Why questioning certain material in California’s schools isn’t about banning books or hate
Book bans are one of the most controversial subjects in education right now, and news reporting about the disagreements over what materials should be available to kids in school libraries is seemingly nonstop.
Much of that reporting seems to miss the point, though, on both sides of the political aisle.
On one side, there are seemingly liberal articles jumping on the “banned” wagon with misleading or exaggerated interpretations of parents’ concerns. On the other, conservative outlets are hyperventilating about passages in traditional classic texts. Both routinely throw the word “hate” into the discussion, as if questioning the inclusion of mature content that involves LGBTQ characters in school libraries means you “hate” them — or objecting to the removal of such materials means you “hate” certain children.
Both are hyperbole serving no purpose except to inflame their respective sides. What California needs is rational, factual discussion rather than cherrypicked examples of extremism on both sides.
The first step would be agreeing there’s a difference between restricting access to materials intended for adults in public libraries and selecting materials appropriate for kids in school libraries. They are not the same thing.
Most Americans would agree truly banning books is unconstitutional. Most would agree the Supreme Court’s “Miller Test” for obscenity is a reasonable limitation for public libraries.
Most Americans would also understand school libraries have always selected material based on whether they were appropriate for kids. No school library has a Hustler magazine available for checkout. Excluding such materials has never been controversial.
If a parent found Hustler in the school library, would objecting to that mean they “hate” heterosexuals? Objecting to obscene material that involves LGBTQ characters does not mean someone “hates” LGBTQ people, either.
The process of choosing materials for a school library is curation, not a “ban.” Using the word “ban” when discussing that process, and “hate” to describe the opposition will just spin the conversation and raise the hackles of partisans. It only hinders more rational debate.
And rational debate is warranted for whether certain materials truly belong in a school library. Of course there are parents taking this to extremes, but emphasizing the extremes obfuscates what many parents object to.
Coverage this year of Assembly Bill 1078, for example, legislation Gov. Gavin Newsom signed to “prevent school boards from banning books based solely on the books’ inclusion of history or culture related to Black, Latino, Asian, Native American, LGBTQ people or other groups,” as CalMatters reported, often lacked specifics about the books in question.
The Temecula Valley School Board attempted to ban material mentioning gay rights activist Harvey Milk not because they felt “lessons about LGBTQ rights and history are not appropriate for children,” but because they took issue with Milk’s personal life. Milk was courageous in many ways, but there was no clear indication the Temecula school board was driven by his sexual orientation.
Most of the concerns in California relate to materials many adults would consider questionable. Before stating an opinion, everyone should actually look at the books in question.
Inclusion of even borderline obscene materials in school libraries is unprecedented and would not have been considered in the past. A case can be made that having them in school libraries is the real extremism, not opposition to it.
It’s a topic most certainly worth engaging parents, their district and their school board in debate.
Discussion about those limits is certainly not about “banning” books, and clearly not examples of “hate” directed at any group.
What could be a more appropriate topic for parents to discuss with their local school board?