2 weeks Ago
The South Carolina state Board of Education says it has no desire to kill a mockingbird. The Harper Lee classic can remain on public school library shelves. In fact, the board on Tuesday ruled that it’s also fine for students to read Shakespeare’s “Romeo and Juliet” and even George Orwell’s dystopian novel, “1984.
” Which is a bit on-the-nose for these days, but whatever. Many folks would consider that good news, seeing as how this is the board’s first swing at a controversial new policy of reviewing books in public schools to decide if they are appropriate for students. Instead of, you know, allowing librarians and teachers to make such calls.
As is tradition. The board sent a clear message on Tuesday that it would judge any book challenged by a parent, classic or not. But so far, it’s just banishing a bunch of newer books that aren’t as recognizable.
Department of Education staff and a board committee reviewed 11 books that often receive complaints, and ruled — they said — as an example of how local boards should judge material. Even if it looked like they were heading off criticism at the pass. See, the anti-censorship folks — and that admittedly includes me — usually mention one of those three titles when bemoaning book banning.
Oh no , we say, clutching our pearls — not “To Kill a Mockingbird.” It’s a classic . So these books became test cases in the first round of Survivor: School Library Edition.
The list included the three aforementioned giants, along with eight newer titles — all of which are popular with kids who actually read, and all of which are on the Moms for Liberty Most Wanted list. They included “Damsel” by Elana Arnold, “Normal People” by Sally Rooney, “Ugly Love” by Colleen Hoover and just about everything Sarah J. Maas has ever written.
The board promptly ordered seven of the eight removed from library shelves ...
and will decide later on the eighth. These books, say the censorship pearl clutchers, are too sexually explicit for school-age children ..
. and the state board agreed. Maybe they are too racy for some kids — certainly those who haven’t reached high school.
Perhaps there are passages in those books that would make some folks blush. For instance, “Damsel” even includes scenes of sexual assault. But Arnold has argued it’s not exploitive, it’s protecting kids by arming them with knowledge.
Good point. Reasonable people can disagree on such things, and frankly, no author has a right to have their books on all library shelves (oh, but if that were so). Just as parents have every right to keep whatever recreational reading material they want from their children.
But this changes nothing about the larger issue: parents trying to control the reading of other people’s kids. The state Board of Education declared itself the final arbiter in all these decisions in the summer, even if a parent — or someone — protests to the local school board. But only, Superintendent Ellen Weaver clarified Tuesday, as a kind of “Supreme Court” for appealing those local decisions.
That's bound to disappoint local school boards, which were hoping the state would completely take over these decisions (because it means they don't have to do anything). Even the conservative board majority at the Charleston County School District has little desire to wade into such an antagonistic, divisive fight ..
. or take the time to read these books. The Berkeley County School Board punted on this issue, too, after catching incessant flak for overreach.
But state board members, while taking a stand in defense of the three classics — they pretty much said don’t bother trying to ban these — also announced it won’t review every book in schools. Let locals decide first. Obviously, they know banning “To Kill a Mockingbird” would land them on the bad side of some nasty publicity.
And, most likely, they don’t want to deal with this any more than the locals. But they picked off the Sarah J. Maas titles, and Rooney, Arnold and Hoover — authors who, despite their popularity, aren’t well-known by a lot of older, politically engaged people who could cause the board trouble.
(At the same time, they probably irked book banners by ruling that students can still bring their own copies of these titles from home, if local districts allow it.) So now the book banners will probably co-opt “To Kill a Mockingbird” as a symbol that all this is even-handed, as if allowing students to keep reading a novel that explained racial prejudice to millions of kids during the civil rights movement — and for 60 years since — is some great concession. When it never should have been a question to begin with.
.
