LYME/OLD LYME — UPDATED 6/29 after new information received regarding the organizers of the petition: In response to a letter sent by a group of Lyme and Old Lyme citizens requesting the Old Lyme Phoebe Griffin Noyes (OLPGN) Library should reconsider its decision to include a specific sex-education book in its collection, undertake, “a proper review of the materials in the Teen/Tween room,” and “… encourage a change in the library’s focus for our community’s children,” a group of Old Lyme and Lyme residents organized a petition in support of the OLPGN Library, “and its well thought-out anti-censorship policies.”
The petition in the form of a letter addressed to the OLPGN Library Director, Officers, and Board of Trustees urges the OLPGN Library to “reject the requests of the censorship supporters in their entirety.”
Asked by LymeLine why he signed the petition, Lyme resident Jac Lahav responded by email, saying, “All book banning and censorship is toxic to free democratic society. The issue looks like it’s about two sex-ed books, but is much much bigger.”
He continued, “The book-banners’ approach is to create a climate of fear in the library and make the amazing OL [Old Lyme] librarians second guess themselves.”
Lahav concluded, “Our library supports diversity, inclusivity, and our own LGBTQ community. This type of book banning is the first step in curtailing that support. We see it happening all over the country and sadly it’s come to Old Lyme.”
Anyone wishing to sign the letter/petition can do so at this link.
The letter reads as follows:
Dear Madams/Sirs:
First, let us begin by apologizing for the necessity of this correspondence and the unenviable position in which you have all been placed. None of the signatories of this letter imagined that in a community like Lyme/Old Lyme, in the year 2023, we would find ourselves forced to publicly assert our opposition to book-banning. Yet here we are.
As you know, some members of the public have written to you complaining about certain books found in the Tween/Teen reading room. To proactively counter charges of censorship, they claim they aren’t seeking a “ban” though they paradoxically request that the library “reconsider [its] decision on this book and its availability to children ages 11-19”1 and conduct “a proper review of the materials in the Tween/Teen room in hopes that no other content like this is available in that space.” This is censorship and nothing more. It is the very definition of a book banning campaign. We the undersigned write not only to assert our strong opposition to any such censorship in our community, but to make clear that those seeking this ban represent a small fraction of the community at large.
We believe, as Annex A to the Phoebe Griffin Noyes Library Collection Development Policy so eloquently states, that,
“[T]here is no place in our society for efforts to coerce the taste of others, to confine adults to the reading matter deemed suitable for adolescents, or to inhibit the efforts of writers to achieve artistic expression… We cut off literature at the source if we prevent writers from dealing with the stuff of life. Parents and teachers have a responsibility to prepare the young to meet the diversity of experiences in life to which they will be exposed, as they have a responsibility to help them learn to think critically for themselves. These are affirmative responsibilities, not to be discharged simply by preventing them from reading works for which they are not yet prepared. In these matters values differ, and values cannot be legislated; nor can machinery be devised that will suit the demands of one group without limiting the freedoms of others.“
1 It’s worth noting that 18 and 19 year olds can legally drive, vote, serve in the armed forces and marry in all 50 states. If ever there was an indicator of the unreasonableness of the drafters’ request it is this: they unabashedly ask the library to ban legal adults from accessing books.
We likewise support the policy’s admonition that, “[r]esponsibility for children’s use of materials rests solely with their parents or legal guardians. Selection of material will not be inhibited by the possibility that items may come into the possession of children.”
Though we would suggest that the content of the primary book in question, “Let’s Talk About it: The Teen’s Guide to Sex, Relationships and Being Human,” is of little relevance in this context, we are aware that independent reviewers such as the Kirkus Review, Publishers Weekly and the School Library Journal all reviewed it positively. In addition, we know that the book’s two authors have had their work featured in the Tate Modern Museum in London. We do not offer this as proof of the objective value of this book or its merit, but rather for the proposition that reasonable minds may differ in this regard. Banning, censoring or restricting books for “objectionable” content is a slippery slope indeed.
Even amongst the undersigned, we understand that each of us may individually disagree as to when, how, or whether to introduce this material to their own children. Where we differ from the authors of the letter which spawned this debate, however, is that we do not aim to tell other parents what their children can and cannot be exposed to. We do not aim to sanctimoniously claim something should be removed for all because it offends some. We believe, in the words of Ben Franklin, “if all printers were determined not to print anything till they were sure it would offend nobody, there would be very little printed.”
We write this letter to support the library and its well thought-out anti-censorship policies. We ask that, consistent therewith, you reject the requests of the censorship supporters in their entirety. Not only do we believe these books should remain available to all, we believe that it is crucial they remain in the safe space of the Tween/Teen reading room where curious young adults can access them in a comfortable setting surrounded primarily by their peers. The PGN Collection Development Policy explicitly notes that the Tween/Teen room will, “contain special interest topics for adolescents, including, but not limited to, sex education, drug abuse, popular culture, and mental health.” Moving these books – overtly targeted to teen needs – to a place where access is difficult, embarrassing or populated primarily by adults, may defeat their purpose. They are designed, in part, to help teenagers navigate questions they may be uncomfortable discussing with or around adults. Forcing them to seek or retrieve them in the main stacks may be tantamount to banning them altogether.
Thank you for the valuable resource you provide our community. It is our sincere hope that you continue to do so in a way that remains true to the ideals of our democracy, and stands firm against the suppression of ideas. Please know that we, the undersigned, are standing with you.