhaps it is one of those issues where we yell at and vilify each other without ever clarifying what we are even talking about—racism or sexism, for example.  And perhaps the meaning of “book banning” even changes depending on the situation.

In every article I’ve read this past year—or previous years, for that matter—I’ve never heard anyone define the term in a way that has laid some common ground for a truly meaningful and productive discussion.  Until we do, how are we ever supposed to make any progress?  While I am not an authority on the “proper” definition of book banning, I do recognize the authority of an old-fashioned dictionary.    

In my 1991 Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, the relevant definitions of the word “ban” are as follows: 
1) to prohibit, esp. by legal means;
2) to prohibit the use, performance, or distribution of”. 
The most current online version of Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary keeps these definitions verbatim.  Since we all know what a book is, let’s put those words together for an accurate definition.  “Book banning” has both of the following meanings:  
1) prohibiting certain books through legal means;
2) prohibiting the use or distribution of certain books at one or more venues.

These definitions are pretty straightforward and neutral.  There is no favored agenda in them.  By applying them we can clearly see that some people (mostly parents) have made serious attempts to ban books and other materials in certain venues.  But here’s where the power of straightforward definitions can weaken.  They must be applied to real-life situations, and when real-life situations are examined closely—especially when they are compared with other real-life situations—questions arise that complicate neutral definitions.  In other words, book banning situations are not all alike.  For example, the mass book banning (and burning) in 1940s Hitler’s Germany was quite a different matter from the banning of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn in 1885 by the Concord (MA) Public Library.  While the basic definitions are technically the same in each situation, these examples are hardly comparable. 

So now we must face the real question, a question that is genuinely uncomfortable to many of us.  After all, we are Americans; our constitutional rights to freedom of the press and to freedom of speech are almost written on our DNA.  The real question is, “No matter how offended someone may be about certain books, is book banning ever acceptable in any venue for any age group?”  Are there to be no limits at all for American society?  There used to be, a fact that I will discuss in a future blog.  But if so then, why not now?

I have other questions, too, questions that need much more attention if this issue is to ever be resolved:

1. Should those who work with young people have free rein to make any and all books available, despite parental concerns? 
2. Are public school libraries and classrooms fundamentally different venues from public libraries and bookstores? 
3. Are public and private schools fundamentally different from each other in terms of book banning? 
4. What are the responsibilities of publishers and authors to the public, if any, and where is the line for decency—and who should decide where that is? 
5. If someone has the right to decide where that line is, then how do we put the power into those hands in a way that will be benevolent and socially acceptable to us all?  
6. Is there a difference between curating a book inventory and banning books? 
7. Assuming there is a difference, how many book banning disputes are really about proper curating? 
8. Finally, if there are disputes that are really about curating, how should they be handled differently from situations that are really about banning? 

Being only one person and no authority on the matter, I can certainly not answer all these questions.  I will, however, share my thoughts on some of them in future blogs, so stay tuned!