A Good Word for Book Banning... Sort Of

Julian Sanchez | September 27, 2005

This is Banned Books Week—which in principle celebrates some vital, wonderful liberal principles: Freedom to read, openness to ideas, all that good stuff. But a couple things about the American Liberary Association's Banned Books Week FAQ gave me pause.

First, there's their definition of "challenged" books—with the pretty clear implication in context that a "challenge" is always a bad, anti-freedomy sort of thing. But the category seems to cover a whole lot of ground, from someone demanding that a book be pulled from the shelves of a town's public or school library, to parents complaining to a teacher that their child's a bit young yet to be assigned Book X. The first I'd hope is pretty much always unsuccessful. The latter, eh, I don't know—if we don't think teachers (or administrators) are infallible, it's surely not impossible that, every now and again, a book might be assigned a group of kids, most of whose parents would consider them too young for it. Is it so outrageous for a parent to disagree with a curricular choice that even writing a letter to raise an issue and request reconsideration counts, by default, as an attempt at "suppression"? (Insert requisite if-only-we-had-vouchers line here.)

If the distinction between kinds of challenges is important, that probably goes double for distinctions between rationales for challenges. The ALA's maintains a list of most challenged books from last year—a kind of honor roll, again with the pretty clear implication that they're all equally targets of ignorant attempts at censorship. Number three on the list is Michael Bellesiles' Arming America. Yes, that's the error riddled book whose author resigned in disgrace after a scholarly panel found it to be either impossibly sloppy or outright fraudulent, whose publisher dropped it, which had its prestigous Bancroft Prize rescinded. Joyce Lee Malcolm skewered the book in this 2001 review for Reason, and followed up on the controversy—and the book's legion errors and fabrications—in a 2003 Reason piece. The most charitable thing to say about this book is that there seems to be pretty broad consensus among historians that there are serious problems with the book. A less charitable, but probably more accurate thing to say is: The book is a patchwork of lies. If I had a kid in high school who was assigned this book—at least outside a creative fiction class—I'd surely object as well. Not because I disagree with its point of view, but because there seems to be broad agreement that it's just factually wrong on a whole slew of crucial points. Is "censorship" really what's at issue when someone complains that their kid's history class is using a text now widely regarded as fraudulent?

Now, looking down the list, I don't think schools and teachers should cave to objections from a few parents in most cases—though, again, it'd sure be nice if parents had more options for putting their kids in another school when they had such serious problems with the curriculum. But the kind of undiscriminating approach the ALA seems to take—every "challenge" to every book in every context for any reason is equally bad—stinks more of an attempt to preserve a professional prerogative than a genuine concern with the evils of censorship.

Comments

Akira MacKenzie|9.27.05 @ 4:37PM|#

What? No Harry Potter this year? The fundies must be asleep at the pulpet.

Timothy|9.27.05 @ 5:09PM|#

I object to Of Mice And Men because it's a damn terrible book. That's right, I said it, it stinks. In general I think Steinbeck is much to highly regarded. Cannery Row is all you really need to read by the guy. Maybe high school English class and all that garbage about "everything in the book being a major symbol" ruined Steinbeck for me, but I can't honestly figure out why so many folks love the guy.

|9.27.05 @ 5:31PM|#

Why do you hate freedom, Julian?

|9.27.05 @ 5:44PM|#

Timothy - Of Mice and Men was one of the few books I liked reading (along with one Beowulf translation and The Old Man and the Sea) for the last half of high school English.

I'd take it over Heart of Darkness or Return of the Native any day.

|9.27.05 @ 5:47PM|#

Timothy,

My favorite is The Winter of Our Discontent.

|9.27.05 @ 5:49PM|#

Yet more proof that the best way to destroy a good book is to assign it. Travels with Charlie is my personal favorite by Steinbeck, by the way.

|9.27.05 @ 5:53PM|#

I recently read Heart of Darkness and rather enjoyed it. I can't abide by Steinbeck, though.

|9.27.05 @ 6:08PM|#

I may have to reread Heart of Darkness someday. I just have a thing against a lot of 19th century collagen-stuffed prose.

Larry A|9.27.05 @ 6:17PM|#

Ever notice that there are seldom any books by the likes of Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, or Michelle Malkin on the AMA list? What do you think:

• No one objects to these books?
• These books never make the Education Acceptable Reading List in the first place?

Note: This is an observation, not an endorsement of the authors noted.

|9.27.05 @ 6:21PM|#

I didn't think "East of Eden" sucked. Though I probably would have if I'd been assigned it in class.

But I would agree that the ALA is crying wolf when it screams "censorship" about any attempt by people other than teachers and librarians to show some discretion about what books are purchased or assigned. If I found out that my local library didn't have a copy of the Iliad on its shelves, but had been spending its entire acquisitions budget on "The Turner Diaries" and the complete catalog of the Institute for Historical Review, I don't think I'd be out of line to say that their priorities were a bit out of whack. If I did, though, I suppose the ALA would denounce me for "censorship."

(No, my local library doesn't actually stock their shelves with racist and Holocaust revisionist books. However, they seem to think that their job is to compete with the local Waldenbooks, which is why they are sure to have a good selection of bodice-rippers on hand for those too cheap to spend six bucks on their own copy. Not that I'm complaining; that, after all, would be censorship.)

drf|9.27.05 @ 6:24PM|#

Larry:

good question. probably if those, um, "werks" were put in mainstream schools, they'd probably be protested. if "heather has two mommies" were not put into schools, that fine piece of work, including the sweaty pillow fight scene on page 69 would be unknown by most of us.

But "heather" is good for curling up with your noam chomsky blow up doll and passing a perfectly america-hating evening :)

(sick. wrong. sick sick sick. wrong. naughty)

|9.27.05 @ 6:29PM|#

A Noam Chomsky blow-up doll?

Be still my beating heart. I can now fulfill one of my dreams.

|9.27.05 @ 6:32PM|#

That dream, of course, being to tell Noam Chomsky to go fuck himself, and Noam being able to follow through.

|9.27.05 @ 6:38PM|#

Eric the .5b, try Lord Jim, also by Joseph Conrad. It's my favorite Conrad novel. You may find that if you read something by him which you enjoy it will be easier to pick up Heart of Darkness again later on. He also wrote some fabulous short stories, but you may have to have a thing for sea tales to really enjoy them.

Julian, this is pure speculation, but I wonder how much librarians' attitudes toward book bans are affected by the simple fact that they're librarians. Librarians are collectors. If it's printed on paper and bound together they'll want to add it to the collection, no matter what it is. I collect records, and there are some records I just HAVE to own, even though I know I'll never listen to them because the music on them just stinks. They still complete the collection, and that makes them essential. So librarians in general may be more concerned with books than with the contents of books, and because of that, ANY challenge is an affront to their collection. I'm not saying they're right in the context you outlined, but they may have their own compulsive reasons to find offense in the suggestion that ANY book shouldn't be cherished.

|9.27.05 @ 6:50PM|#

Well, no Malkin or O'Reilly, but I expect no Michael Moore either. I imagine that has more to do with academic standards ruling out shallow partisan hackwork than with any particular political bias.

|9.27.05 @ 6:50PM|#

Eric the .5b, try Lord Jim

I've actually read that, but some years before high school. I recalled not liking it, but I can't actually remember it. I'll look into it, thanks.

|9.27.05 @ 6:51PM|#

That dream, of course, being to tell Noam Chomsky to go fuck himself, and Noam being able to follow through.

Thank you for the clarification...I think.

|9.27.05 @ 6:51PM|#

To be fair, they do state that Arming America has been challenged on accuracy grounds which makes it the only book opposed for legitimate cause.

|9.27.05 @ 7:23PM|#

It is important to keep our nomenclature straight. When you, Joe Citizen, an owner of the local gubmint skool and/or liberry, voice your opinion about how it is being run, you are a nasty censor. When a professional liberrian or educamator decides which books go into the collection or into the curriculum, that's selection, which has to be left to the pros, don't ya see. Selection does mean that some books are "included out", and I'd love to see a list of the non-PC titles that the Blob has consigned to the Don't Buy This list.

Kevin

The Wine Commonsewer|9.27.05 @ 8:44PM|#

Nice piece, Julian.

These lists are, of course, crap. The thing that eludes this crowd is reality. If you can plunk your dime down at the local bookstore and actually buy the book of your choice, it ain't been banned or censored. If the government says you can't buy it or own it, then it has been banned and censored. Everything else is just spin and massage.

The Banned Book crowd wouldn't for a minute put up with live video feeds in high school libraries of college girls doing each other (read: porn) which suggests that the so-called opposition to censorship only goes so far.

Timothy is right, Of Mice & Men wasn't much but then again nothing much we were fed in high school was worth reading anyway.

The Wine Commonsewer|9.27.05 @ 8:51PM|#

When a professional liberrian or educamator decides which books go into the collection or into the curriculum, that's selection, which has to be left to the pros, don't ya see.

Couldn't have said it better Kevin. And you know what? At my high school you could not find The Conscience of a Conservative or Atlas Shrugged

Disclaimer: That was long enough ago that those were fairly contemporary titles not dust collectors.

|9.27.05 @ 9:42PM|#

The Conscience of a Conservative

I think you have to look either in fiction or ancient history to find that now.

|9.27.05 @ 9:44PM|#

These heroes of freedom of choice, the American Library Association, practically drool on Fidel Castro's boots while refusing to support the independent, uncensored librarians in Cuba. Such outside help might have prevented the beatings, kangaroo courts and jail sentences which occurred while the ALA was schmoozing with their Fidelista pals.

|9.27.05 @ 9:54PM|#

Hey TWC!

I hesitate to ask, but, Tom Leykis--yes that Tom Leykis--has a radio show from 3:00 - 5:00 PM on LA's KLSX all about wine called "The Tasting Room." (Aren't you somewhere in Southern California?) They usually have a guest sommelier, and they sound like they know what they're talking about.

...anyway, I was wondering if you'd caught the show, and if you have what you thought.

|9.27.05 @ 10:48PM|#

There's a real difference between censorship and selection:

Selection is when they refrain from buying the book for fear that nobody will read it.

Censorship is when they refrain from buying the book for fear that somebody will read it.

The Wine Commonsewer|9.28.05 @ 1:05AM|#

Tom Crick, thanks much for the the thoughts but I wasn't aware that Leykis had a penchant for wine. My commute is a short one (down 14 steps to my office) so I'm generally not on the road during drive time. I actually avoid that like the plague that it is. FWIW, I also remember when KLSX played classic rock (Klassix = KLSX).

|9.28.05 @ 1:47AM|#

The real problem with challenges to books in schools is the undue influence they garner. A single complaint can cause the administration and board members to quake with fear and order the removal of the book lest - heaven forbid - someone might sue.

One good thing, though, about many of these challenges, is that they disappear with the parent (who moves on to torment other levels of education). Wait long enough for the media hype to die down and you'll find others advocating FOR the same book.

|9.28.05 @ 4:51AM|#

"Well, no Malkin or O'Reilly, but I expect no Michael Moore either. I imagine that has more to do with academic standards ruling out shallow partisan hackwork than with any particular political bias"

This may be true of more recent stuff, but what about all the other shallow hackery which makes it to library shelves--usually without dispute, I might add? Why does no one dare object to the Communist Manifesto on these grounds? On academic merit, Coulter trumps Marx & Engels' little fluff piece any day.

|9.28.05 @ 7:56AM|#

JMoore--

I'd think the Communist Manifesto belongs in libraries because it's an historical document that had a huge impact on the 20th century. The same can't be said for the political works of Ann Coulter or Michael Moore.

My old high-school library had a copy of Mein Kampf, for the same reason.

|9.28.05 @ 8:07AM|#

Jennifer

Yes, I would agree. This of course, raises the possibility that, in time, Ann Coulter & Michael Moore will find a proper place on library shelves as historical documents.

Oh boy!

Mike H.|9.28.05 @ 9:42AM|#

Tell me more about the Noam blow-up doll.

Specifically, is it making the "O" face?

"Take it, Noam, take it ALL you dirty Commie!"

|9.28.05 @ 10:41AM|#

Sounds like these books are being challenged for use in schools instead of being "banned" from public libraries. The name of this week is disingenuous.

|9.28.05 @ 11:03AM|#

I'd think the Communist Manifesto belongs in libraries because it's an historical document that had a huge impact on the 20th century. The same can't be said for the political works of Ann Coulter or Michael Moore.

True enough. But you have to admit that they're all written in the same self-aggrandizing, holier-than-though masturbatory style that only someone who knows what's best for you can conjure up.

|9.28.05 @ 1:09PM|#

>The Conscience of a Conservative

Goldwater's book as well as a Tip O'Neil memoir were part of my AP Government class curriculum circa 1994 (public high school). There was also a general textbook.

|9.28.05 @ 5:18PM|#

"I hesitate to ask, but, Tom Leykis--yes that Tom Leykis--has a radio show from 3:00 - 5:00 PM on LA's KLSX all about wine called "The Tasting Room."

...I should have added, it's from 3-5 on Saturdays!

raymond|9.29.05 @ 3:48AM|#

It's apparently banned posters week, too. :-(

(My latest post is being "studied" so it can be "accepted" for this forum.)

|10.1.05 @ 8:41PM|#

As a graduate student in a library & information science program, I've been hearing an awful lot about Banned Books week at school, and was pleased to see Julian's article. I used to think the whole Banned Books thing was pretty cool, but now I'm starting to think it is little more than a slick bit of ALA promo-shenanigans. I mean, in classes we're being taught that we should respect intellectual freedom, the freedom to read for ALL, and that information wants to be free--and if you can't uphold these sorts of principles then maybe you should choose a different career--but then we get mixed messages about such things ALL THE TIME. We get conflicting views on internet filtering, on confidentiality issues, and on patron privacy (Patriot Act related matters). Worst of all, is the ALA's nonchalant stance on the plight of the Cuban librarians. Part II of the ALA Code of Ethics states "We uphold the principles of intellectual freedom and resist all efforts to censor library resources." I think it's fair to say that when ALA voted down the amendment last year to support the jailed Cuban librarians, they broke this ethical code that they usually cling to so dearly. So yeah, it's a bunch of bullshit. Some of the people who voted against it said they didn't want to offend Fidel Castro. Excuse me, since when did we have to worry about offending a dictator?

Also, someone mentioned that maybe Banned Books week is sort of a result of librarians being "collectors". I have to jump in here and say that is not exactly the case. Sure, librarians have to act as a collector of sorts in order to amass a library, but they don't put together collections on a whim. Every library is guided by a bit of policy particular to their own institution called a "Collection Development Policy" that spells out how they will acquire materials. It usually identifies the subject areas they want to collect agressively in, and also enumerates areas they will not pursue. This obviously varies from one place to another, and depends on the population that the library serves. They also can't just accept any old gift just because they want their collection to get bigger. Those things end up on book sales. Libraries are also supposed to collect "without personal discrimination" on all topics, in an even manner. So if a library has an anti-abortion book, they really should have a pro-abortion one to balance it out. We're not supposed to be there to prescribe a particular value set to the population, but to just offer all sides of the argument at hand. Whether libraries do this well or not probably varies greatly.