To the Editor:
Sadly, some have been whipped into a frenzy applying phrases such as book bans, anti-LGBTQ, and even….fascist. An enlightened community should encourage thoughtful and deliberate discussion.
Movies have a rating system: G, PG, PG-13, R, NC-17 (adult). No one is “banning” movies. These ratings exist to protect children and inform adults. If you drop your 11-year-old at the movies expecting them to see Finding Nemo and they instead watch Fifty Shades of Grey – you would be understandably concerned.
I authored this letter to the library as we believe some of the content in the Teen/Tween (11+) room contains adult content and is thus not age appropriate for this space.
The library has a process for our request and we look forward to their thoughtful deliberation and outcome. Let’s respectfully allow the library board to do their work!
Sincerely,
Steve Spooner,
Old Lyme.
Hello, Steve,
To the best of my knowledge, we have never met, and I’ll happily have a longer conversation in person.
The two books you target in your letter contain accurate, scientifically valid information about sex ed written in a way that will make sense for middle schoolers. They also contain information that can help trans and queer youth feel less alone — and that’s an unequivocally good thing. Targeting these specific books comes across as many things, including as a targeted attack on LGBTQIA youth. You state that isn’t your intent, but it is certainly your impact.
You also state repeatedly that this isn’t a book ban, but that claim doesn’t add up. The demands in your letter define bans based on criteria — as opposed to specific titles — and a ban based on criteria is a more effective way to implement a ban at scale. This approach is part of the national playbook supporting book bans across the country. I assume you know that, but for anyone reading this who isn’t aware: across the country, political activists have been training people on the mechanics of book bans. For background on this well organized, national effort that is also playing out in Old Lyme, see these two articles:
* https://www.pbs.org/newshour/arts/book-ban-attempts-reach-record-high-in-2022-american-library-association-report-says
* https://www.edweek.org/leadership/whos-behind-the-escalating-push-to-ban-books-a-new-report-has-answers/2022/09
There are scores of other articles from reputable news sources, but these two do a good job summarizing the core issues. For those who want more reading on this, I’d be glad to help. The political activism driving book bans is well documented.
After a process that included meeting with members of the local school administration, a public letter with a veiled threat of withholding funding (a reference to a “publicly funded” library signed by “taxpayers”), you make an additional observation: “An enlightened community should encourage thoughtful and deliberate discussion.”
The adjectives in that demand — enlightened, thoughtful, and deliberate — are doing a lot of work. The demand for a book ban based on vaguely defined criteria certainly appears deliberate, and the result of focused thought. The demand that professional librarians use their staff time to enact a narrow view of morality is a deliberate demand, and one that wastes taxpayer resources and the time of professionals. Of course, this is also part of the larger pattern occurring nationally, where we see thousands of professionals — librarians, health care workers, teachers, public health professionals, election workers — quitting due to bullying and harassment. The behavior defined in your letter is not enlightened behavior, and you do not have the right to define or demand how people react to attempts at censorship, and to low-grade harassment of the professionals who work in our town.
The fact that your initial letter closes with the demand that the library staff change “the library’s focus for our community’s children” is chilling. The library staff are professionals who do not deserve to be micromanaged into alignment with the narrow morality of a subset of the town.
Calls for civility always favor the oppressor. This concept is loosely defined as tone policing. It’s a thing. Look it up, and please, don’t tone police people who disagree with the actions your letter sets into motion.
Your letter calling for book bans is signed by the first selectman, the second selectman, and multiple representatives on the board of education. Thank you for demonstrating that book banning is absolutely on the ballot.
The discussion regarding the two books in question (The Teen’s Guide to Sex, Relationships, and Being a Human: Let’s Talk About It and You Know, Sex.), and their availability to minors at the Pheobe Griffin Noyes Library has devolved into abstract assumptions, generalities, and accusations. The partial title of one of the challenged books is Let’s Talk About It. Indeed, we should step away from these abstract discussions and actually talk about what exactly is being challenged. Let’s talk about the only two books in question and why they are being challenged. Just as importantly, let’s talk about the issues that are not motivating factors in this challenge.
The library’s room where these books are located is officially labeled “Teen & Tween Space.” According to groups like the World Health Organization, the Child Mind Institute, as well as numerous dictionaries, tween and teen are meaningful terms that include people from age 8 to 19 (roughly 3rd graders to college freshmen).
According to Annex A to the Phoebe Griffin Noyes Library’s Collection Development Policy, the “responsibility for children’s use of materials rests solely with their parents or legal guardians.” While I agree in theory, I think some might see this as an unreasonable and privileged viewpoint that assumes all families have the ability to always accompany their children to the public library which is in walking distance from some of our schools. Many parents, myself included, would expect the designated spaces within the library for children, tweens, and teens to be a place where their young, developing family members could safely explore on their own without coming across sexually explicit and graphic images. I have never seen a person being questioned about their age at any library. Furthermore, many children within the tween category are volunteers at the library. My daughter was a volunteer at PGN Library when she was in 6th and 7th grade and I never accompanied her nor was I asked to by any staff.
In regard to the graphic images and the argument that these books are protected speech, I would suggest a review of the US Department of Justice’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS) available at https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/obscenity. Furthermore, a research report written by Judy Watson, Legislative Fellow with the Office of Legislative Research within the Connecticut General Assembly, summarizes obscenity laws in Connecticut as, “statutes set forth in CGS § 53a-193 through 210 which adopts the U.S. Supreme Court’s definition of obscenity as defined in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15(1973). The obscenity standard adopted from Miller is “judged by ordinary adults applying contemporary community standards” whereby the state of Connecticut is deemed to be the community. (CGS § 53a-193(1)).” She continues, “materials not ‘obscene’ toward adults may be ‘obscene’ as to minors (CGS § 53a-196).”
The Hartford Courant recently published an op-ed by Steven Jungkeit of the First Congregational Church of Old Lyme which I would like to address at this time. It is a sad state when such misleading and schismatic statements made by a local pastor has become the norm in our small town.
In his op-ed, Jungkeit begins by quoting words that welcome students at Lyme-Old Lyme Middle School:
In case no one told you today:
Hello
Good morning
You belong here
You’re doing great
I believe in you
He goes on to claim that the 135 signers of the letter challenging the two books (which I am not part of) are communicating to the entire Lyme-Old Lyme LGBTQ+ (but especially trans) community members that:
“You do NOT belong here.”
“You are NOT doing great.”
“We do NOT believe in you.”
While I wholeheartedly endorse the message at the middle school, I would also be comfortable including,
And I will actively seek to provide a safe and nurturing environment in which for you to thrive.
While the books in question do feature some LBTGQ+ individuals, that does not change the opinion of many adults that these images are inappropriate for any 8-year-old whether they be gay, straight, trans, etc. These opinions are also in line with the US Justice Department and are not simply the opinion of a “self-appointed group of citizens seeking to act in loco parentis” as Jungkeit suggests.
Junkeit further asserts that the book challenges are harmful to our community writing, “Such efforts are corrosive to civic communities, and they erode the fabric of democracy.” He refers to the group of concerned parents and their actions as “bullying” and “mean-spirited, cruel, regressive, and hurtful.”
If this pastor could step outside of his pseudo-Christian community activism, he may find that his own words, be them in an op-ed or delivered from the pulpit during Sunday worship, are indeed corrosive to our small community.
In closing, I too stand with those who identify as LGBTQ+.
And in case no one told you today:
Hello
Good morning
You belong here
You’re doing great
I believe in you
AND I will speak out to help provide a safe, inclusive, and nurturing environment for you to explore and thrive.
The books in question, especially Let’s Talk About It, do not need to be banned, burned, or censored. They should be available but not in a tween-designated area where 8-year-olds will have unfettered access. If a child would like to request such sexually explicit and graphic materials, perhaps that request should be made by the child with their parent or legal guardian. Our town, schools, and library offer a wide variety of inclusive and supportive messages to all members of the Lyme-Old Lyme community. In this book challenge, no flags, messaging, books, or displays that are in support of the LGBTQ+ are being called into question. I urge all those involved in this discussion to take the time to review the books, laws, and statutes in their entirety before taking a stand in this matter. It is my belief that our community would find that we share much more common ground than people like Steven Junkeit and others who are making this out to be about our LGBTQ+ neighbors would like for us to believe.
Kind regards,
Tammy Hinckley
I am wondering how many of the folks that signed the letter to “move” the books actually READ them, or did they just look at the pictures? If their child came to them to ask questions wouldn’t these books help the parents understand?
The ministers are good kind and caring people. There is nothing “pseudo” about their Christian beliefs or work..
Hello Bill,
As a resident of Old Lyme I was concerned when I read about this story in the news, and I wanted to look over all sides of the story before making a decision on where I stand. Thank you for commenting as it brought some perspectives to light. However, I do have to ask, if requesting that the library staff consider moving a book to an adult section, but not prohibiting youth from checking out the book, is truly book banning. I am new on this topic, and after seeing all perspectives and content, especially articles on age-appropriate sex-ed, I am unsure if the book we discuss is appropriate for all ages 11-19. I feel as though moving it to another section of the library and providing other books, perhaps more age-appropriate, is a solution as kids are not prevented from checking out adult section books regardless. In your articles depicted it does not seem to say moving the books to a separate section is banning. I would love to hear your opinion. Thank you.
I’m working on a longer piece on this, but there are a couple ways to look at this.
The simplest: the library is staffed by librarians. They know books, they know patrons, they are professionals, and attempts to micromanage them aren’t helpful. Across the country, librarians are being targeted in exactly this way.
Why not just eliminate the entire Tween section and put all of the books in with the rest of the collection?
All kidding aside – the library is a pretty safe place, unless we are petrified of ideas. Efforts to play whack-a-mole with what kids see and experience is a losing battle.