While far-right groups in the US — in mostly Republican-led states — wage a crusade to ban thousands of books in schools and public libraries across the country, Minnesota is pushing back.
This state, governed by a former high-school teacher, has banned book bans.
The rise in attempts to censor Americans’ reading material is alarming. Last year, book challenges surged to the highest level ever documented, with efforts to censure more than 4,200 titles, according to the American Library Association.
Illustration: Louise Ting
The tactics are alarming, too. Where previous attempts typically involved a parent or small group of parents challenging a single title, now groups with clear political agendas are filing coordinated challenges against scores of books, all under the guise of parental rights. The books targeted typically deal with issues of race, sexuality or gender expression. School and library board members have been shouted down at meetings, librarians have been harassed and threatened with violence, and groups have used the possibility of lawsuits and criminal charges as intimidation tactics.
Last year, while Florida was yanking books off its shelves — 300 titles were removed in about a third of the state’s school districts — Democratic Minnesota Governor Tim Walz moved to highlight the absurdity of Florida’s ban. He installed his own “Little Free Library” at the Minnesota Capitol building, like the small pop-up libraries that dot the front of many homes nationwide. The difference: This one featured banned books.
It was a small gesture that sparked a larger idea: to stand against censorship with the full force of state law.
“I knew we had to do more,” Walz said just before signing the ban into law on Friday.
“I see book bans as dangerous. Throughout history, the people who want to ban books have never been on the right side,” he said.
“The freedom to read is super personal to me. We know how powerful it is for kids,” he added.
The law states in simple, unambiguous language: “A public library must not ban, remove or otherwise restrict access to a book or other material based solely on its viewpoint or the messages, ideas or opinions it conveys.”
It puts decisions on book selection firmly in the hands of experts: librarians — who have made books their life’s work.
That is not such a novel idea. Librarians have been entrusted with such decisions since libraries began. It was only after extremist groups such as Moms for Liberty decided they could exploit this issue for political gain a few years ago that book challenges surged.
The bill does not overlook parents’ rights. Every library must have policies that allow parents or guardians to exercise their own judgement regarding their children.
Parents should be able to determine what their children are exposed to and raise them in accordance with their values.
However, when they seek instead to control access to books for all children, they cross a fundamental line, violating the rights of those students and their parents and the intellectual freedom that must be cultivated and exercised at a young age.
Their desire to impose their moral code, or religious beliefs on others does not — or at least should not — override an individual’s freedom. Does it matter that we are talking about students here? Not according to former US Supreme Court justice William Brennan, who in 1982 issued an opinion for a divided court in Board of Education v Pico that stated: “Local school boards may not remove books from school library shelves simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books.”
Democratic Minnesota State Senator Steve Cwodzinski, who taught US government to high-school students for more than 30 years, believes passionately in the power of books to open students’ minds to new ways of thinking.
“I believe in the marketplace of ideas,” said Cwodzinski, who sponsored the bill and struggled for its passage against Republican opponents who said it was unnecessary.
Democrats hold a one-seat majority in the chamber.
“I would tell parents, try to trust the professionals,” Cwodzinski said. “I’ve seen the spark go off in students when they find a book that speaks to them. And having a librarian guide them is a lot better than them just finding out on the Internet alone.”
Book bans are the most widespread form of censorship in the US and are antithetical to a democracy that depends on a thoughtful, informed citizenry. Controlling access to books and limiting materials considered controversial only by some are the first steps toward controlling thought. It should be rejected soundly.
Patricia Lopez is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering politics and policy. She is a former member of the editorial board at the Minneapolis Star Tribune, where she also worked as a senior political editor and reporter. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
Taiwan is a small, humble place. There is no Eiffel Tower, no pyramids — no singular attraction that draws the world’s attention. If it makes headlines, it is because China wants to invade. Yet, those who find their way here by some twist of fate often fall in love. If you ask them why, some cite numbers showing it is one of the freest and safest countries in the world. Others talk about something harder to name: The quiet order of queues, the shared umbrellas for anyone caught in the rain, the way people stand so elderly riders can sit, the
After the coup in Burma in 2021, the country’s decades-long armed conflict escalated into a full-scale war. On one side was the Burmese army; large, well-equipped, and funded by China, supported with weapons, including airplanes and helicopters from China and Russia. On the other side were the pro-democracy forces, composed of countless small ethnic resistance armies. The military junta cut off electricity, phone and cell service, and the Internet in most of the country, leaving resistance forces isolated from the outside world and making it difficult for the various armies to coordinate with one another. Despite being severely outnumbered and
After the confrontation between US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy on Friday last week, John Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser, discussed this shocking event in an interview. Describing it as a disaster “not only for Ukraine, but also for the US,” Bolton added: “If I were in Taiwan, I would be very worried right now.” Indeed, Taiwanese have been observing — and discussing — this jarring clash as a foreboding signal. Pro-China commentators largely view it as further evidence that the US is an unreliable ally and that Taiwan would be better off integrating more deeply into
RSS