How Removing Toni Morrison's Beloved From Curriculum Helped Glenn Youngkin Win in Virginia
Virginia lawmakers passed a bill allowing parents to opt out of certain lessons, which was vetoed by then-Gov. Terry McAuliffe.

Toni Morrison's Pulitzer Prize–winning 1987 novel, Beloved, is a ghost story that forces readers to confront America's legacy of slavery—of racism, subjugation, and murder—and consider how it still haunts us today. One Virginia mother's quixotic bid to remove the book from her school district's Advanced Placement English curriculum indirectly led to the election of Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin. Education's move to the forefront of modern culture war politics has a great deal to do with Beloved.
Morrison drew inspiration from the true story of Margaret Garner, an enslaved black woman who fled her plantation in 1856. When slave catchers caught her, she killed her own daughter rather than see the child returned to a life of slavery. She tried—but failed—to kill herself and her other children as well.
Beloved takes place in 1873; the main character, Sethe, is a former slave. Much like the real-life Garner, Sethe killed a daughter to prevent her recapture. Following emancipation, she lives in a haunted house with her guilt and her surviving children, who fear her. One day, a mysterious young woman named Beloved arrives at the house. Sethe comes to believe that Beloved is the ghost of her dead daughter.
The explicit passages—which include depictions of violence, sex, and bestiality—have made the novel a frequent target for social conservatives. In 2006 and again in 2012, it was one of the 10 most frequently challenged books in schools and libraries, according to the American Library Association.
Starting in 2012, a Virginia woman named Laura Murphy petitioned the Fairfax County School Board to either remove Beloved from the AP English curriculum or at least require parental approval before students can read it, as if it were an R-rated film. That effort failed, but parents were able to persuade state legislators to approve the "Beloved bill," which would have created an opt-out for families that objected to specific books without excising the books from everyone else's curriculum. Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a Democrat, vetoed the bill.
This became a significant issue during McAuliffe's 2021 campaign against Youngkin. McAuliffe incorrectly described the vetoed bill as having given parents the power to remove books from school library shelves; Youngkin hammered McAuliffe for wanting to limit parental input. McAuliffe seemed to damn the very idea of parental input, declaring: "I don't think parents should be telling schools what they should teach." McAuliffe's eventual loss was widely attributed to this gaffe, and Republicans found a potent issue in culture war politics.
This article originally appeared in print under the headline "Beloved."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"I don't think that the Teacher's Unions, and the Government Almighty that obeys special interests including the Teacher's Unions, should be telling parents which school to send their tax money to."
Get THAT kind of candidate elected, and we'd see some MAJOR changes for the better!
So the law would have allowed parents to invoke, on their children's behalf, a right not to be compelled to read certain books. How is this a blow against "free speech" any more than children opting out of having to recite the Pledge of Allegiance?
Who said it was a "blow against free speech"?
It's implied simply by being on Reason's "Banned Books Reading List".
Of course, you knew that.
I think the banned book month stuff either needs to end, or be taken international, because the examples in the US are generally not even approximately banning.
Do you even midterm narrative bro?
And do you EMERGENCY!
McAuliffe's eventual loss was widely attributed to this gaffe
It was a gaffe only in the cynical sense that a gaffe is when a politician accidentally tells the truth. If McAuliffe genuinely feels that teachers are elites that know better than those deplorable parents what's good for their kids, why not proudly admit it? But I would suggest that believing the elites correctly rule and the deplorables are meant simply to obey the mandates of their betters is something more than a culture war trope. It's the very essence of the contest between liberty and government. Who owns your life?
I do think that a hallmark of the 2020s is that progressives more frequently say the quiet part out loud, or simply don't bother to hide their feelings and actions.
And I suspect that as Democrats align more with the mostly white upper-middle class, funded by big money (and big egos), we will see more overt elitism.
Until they are strung up, that is.
Also it's a stupid book. The protagonist is an unapologetic murderer who complains when someone calls her out on it. Her love interest has sex with anything female, regardless of little things like whether he's already had sex with her mother, or species.
Reading the cliff notes I actually think sans erotic elements, the piece could actually be pretty good. [Spoiler alert] The ghost of slavery overwhelms a black woman, grows more powerful causing her to socially enfeeble her family. When her family reaches out to the black community, they get what help they can. When they reach out to the white community and a white guy tries to offer her son a job, possessed by the ghost, she tries to stab him with an ice pick and her son stops her. The ghost disappears, the son goes to work, and the mother is left questioning her very existence after the ghost of slavery disappears.
Sounds problematic. The ghost of slavery never disappear, it only gets stronger over time. Book would have been more woke if she'd actually killed the white colonizer while shouting "1619! 1619!"
And perhaps with some magical time travel, she could go back and kill Washington and Jefferson.
Denver was her other daughter, not her son. (She would have murdered her, too, but was stopped, IIRC.)
Not sure if I'd call the sexual stuff in the book "erotic". In one flashback a guard forces a slave to suck him off. This causes the love interest to vomit, which apparently temporarily saves him from the same fate that day. Not exactly titillating.
Not sure if I'd call the sexual stuff in the book "erotic". In one flashback a guard forces a slave to suck him off. This causes the love interest to vomit, which apparently temporarily saves him from the same fate that day. Not exactly titillating.
Yeah, as I said, I didn't read it. Feel free to substitute whatever word you want for 'erotic'. Pretty gratuitous and I can understand how it would get bounced for that. Still, like I said, sans those elements it sounds like a decently 'both sides' story. Or at least the theme anyway. Again, I could see how an appropriately motivated writer would ham it up and make reading it feel like torture (and then wonder why more unwashed heathens don't feel compelled to read their masterpiece and/or appreciate their genius).
"Yeah, as I said, I didn't read it."
You might like One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, another novel targeted by puritans. I think it was on the very first page we are treated to narrator Chief 'Broom' Bromden's suspicions that the black orderlies on the ward are having anal sex with each other during the night.
Were they?
The Chief is the epitome of modernism's 'unreliable narrator,' so maybe, maybe not.
Why must they be puritans to not want their kids’ grades dependent on reading stuff like this?
It's not only puritans. The desire to maintain the innocence of their children is common among parents everywhere. But emotional and intellectual immaturity in the physically mature isn't helping anyone but groomers and even more wicked exploiters.
That is such Bull. Reading shocking and gross things is no more a sign of mental maturity than spreading one’s legs is.
I bet that if someone tried to shove the Bible into the curriculum as required reading, you’d be the number one voice against it - forcing religion.
But there’s something wrong with a parent not wanting their child FORCED to read detailed sex scenes or their grade suffers?
That’s absurd. If my kid picks it up as an adult, fine. But isn’t a sign of mental maturity to read this stuff. More often then not, I find it the less mature adults enjoy this kind of thing.
Mentally maturity means a fuller and broader knowledge of the world than mental immaturity. Those who are mentally mature are also able to deal with abstract conceptualizations and objectivity. L understand the impulse to shield children from what you find is distasteful, but in the end, unless the child in question is devoid of intellectual curiousity, s/he will find out, and thanks to their smartphones, possibly has a more nuanced take on the subject than you do.
Sure, whatever. So few other choices, right? This book is a groomers wet dream. So, let the school district groom them first, before the freelancers get to them? Sorry, not with my kids.
Toni morrison is only a popular writer because of academe, A(W)FLs, and grievance feminism. The writing is poor, characters are risible and one-dimensional -early social 'justice' pap squeezed through a harlequin novel.
Go on...
Winning a Pulitzer prize usually helps to popularize the writer.
Who determines who wins a Pulitzer?
They do. Not us.
Seems like there were other issues in Virginia education that also contributed to Youngkin’s loss, like the school board hiding a rapist, and putting parents on an FBI watch list if they complained.
The 18 mos. foisting of childcare and education onto parents forced to stay at home and administer Zoom calls was too local to be relevant.
The only answer for GOP wins is ignorance abd deep embedded racism.
Any of you have a George Foreman Grill? A few of my relatives rave about it. I always assumed George Foreman was a celebrity chef or something.
But I just found out he was a boxer like 50 years ago. Anyway, if you own a product with his name on it, it's time to throw it away. Because he's been CREDIBLY ACCUSED of sexual assault. Therefore having his merchandise in your home makes you complicit in RAPE CULTURE.
#BelieveWomen
Can I still use my Franklin stove?
++++
Ha!
It's a lightning rod by now.
"Credibly" accused? They're filing under pseudonyms for stuff that happened in the 70s. So what makes a 50 year old accusation by two anonymous women credible?
Whoosh!
You keep using that word (credible), I don't think you know what it means.
Go easy on OBL, his memory isn't what it used to be since Ali faced an 80-ft.-tall mechanical Joe Frazier and the entire Earth was destroyed.
Is it possible this place is getting dumber?
I see no problem with a book written for adults being kept out of schools. As soon as they graduate, they'll be free to read it. In fact, they can go online and buy it while they're in school - that's a matter for their parents to deal with. Long forgotten is the idea that we have kids read books in school to improve their reading skills. They'll have a lifetime to read the novels of their choice - just teach them to read and understand. The only value to the content of the books assigned to school kids is that it keeps them interested long enough to improve their reading skills.
Neanderthal!! School is to force kids to come to terms with their racism, sexism, ableism, and miss ogeny. And to understand the oppression of their black, brown, red, yellow and green brothers and sisters and transters. Learning to read can be done when they go to free college.
"As soon as they graduate, they'll be free to read it. In fact, they can go online and buy it while they're in school - that's a matter for their parents to deal with. "
What is it with this urge to infantilize our youth? In many cultures people marry at the age of 14 and assume the responsibilities of adulthood. The notion that others should police their reading until they graduate is unlibertarian.
And you don't need to buy books to obtain them online. This site:
https://libgen.is/search.php
provides those with an internet connection with access to just about any ebook you can imagine. You don't need to buy them though you are welcome to help the site out with coding and other things.
Great, thanks! They can read Morrison on their own time. School can now focus on actual worthwhile material.
Reading this article, it appears that "removing" this book is not what got Youngkin elected. This book was never "Removed". And in fact, when you read through the article, the "Quixotic" (Really? This mother is impulsive? Caught up in some emotional crusade that is impractical?) *attempt* to get the book removed from CURRICULUM wasn't even the cause.
The cause of Youngkin's win was that McCauliff made a terrible oaf of himself, saying that parents should not be allowed to chose what to teach their children. THAT quote was plastered all over the airwaves. Yes, his quote was a response to a question about vetoing the "Beloved Bill". But he could have answered that question in a thousand ways. And the way he answered that question killed his campaign.
As with last weekend's article from Boehm, the attempt here is to try and conflate the personal consumptive choices of parents with censorship. The hook of this story would not have worked if the actual true cause of McCauliff's downfall had been used.
"McCauliff's comments about parents..."
"McCauliff's veto of a parental choice bill..."
The problem with those headlines is that Reason was trying to do a symposium on censorship, and so, confused thinkers as they are, they tried to turn this into a censorship article when it wasn't.
If Soave or any of the other Blue-Enclave writers really thought about it, the "Beloved Bill" is exactly the type of legislation that libertarians should applaud. It allowed parents and teachers to compromise on the education of children at the student level, rather than forcing one-size-fits-all solutions on all students in a school, district, city or state.
Thank you! Amazing how that tone deaf quote was left out.
VA can’t make up its mind. Hell, just 15 years ago, it banned same-sex marriage, by state referendum. Convincingly.
Then you got the northern crowd, i.e., the DC satellite Orgburo types, whose dreams of the progressive state are outweighed only by a lust for central planning, or maybe a signed copy of Obama’s bio.
Youngkin’s win moves the needle toward the traditionalists. The leftists got bitch-slapped. VA ain’t MA. He awakened the rural folk-and enough suburban moms- to the woke tyranny, which now seeks refuge in select counties, in the media, and in the cult of academia.
But his win tells a larger tale. Youngkin, like his ideas, is getting national traction. His victory foreshadows what’s coming in the midterms.
Bring an umbrella.
We read Morrison in college. Her books are more appropriate there.
I read Morrison in college, too. The American Night, and Lords and The New Creatures.
Feel for you, bro
Totally not a grifter.
https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1563503693776842752
I’m sure the hats are Made in America, too.
Or at least Canada.
Totally not peeking, right?
Did the "system" log you out again.
I'll bite.
How is this grifting, chemleft? Let me guess, it's only fundraising when you guys do it.
Is this grifting, chemleft?
https://store.dailykos.com/products/abortion-is-healthcare-tee
Selling hats in the free market is grifting.
— Lefty Jeffy
It’s a grift because that’s what all the leftist tests were calling it. Do you even chemjeff bro?
Laura Murphy petitioned the Fairfax County School Board to either remove Beloved from the AP English curriculum or at least require parental approval before students can read it, as if it were an R-rated film.
Does no one else think it's borderline insane to require age restrictions on films but then turn around and make books that contain far more graphic material mandatory for kids?
Not a judgement on this book in particular, just a noteworthy point of madness among Americans in general.
Not Americans in general. Lefties like teachers and Reason.
Does no one else think it's borderline insane to require age restrictions on films but then turn around and make books that contain far more graphic material mandatory for kids?
Not to refute your overall point, but you mean broadcasts, not films. The MPAA rating system (as well as the MPPC or 'Hays Code' before it) is (was) voluntary. Once upon a time the government was vaguely debating regulating indecent films, filmmakers were either afraid of the government intervention, cared about pleasing their customers, or both and invented the (Hays Code, the predecessor to the) MPAA rating system. People are free to produce, distribute, and show unrated films but their studios and theaters gain a reputation for the practice. The only actual federal laws regulating what can be shown in a theater (setting aside filming of crimes) regulate the age of the performers, not the audience.
That said, the MPAA, in the Golden Era of Hollywood, cared more about its customers' opinions and liberty enough to self-regulate... and they aren't even beholden to any taxpayers.
(setting aside filming of crimes) regulate the age of the performers
I guess regulating the age of the performers isn't setting aside the filming of crimes, but you get the jist. Showing and viewing wasn't a crime, production is/was.
"to either remove Beloved from the AP English curriculum or at least require parental approval before students can read it, as if it were an R-rated film."
The film version *was* R-rated, I checked IMDB.
What are you like some sort of journalist or something?
“…forces readers to confront America's legacy of slavery”
I’m glad that someone is finally forcing readers to confront America’s legacy of slavery. It’s only been about 150 years. Come on, America. Get with the program.
Still an "F"; you're so pathetic, there might not be hope for you, but study OBL.
Would you prefer that I quoted Sarah Palin’s Buttplug when he’s not around a few hundred times?
Well, constantly making clear that turd *is* a lying pile of lefty shit never hurts.
I don't remember if I've read this particular book. Certainly not in its entirety. I began a couple of others and found them, let us say, not worth the time and generally offensive. However, removing this book or any other had nothing to do with Youngkin's victory. McAuliffe's arrogance and history of corruption, along with his open hostility towards everything good and decent, caused a long-overdue rebellion.
"McAuliffe's arrogance and history of corruption, along with his open hostility towards everything good and decent, "
What went wrong? These characteristics and a boat load of money have, always stood our leaders in good stead.
Does slavery haunt the rest of the world? What about Brazil where 90% of the slaves went? What about Ghana where the slaves were sold by their black brothers?
Evil slave spirits are invoked by the shadowy witchcraft of Capitalism. Shooting someone dead for refusing to be a slave doesn't turn them into a slave ghost. The incantation requires them to be taken alive by force and sold for money to someone else. And it only works if the 'someone else' is lily white. That's why there are no Jewish or Incan or Aztec or Native (North) American slave ghosts, John Casor's ghost is just a ghost, and the British tradesmen working as indentured servants, widely regarded as having been treated more poorly than the actual slaves in Southern plantations (slaves were a cheap investment in property, indentured tradesmen were an expensive cost for a perishable labor) just died, like William Ellison Jr.'s slaves.
Make sense now?
"What about Brazil where 90% of the slaves went? "
I dunno. What about Brazil?
"What about Ghana where the slaves were sold by their black brothers?"
They became slaves when they were delivered into the hands of slave traders. In Africa they were probably debt pawns, a condition of servitude, but not slavery. Like the serfs of Europe, definitely an inferior position, but a step up from abject slavery.
Is Brazil haunted by slavery. Is English your second language?
Africans were enslaved by war. The slave trade was very lucrative for the black kingdoms.
Good question. The celebrated wrestler Bobo Brazil went down big when he passed through Nagasaki Japan. Bobo means pussy in the local dialect.
All democrats are scum. Ive become one of the people who say this now.
Just stopping by the cum-stained treehouse that is libertarianism to see how things are going with y'all today.
"Starting in 2012, a Virginia woman named Laura Murphy petitioned the Fairfax County School Board to either remove Beloved from the AP English curriculum or at least require parental approval before students can read it, as if it were an R-rated film."
The MPAA rated the movie version R for severe violence and gore, moderate sex & nudity. IMDb tags drama, history, horror. Wikipedia tags psychological horror.
From what I have read the novel is more explicit than the movie. WaPo: "... an intense, at times frightening book."
Laura Murphy's child was a high school senior. When I went to school, high school was grades 10-12, ages 16-18 years.
In more modern times, high school is 9-12 roughly 15-18 years.
One way to get kids to read a novel is to tell them there's dirty parts they shouldn't see.
They'll learn which pages the dirty stuff is on, and read those pages, skipping the rest.
I read it when I was in High School (on my own, not part of class.) I found it strange and confusing, and didn't really know what to make of it in the end. It certainly didn't traumatize me.
I guess there's no easy way to give kids a list of recommended books and let them pick 80% of them to read while getting to reject 20%. It wouldn't work with group discussions in the classroom. I suppose they could figure out the books the whole class had chosen in common and do whole class discussion on those, then break the class up into smaller discussion groups for the ones only some of them read.
Traditional measures of academic quality, e.g. Pulitzer, etc, are now worthless. Hence, individuals, in this case parents, are forced to review and screen material themselves or use trusted private services like Khan, Ron Paul, and Hillsdale College. The private sector provides, yet Reason denounces parental choice. We do have our fun in the comments, though!