Welcome to Banned Books Presidential Campaign Week
Sep 29
Yes, it’s Banned Books Week again - time to mourn, and to celebrate. It’s especially poignant that this year, Banned Books Week coincides with the date of the Vice Presidential Debate for Campaign 2008, one of whose participants, as almost her first act in elected office, tried to ban books in her city library.
The upside to Banned Books Week, as Nicole Belle points out in her lovely post linked above, is that it is as much a time to fight back against ignorance, intolerance, and the enemies of freedom of thought as it is to beware their perpetual campaign of oppression. We have seen in too many ways in recent years the dangers of complacency and an unfounded confidence in progressive values. It is important to remind and re-energize ourselves about the alternatives that constantly stalk us in politics, social policy, and our private lives. And looking on the upside, one of the delicious satisfactions of this year’s remembrance will be the chance to see the party of book-banning and the religious war on tolerance get their ass righteously handed to them at the polls, at long last. That’s going to be worth celebrating.
Until then, the usual suspects:
The most frequently challenged books of 2007
The following books were the most frequently challenged in 2007:
The ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom received a total of 420 challenges last year. A challenge is defined as a formal, written complaint, filed with a library or school requesting that materials be removed because of content or appropriateness. According to Judith F. Krug, director of the Office for Intellectual Freedom, the number of challenges reflects only incidents reported, and for each reported, four or five remain unreported.
The “10 Most Challenged Books of 2007” reflect a range of themes, and consist of the following titles:
1) “And Tango Makes Three,” by Justin Richardson/Peter Parnell
[NB: A factually correct non-fiction book about a baby penguin parented by two male penguins. What is it with right-wingers and the penguins?]
Reasons: Anti-Ethnic, Sexism, Homosexuality, Anti-Family, Religious Viewpoint, Unsuited to Age Group2) “The Chocolate War,” by Robert Cormier
Reasons: Sexually Explicit, Offensive Language, Violence3) “Olive’s Ocean,” by Kevin Henkes
Reasons: Sexually Explicit and Offensive Language4) “The Golden Compass,” by Philip Pullman
Reasons: Religious Viewpoint5) “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn,” by Mark Twain
Reasons: Racism6) “The Color Purple,” by Alice Walker
Reasons: Homosexuality, Sexually Explicit, Offensive Language7) “TTYL,” by Lauren Myracle
Reasons: Sexually Explicit, Offensive Language, Unsuited to Age Group
“I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings,” by Maya Angelou
Reasons: Sexually Explicit9) “It’s Perfectly Normal,” by Robie Harris
Reasons: Sex Education, Sexually Explicit10) “The Perks of Being A Wallflower,” by Stephen Chbosky
Reasons: Homosexuality, Sexually Explicit, Offensive Language, Unsuited to Age Group
#1 by gattsuru at September 30th, 2008
| Quote
*sigh*
Palin did not attempt to ban any book, nor has the Wasilla library ever passed a request to have a book banned. She asked a chief librarian what the librarians response would be to removing books (effectively a ban), but the McCain camp claims the question was posed to figure out what the process involved was — as there were individuals attempting to challenge Heather Has Two Mommies at the time, not an entirely unreasonable request, although even assuming the McCain campaign is telling the truth, a rather poorly worded one.
As the first step to trying to get a book or books banned is to challenge them, and the only challenge posed during Palin’s mayoral career was not posed by Palin, the phrasing is a little deceptive.
Some of the listed censorship would, I am sorry to say, also pass muster. While I don’t particularly enjoy Mr. Pullman’s ridiculous strawmans, I think exposure to that sort of work is a good way to develop resistance to such logical fallacies in the future, but not purchasing or removing a book with non-trivial violence (the first book includes psychological and physical mutilation of children and animals, the second goes up to maiming the main character) and aimed for the young adult section would almost certainly pass strict scrutiny. Blame Scalia, I guess.
#2 by KTK at September 30th, 2008
| Quote
Nonsense.
Palin made a direct inquiry about the process of banning books (it’s interesting that she even assumes there is one). She later fired the librarian who said she would not allow it, before being forced to back down by public outcry. There is no explanation for this other than that Palin intended to ban books and was taking the first steps to doing so. (Note that her own bogus “explanations” keep changing, also: she first said it was a “test of loyalty”; now she says she was responding to citizen complaints. And how is her current explanation in any way reassuring? Why would she need to know “the process” for banning books just because some other citizens had asked about it? Why didn’t she tell those citizens she opposes banning books, instead of becoming the point person in their campaign of ignorance? Taking up the cause for book banners is hardly a defense against the charge of book banning.) It’s only too clear what Palin was doing, and I’m content to say she attempted to ban books, even if she did so as incompetently as she does most other things.
As for Pullman - whose books are widely regarded as brilliant - why don’t you just take responsibility for what your own kids read, and not deprive everyone else’s kids of that opportunity? Banners are not trying to protect anyone - they’re trying to shut down other people’s access to ideas they disapprove of.
#3 by digglahhh at September 30th, 2008
| Quote
In terms of that which is part and parcel with prevailing American culture, the only element of sex- and violence-laden material presented to “young adults” we take offense to is the prerequisite literacy needed to access the scraps of smut.
As we can see, strict scrutiny worked wonders for the Palin family. They have a great appreciation for the young adult classics. I heard as an homage to John Knowles Palin’s daughter has the pun “A Separate Piece” tatted right above her vijay-jay and Levi is referred to, by his fellow drive through workers, as “Lord of the Fries.”