Book Banning Ain’t What It Used To Be

Content curation isn’t the same as fascism.

By
555
Poet Amanda Gorman delivers a poem during the inauguration of U.S. President Joe Biden on January 20, 2021. (Photo by Erin Schaff-Pool/Getty Images)

Dear Reader (even those of you who thought it a good idea to invite Bill Clinton to an HR conference), 

Earlier in the week there was one of those stories that helps feed the ravenous maw of perpetual outrage. Ron DeSantis banned a poem by Amanda Gorman. Banned it!

Vox: The latest book ban target: Amanda Gorman’s poem from the Biden inauguration

Guardian: Amanda Gorman ‘gutted’ after Florida school bans Biden inauguration poem

Start a Free Trial
Get every newsletter and all of The Dispatch. Support quality, fact-based journalism. Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
555
By
Comments (555)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Michelletoaleburke

    I mostly agree with your take here. But as someone who works in a public library, we are not allowed to tell a kid he can't check something out even if the parent doesn't want him to check it out per Federal law. Now, not every librarian abides by this law either due to not knowing the law or just choosing not to follow it. Also, librarians can go under the radar and sometimes do to impose their own views regarding touchy subjects by not ordering certain books for checkout - they essentially are censoring information. I've seen it happen first hand. But you're right it's not the same as banning them.

    Collapse
  2. Samuel Mpona

    The book was moved based on one complaint, not because the librarian was overreacting but because the law in Florida stipulates that they react on every single complaint.

    What the law does is taking the power away from a school librarian, who while unelected still has to answer to all the parents in the school, and place it in the hand of a minority of crazies answerable to no one.

    That’s why +90% of book banned this way (and let’s not get into semantics here: it’s a ban) are the work of six parents

    If the right wanted more civic engagement around library content, the law would have mandated that one complaint be enough to trigger a review where the final decision would be put to a vote requiring a quorum of parent to be present.

    If they wanted civic engagement they would have also added a similar mechanism to add books on shelves

    While the right talks about avoiding the tyranny of the majority they are actually angling for is the tyranny of the rich, white and christian few

    Collapse
  3. Deleted Comment

    This comment has been deleted

  4. Scianti7

    So it sounds like the once rare paradigm "games player" (because in my day debate judges paradigms were titles that indicated a known bend) has become the main paradigm but each game player has their own rule. Yikes. I guess you have to have a lot more evidence, cases, disadvantages & critiques for each rule. It has been 30 years since "my day".

    Collapse
  5. Ken Motamed

    The whole point of viewpoint neutrality is to prevent the tyranny of the majority. Then again, if the majority is large enough, even the Constitution can be amended.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Rlritt

    I think a woman who Identifies as a Marxist, Leninist, Maoist is just silly, and lazy since they each have different ideas that were presented differently, but were basically deadly in their respective countries. But, imo, they do not compare with NAZIism which is alive and well in the Right-wing groups that Trump et al think are very fine people.

    Judging a debate contest using a weird philosophical point of view is annoying not harmful. I bet this woman doesn't listen to the debates with an AR15 hanging on her shoulder.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Stephanie

      Jonah excels at nut-picking, and the people in the Comments seem to fall for it every time. Some of his columns are nothing but the thinking man’s version of Fox News—misdirection and outrage-mongering.

      One unusual debate judge is ignorable.

      When it becomes a worrying pattern is when I’ll begin to care.

      He found ONE example of a book that wasn’t removed, and conveniently ignores all the ones that were, to proclaim “Nothing to see here, folks!”

      I am undecided whether or not this rises to the level of gaslighting, or just providing talking points to his fans so they can gaslight.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Theirnscott

      It's not just annoying. It's harmful if you care about a FAIR exchange of ideas, which is the purpose of a debate.

      And wasn't it John Rawls the definer of modern-day Liberalism who based his philosophy on FAIRNESS?

      Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Mudskipper

    Jonah says:

    "So what? I mean, I’m 100 percent with you if you think that would be a wrong decision by one librarian in one school in one neighborhood in one county in one state."

    He also says:

    "Now, not all judges are self-declared Marxist-Leninist-Maoists (excuse me while I take a moment to keep my eyes from rolling out of their sockets), and not all of them are even this avowedly illiberal, according to Fishback. But a lot are. And you know what? One is too many. "

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Dusty

      He also says,

      “ I’m not an absolutist about such things. I’m the guy who’s just explained—again—that I’m comfortable with libraries and even debating societies discriminating against certain viewpoints.”

      Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Citizen60

    I’m against book banning on the whole; but those who never realized schools and libraries have always had to pick & choose based on space available and curriculum amuse me. How oblivious for how many years does that require?

    I would prefer the Florida policy allow for more than 1 parent’s complaint to prompt any action, which seems extreme to me; but I choose not to live in Florida, so I have no dog in this hunt.

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Normstephens

    It seems as though appointing debate judges is like selecting library books. Someone has to do it. If that someone makes bad choices with negative repercussions for the school, changes are warranted. The beauty of this is the changes are rather easily made at the local level. When decisions are centralized or even influenced at the state or national level, little recourse is available. Subsidiarity is the answer. The best governing occurs closest to the people who can hold it accountable.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      CynthiaW

      "appointing debate judges is like selecting library books"

      In the sense you mentioned. However, the potential choice of library books is "all books," while the potential choice of debate judges starts with those who are willing to do it.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Richard Maxton

        What’s even worse to me - and potentially more telling - is the judge mentioned is a previous debate champion.

        One wonders how long ago this debate society went off the rails…

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          CynthiaW

          I'm not a subscriber to The Free Press anymore, so I didn't see the comments there. Different things I've read have suggested that ideology and "identity" have been taking over from straight argument for a while.

          I think the policy debate format, if done right, involves some very valuable skills, but it also has some downsides. It doesn't teach students to listen to others looking for agreement or compromise, but to start from the premise, "I have the right answer," and defend it regardless of the strength of the counterarguments and evidence.

          Collapse
          1. Scianti7

            But I bet really great debaters are the ones who listen, find parts that are agreement, & then flip the other sides' points to win the argument, because debate in highschool was basically a brain sport. It helped me learn to see the merits in other peoples points of view because I'll be on the other side of this argument in the next round & if my current opponent has a good point, I'm going to want to pursue that for when I'm arguing their side.

            Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Normstephens

        True

        Collapse
  10. Babwin

    Putting up barriers to getting books is not nearly as bad as banning books. But it is very bad. I think the piece suggests otherwise when it notes the book “changed shelves” and “the kid could probably still find the poem.” The kid might not know of its existence until she found it on the shelf and held it in her hands. When I was in elementary school I prowled the shelves of the juvenile section of my local public library looking for books I didn’t know existed. And then, boom! There was,, say “The Mickey Mantle Story” by Gene Schoor. And the other sports bios. Now I guess I might not find that Hank Aaron bio. I hadn’t heard about that one but I have heard about limiting access to “Roberto Clemente, Pride of the Pittsburgh Pirates” somewhere in Florida. And I think it was David French who has talked about a similar thing happening with “I Am Ruby Bridges” somewhere in Tennessee. And there were two other children’s books (one about Langston Hughes and “The ABC’s of Black History”) targeted in this recent Florida case. The restriction (not ban) on the Gorman poem is not a one-off. When books “change[] shelves” kids are denied the opportunity to discover books. I think that’s a big frickin’ deal.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Stephanie

      This whole essay read like a lot of slick casuistry to me. Or maybe what Charlie Sykes calls turd-polishing.

      So if it’s not book banning (a perfectly acceptable shortcut expression), what’s a better term? “Arbitrarily depriving school children of perfectly acceptable books for ideological reasons” though I think the word “ideological” is doing a lot of work. I think the people doing the book banning are cranks.

      I’ll continue to call it book banning since everyone knows what it means in this context.

      Why even have a policy that a single parent has the power to deprive every kid who uses the school library of a book s/he doesn’t approve of? Let that parent police his/her own kids.

      If they took this policy completely away, no one would be harmed. Leaving it in place allows all kinds of absurd and unfair behavior.

      Collapse
      1. Scianti7

        "Let that parent police his/her own kids."

        Remember in the 90s when personal responsibility was a Republican virtue? (Sigh) Me too.

        Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Brian

        “Everyone knows what it means.” Are you sure about that? Jonah explained very well why the word was misused in this case, and why the outrage is misplaced, and I agree with him.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Stephanie

          Books were banned from school libraries.

          They ain't there. Various cranks had them removed for ridiculous reasons.

          I suppose it could be called censorship. How about "cancelled?" Really, it is absurd hairsplitting. I am fine with "banned."

          What it is not, is "content curation." That implies some intelligence is at work.

          These are the same people who think Michelangelo's David is pornographic.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            CynthiaW

            This sounds like intentionally using a word that conveys the "worst" situation, even though the word is known to be inaccurate. How does this help people get along in real life, or even on the interwebs?

            Collapse
          2. Avatar photo
            Brian

            Did you read the piece? The book in question was moved to a different shelf. In the same library. And brave people on the internet went nuts.

            Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Rlritt

      I agree. Even children should be allowed to read, learn and form their own opinions. On the other hand, most people over the age of 13 get most of their reading material online. So much of it is better or worse than anything you get in the library. It's charming to think they're are kids sitting in libraries reading forbidden books.

      Collapse
Load More