Banned Books: "When books are threatened, where do we turn?"

On March 29, 2022, Random House Publishing and PEN America brought together educators, librarians, activists, and journalists for a panel discussion concerning the recent spate of Republican-led attempts to ban certain books mostly written by and reflecting the experiences of BIPOC authors. The event, hosted by Dr. Emily Ross of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, kicked off with Central Texas librarian Becky Calzada sharing her perspective on her mission as a librarian, to share information with students and create lifelong learners through intellectual freedom. Connecting book bans to larger social justice fights, Missouri English teacher Chloe Telle recounted her belief that no issue is an island - the fact that books are being banned amidst larger cultural clashes over systemic racism and politicization of identities is no coincidence. Furthermore, Telle positioned the banning of books as the banning of authors’ “voices, experiences, and existences,” and those who attempt to censor these voices are upholding a very specific racialized vision of whose voices matter and should be uplifted. Wrapping up the introduction, co-founders Stephana Ferrell and Jen Cousins of Florida Right to Read shared their framing of the issue of banning books as an infringement of students’ rights to explore all types of books, beyond those deemed politically appropriate by the most conservative counties in the state. As public school parents themselves, Ferrell and Cousins have showed up to school board meetings across the state fighting for the rights of all Florida children to exercise their own intellectual freedom. 

The three panelists, journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones, fiction author Nic Stone, and professor Ibram X. Kendi, began by sharing their initial reactions to their own books being banned at the state and federal levels. Stone recounted a certain sadness that her values and work were questioned, but felt that the ban reinforced the importance of her work to ensure that kids could see themselves on their shelves. Hannah-Jones found the reactions to her book both frightening, as banning books is blatantly undemocratic, but also a badge of honor, that she was capable of producing a work of writing that so threatened those in power that they tried to ban it. Kendi drew on his personal experience of not reading much in elementary school, musing that perhaps many young people don’t enjoy reading because they cannot access books that reflect their own experiences. 

In terms of the concrete impacts of banning books, Stone drew on the concept of collective liberation, arguing that nobody can be free to pursue happiness and freedom if others are not free to learn and explore from people that look like them and have similar life experiences. Children will be unprepared to enter the workforce, and the polity, and interact with folks from different backgrounds if they don’t read books that reflect these different experiences. Kendi added that books are crucial in the liberation of groups of people, and brought up the example of “A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies” by Spanish monk Bartolomé de las Casas, a condemning work recounting enslavement of Native Americans that spurred calls to end native slavery in Spain during the 16th century. Kendi argued that banning books can ban people from being liberated. Adding to Kendi’s point, Hannah-Jones asserted that the purpose of banning books indeed is to prevent people from being liberated, as narrative has the power to drive policy and thus threaten the ideological backbone of those in power.

When asked how we can fight back against book bans, Stone emphatically expressed her hope and faith in young people, and her personal experiences reflecting that young people are often much more open and willing to explore than their parents, who are often driving bans. Parents may not understand everything their children are exposed to, and it’s natural that there will be a gap between young people and their parents in attitudes and beliefs. Hannah-Jones believes that parents are much more receptive than politicians to open and honest discussions, and their concerns must be understood and respected in order to engage in dialogue. However, for politicians motivated by votes, there’s no way to have an authentic conversation, as their only skin in the game is electoral imperatives, rather than legitimate parental concern. She argues that children shouldn’t be protected from discomfort, as it’s essential for growth, and supporting teachers and librarians to better facilitate this discomfort and channel it into productivity ought to be a central goal for progressives. 

Going forward, all three authors predict additional attempts to limit the topics of education, especially in light of Florida’s just-passed “Don’t Say Gay” law. Hannah-Jones noted the success of the right running on educational censorship in the Virginia gubernatorial race, and asserted that the best way to fight back against these book bans is to counter-organize and create a cross-racial alliance to ensure America’s children are able to access an uncensored education drawing on the experiences of a wide variety of people. As Stone recounted, famed Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel observed that “memory of evil is the best shield against evil.” It is crucial for American children to have an accurate memory of the cruelties of American history and the ways in which these cruelties live on today, in order to become productive democratic citizens who can work to undo the lasting legacies of our past.