In honor of Banned Books Week, I have decided to take a brief stab at discussing this strange, strange topic. Why? Because sometimes slapping a ban on something is silly, and sometimes it's right. But mostly because it overreaches due to a parent's views on what is and isn't appropriate for their children. I understand, though. I have two kids of my own, and so I truly understand the urge to do everything in one's power to protect them. Banning books, however... I will never quite understand who decided that was the best way to go.
You can't protect kids from ideas. Anyone with a teenager will tell you that more often than not, telling your kids they can't do something is a sure-fire way to get them to want to do it even if they never wanted to before. Kids are contrary and willful, and it's up to us as parents to ensure they're allowed to be who they are without interference from outside parties. We want to protect our children. It's natural, it's important, and it's necessary. What we need to do, though, is balance that protectiveness with a healthy dose of reality. It's not realistic to assume that we can completely shelter our children from everything we find bad or objectionable, and it's cruel to try to force our own views on our children. That is why, even after more than a hundred and fifty years, we still have systemic racism in this country. We teach our children with our behavior what is and isn't acceptable. Banning books really sends the wrong message.
When looking through the American Library Association's list of banned books for this year, what struck me as most noticeable was why the majority of the books were banned. In particular, #2 on the list, A Day in the Life of Marlon Bundo struck me as an odd one to ban as it was a satirical riff on Mike Pence put together as part of a comedy sketch. It was banned for political and religious commentary, and also because it depicted a same-sex relationship between two rabbits. In fact, six of the eleven books listed were banned due to depicting LGBTQ content in some fashion. So that begs the question: why?
Why are we so afraid of letting our kids read books in which this content is present? Or, perhaps more accurately, why are we allowing a vocal minority to dictate what our kids read? I know as a parent I filter what my children are allowed to watch, play, and eat. I know I'm also responsible for filtering what they read. Who are these people and what right do they have to decide what my kids read? Theoretically any book could be banned based on what someone considers objectionable content. The problem with that, however, is that any content could be considered objectionable to someone. By deciding LGBTQ content is objectionable, we're imposing a moral judgement upon those who are whether we intend to or not. It's a knee-jerk reaction caused by ignorance, or by an overreaction to a perceived possibility. It might encourage something wrong, and so ban the book.
The difference, however, between myself and someone determined to ban books because they object to the content is that typically, when I tell my children they are not currently allowed to watch or play something, I'll explain why and give them a rough time frame for when I feel viewing such content would be acceptable. In fact, I was watching a show on Netflix the other day called Another Life when my son came home from school. I paused the show so we could talk and he expressed curiosity about it as it takes place in space and he is interested in space. I explained that it was a mature rated show, and that I hadn't seen enough of the show yet to determine why it was rated that way. Until I did, I wasn't going to let him just watch it. He accepted that, we finished our conversation, and he went off to do his homework.
Now, my son is twelve, and old enough to understand that kind of reasoning. Not all kids are mature enough or developed enough to grasp why we make the decisions we do as their parents. I have taught my children to think and to not act out everything they see, hear or read. In that, I consider myself successful as a parent. To go so far as to completely ban something for its content, however, is not a decision we should ever take lightly and why it is a good thing so many challenges fail. It's one thing to express a concern that content of a book, magazine or film might not be appropriate for minors. It's another thing entirely to censor that content completely out of public consciousness because an individual or group objects to that content.
Here's an example: should the movie Birth of a Nation be banned? On the one hand, yes. It most certainly should. It is, in essence, a KKK recruitment film that is the single most uncomfortable thing I have ever been forced to watch because it does its job well. As an adult, and as a reasoning individual, I went into my History of Film class that day fully expecting to come out laughing about how stupid people were in 1915. Instead I came out wondering just how easy it was for people to be manipulated into racism. Now, of course, to consider the opposite. Does banning it change anything? The KKK will still use it as a recruitment video. It will still be one of the most vile and reprehensible bodies of work because of its ability to manipulate and radicalize impressionable minds. If we remove it, however, we run the risk of something worse coming along before we realize it. In a way, it's like a vaccine. By dosing ourselves with it we can prevent future infections. By identifying exactly how the film manipulates perceptions and incites emotional rather than rational responses, we can more easily defend ourselves from that type of manipulation in the future.
Censorship is a slippery slope that must be carefully and cautiously maneuvered or else we run the risk of harming ourselves in the future.
Comments