This week, Amber brought us the topic of book banning. I know it is a heavy topic for her because she is a high school English teacher and a lover of literature like me. I’ve always thought that book banning was ridiculous, and I’ve read many books on the banned books list that caused me to wonder what in the world was supposedly so bad about them. And while I appreciate the need to keep books with adult themes out of the hands of young students who aren’t mature enough to handle them, I question whether banning a book is the way to go.
Take, for instance, the Sarah J. Maas book A Court of Thorns and Roses. I haven’t read the book…it’s just not my thing, but I understand that it is hugely popular and, of course, teenage girls are going to want to read it. Apparently, it contains some explicit sexual content, as romance novels often do. I get why that’s probably not appropriate to be in a school library. But does it have to be banned? Isn’t it enough for a school district or the state to have a standing rule against books with sexual content, and then for the librarian or teacher who is buying books to simply not stock them? If we trust these people to educate our students, shouldn’t we trust them enough not to provide inappropriate materials? Why does the content of our school libraries have to be so completely micromanaged that we have to ban a book to keep schools from delivering it to students? And if a librarian or a teacher is providing such materials to students, then shouldn’t we be questioning their employment? Why are we hiring teachers and librarians who can’t follow some simple guidelines, like not providing books with sexual content?
What does banning books do? Often, it entices students to actually want to read it, just to see how bad it is. Teens are all about pushing boundaries and seeing how far they can take it. If a book is publicly banned, you can guarantee there will be students who seek it out just because it is. And then they’ll tell all their friends about it and share it around, and you pretty much have the exact situation you’ve been trying to avoid.
A better approach is to establish clear guidelines regarding the types of content that are not permitted in public schools. The state can set a simple mandate of zero tolerance for sexual content. It would then be up to the librarian or teacher to select books that meet the acceptable criteria. The questionable book never makes it onto any list; the teens never find out. If they decide they want to read a book they heard about on TikTok, that is between the student and their parents—end of story.
The only time I see this not working is in the case of parental objections to specific material. The topic that first comes to my mind is anything in the LGBTQ+ sector. Many parents object to any literature that mentions topics they are not comfortable with or that do not meet their moral standards. But do those parents have a right to decide what is morally acceptable for everyone else? Suppose a parent can choose to withhold permission for a vaccine, a field trip, sex education, or other kinds of participation, then why can’t the same system be used for books that contain what they call “immoral” or “inappropriate” content? Why not make the books available to students whose parents are open to those subjects, using a permission slip system? It’s not that hard. It meets the needs of more conservative parents, while still allowing more liberal (and often more realistic) views to be presented.
Actually, I kind of like Judy Blume’s idea best: “Let children read whatever they want and then talk about it with them. If parents and kids can talk together, we won't have as much censorship because we won't have as much fear.” My kids are grown, but I would much rather have them come to me with questions that I can answer from my own beliefs than to have them read things in secret and never get the chance to discuss them with me. If I am afraid of what my child is reading, then it’s probably time that I talk to them about it anyway.
