The publishing industry has been in an uproar over “banned books” lately, proudly and enthusiastically expressing their grave concern that Governors and legislators are “banning” books in states (red states, of course) across the country and posing a terrible threat to free speech.
Trade websites feature articles almost every day on this “troubling” new trend. PEN America just released a report citing a “massive spike in book bans.” A Congressional subcommittee is holding hearings to explore the issue — and to provide an opportunity for some incredibly hypocritical grandstanding. I particularly enjoyed when Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said:
“Learn to tolerate the speech you abhor, as well as the speech you agree with,” urged Raskin. “It’s not always easy, but this is incumbent upon people living in a free, democratic society. If we cancel or censor everything that people find offensive, nothing will be left.”
I heartily agree with the sentiment, but am annoyed by the double standard. Where was he when colleges refused to host conservative speakers and harassed conservative professors out of their jobs? When Twitter shut down conservative voices? When AWS deplatformed Parler? When YouTube censored Prager U? Where was he, for that matter, when books like Huckleberry Finn were actually being banned for precisely the reason he cites above?
I say “actually” banned, because what’s happening in schools is not book banning, it is adult supervision. There is a difference between moving the bleach to a higher shelf so a toddler cannot drink it and demanding it be taken off the market entirely. More on that in a moment.
But the canard about banned books is very trendy right now. I recently was invited to write an article for Publishers Weekly in which I referenced cancel culture; the editor suggested if I was going to take the Left to task for cancel culture, I should take the Right to task for banning books. (I disagreed, and to his credit, he respected my wishes.)
The Left argues they are defending free speech – and who can be against that?! I have often written in passionate defense of free speech, including (especially) speech you disagree with. It’s easy to tolerate ideas that match your own; the real virtue is in defending the rights of those you disagree with.
But here’s the thing – free speech, along with all the other rights enshrined in the Constitution, is for adults. As a society, we assume people over the age of 18 (or 21) are mature enough and independent enough to exercise their own judgment. Children are not adults. This may sound obvious, but it also seems necessary to point out.
We do not let children drive cars until they are 15 or 16. We do not let children drink alcohol. We do not let children go to R rated movies. We do not let children join the army. Or run for office. Or sign up for a credit card. Or eat five gallons of ice cream in their “pursuit of happiness.” We understand (I hope we still understand) that children need to be protected and need guidance that adults do not need (or at least should not be forced to accept). We understand that our job as parents and teachers and coaches and guidance counselors and girl scout troop leaders — basically, anyone who has the opportunity to mentor kids — is to help children grow safely and confidently. We should do so with compassion, encouragement, motivation, and high standards. We also must do so with discernment. It is our job to decide what is appropriate for a child to hear, to see, to read, to experience.
I remember acting as a school chaperone on a field trip with my youngest daughter’s 10th grade class. Every year, the 10th graders from McLean High School went to the Holocaust Museum. If you have ever been there, you know how moving and how devastating that visit can be. One of my daughter’s friends started crying uncontrollably when we went through the rail car that shows how Jews were transported to the camps. It was an important, albeit upsetting, part of their education. But I noticed that some parents had brought much younger children to the museum, and I couldn’t help thinking: this is just too upsetting for an 8-year-old. The enormity of this episode in history, the evil on display, is too much for an 8-year-old to process.
The so-called “book bans” in Texas and elsewhere that all the liberals are bemoaning are examples of exactly the same thing. They are instances of adults exercising judgment about what children can and should read. What is appropriate for a 5-year-old is quite different from what is appropriate for a 15- year-old. And both are still children. We can certainly have a vibrant debate on where those limits are and how to define “appropriate.” That discussion defines us as a free society, and our decisions then drive laws and regulations. But to claim that making those decisions and setting those limits is censorship is just a cheap, lazy excuse for refusing to accept the responsibility of acting as an adult. It’s also a convenient way to distract us from the very real cancel culture virus that prevents adults from speaking their mind and reading or hearing viewpoints the Left doesn’t like. Memo from the DNC: Every time someone brings up cancel culture, just counter-punch with “banned books,” and your opponent is silenced. Perfect.
Liberals are very good at telling others what they should and should not do. They positively drip in self-righteous piety when telling us what is and what is not allowed in pronouns and CRT and cultural appropriation. But they draw the line when adults presume to set limits for children. One of the greatest gifts we can give any child is to ignite their love of reading. But that doesn’t mean we can abdicate our responsibility to make sure they are not playing with matches while they are still too young to avoid getting burned.