Op-ed: Book Banning Is About More Than Book Banning

Editor’s Note: This op-ed was submitted to us by Old Lyme resident William Fitzgerald. He has also sent it the members of the Old Lyme Board of Selectmen (BOS) and the Old Lyme Phoebe Griffin Noyes Library Director and Board of Trustees. The Old Lyme BOS meet this evening at 5:30 p.m. in the Old Lyme Town Hall with the item, “Inappropriate Book in the Phoebe Griffin Noyes Library – Stephen Spooner and Others” on their agenda under the Communications section. Fitzgerald has asked to BOS to enter this piece as Public Comment for the meeting.

Over the last few months in Lyme and Old Lyme, book banning has been a frequent subject of conversation. The issue first sparked up when the Old Lyme Republicans generously mailed their platform to every member of the town, and were then surprised when people actually read the platform and flagged that one of their key foundations — a shout-out for so-called “parental rights” — mirrored a larger, well funded political strategy popular among the far right.

The most current flare up centers around two letters sent to the Old Lyme Library. The bulk of the attention has been focused on the book banning and censorship efforts included with the letter.

This conversation is misguided, and misses the point.

The letter also includes multiple other demands and observations that are equally offensive, including:

• a veiled threat about library funding; 
• a demand that library staff time be wasted replicating review work of every book in the tween section; 
• a shot across the bow of educators in the school district; and 
• a demand that the library staff change the “focus for our community’s children”. 

The authors of the letter have gone to some lengths to state that they are not trying to ban books, and that they are only trying to have books reviewed. That very well might be their intent.

However, given that we live in a world where actual words mean actual things, the impact of their letter, and the actions required by their letter, differ from their stated intent. Our local library is a safe place, unless you are afraid of ideas. Library staff deserve our thanks and gratitude.

The impact of the letter attempting to censor books includes threats and intimidation directed at librarians and school staff. This aligns directly with ongoing national efforts. Whether this alignment is coincidental or intentional is irrelevant.

1. The Distractor Questions

Two questions have been asked repeatedly. I am highlighting them here because they are useful examples of distractor questions, and attempting to answer them erodes our ability to understand.

1. Have you seen the pictures? How can you think that these pictures are okay for kids?

2. An age review of the material to determine if it’s age appropriate, and moving the book if it’s not, seems reasonable. What’s the problem with that?

The reason both of these questions, and any attempt to answer them at face value, is a distraction, boils down to one word: context.

The first question demands that we ignore the full scope of the book, and only focus in on a narrow subset. I wish that the people spending so much time complaining about the pictures spent equal time reading about the sections covering consent and abusive relationships.

Regarding the appropriateness of the content, this question ignores a couple important things. First, we already have a review process, in the form of professional, trained staff. Second, narrowing in on the demand for a review ignores the larger context of the entire letter. The review sets a precedent, and the request for a review has less to do with the actual review than with flexing power.

The full context of the letter makes that clear, and as such, entertaining narrow questions about the appropriateness of any review is a non-starter, not to mention a blatant slap in the face to the professionalism of library staff.

And to highlight the larger context here: around the country, hundreds of people are filing thousands of book challenges using the exact same criteria used here, in Old Lyme: this content isn’t age appropriate, and therefore it needs to be removed. For one of many examples of what this looks like: in March of 2023, a principal of a school in Florida was forced to resign after students in her school were shown pornographic material. This is terrible; clearly she deserved it — except the “pornography” in question was Michaelangelo’s David.

A second example from this spring, with direct parallels to the demands made to the the Phoebe Griffin Noyes Library, comes from Indiana. The teen section of the Hamilton East Public Library in Noblesville, Indiana was gutted after a board-ordered review of books in the teen section. This review cost over $300,000.00 and was accompanied by the familiar request: move the “age-inappropriate” books to the adult section. This is the exact review process described in the letter sent to the library board and staff at the Phoebe Griffin Noyes library.

2. The National Context

The letter sent to the library, paired with the private meeting with the middle school principal, both align with strategies used by the well-funded national “parental rights” movement. Nationally, the rhetoric of “parental rights” have been bundled together as a series of related policies:

• Prevent history courses from teaching about slavery, the civil rights movement, and the gay rights movements; 
• Censor what books are allowed in school and libraries; 
• Harass teachers and schools via “school transparency” initiatives; and 
• Erode or eliminate the rights of gay, queer, and transgender people, often starting with youth. 

The most visible incarnation of these policies is probably Ron DeSantis in Florida, although multiple parallel efforts are underway across the country.

The “parental rights” movement evolved from the fabricated outrage over what the right mislabeled “critical race theory.” A key player in the “parental rights” movement has been “Moms for Liberty,” a group that started in Florida and grew with the help of funding from rightwing political activists. The activists pushing “parental rights” have been clear and vocal about their goals, and the methods they will use to achieve those goals.

The following quotation from a conservative activist and Moms for Liberty board member clearly defines their perspective.

“Our laws need to evolve to respond to these new techniques and things that they’re using,” said Jeff Childers, an attorney and conservative commentator who serves on Moms for Liberty’s board, and was also on the panel about Florida’s new law. “So I look at the parents’ bill of rights and the amendments that we’ve had since — it’s a really good framework, right? That’s like taking the body of an AK-47, and then we can start mounting new accessories onto it: a flashlight, a laser pointer and things like that.”

Childers advised those in more liberal states to try to pass a parental rights measure through their school board or county commission. He said that local action would eventually wear down resistance from lawmakers at the state level.

“Our adversaries, it’s not just that they don’t care about our children — I believe they’re actively trying to harm our children,” Childers told the audience, to applause.

The conservative activist working to spread the rightwing vision of parental rights uses an AK-47 as a central metaphor about education, which is an interesting choice given the prevalence of school shootings. The conservative activist also identifies school boards and local politics as a way to normalize hateful policies. Finally, the conservative activist clearly states that “adversaries” are “actively trying to harm our children.” The fact that the conservative activists behind the rightwing co-opting of parental rights attempt to demonize opposition to their policies as actively harming kids needs specific attention.

Texas also provides an example of how, nationally, Republicans are implementing “parental rights” and the discriminatory policies embedded under the umbrella of “parental rights.”

In 2021, Texas passed a law limiting what can be taught about slavery and racism, and how it can be taught.

This was followed by attempts to censor books, which included targeting librarians.

In 2022, Texas governor Greg Abbott promised to pass a “parents bill of rights.”

In 2023, the Texas legislature is attempting to pass a range of legislation targeting LGBTQ people, and attempting to erode basic human rights.

In Missouri, we see the same toxic collection of policies: a self-described parents bill of rights, state action preventing transgender people from receiving health care, and a state bill attempting to defund all libraries.

Nationally, libraries and librarians are under attack.

These are the policies nested alongside “parental rights”. The advocates for these policies have been very clear about their goals, and we should believe what they say. The examples I’ve provided here are a small subset of the efforts currently happening across the country.

3. The Full Context of The Letter

In the opening of this piece, I describe four things the letter does in addition to requesting the censorship of specific books. To reiterate: the author of the letter has clearly stated that his intent does none of these things. However, intent and impact are two different things. This piece focuses exclusively on impact.

The letter has four impacts that extend beyond the censorship of these two titles. Specifically, the letter contains:

• a veiled threat about library funding; 
• a demand that library staff time be wasted replicating review work of every book in the tween section; 
• a shot across the bow of educators in the school district; and 
• a demand that the library staff change the “focus for our community’s children”. 

1. Veiled threat about funding

The letter sent to the library includes a copy of the purchase decision used for this book. The formality of including a copy of the purchase decision — which to the best of my knowledge aren’t publicly available — clearly situates this letter within the context of an economic decision.

This weirdness continues in the next paragraph with the statement that “Every community has limited financial resources and prioritizes how to spend its funds. Libraries must make decisions about what material and content they purchase for public consumption.”

While this somewhat generic statement is true as a general observation, in this context it can be interpreted as a veiled threat. Of course, the letter doesn’t come directly out and say, “We want these books removed or else we will work to cut funding,” but the juxtaposition of a complaint with a discussion about funding certainly creates that connection, especially against a national backdrop where libraries are being targeted for defunding by conservatives.

This threat gets reinforced in the next paragraph when the letter states that it is signed by “taxpayers.” Individually, these references would only feel stilted and overly formal, but collectively, they create an implied threat. Collectively, these statements feel a bit like someone walking up and muttering, “Nice library you got there. It’d be a shame if something happened to it.”

2. Demands on Library Staff Time

These demands are clearly laid out in the letter. “We ask that you reconsider your decision on this book and its availability to children ages 11-19. If it is determined to be inappropriate, we request a proper review of the materials in the Teen/Tween room in hopes that no other content like this is available in that space.”

Library staff are professionals. The demand made by members of this town second guesses their professionalism, and attempts to substitute the narrow morality of a subset of the town for the professional judgment, training, and experience of library staff. Over time, this will cause staff to leave, and we will not be able to retain talented people because, let’s be blunt: good people have options, and no one should have to deal with micromanagement and harassment.

3. Intimidation Directed at Educators

The letter states that their efforts included meeting with the Middle School Principal.

“Some of the names below have met with Region 18 middle school principal who has assured us that this material is not available in our schools, as it ought not to be.”

This statement takes on additional weight because of the inclusion of “Parental Rights” within the Republican Town Committee’s platform, and the fact that the letter is signed by the first selectman, the second selectman, and multiple members of the board of education. What comes across very clearly in this statement is that Middle School teachers can’t count on full support against parental meddling in curriculum.

This is subtle intimidation, and this is why educators leave the profession.

4. Demand For a Shift in Library Mission

This demand is clearly stated in the letter. “Lastly, we encourage a change in the library’s focus for our community’s children.”

4. Closing

The demands of this letter make clear that censoring books is only the beginning. Attempts at censorship are divisive; standing up to attempts at censorship can bring us together. Censorship is not popular.

The letter is signed by representatives of the Old Lyme Republican Town Committee, multiple Selectmen, and people elected to Lyme and Old Lyme’s School Board.

I hope that some of these people reconsider their support of this letter. This town has a choice, and I hope that we can show — clearly and decisively — that we do not support censorship, and we do not support intimidation of the professionals that work within our town.

Lastly — a lot of this conversation uses the common refrain of “we’re doing this for the children.” I’ll say this loud for those in the back: we need to stop underestimating youth. The kids in this town hear this conversation, and they hear what’s happening nationally. We are sending them a clear message that the adults around them don’t trust them with accurate information. Just by the necessity of having this conversation, we have shown them that we underestimate them. They won’t trust us, and we have earned that skepticism.

Editor’s Note: This is the opinion of William Fitzgerald.