Imagine walking into your local library, wanting to check out Mark Twain's classic The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Not finding it on the shelves, you ask the librarian at the front desk: why would such a great, important piece of literature be missing? She calmly explains that you do not have permission to read it, as certain community members have deemed it inappropriate for all audiences. Then she shows you a list of approved books that have been given clearance; you may select something from that list only.
This scenario may seem far-fetched, but similar scenes play out in schools throughout the United States every day. Various groups challenge, or attempt to remove or restrict access to, certain materials in school libraries. Taking it a step further, some community members — according to the American Library Association's (ALA) website, frequently parents — wish to have certain books removed from the curriculum. If a book is successfully challenged, then it is banned, completely cutting off access to the particular work. Thankfully, concerned parents, teachers, librarians, students, and other community members have often prevented such outright banning; however, books continue to be challenged. The ALA draws attention to this important issue through its annual Banned Books Week, this year occurring September 25 through October 2.
Frequently, certain groups object to certain literature because it disputes their beliefs. According to the Office of Intellectual Freedom and the ALA, many challenges stem from the desire to protect children from materials containing sexually explicit scenes or offensive language. Understandably parents and other groups wish to shield children from difficult or disturbing concepts. Yet the Library Bill of Rights states that "only parents and guardians have the right and the responsibility to determine their children's — and only their children’s — access to library resources." In other words, libraries may not restrict access to material based on "the origin, background, or views of those contributing to their creation." Libraries should always carry these books; only parents can determine whether they want their children to read them.
During the 2009-2010 school year, an astounding number of books were challenged, restricted, or removed from school libraries and curricula. Maya Angelou's I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings was restricted to students with parental permission because "the book's contents were inappropriate for children." The Culpeper County, Va. public school system announced earlier this year that they will not teach the 50th anniversary edition of The Diary of Anne Frank, due to complaints of "sexual material and homosexual themes." Harper Lee's To Kill A Mockingbird, Stephenie H. Meyer's Twilight series, Toni Morrison's Song of Solomon, and even the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary also received challenges — some were even removed from library shelves. For a full list of challenged books (and lists from previous years), visit the ALA's Banned and Challenged Books resources page.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Anna Creech
Kelliko, many school libraries rely on local public libraries to supplement their meager resources, so I hardly see a distinction between the two.
2 - Dr Dreadful
When I was a fledgling library assistant, back in the early Renaissance, the library service I worked for strenuously resisted the actual banning of books (quite admirably, in the face of frequent objections from a conservative local government), but arrived at a compromise whereby controversial books were kept in a dusty old vault out back known as 'Pool'. This secluded room served as the repository for items deemed unsuitable for open display, either because they contained risqué, violent or other potentially offensive material or simply because they were old, fragile, valuable or irreplaceable.
Let's just say that a prudent librarian would have hesitated before assigning two randy 20-year-old library assistants of opposite genders to shelve in Pool for an hour. Fortunately, prudence among our professionals was in short supply.
3 - barbara barnett
Three years ago, our high school district considered banning several books from our AP English curriculum. This included classics like Catcher in the Rye and newer books like Freakonomics. The district is in a relatively affluent Chicago suburban area, and the effort was driven by a group of politically and religiously motivated groups from other states and one particular board member.
The turnout on the night of the board meeting was extraordinary with close to 1000 people turning out to oppose the proposal. The board member lost her seat in the next election. We have to be ever vigilant and fight an increasingly well-funded and active segment of the body politic who would have us return to the '50s in so very many ways.
Nice article, Kit.
4 - Bob Lloyd
Excellent article. As someone who has never experienced library censorship (except once being told by a college librarian that a book was hard core bolshevism - it wasn't alas) I find it hard to credit that otherwise intelligent people would go along with such behaviour.
Would they similarly ban Chaucer or Shakespeare, Rimbaud or Baudelaire? And what about ideas that criticised certain historical judgements, certain political and social values, or advanced contentious economic analyses?
Book banning expresses the visceral fear of open discussion and the flourishing of ideas, and says volumes about the narrowness and indefensibility of the values it seeks to preserve.
All credit to you for raising the issue and campaigning to stop this nonsense.
5 - NancyGail
Twilight is definitely a little dark. Then again, so is Harry Potter (especially Book 5). Homosexuality in Anne Frank? The only thing I can think of is the closeness between two sisters.
6 - Sue Lange
Yeah, I'm having a hard time with the Anne Frank thing. There was budding sexuality between a boy and girl, that's all I remember.
And since when does homosexuality need to be banned anyway?
Do gratuitously violent books ever get banned?
7 - Jordan Richardson
Twilight is "a little dark?" On what planet? It's a Mormon allegory for abstinence, for crying out Christmas. It's hardly "racy" or "dark."
8 - Baronius
I remember the first time I read "Howl". The poem was initially banned as obscene, but the Supreme Court found to have artistic merit. I think that both are true.
According to the standard legal test, a thing can be obscene if it is (a) prurient according to local standards, (b) offensive, and (c) without other value. I can sympathize with the reasoning behind the third part of the test - it blocks science and genuine art from being banned - but still, when I read "Howl", I can't help thinking that this is exactly the kind of thing that a community should be able to ban.
9 - El Bicho
and why should "Howl" be banned exactly?
10 - zingzing
"when I read "Howl", I can't help thinking that this is exactly the kind of thing that a community should be able to ban."
ew, baronius. who does it hurt? it's a great poem.
11 - Baronius
See? This is fun. Anyone can write an article on the internet in favor of free speech, but it takes guts to raise an objection. Things have been so boring on BC lately.
12 - Dr Dreadful
Baronius, you've reasoned yourself into a rather pretzel-like contortion here.
- You think that "Howl" merits being banned, presumable because it is obscene.
- You present the classical definition of obscenity as including the requisite that the thing to be banned be "without other value".
- You think that "Howl" has artistic merit. Therefore, it has "other value".
Why then, should a community be able to ban it?
13 - Mat Brewster
In Berlin at Bebelplatz where so many books were burned, there is now a lovely memorial consisting of empty bookshelves and the immortal words of Heinrich Heine:
"Where books are burned, in the end people will burn."
Nice article Kit.
14 - zingzing
baronius, joyce's ulysses was also banned on grounds of obscenity, probably for the parts where stephen masturbates, or maybe where bloom takes a dump, or maybe where molly might, perhaps, be masturbating. banning ulysses was still a ridiculous idea. banning howl is also ridiculous. it's just idiotic, puritanical censorship.
15 - El Bicho
guts? from the safety of your keyboard? how brave of you. It takes brains to defend an objection and we are still waiting
16 - Baronius
Dread - Not a contortion; a paradox which I clearly stated. We are told that obscenity and merit cannot coexist. I'm citing an example in which they do. Furthermore, I'm pursuing the topic to its next level: is anything obscene? The text of "Howl" is available online; anyone can find the prurient passages. If it's not obscene, then nothing is. And that's the real question. Is anything obscene? Does the word have any meaning at all?
17 - Irene Athena
I first learned about Read a Banned Book week when I saw a poster about it displayed on a shelf in the Children's Room at the public library. I'm not talking about the Young Adult section---where I DO have a problem with banning, but rather the DANG PICTURE BOOK SECTION. What have people been trying to ban here? Has someone pointed out that the little paper-collage boy in the book (was it about potty training has a visible wee-wee."
18 - Irene Athena
That is an interesting question, Baronius. Maybe obscenity could be defined as that which is considered shocking to the people whose shock resistance level falls to the left of one standard deviation above the mean for a culture at a particular place and time. Olympians used to run in the nude, and no one was appalled by pederasty either.
I guess what your real question is, where is the mean for the U.S. in 2010? Relative to the Greeks in 400 BC? or the Americans in 1870? Where should it be? Has the mean always moved around as much as it has in the last century?
19 - Dr Dreadful
Has the mean always moved around as much as it has in the last century?
Probably not. Thanks to radio, TV and the internet, ideas can move around a heck of a lot faster now than they have been able to for most of human history.
20 - zingzing
for some reason, my tolerance for obscenity is less in books than it is on screen. i started to read a book called steps by jerzy kosinski, but i started to hate it real quick (right about the time some villagers pay to see a girl screw a goat or some other type of livestock). it just seemed to be shock for shock's sake. the person who lent it to me swears by it. obviously, it shouldn't be banned, but damn... it's sick shit.
on the reverse, i love movies that go well beyond the bounds of good taste in pursuing their meaning or whatever. irreversible is one of my favorite movies, even though it uses images of grimy underground bdsm sex clubs, a person repeatedly getting his face bashed in with a fire hydrant (he. just. won't. die.), and an unflinching 9-minute (possibly anal) rape scene. the soundtrack is covered in brown noise and the camera swirls around endlessly (except during the rape, where it is set on the ground and rendered motionless), all designed to induce nausea. last time i watched it, i had to pause it and leave the room because i was gagging. excellent, truly horrifying stuff!
21 - Irene Athena
Mmmm. Those are both very interesting comments, too. But...where SHOULD that mean be? I agree with Zing that "Irreversible" probably shouldn't be banned if for no other reason than its utility as an emetic for zing---but what about stuff that is out in the open, for everybody to see?
That is a really tricky question in a pluralistic society like ours. I really don't want to be limiting the freedom of people who are "out there" but not hurting anyone else. On the other hand, isn't one aspect of avoiding obscenity a consideration for the sensitivities of other people?
Maybe in a society like ours, a lot of sensitive people have to learn to look the other way, and maybe a lot of other people could keep some stuff under wraps a little more.
In the end, it's all about respecting differences.
22 - zingzing
"But...where SHOULD that mean be?"
it's more of a line between protecting children (if the adults can't handle it, too bad) and protecting freedom of speech. unfortunately, creating a distinct line that protects both of those things is nearly impossible. that said, it's easier for a parent to dictate what is appropriate for their child than it is for the courts to fairly dictate what is and isn't permissible. so, as a society, we should err towards protecting the freedom of speech, while as parents and individuals, we can censor all we like for our own.
everything short of a snuff film should be permissible. obscenity shouldn't be legislated.
23 - Baronius
The Court's test invokes the standards of the "community". It's hard to defend that standard when obscenity is available on wi-fi. There isn't a local merchant who's seeking permission from the City Council to open a porno shop. There's an entire satellite system operating as a plain brown wrapper to keep your neighbors from knowing what you're watching.
Unfortunately, the system that keeps obscenity anonymous also makes it ubiquitous. (I didn't do that on purpose. That's just the way the sentence came out.) So do you block people's access? That doesn't seem right. Do you forbid localities from blocking people's access? That doesn't seem right either. Where's the middle ground between Algeria and Thailand?
The question of community obscenity standards revolves around two terms whose meaning is debatable, community and obscenity.
24 - handyguy
That's how you would end up with a "community" in Nebraska banning The Catcher in the Rye.
This article is about some members of some communities trying to clamp down on content they find objectionable. It's a slippery slope and proceeding on it won't benefit anyone.
25 - Irene Athena
I wish I could say that parents could "censor all they like for their own."
It just isn't possible, unless you keep your kid under 24 hour surveillance, including leashing them to you while you're doing the dishes and can't be looking over their shoulder. (At least when I'm ON the computer, my son is off it. ;)
Not much was readily available to the 12 year olds of yore was the girdle section of the Sears Roebuck catalog. Acquiring and partaking of racier fare required a lot more in the way of logistics than it does today. There's so much hard-core stuff readily available 24-7. It's addictive to young men who are just starting to learn how to manage their hormones, and it doesn't do a dang thing for their ability to respond properly later on to a real life lover who isn't air-brushed...or their ability to see women as people to be respected and even protected honorably, rather than used.