Recently, a library patron challenged (urged a reconsideration of the ownership or placement of) a book called "Uncle Bobby's Wedding." Honestly, I hadn't even heard of it until that complaint. But I did read the book, and responded to the patron, who challenged the item through email and requested that I respond online (not via snail-mail) about her concerns.
I suspect the book will get a lot of challenges in 2008-2009. So I offer my response, purging the patron's name, for other librarians.
Uncle Bobby's wedding
June 27, 2008
Dear Ms. Patron:
Thank you for working with my assistant to allow me to fit your concerns about “Uncle Bobby's Wedding,” by Sarah S. Brannen, into our “reconsideration” process. I have been assured that you have received and viewed our relevant policies: the Library Bill of Rights, the Freedom to Read, Free Access to Libraries for Minors, the Freedom to View, and our Reconsideration Policy.
The intent of providing all that isn't just to occupy your time. It's to demonstrate that our lay Board of Trustees –- which has reviewed and adopted these policies on behalf of our library -- has spent time thinking about the context in which the library operates, and thoughtfully considered the occasional discomfort (with our culture or constituents) that might result. There's a lot to consider.
Here's what I understand to be your concern, based on your writings. First, you believe that “the book is specifically designed to normalize gay marriage and is targeted toward the 2-7 year old age group.” Your second key concern is that you “find it inappropriate that this type of literature is available to this age group.” You cite your discussion with your daughter, and commented, “This was not the type of conversation I thought I would be having with my seven year old in the nightly bedtime routine.”
Finally, you state your strong belief, first, “in America and the beliefs of our founding fathers,” and second, that “marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman as stated in the Webster's dictionary and also in the Bible.”
You directed me to the SarahBrannen.com site, which I also reviewed. I got a copy of “Uncle Bobby's Wedding” today, and read it. I even hauled out my favorite Webster's (the college edition, copyright 1960).
First, I think you're right that the purpose of the book is to show a central event, the wedding of two male characters, as no big thing. The emotional center of the story, of course, is Chloe's fear that she's losing a favorite uncle to another relationship. That fear, I think, is real enough to be an issue for a lot of young children. But yes, Sarah Brannen clearly was trying to portray gay marriage as normal, as not nearly so important as the changing relationship between a young person and her favorite uncle.
Your second issue is a little trickier. You say that the book is inappropriate, and I infer that your reason is the topic itself: gay marriage. I think a lot of adults imagine that what defines a children's book is the subject. But that's not the case. Children's books deal with anything and everything. There are children's books about death (even suicide), adult alcoholism, family violence, and more. Even the most common fairy tales have their grim side: the father and stepmother of Hansel and Gretel, facing hunger and poverty, take the children into the woods, and abandon them to die! Little Red Riding Hood (in the original version, anyhow) was eaten by the wolf along with granny. There's a fascinating book about this, by the bye, called “The Uses of Enchantment: the Meaning and Importance of Fairy Tales,” by psychologist Bruno Bettelheim. His thesis is that both the purpose and power of children's literature is to help young people begin to make sense of the world. There is a lot out there that is confusing, or faintly threatening, and even dangerous in the world. Stories help children name their fears, understand them, work out strategies for dealing with life. In Hansel and Gretel, children learn that cleverness and mutual support might help you to escape bad situations. In Little Red Riding Hood, they learn not to talk to big bad strangers. Of course, not all children's books deal with “difficult issues,” maybe not even most of them. But it's not unusual.
So what defines a children's book is the treatment, not the topic. “Uncle Bobby's Wedding” is 27-28 pages long (if you count the dedication page). Generally, there are about 30 words per page, and each page is illustrated. The main character, and the key perspective, is that of a young girl. The book is published by G. P. Putnam's Sons, “a division of Penguin Young Readers Group.” The Cataloging in Publication information (on the back side of the title page) shows that the catalogers of the Library of Congress identified it as an “E” book – easy or beginning reader. Bottom line: It's hard for me to see it as anything but a children's book.
You suggested that the book could be “placed in an area designating the subject matter,” or “labeled for parental guidance” by stating that “some material may be inappropriate for young children.” I have two responses. First, we tried the “parenting collection” approach a couple of times in my history here. And here's what we found: nobody uses them. They constitute a barrier to discovery and use. The books there – and some very fine ones -- just got lost. In the second case, I believe that every book in the children's area, particularly in the area where usually the parent is reading the book aloud, involves parental guidance. The labeling issue is tricky, too: is the topic just homosexuality? Where babies come from? Authority figures that can't be trusted? Stepmothers who abandon their children to die?
Ultimately, such labels make up a governmental determination of the moral value of the story. It seems to me – as a father who has done a lot of reading to his kids over the years – that that kind of decision is up to the parents, not the library. Because here's the truth of the matter: not every parent has the same value system.
You feel that a book about gay marriage is inappropriate for young children. But another book in our collection, “Daddy's Roommate,” was requested by a mother whose husband left her, and their young son, for another man. She was looking for a way to begin talking about this with her son. Another book, “Alfie's Home,” was purchased at the request of another mother looking for a way to talk about the suspected homosexuality of her young son from a Christian perspective. There are gay parents in Douglas County, right now, who also pay taxes, and also look for materials to support their views. We don't have very many books on this topic, but we do have a handful.
In short, most of the books we have are designed not to interfere with parents' notions of how to raise their children, but to support them. But not every parent is looking for the same thing.
Your third point, about the founders' vision of America, is something that has been a matter of keen interest to me most of my adult life. In fact, I even wrote a book about it, where I went back and read the founders' early writings about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. What a fascinating time to be alive! What astonishing minds! Here's what I learned: our whole system of government was based on the idea that the purpose of the state was to preserve individual liberties, not to dictate them. The founders uniformly despised many practices in England that compromised matters of individual conscience by restricting freedom of speech. Freedom of speech – the right to talk, write, publish, discuss – was so important to the founders that it was the first amendment to the Constitution – and without it, the Constitution never would have been ratified.
How then, can we claim that the founders would support the restriction of access to a book that really is just about an idea, to be accepted or rejected as you choose? What harm has this book done to anyone? Your seven year old told you, “Boys are not supposed to marry.” In other words, you have taught her your values, and those values have taken hold. That's what parents are supposed to do, and clearly, exposure to this book, or several, doesn't just overthrow that parental influence. It does, of course, provide evidence that not everybody agrees with each other; but that's true, isn't it?
The second part of your third point was your belief that marriage was between a man and a woman. My Webster's actually gives several definitions of marriage: “1. the state of being married; relation between husband and wife...; 2. the act of marrying, wedding; 3. the rite or form used in marrying; 4. any close or intimate union.” Definitions 2-4, even as far back as 1960, could be stretched to include a wedding between two men. Word definitions change; legal rights change. In some parts of America, at least today, gay marriage is legal. If it's legal, then how could writing a book about it be inappropriate?
Finally, then, I conclude that “Uncle Bobby's Wedding” is a children's book, appropriately categorized and shelved in our children's picture book area. I fully appreciate that you, and some of your friends, strongly disagree with its viewpoint. But if the library is doing its job, there are lots of books in our collection that people won't agree with; there are certainly many that I object to. Library collections don't imply endorsement; they imply access to the many different ideas of our culture, which is precisely our purpose in public life.
As noted in our policies, you do have the right to appeal my decision to the Board of Trustees. If you'd like to do that, let me know, and I can schedule a meeting. Meanwhile, I'm more than happy to discuss this further with you. I do appreciate many things: your obvious value of reading, your frank and loving relationship with your child, your willingness to raise issues of importance to you in the public square, and more. Thank you, very much, for taking the time to raise your concerns with me. Although I suspect you may not agree with my decision, I hope it's clear that I've given it a great deal of thought, and believe it is in accordance with both our guiding principles, and those, incidentally, of the founders of our nation.
Best wishes to you and your family,
I suspect the book will get a lot of challenges in 2008-2009. So I offer my response, purging the patron's name, for other librarians.
Uncle Bobby's wedding
June 27, 2008
Dear Ms. Patron:
Thank you for working with my assistant to allow me to fit your concerns about “Uncle Bobby's Wedding,” by Sarah S. Brannen, into our “reconsideration” process. I have been assured that you have received and viewed our relevant policies: the Library Bill of Rights, the Freedom to Read, Free Access to Libraries for Minors, the Freedom to View, and our Reconsideration Policy.
The intent of providing all that isn't just to occupy your time. It's to demonstrate that our lay Board of Trustees –- which has reviewed and adopted these policies on behalf of our library -- has spent time thinking about the context in which the library operates, and thoughtfully considered the occasional discomfort (with our culture or constituents) that might result. There's a lot to consider.
Here's what I understand to be your concern, based on your writings. First, you believe that “the book is specifically designed to normalize gay marriage and is targeted toward the 2-7 year old age group.” Your second key concern is that you “find it inappropriate that this type of literature is available to this age group.” You cite your discussion with your daughter, and commented, “This was not the type of conversation I thought I would be having with my seven year old in the nightly bedtime routine.”
Finally, you state your strong belief, first, “in America and the beliefs of our founding fathers,” and second, that “marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman as stated in the Webster's dictionary and also in the Bible.”
You directed me to the SarahBrannen.com site, which I also reviewed. I got a copy of “Uncle Bobby's Wedding” today, and read it. I even hauled out my favorite Webster's (the college edition, copyright 1960).
First, I think you're right that the purpose of the book is to show a central event, the wedding of two male characters, as no big thing. The emotional center of the story, of course, is Chloe's fear that she's losing a favorite uncle to another relationship. That fear, I think, is real enough to be an issue for a lot of young children. But yes, Sarah Brannen clearly was trying to portray gay marriage as normal, as not nearly so important as the changing relationship between a young person and her favorite uncle.
Your second issue is a little trickier. You say that the book is inappropriate, and I infer that your reason is the topic itself: gay marriage. I think a lot of adults imagine that what defines a children's book is the subject. But that's not the case. Children's books deal with anything and everything. There are children's books about death (even suicide), adult alcoholism, family violence, and more. Even the most common fairy tales have their grim side: the father and stepmother of Hansel and Gretel, facing hunger and poverty, take the children into the woods, and abandon them to die! Little Red Riding Hood (in the original version, anyhow) was eaten by the wolf along with granny. There's a fascinating book about this, by the bye, called “The Uses of Enchantment: the Meaning and Importance of Fairy Tales,” by psychologist Bruno Bettelheim. His thesis is that both the purpose and power of children's literature is to help young people begin to make sense of the world. There is a lot out there that is confusing, or faintly threatening, and even dangerous in the world. Stories help children name their fears, understand them, work out strategies for dealing with life. In Hansel and Gretel, children learn that cleverness and mutual support might help you to escape bad situations. In Little Red Riding Hood, they learn not to talk to big bad strangers. Of course, not all children's books deal with “difficult issues,” maybe not even most of them. But it's not unusual.
So what defines a children's book is the treatment, not the topic. “Uncle Bobby's Wedding” is 27-28 pages long (if you count the dedication page). Generally, there are about 30 words per page, and each page is illustrated. The main character, and the key perspective, is that of a young girl. The book is published by G. P. Putnam's Sons, “a division of Penguin Young Readers Group.” The Cataloging in Publication information (on the back side of the title page) shows that the catalogers of the Library of Congress identified it as an “E” book – easy or beginning reader. Bottom line: It's hard for me to see it as anything but a children's book.
You suggested that the book could be “placed in an area designating the subject matter,” or “labeled for parental guidance” by stating that “some material may be inappropriate for young children.” I have two responses. First, we tried the “parenting collection” approach a couple of times in my history here. And here's what we found: nobody uses them. They constitute a barrier to discovery and use. The books there – and some very fine ones -- just got lost. In the second case, I believe that every book in the children's area, particularly in the area where usually the parent is reading the book aloud, involves parental guidance. The labeling issue is tricky, too: is the topic just homosexuality? Where babies come from? Authority figures that can't be trusted? Stepmothers who abandon their children to die?
Ultimately, such labels make up a governmental determination of the moral value of the story. It seems to me – as a father who has done a lot of reading to his kids over the years – that that kind of decision is up to the parents, not the library. Because here's the truth of the matter: not every parent has the same value system.
You feel that a book about gay marriage is inappropriate for young children. But another book in our collection, “Daddy's Roommate,” was requested by a mother whose husband left her, and their young son, for another man. She was looking for a way to begin talking about this with her son. Another book, “Alfie's Home,” was purchased at the request of another mother looking for a way to talk about the suspected homosexuality of her young son from a Christian perspective. There are gay parents in Douglas County, right now, who also pay taxes, and also look for materials to support their views. We don't have very many books on this topic, but we do have a handful.
In short, most of the books we have are designed not to interfere with parents' notions of how to raise their children, but to support them. But not every parent is looking for the same thing.
Your third point, about the founders' vision of America, is something that has been a matter of keen interest to me most of my adult life. In fact, I even wrote a book about it, where I went back and read the founders' early writings about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. What a fascinating time to be alive! What astonishing minds! Here's what I learned: our whole system of government was based on the idea that the purpose of the state was to preserve individual liberties, not to dictate them. The founders uniformly despised many practices in England that compromised matters of individual conscience by restricting freedom of speech. Freedom of speech – the right to talk, write, publish, discuss – was so important to the founders that it was the first amendment to the Constitution – and without it, the Constitution never would have been ratified.
How then, can we claim that the founders would support the restriction of access to a book that really is just about an idea, to be accepted or rejected as you choose? What harm has this book done to anyone? Your seven year old told you, “Boys are not supposed to marry.” In other words, you have taught her your values, and those values have taken hold. That's what parents are supposed to do, and clearly, exposure to this book, or several, doesn't just overthrow that parental influence. It does, of course, provide evidence that not everybody agrees with each other; but that's true, isn't it?
The second part of your third point was your belief that marriage was between a man and a woman. My Webster's actually gives several definitions of marriage: “1. the state of being married; relation between husband and wife...; 2. the act of marrying, wedding; 3. the rite or form used in marrying; 4. any close or intimate union.” Definitions 2-4, even as far back as 1960, could be stretched to include a wedding between two men. Word definitions change; legal rights change. In some parts of America, at least today, gay marriage is legal. If it's legal, then how could writing a book about it be inappropriate?
Finally, then, I conclude that “Uncle Bobby's Wedding” is a children's book, appropriately categorized and shelved in our children's picture book area. I fully appreciate that you, and some of your friends, strongly disagree with its viewpoint. But if the library is doing its job, there are lots of books in our collection that people won't agree with; there are certainly many that I object to. Library collections don't imply endorsement; they imply access to the many different ideas of our culture, which is precisely our purpose in public life.
As noted in our policies, you do have the right to appeal my decision to the Board of Trustees. If you'd like to do that, let me know, and I can schedule a meeting. Meanwhile, I'm more than happy to discuss this further with you. I do appreciate many things: your obvious value of reading, your frank and loving relationship with your child, your willingness to raise issues of importance to you in the public square, and more. Thank you, very much, for taking the time to raise your concerns with me. Although I suspect you may not agree with my decision, I hope it's clear that I've given it a great deal of thought, and believe it is in accordance with both our guiding principles, and those, incidentally, of the founders of our nation.
Best wishes to you and your family,
Comments
Thanks!
After reading ammouth's screed against libraries, I finally did what I've been meaning to for the two years I've lived in this city: I went and got a library card. I also picked up two books and a stack of information on how to donate to my city's library system.
I'm one of the privileged few who can afford to buy more books than I can read, but I'm still a proud and loud library supporter. Ammouth probably didn't mean to goad me into getting out and supporting my local library, but I'm glad ze did.
(Found your site through Neil Gaiman's blog.)
"If it's legal, then how could writing a book about it be inappropriate?"
Hmmm....well, in Hitler's Germany, it was "legal" to torture and even murder Jewish people. Does the mere fact that something is considered "legal" give it the stamp of appropriateness?
But then, I'm no librarian.
Fabulous letter! Well reasoned, thoughtful, gentle yet firm.
Now I know to make a point of reading this blog regularly.
Thank you for being on the front lines in your role as a librarian: knowledge truly is the most powerful weapon in any arsenal.
Anyone who uses a library well finds books therein which he finds offensive - at least, supposing him to have any principles at all. The existence of an astrology section makes steam come from my ears. (A likely point of agreement between the more ardent theists and the more ardent atheists.) So it should - but so should, the removal of those books for any reason other than lack of public interest.
A wise friend of mine states, "the antidote to bad speech is good speech, not censorship". I, a cynic, add that forbidden fruits are always attractive.
As for the types of conversation one expects to have with children - as a mere aunt, I'm discovering that one has the conversations presented by the dilemmas children themselves meet, not by one's own view of the world as it should be. It's arguable that the more difficult the subject, the earlier (and the more comprehensively) we should be discussing it. I've discussed the possible death of a parent on the walk to nursery (pre-school, to USians) - not what I expected, or hoped for, but the more important *because it's difficult.
Unhealthy things breed in darkess.
Second, Thank you for standing up to someone in a gentle and thoughtful way. Unfortunately in today's society we, as a whole, tend to walk on eggshells, afraid that someone might be upset or bothered. There is no way to make everyone happy, and the fact of the matter is, by trying to be everyone's "best friend" is the worst thing we can do.
Basically we live in a new and different world, and like it or not, some people have to realize that their beliefs cannot govern the entire world. Parents who believe, or are faced with issues such as divorce, gay relationships, gay marriage, young sex, and abuse are very real issues and parents, and for that matter some adults, need help facing these issues in the best way they can.
I hope you and your Board of Directors continue to show the type of awareness and responsibility that you have to this point, and realize that there will always be someone with issues, but there are more of us out there that think that although I/we may not agree or want my children to know certain things, I still believe the information is more important than a few irritated persons and am aware that there are people out there that do need and can use information that I may not.
You have solidified for me, my decision to go back to school to become a librarian.
Thank you!
Wow, a year and a half later and you are still getting regular comments. Just adding my voice to the chorus of thank yous and bravos.
A friend posted a link to this blog on a Facebook note I'd posted, regarding an article in the Toronto Star about a California school that BANNED A DICTIONARY because it contained the phrase "oral sex"! I am going to post a link to this blog in the comments section.
Cheers, and thanks also for your kindness. You're a beautiful soul.
I love books and words and I think that having ideas freely available to all people is ont of the most important things in the world.
I wondered what the outcome of the letter was - did the complainant take the matter up with the Board, or accept your decision?
Well done!
I'm also going to see if my local library here in Sheffield, UK, has a copy of Uncle Bobby's Wedding and if not I'm going to donate a copy.
On the one hand, there is no point in complaining about the "inclusion" of a book in a library which has no rational criteria for its book selections beyond "everything and anything".
Your letter in reply cements this point. Regrettably your reasons are based entirely on the status quo of modern US society.
Neither sensitivities nor library committees are at stake here - for who could care less? What is a stake is whether the library should employ an discerning criteria for its selections based on "right reason". All other considerations are totally irrelevant and entirely based on subjective opinion.
There is sophistry in your comparing traditional fairy tales - which often mark right from wrong with the use of striking imagery - with the matter raised in "Uncle Bobby's Wedding". Acts contrary to the natural law are not condoned in traditional fairytales but in fact the tale itself exists to denounce them.
The modern understanding of the word "liberty" is perverse. "Liberty" has no meaning at all if we employ the common opinion that it is "to do and say whatever one wishes".
"Liberty" only has meaning when allied to an understanding of Right from Wrong. Indeed it is the "capacity to do the good". The ignorant man is enslaved to his ignorance. The 'free' man is empowered and can distinguish right from wrong. Hence, "The Truth will set you free".
Modern American society has fatal misunderstandings of what the Founding Fathers meant by word "Liberty". (French Renaissance philosophers are largely to blame).
I welcome your remarks - as there is more to say.
Franz Forrester
And finally, I would beg to differ that there was anything fatal about my decision. No animals were harmed in the writing of this blog. :)
1) Librarian
2) Christian (PCA)
3) Married heterosexual
4) Someone who believes that homosexuality goes against God's will for proper sexual human relationships...
This letter was AWESOME. Thank you Jamie, for writing such a well-reasoned and literate defense of the purpose of Libraries. Perhaps Kurt Vonnegut said it best when he said that "If you are an American, you must allow all ideas to circulate freely in your community, not merely your own."
Excellent discussion that I'm going to use in an upcoming debate on gay marriage.
I have to admit to feeling a bit sorry for the complaintant, who surely has missed out on other resources through which she could teach her daughter about relevant universal themes because of details she considers objectionable. "I'd love to show you the forest, honey, but all the dang trees are in the way." Closed-mindedness is a sad, frustrating reality. It's good to know there are folks like you who can meet it with patience, intelligence, and grace.
A few weeks ago we had a chapter book informally challenged for similar reasons as Uncle Bobby's Wedding. The parent mainly wished to express surprise and concern at learning of the content from a daughter--content which, I admit, was not indicated in the summary. The objection never went beyond a verbal complaint. The parent didn't want it removed, and eventually decided that avoiding all objectionable content will simply require homeschooling and pre-screening of all books.
I wish I had read your letter before speaking to the parent (I was out of town for the original complaint). Our conversation was polite and constructive, but it could have been even better if I'd thought to suggest that the family's values had been successfully instilled! Sheer brilliance.
The other thing I'd like to note (and I know that few will actually read this, especially at this date) is that I have to laugh at those who take seriously the statements that professional librarians would be actively rude when faced with this kind of challenge. No, they wouldn't! They might not respond as eloquently and thoughtfully as this, but by and large they'd handle it like professionals because that is what we are.
Cheers from a fellow professional.
It's 458 comments in, so I doubt that this will be read by many (if any) people, but I thought I'd offer some minor thoughts.
First, while I didn't read this (or any related books) to my daughter when she was that age, I have no problem with the book being available. Letting her loose in the library to find some books to read is my obligation as a parent, as is checking the stack of books she may have collected. Even now, going on as an 8th grader, it's still my obligation to be aware of what she's looking into. (This has led to some interesting discussions) Books are there to provide information - that's all they do. There is no book that magically forces anyone to suddenly become a 1820's slave owner, a pirate king, a warlord, a wizard, or deviant flavour of the month. They're simply ideas presented to the reader. In this case, we, as parents, should be discussing those ideas with our children.
Second, the people who have attempted to throw fundamental Christian *cough* values into the fray? They're poorly educated and do not actually study history - either that of their religion, or that of the country. The biblical standard for marriage was polygamy. King David, for example, had 8 wives. Abraham had either two or three wives. King Solomon was said to have 300 wives and 700 concubines. (1 Kgs 11:3) I suspect we can put much of those numbers down as myth, but the point is that times were hard, and men died faster than women, other than in childbirth. It was generally expected that a man would accept his brother's wife into his family if his brother died.
As for the founding on Judaeo-Christian values? That's both true and false. It was founded on the values of a large number of sects of JC origin, likely including information and advice from Jews; there were Jews present as earlier as the 1650's in New Amsterdam (Sephardic), likely as doctors, lawyers, and various trades. The key is that the First Amendment, which those people hide behind, states that the country was founded on freedom _of_ religion, as well as NOT establishing a 'state' religion. All of the founding fathers were either directly from a sect that had been persecuted due to their religious beliefs in their originating country, or descended from those who had fled persecution. Despite my despise of Hamilton and Madison, their document was clearly written in this regard. This is also clearly explained in the Federalist Papers. To put it bluntly, Thomas Jefferson said "But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." (Notes On The State of Virginia)
If I were to say anything about the original topic, I would say that I believe that any librarian that knuckles under to banning any book, for any reason at all, should immediately be terminated from that job. The job of a librarian is to provide access to information, and assist in locating information. It is not to be a censor of information, no matter how distasteful it may be to that person.
To James LaRue - I am grateful that your blog post still remains, and it remains valid even today. I wish more people would realize that all parts of the original Bill of Rights are equally valid, rather than continually commit treason by trying to legislate around them.
You mentioned "being aware" of what your 8th grade daughter is reading. Good for you! And you're right that just reading a book (usually) isn't enough to unseat deeply held beliefs. I sometimes think that instead of telling our kids what they can't read, we might ask them what they do read and think WE should read. Then we can talk. Of course, the reverse is also true. Let's recommend books we think they should read, and see if they agree. That is, if we can think of a book they should read, and can articulate why. That is, are we for something, or just against everything?
I think you're also right that many so-called religious folks don't have a deep grounding in their own texts. It's like our own memories. Ask people what they believed 14 years ago, and it turns out that they THINK it's just what they believe now. But that's rarely the case. We're always editing our past to more precisely capture our current prejudices. I have long thought that showing up at public meetings, as many folks have done at school board sessions this past year, to read "the naughty bits" of books and ignoring the larger context, could be just as easily done to the Bible as to Toni Morrison's Beloved. Consider the story of Lot. Does "the Bible" endorse gang rape and incest? Or is it all a little more nuanced than a few verses yanked out of a longer text? Americans are really bad at nuance.
I disagree that "any librarian that knuckles under to banning any book, for any reason at all, should immediately be terminated from that job." Sometimes librarians and their families, especially in the rural libraries that make up most of our institutions in America, depend on the modest income of their jobs and are in circumstances in which moving is difficult or near-impossible. And sometimes it's better to lose a battle, and remain to fight the war. Recent attempts to CRIMINALIZE librarians (for willfully distributing classic and award-winning literature some politicians now claim is obscene because it is sympathetic to LGBTQ or African-American concerns) illustrate yet another attempt to destroy institutions by attacking individuals, rather than the fundamental values and policies that enjoy surprisingly widespread support.
I kind of wish my blog post WAS NOT as relevant as it remains.