I am an avid reader, devouring books at an even more rapid rate now that I’m retired. I have read before sleep since I was a little girl, and now I have the luxury of reading during the day as well. Books sustain me, they entertain me, they show me new worlds and new worldviews. I cannot imagine a life without reading.
Sadly, I have become a unicorn. Last September I blogged about the dramatic decrease in reading. The stats are compelling. The data from the National Endowment for the Arts’ 2022
Survey of Public Participation in the Arts (SPPA), shows the regression of reading as a pastime.
This fiction-reading rate was the lowest in the history of the SPPA, a survey that goes back more than three decades. Daily reading for pleasure in the US has experienced a sustained decline, dropping 40% over the past two decades. (Ibid.)
Those stats are skewed, though, because they offer an average rather than a mean, so heavy readers skew the percentage upward. Consider these stats:
40% of Americans don’t read a single book per year.
27% of Americans read no more than four books per year [even when digital, audio, and print formats are included].
The median American read two books in 2025. The average reader clocked in with eight. To put it starkly? 19% of American adults did 82% of the country’s reading. (https://lithub.com)
Students don’t read for fun as much as they used to, either.
On March 19, 2026, my favorite Chicago Tribune columnist, Heidi Stevens, made yet another argument for reading: “Books are little empathy gardens, feeding and growing the stuff that makes us feel, makes us care, makes us human.” (www.chicagotribune.com) She references neuroscience at Emory University (https://esciencecommons.blogspot.com) to support this claim. She reminds us that books are a way to walk in someone else’s shoes, to imagine their lives and learn to care about them.
In a new study from the University of Florida and University College London, experts affirm this value of reading: “Reading for pleasure has long been recognized not just as a tool for education, but as a means of supporting mental health, empathy, creativity and lifelong learning.” (https://news.ufl.edu)
Stevens acknowledges that current English curricula may not be designed to foster a love of reading, and I agree. We need to meet students where they are before we can lead them to the texts we so value. We should include more appealing choices because we have never needed to encourage reading more than we do now, in this time of division and lack of empathy. Stevens writes,
Because empathy doesn’t just seem like the best way forward right now. It seems like the only way.
What better way to pivot and heal from a chapter like the one we’re in now, a chapter marked by constant cruelty and chronic chaos? What better way to recoil, reflexively, from the next leader who comes along behaving like the one we have now? (Ibid.)
Last September, I wrote, “Reading well develops critical thinking skills, grows vocabulary, and makes us better writers. It introduces us to wider worlds and other ways of being. It helps us figure out who we are and what we believe. Why would we settle for less?” All of that is true. Let’s add a piece that’s more critical now than ever, though: let’s read widely so we may rediscover our shared humanity and rebuild an inclusive and welcoming society.
Last week I had the privilege of speaking with a double class of sixth graders and their two teachers. I told the story of how this came about in the previous blog; now I can tell what it was like.
Before I started talking about writing nonfiction and the importance of revision, I encouraged them to interrupt with questions at any point. They frequently did, asking to see my books, asking if I made money writing them, asking where I got my ideas. You could power a city with their energy!
When I asked why they wrote, the first answer was, “for fun”—my heart sang. When I asked about purposes for writing, they were able to list many. They also understood the importance of audience, agreeing that a letter to a grandparent would describe their weekend differently from one to a buddy. And when I asked about artificial intelligence and both its impact on and role in writing, their sophistication blew me away. Students referenced the unreliability and poor quality of AI writing, though they acknowledged using it.
I talked about my own writing journey, from being in a junior high writing group and seeing my poems—bad though I now know they were—in print to the writing of my most recent book, my first work of fiction. I encouraged them to read widely because it was fun and would make them better writers. Many nodded at that, and some even described their favorite books and series. Others complained that they hadn’t found books of interest, and I encouraged them to use librarians as resources, assuring them that once they found the right books, they would want to read them. I told the story of my scientist husband’s journey from near-illiterate writer to accomplished memoirist, thanks in good part to the support a writing group. They were responsive and engaged; I found their gusto inspiring.
Then they formed small groups to revise the AI-drafted poorly written paragraph I’d sent. They could read it on the whiteboard, and all of them had it on their Chromebooks. Despite the occasional grumbling about group work, their groups did rewrite the paragraph. Some just reworded it without reducing the wordiness, but some did a really good job. If I were to do this again, I would emphasize finding the main idea and amplifying it without extras, and I would explain the difference between revising and editing better.
After our debriefing, students began to pack up. One brought me a part of her story to read, several surprised me by asking for autographs, and one gave me the picture that you see here as a gift. They really made me feel validated. I hope they found it to be a good learning experience. I know I learned from them.
When I research the state of education for my blogs, the doom and gloom can be daunting. This experience gave me far more hope than the research implies. Two committed teachers working together with a large group of learners, coping with some chaos to produce enthusiastic and effective results—that’s what schools should be like.
I’m so glad I had this chance… but I confess that I no longer have the stamina more teaching would require. I came home and took a nap! So thank you, students and teachers, for inviting me, and keep on writing!
American students can’t read well. That news, supported by data from the National Annual Assessment of Progress, should worry all of us. These test scores, the first since before the pandemic, show a stark decline that had begun even before the pandemic. We can’t blame Covid alone. Students are struggling, and their lack of adequate reading skills may limit their ability to function as adults in our society. This national snapshot cuts “across demographic divides of race, class and sex,” despite progress in the science or early reading teaching. (nytimes.com)
I am both saddened by these findings and concerned about their long-term impact on both students and on society as a whole. TheNew York Times article cited above acknowledges the likely role of technologies that have replaced reading time, including teens’ use of screen time for social media and videos. I believe the shift from paper to screens, from books to messaging, videos, and chats – that this paradigm shift is indeed one factor.
I do not believe it is the only factor. If we fail to recognize some of the additional forces at play, we will be even less successful at bringing students back to reading. We need to ask ourselves how the following patterns impact this issue:
How many kids grow up in a home with books, without adults who read to them?
How many kids even see the adults in their lives reading?
Given our tendency to overschedule kids with playdates, schooling, organized sports, etc., from a very early age, how many kids have the time and energy to indulge in reading for pleasure?
Given the shortened attention spans of kids identified by research, how might we support their making the effort that reading requires?
Does increased use of short texts in place of longer works in schools mean that students don’t build the habit of sustained reading?
Does the pressure of short, single, right answers in our test-driven curriculum push for superficial focus?
How much choice do we allow students in their reading, so that they find something compelling to push them to finish?
Given that television shows and movies require less active engagement, what are we doing to show the pay-off of the greater effort that reading requires?
Does the overscheduling of our older students, given their involvement in extracurricular activities and/or employment, preclude time for independent reading?
Until we acknowledge the variety of factors at play and find a consensus on how to support reading, we are destined to have a less literate work force and citizenry. That matters. I believe that readers not only find a source of pleasure and relaxation, but they discover a window into other worlds, ways to learn about more than our immediate present, and ways to tackle the big questions like what it means to be a good citizen or a collaborative worker.
There are solutions already available and more that we can generate. In thirty years, Dolly Parton’s amazing Imagination Library program has given over 270 million free, age-appropriate books to families, providing homes without books a shot. Project Head Start, whose funding has been under attack by the current administration, provides reading experiences to preschoolers who may not have them at home. School can reconsider how they structure reading assignments and—perhaps even more important—how they ask students to engage with their reading. Meaningful discussions about big ideas in the text seem far more effective than worksheets and busywork. We can stop using multiple choice and short answer tests that belie the importance of the content of books, instead helping students make meaningful connections. We can consciously teach students to expand their attention span by building it up slowly, incrementally, and purposefully. Our sons went to Montessori schools and a progressive public school, all of which included a period of “silent sustained reading.” Our children grew to love that time and continued to choose to read at home. Schools can also lessen their focus on academic achievement as early as kindergarten and offer more time for less structured play and for free reading. And other educators and parents, wiser than I, can offer additional strategies to help our children read widely and well.
Today we picked up a book on hold at our local library, and we were behind a mom whose toddler was returning a pile of children’s books. I told her about the research and complimented her on raising a reader. He then looked up and said, “I can’t read myself yet. But I’m practicing.” She thanked us as they walked off hand in hand. Wouldn’t we wish that for every child?
Reading well develops critical thinking skills, grows vocabulary, and makes us better writers. It introduces us to wider worlds and other ways of being. It helps us figure out who we are and what we believe. Why would we settle for less?
My absolute opposition to book banning and censorship is not new, but the latest news from the Naval Academy’s library has me back on my bandwagon. Nearly 400 books were removed last week after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s office ordered the school to get rid of works that promote diversity, equity and inclusion.
I’ve written before about my experiences and core beliefs:
Growing up in a home where I could read anything I wanted as long as we talked about it showed me the breadth and depth of books and made me a better thinker.
Reading controversial work is nowhere near as dangerous as ignorance.
Parents who want some say in what their children read need to accord other parents the same grace instead of forcing their decisions on all parents.
Adults should have the freedom to make their own choices.
Reading books that offer different worldviews and beliefs does not threaten us. Instead, that should cause us to clarify our own worldview and beliefs.
Public libraries should remain free and accessible.
Standards of appropriateness should be even-handed and not driven by ideology.
That’s why Hegseth’s recent move is so appalling to me. His order “resulted in a purge of books critical of racism but preserved volumes defending white power.” (nytimes.com)
Culled books include I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou, “How to Be an Antiracist by Ibram X. Kendi, Bodies in Doubt by Elizabeth Reis, and White Rage by Carol Anderson, Half American, about African Americans in World War II; A Respectable Woman, about the public roles of African American women in 19th century New York; and Pursuing Trayvon Martin, about the 2012 shooting of the Black 17-year-old in Florida that raised questions about racial profiling. Other books that deal with gender identity, sexuality and transgender issues were removed, including books about topics such as African American women poets, entertainers who wore blackface and the treatment of women in Islamic countries. (www.cbsnews.com)
“None was banned outright — just rendered ‘not immediately available,’ a Naval Academy spokesman, Cmdr. Tim Hawkins, said. The books, he said, had been placed in a room where patrons could no longer access them.” Katherine Kuzminski, director of Studies at the Center for a New American Security, complained to ABC News about the lack of criteria. Other officials added their voices. Richard Kohn, a military historian and former chief historian for the Air Force, said, “You can’t make ideas safe for people, but you can make people safe for ideas. If you don’t mentor students in the academies to understand what’s going on in American society, you don’t really educate them.” Retired U.S. Air Force Col. Thomas Keaney, a senior fellow at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced international Studies, added, “I don’t think anyone is going to be hurt by reading anything—however nutty or outside their own culture it is. You’re not harming people by exposing them to ideas. On the contrary, you’re training them to be discerning leaders. Give them a chance. Don’t leave them to deal from ignorance.” (abcnews.com)
Although Trump’s January executive orders banned DEI content in K–12 schools receiving federal funds, military service academies were exempt since they are not classified as K–12 institutions. (foxnews.com) Yet the Pentagon has said the academies are “fully committed to executing and implementing President Trump’s Executive Orders.” In January, federal government websites were scrubbed to remove diversity-related content. (www.cbsnews.com)
I find the double standard especially. Why are these books removed while Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler and The Camp of the Saints, a book that envisions immigrants taking over the Western world, a book embraced by white supremacists and promoted by Stephen Miller, remain? Why are frightening ideas from the right not indoctrinating the students whom they insist they want to protect? If reading materials are so dangerous that we must purge books, how do these hostile volumes get a pass?
Adm. James G. Stavridis, an author, academy alumnus and former commander of all U.S. forces in Europe, pointed out that no students are forced to read these books and questioned what we fear. He had specifically cited Maya Angelou’s book as a “valuable resource for helping military leaders understand the diversity of viewpoints that make up the armed forces. Book banning can be a canary in a coal mine and could predict a stifling of free speech and thought,” he added. “Books that challenge us make us stronger. We need officers who are educated, not indoctrinated.” (nytimes.com)
Representatives Adam Smith of Washington and Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania, both Democrats, wrote a letter on April 4 to John Phelan, the Navy secretary, denouncing the move as “a blatant attack on the First Amendment and a clear effort to suppress academic freedom and rigor” at the school and “an alarming return to McCarthy-era censorship.” (nytimes.com)
Other assaults on free speech, due process, and constitutional protections have already flooded our capacity to respond. I don’t know how to stop these assaults, but they do matter. Aren’t they important enough to prompt us to call our congress people and write letters to the editor? The time is now. Let’s hope it’s not too late.
I’m writing the final chapters of my novel about a Connecticut teacher who moves to Texas for her husband’s job and has to deal with micromanagement and censorship by her administrators. Although that’s never happened to me—I was lucky enough to teach in a period of relative autonomy and few culture wars—I realize that bits and pieces of my own experience certainly have “leaked in.” I find myself looking at the current climate in schools, even in “woke” Illinois where we live, and wondering what it would be like to teach now. That’s led me to explore what drove me to teach in the first place, what I believe is important for teaching and learning.
I ended my years in the public schools a very different teacher from my earliest efforts. I wrote about that evolution in the previous entry, but there my focus was on the ridiculous concept that anybody can walk into a classroom and teach effectively without good training – thanks, Wyoming! [see previous blog]
Today I find myself preoccupied with the importance of fostering critical thinking. In my novel, my protagonist routinely gets in trouble because she encourages students to think and question, and parents and administrators feel she’s displacing the parents and telling students what to think. Not at all. The best teachers encourage students to think for themselves. They don’t want their learners to parrot their parents or their teachers. I believe that the main purposes of teaching include helping learners to read deeply, to understand how to find and evaluate information, and to develop critical thinking habits of mind that help them draw their own conclusions. Too many use the culture wars as a blockade for that kind of teaching and learning.
The only time I enjoyed history in my public schools happened sophomore year, when Mr. Vance challenged us to read books like The Armada about the attempt of the Spanish Armada to invade England in 1588. Garrett Mattingly tells the story of the people involved; Mr. Vance urged us to look at what they did and why they did it, then what we could learn from that. The rest of my social studies classes required memorization and recitation of facts without much context and purpose. Discovering political science classes in college, classes that focused on the why and how and what we can learn from that, was a revelation to me. I loved being encouraged to make those connections.
Later in my career, I pushed students to look at the big ideas that arose in the literature we were reading. What does it mean to be a good person? Do we have enough free will? What makes a society just? How does power corrupt? And so many more. While other English teachers gave multiple choice and short answer semester exams, I’d select one big idea and ask my students to trace it through the works they’d read. I allowed them to prepare and bring a 3 x 5” card with notes [but not a magnifying glass!] to the exam. They never knew which big idea I’d choose, and they often met with fellow students to discuss and evaluate the works, exploring all the big ideas they could find. Reading their responses showed me that they’d learned about the world from the literature, that they could use those learnings to be better at asking and answering questions themselves.
State standards developed with teacher input can be invaluable in building a common core of understanding, but teaching to the test does not encourage critical thinking. Too often teachers focus their teaching on improving student performance on a prepackaged exam rather than enhancing their understanding. This approach doesn’t even allow enough time to develop critical thinking skills. If we want a thoughtful populace, we need to support teachers who teach students to ask questions and to develop and be able to justify their answers.
I was driven to write my teaching protagonist’s story to ease my own frustration with the wrong-headed direction of public education. A form of useful therapy, the writing also has pushed me to be clear in my beliefs about teaching and learning. I miss the classroom. I miss those “ah ha” moments my students sometimes had. I wish I could believe that such efforts are still practiced and valued for many students now and in the future, but news stories from too many states suggest that’s a pipe dream.
I know I’ve written more than enough about book bans, but there’s a frightening new step happening in Florida that cannot be ignored. Last week New College of Florida, the tiny liberal arts college where Governor DeSantis appointed a new governing board, threw out books. “‘We abolished the gender studies program. Now we’re throwing out the trash,’ Christopher Rufo, a DeSantis appointee to the Sarasota college’s governing board, posted Friday on X, formerly Twitter.” (apnews.com)
Although the administration claimed that the books were put out to be donated since the college’s gender studies program has been eliminated, student Natalia Benavides and others said the boxes were moved to near the dumpsters to be discarded before they rescued them. “‘Primarily what was in the dumpster were library books —- they were stamped with `discard’ and they were bound so that you knew they were from the library,’ said Benavides, a fourth-year student. ‘They seemed to be of every topic under the sun: art history books, books on aesthetics, psychology books.’” The discards included LGBTQ books, books on slavery, a collection of Jewish stories and three copies of the Bible. (Ibid.)
A report in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune was more damning, claiming a dumpster in the library parking lot overflowed with books and collections, and a video captured in the afternoon showed a vehicle driving away with the books before students were notified. In the past, students were given an opportunity to purchase books that were leaving the college’s library collection. New College spokesperson Nathan March referenced Florida Statute 273 as the reason books could not be donated or sold. However, FS 273 states that New College could dispose of state-funded personal property by “selling or transferring property to any other governmental entity… private nonprofit agency… (and) through a sale open to the public.”(herald-tribune.com)
In an interview, Natalia Benavides, said, “Unfortunately they took the whole bin to the landfill in front of our eyes, and we couldn’t do anything about it”(youtube.com)
One of the discarded books was co-authored by U.S. Senators Susan Collins and Patty Murray (D-WA), Nine and Counting: the Women of the Senate. They issued this joint statement: “We were stunned to discover that the state of Florida chose to discard Nine and Counting from its collection of books at New College—this is a book we penned together with our Senate colleagues to tell our stories as women senators, at a time when there were far fewer of us, to help inspire the next generation of women to pursue public service. We stand against the senseless banning of books. Such actions go against our constitutional values and the idea that our universities should be places where the freedom of speech is allowed to flourish and perspectives of all kinds are heard.” (collins.senate.gov)
Have we come this much closer to Ray Bradbury’s nightmare vision in Fahrenheit 451? Authoritarian regimes may start with banning books but destroying them to remove them from circulation completely is yet another step. “In Nazi Germany, many books were considered so dangerous that they were publicly burnt. Liesl Meminger, the Book Thief of Marcus Zusak’s bestselling novel, steals a half-burned book from the edge of one of these bonfires.” (theguardian.com) Brazil, Hungary, the Phillipines, Turkey, and Russia have all removed books that challenge their values, often replacing independent history texts with those produced by the state. In 2019, Turkey’s education minister “revealed — proudly — that 301,878 books had been taken out of schools and libraries and destroyed. All these books were purportedly connected to Fethullah Gulen, the cleric blamed for the failed coup attempt against Erdogan’s government in 2016.” (nytimes.com)
My heart aches when I read these articles. Destruction and removal of books limits the perspectives learners can develop. Be they children or even college students, readers can learn about other worldviews from books. “Books from a variety of viewpoints can be incredible tools to help children learn, independently or in a classroom, and limiting these discussions only hinders the nuanced discussions that inspire growth. Banning Shakespeare and other classic literature based on a few excerpts doesn’t protect children, it limits their learning. Banning books about LGBTQ+ and racial-equity topics doesn’t stop children from being curious about different topics, it merely blocks an important medium through which they can learn.” (firstfocus.org) Shame on New College!
I used to love Orwell’s novel, foolishly believing we would heed his warnings, like those of Ray Bradbury in Fahrenheit 451. Surely we would never turn into book burners, and – while we don’t always acknowledge the full truth of our history – surely we would not seek to revise it completely.
I was wrong. We have failed to heed those warnings too often. We must turn the tide.
Book banning and revisionist history are both on the rise. You need only to look at Valdimir Putin’s efforts to develop new history books. “Dictators are not content with controlling the present; they want to control the past as well. ‘Correctly’ crafted historical narratives can give them an appearance of legitimacy and provide justification for their actions” (washingtonpost.com). Despite being in the midst of a tragic war with Ukraine, Putin took the time to create a task force to produce a new history textbook for 10th and 11th graders. Completed in less than four months, the new texts offer new versions of Russian history. Vladimir Kara-Murza, a Russian dissident jailed for his opposition to the war against Ukraine, writes:
Russian students will be taught that both the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia and the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan were conducted at the behest of these countries’ own governments; that “human rights violations” (written exactly like this, in quotation marks) in the Soviet Union were just a pretext for Western interference in its internal affairs; and that Mikhail Gorbachev was an incompetent and ignorant leader whose policies led to the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the twentieth century,” as the dissolution of the U.S.S.R. is described in the textbook, using Putin’s well-known expression. The history of the Soviet dissident movement is illustrated with a “primary source” — not a declaration or pamphlet by dissidents or human rights groups, of course, but a 1972 report from KGB Chairman Yuri Andropov about “organized subversive activity … by anti-Soviet elements.” (Ibid.)
Even these fabrications pale compared to the way the texts present the war with Ukraine. It is unusual, to say the least, to include current and unfinished events in a so-called history textbook, but Putin wants to reshape history and squash opposition, so the books call Ukraine a “neo-Nazi” state that came to power in a “military coup” in 2014 and claim Ukraine started the war. The books even claim that Russian soldiers are now “fighting shoulder to shoulder for goodness and the truth… and the special military operation has consolidated our society” (Ibid.). Putin would replace history and truth with propaganda and slogans.
This matters, not only in Russia. We are seeing efforts within our own borders to revise history; just look at what the Governor of Florida’s history commission claims about slavery. Book banning runs rampant in some of our states, trying to limit access to ideas and issues disliked by the book banners. Even though they often claim they have the right to limit access as parents concerned about their children, they are content to limit the rights of other parents to decide for their own children.
At least in our country, the backlash is beginning to make an impact. When Florida’s Martin County, trying to interpret the bill DeSantis pushed through, released a lengthy list of books to be removed from school library, authors fought back. Most were selected because of the complaints of a single parent! This list included twenty books by Jodi Picoult, claiming they are “adult romance.” They are not, but they do address controversial issues. Picoult slammed the bans. She said, “We have actual proof that marginalized kids who read books about marginalized characters wind up feeling less alone… Books bridge divides between people. Book bans create them” (washingtonpost.com2).
The New York Public Library has a new program called “Books for All: Protect the Freedom to Read in Your Community.” They offer toolkits for activists, free digital access to banned books, discussion groups, teen writing contests, reading lists, and ways to take action (https://www.nypl.org/spotlight/books-for-all). The American Library Association partnered with the New York Public Library, and they, too, offer resources.
Rewriting history and limiting access to books that don’t agree with the objectors’ views are a proven path to repression and authoritarianism. We can’t let that happen here. Speak up! Follow your library and school board meetings. We need to turn the tide while we still can.
Politicians and other public figures continue to push the culture wars as a distraction instead of focusing on solving the very real problems facing our schools and communities. Their actions cause harm while preventing the kind of collaborative problem-solving we so urgently need. All of us must speak up.
The American Library Association’s Office for Intellectual Freedom (OIF) reported 695 attempts to censor library materials and services and documented challenges to 1,915 unique titles in just the first eight months of 2023. The number of unique titles challenged has increased by 20% from the same reporting period in 2022, a year that had already shattered censorship records. Challenges to books in public libraries accounted for 49% of documented challenges, compared to 16% during the same reporting period in 2022. Challenges by a single person or group demanding the removal or restriction of multiple titles dominate, with over 90% of the overall number of books challenged included as part of an attempt to censor multiple titles.
“These attacks on our freedom to read should trouble every person who values liberty and our constitutional rights, said Deborah Caldwell-Stone, director of ALA’s Office for Intellectual Freedom. “To allow a group of people or any individual, no matter how powerful or loud, to become the decision-maker about what books we can read or whether libraries exist, is to place all of our rights and liberties in jeopardy” (uniteagainstbookbans.org).
Libraires themselves are under attack. “Some libraries have received bomb threats; others are at risk of having their funding slashed, or even face closure, over disputes about book removals. In some instances, librarians have been harassed, threatened and called groomers and pedophiles” (nytimes.com).
According to PEN America, the movement to ban books is driven by a vocal minority demanding censorship despite a 2022 poll showing that over 70% of parents oppose book banning. PEN counted book removals in school and classroom libraries during the 2022-2023 school year and found 3,362 cases of books being removed, a 33 percent increase over the previous school year. More than 1,550 individual titles were targeted. Many of the same books are challenged around the country, including classics by Toni Morrison and Margaret Atwood, and contemporary young adult fiction by popular authors like John Green. “The most dramatic spike in book bans took place in Florida, which removed more than 1,400 books and surpassed Texas as the state with the highest number of removals, according to PEN. Florida emerged as a hot spot for book challenges after the state passed several laws aimed in part at restricting educational and reading material on certain subjects. As school districts scrambled to comply with the new regulations earlier this year, some teachers and librarians removed entire shelves of books” (pen.org).
Free speech advocates worry that some school districts will further limit book access by suspending new book purchases or avoid stocking books on topics that might be viewed as controversial. “The way it’s going to begin to manifest may look different,” said Kasey Meehan, the lead author of PEN’s report. “We’ll begin to see this chilled atmosphere play out in different ways, either through quietly removing books, or not bringing books in, in the first place” (nytimes.com).
The novelist Nora Roberts responded to the decision of a Martin County, Florida school to purge eight of her novels based on the complaints of a single member of the conservative group Moms for Liberty: “All of it is shocking…If you don’t want your teenager reading this book, that’s your right as a mom — and good luck with that. But you don’t have the right to say nobody’s kid can read this book.” The very same parents who want their parental rights protected too often would do so by denying those rights to other parents (washingtonpost.com).
Alexi Giannoulias, Illinois Secretary of State and State Librarian, recently testified to a Senate Judiciary Committee, “Our democracy depends on a marketplace of ideas [that] will not function if we ban books, because we will be banning ideas and preventing our children from thinking for themselves and having the ability to debate and learn and understand different perspectives” (chicagotribune.com). But even in Illinois books are being removed. The Yorkville school board removed the book Just Mercy from the curriculum, deeming it inappropriate and upsetting for teens. This book explores issues in the American justice system and should promote meaningful discussion. I’m proud of Yorkville High School senior Alexis Barkman. She said, “By allowing the opinions of a select few to influence what is taught in our classrooms, you’re sending the message that their beliefs are more important that the quality of our education. You’re depriving us of our freedom to read and form our own opinions about the subjects you deem too controversial” (shawlocal.com).
Such behavior for political purposes is offensive to me. Look at a Missouri candidate for governor, State Senator Bill Eigel. A long-shot at best, he very publicly used a flamethrower to set cardboard boxes on fire. Eigel said he would burn books he found objectionable, and that he’d do it on the lawn outside the governor’s mansion. Later he claimed this was all a metaphor for how he would attack “the woke liberal agenda” (chicagotribune.com). Is this dangerous stunt more important than the key issues defined by Missouri University Extension: economic opportunity, educational access and workforce preparedness, and health and wellbeing (muextensionway.missouri.edu)? Of course not.
And books aren’t the only front line. The United States Senate is arguing over a dress code even as the nation faces a likely government shutdown and its consequential impact. A black student in Texas just filed a federal civil rights lawsuit because his high school disapproves of his dreadlocks even though he ties them up on his head to meet school requirements (chicagotribune.com). When we continue to face an achievement gap for students of color and a school-to-prison pipeline, is this really our priority?
Heidi Stevens, my favorite Chicago Tribune columnist, said it best: “Stop pretending book bans are about sex… Stop pretending we can solve the most pressing, dire issues of our time – the climate crisis, the opioid overdose epidemic, gun violence, the recent doubling of childhood poverty – the mental health crisis among young people – without including all sorts of voices, stories, perspectives, ideas, experiences, and wisdom in public discourse and policy making” (www.chicagotribune.com). Please heed her call to action and reach out to your elected officials.
The same parents arguing that they should control what their children read and learn want to control what all children read and learn; they will not accord other parents the same rights they’re fighting for. That’s complete hypocrisy!
As a teacher, I have always supported parents who want to be involved in their own children’s education. When some of those parents expressed concerns over book choices and curriculum, I worked with them. I remember a parent’s apprehension over the suicides in Romeo and Juliet given the death of her son’s older brother by his own hand. I offered alternatives. In the end, however, assured that we would talk about the tragic foolhardiness of the two protagonists’ making such an irrevocable choice, she chose to let him participate and made sure to follow up with conversations at home. I felt good about that whole experience.
I do not support the banning of books and courses or the rewriting of books. I find the present push by parents and parent groups to make decisions not just for their own children but for everyone else’s children both unfathomable and unacceptable. If teachers and schools afford those parents a role in their own students’ education, who are they to deny other parents the same option? Yet the current push to rewrite and/or forbid different works (and even entire courses, like Florida’s response to the AP course in African-American history) would deny others the very freedom those parents are seeking. That’s wrong.
Emily Style, founding Co-Director of the national SEED Project (Seeking Educational Equity and Diversity) describes curriculum as a window and a mirror: “education needs to enable the student to look through window frames in order to see the realities of others and into mirrors in order to see her/his own reality reflected. Knowledge of both types of framing is basic to a balanced education which is committed to affirming the essential dialectic between the self and the world” (wcwonline.org). While she supports parents’ involvement for their own children, she writes, “I draw the line, however, at their insisting that their values, which limit the perspectives their children can consider, must be universal. Parents who want their children to understand history as it really occurred should have equal rights” (nationalseedproject.org).
This push for censorship and control not only limits rights of families who think differently, but it cripples our ability to understand and learn. “The possibility of a more just future is at stake when book bans deny young people access to knowledge of the past” (theatlantic.com). Our students will face a global context; they will live and work with people of varied perspectives. Our nation needs these students to be better prepared for that context. The philosopher George Santayana wrote, ““Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” If our youth study a fully sanitized history, how will they learn from the past in order to forge a better future? If any potentially offensive terms are cleansed from books, how will they fully understand the past? “With lessons from the past, we not only learn about ourselves and how we came to be, but also develop the ability to avoid mistakes and create better paths for our societies” (mooc.org).
Furthermore, this push to limit access to multiple perspectives and to address unsavory realities of our shared history comes from a minority of parents that would force their views on all others. A 2022 Harris poll showed just 12% of respondents wanted books on divisive topics banned, and upwards of 70% of Americans, including both Democrats and Republicans, oppose such bans (Time.com). “In the name of vindicating their ‘rights,’ parents with special interests are pursuing tactics that the overwhelming majority of parents and citizens reject” (Ibid.).
So will we continue to allow minority rule to limit our options?
These arguments apply not only to the choice and availability of books, but to the revision of books as well. Megan McCardle reminds us that the sanitized version of Shakespeare’s work by Thomas Bowdler, the version that removed all profanity, was for a time the best-selling version until people realized what great writing had been removed. She calls Inclusive Minds’ revisions of works by Roald Dahl “lobotomies”; instead, we should “give children a window into the real past, as the people living there saw it, rather than compress their reading material into an eternal now. If our moral ideas are so self-evidently correct (and to be clear, I think that in many cases they are), then it should be easy to train children to recognize the past’s mistakes” (washingtonpost.com). Washington Post books columnist Ron Charles acknowledges the value in Aunt Jemima’s syrup losing its racist icon and Dr. Seuss books losing offensive illustrations but writes, “The absolutist position against tinkering with dead authors’ works is generally the best one. And right-wing efforts to ban swaths of stories about Black Americans and LGBTQ+ people make all efforts to ‘fix’ literature sound sinister” (Washington Post Book Club newsletter 2.24.23). PEN America CEO Suzanne Nossel warns that “[r)ewriting novels — like efforts to rewrite history — has origins in authoritarian playbooks. We need to learn from the perspective of the past, not eliminate viewpoints we no longer accept” (Ibid.). She urges us to support children’s development of autonomy and critical thinking, to help them test their own opinions and beliefs.
This concerted effort to cleanse both libraries and curricula along with individual books has librarians and educators fearful and uncertain. “Over the past three academic years, legislators in 45 states proposed 283 laws that either sought to restrict what teachers can say about race, racism and American history; to change how instructors can teach about gender identity, sexuality and LGBTQ issues; to boost parents’ rights over their children’s education; to limit students’ access to school libraries and books; to circumscribe the rights of transgender students; and/or to promote what legislators defined as a ‘patriotic’ education”[washingtonpost.com2). Teachers find themselves self-censoring and restricting what they say “about race and the darker parts of U.S. history” (Ibid.). At least 160 educators have already resigned or lost their jobs because of fights over the appropriateness of instruction on race, history or LGBTQ issues (washingtonpost3). Armed individuals terrorize school board meetings, while librarians face harassment and threats (Ibid.). Hannah Allen of The Washington Post warns:
The goal, extremism monitoring groups say, is to spread the ideology at the grass-roots level by taking on — or taking over — school boards, city councils, sheriff’s departments and other local institutions. In the case of libraries, they say, book bans are only a first step, followed now by legislation to weaken librarian control over collections, moves to strip libraries of legal protections and, in some examples, efforts to defund libraries altogether (Ibid.).
Adults who demand wholesale banning of books and rewriting of offensive passages in a desire to protect their own children cripple the learning of all children. Books like Maus, a graphic Holocaust novel that “show readers how personal prejudice can become the law. The irony is that in banning books that make them uncomfortable, adults are wielding their own prejudices as a weapon, and students will suffer for it” (theatlantic.com2). It is time for the rest of us to support not only the rights of these parents, but also our own. We must demand the same respect for our values that they demand for theirs and end this tyranny of the minority. Only then can we hope to raise enough citizens with an understanding of multiple perspectives and the chance to live well in an ever more diverse and challenging world.
