*A letter received by Miss Samantha Sklar - a Librarian in training

Dear America,

Recently ignited by “book bans” in states such as Florida, unrestricted access to media in America is a hot topic in today’s political climate. Censorship, itself, has always been sensitive as it begs the question: when does protection become overreach?

While I think it is an exaggeration to say books are being outright “banned,” books truly are being removed from schools and public libraries.  Often it is at the local level with direction from the state: institutional boards ultimately are the ones deciding the specific contents of their collections.  Jurisdictional taxpayers elect their board members to speak on behalf of them and fill their collections with books that represent the beliefs and values of the community.  If parents and communities are upset with a book in a school or library, they should have every right to object to it and prevent their children from accessing it without penalty.  But it isn’t the taxpayers who decide these rules: it is the state government.  Laws are being written and enacted in various states, such as Missouri, that essentially “defund” libraries.  The freedoms of speech and expression have technically not been affected by these laws.  This is the loophole: don’t prevent the writer from writing, just prevent the book from being read.  For instance, if a library board were to go against the state government’s subjective rules on what is obscene or what is not, they would lose their funding, even if the community stands behind their library (Erickson).  This is the overreach.

The content of the books being “banned” range anywhere from historical fiction (Holocaust and slavery literature) to informative LGBTQ non-fiction to sexually charged graphic novels (Martin). Understandably, parents may not want their children consuming certain books; however, that is where this problem should begin and end: at the parent’s decision.  Of course, a library or school is allowed to decide what to purchase for their collection, and of course, it is inappropriate for a child to read graphically violent or sexual literature. I have seen the content that is being “banned” from classrooms: a lot of it, having been written for children, is disgusting and shouldn’t be in the classroom; but, a lot of it is important historically.

I am, however, not even sure this is truly about the safety of children, rather it could be a weaponization of our children.  Parents who support “book bans” may sense that their choice of politician is looking out for their children’s development.  The parent is not at fault for seeing optimism in the politician’s “empathy;” but, behind this “empathy” is an ulterior motive.  For politicians keen on projecting an image of morality, the crux of their argument is that children having access to content they deem to be inappropriate is the beginning of a slippery slope; therefore, it is best to simply withhold these books in order to prevent immorality.  I just don’t believe that would solve anything.  “Banning books” opens the door for children to increasingly turn to the internet and social media to educate themselves about topics that they are not allowed to read about in books, arguably opening their eyes to things far worse.  While there are books that I, hypothetically, wouldn’t let my children read and content I wouldn’t want them to be exposed to, that would be a conversation for our home, between parent and child without governmental interference.

I find this entire “book banning” spectacle to be yet another example of the political exploitation of our children by both parties.  The left says the book bans are “anti-LGBTQ” and “racist” and are purposefully pushing the boundaries of morality as a sort of shock value, while the right says they are doing their best to prevent “woke ideologies” from indoctrinating their children, stepping back decades in progress.  It is all a game to forward the divide.

I believe most parents fall in the middle.  Parents want their children to have access to books that will expand their minds and help them become a better generation than those before; but, parents also want their children to read what aligns with their family’s version of morality.  What is right to one parent may not be right to another.  Preventing someone else’s child from reading a book because you don’t want your own child to read this book crosses the line from protection to overreach, which no modern and free government should tolerate.

Signed,

Samantha Sklar

Works Cited

Erickson, Kurt. New Rule to Block Missouri Library Funding Set to Go into Effect May 30.” STLtoday.com, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 14 Apr. 2023, www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/new-rule-to-block-missouri-library-funding-set-to-go-into-effect-may-30/article_2f11c261-112b-5bd1-8b87-912ff9561adf.html. Accessed 21 June 2023.

Martin, Jennifer. The 50 Most Banned Books in America.” CBS News, CBS News, 10 Nov. 2022, www.cbsnews.com/pictures/the-50-most-banned-books-in-america/. Accessed 21 June 2023.* *

*

*