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.
Recently, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) hastily pushed amendments to the Act Governing the Allocation of Government Revenues and Expenditures (財政收支劃分法) through the Legislative Yuan, sparking widespread public concern. The legislative process was marked by opaque decisionmaking and expedited proceedings, raising alarms about its potential impact on the economy, national defense, and international standing. Those amendments prioritize short-term political gains at the expense of long-term national security and development. The amendments mandate that the central government transfer about NT$375.3 billion (US$11.47 billion) annually to local governments. While ostensibly aimed at enhancing local development, the lack
Former US president Jimmy Carter’s legacy regarding Taiwan is a complex tapestry woven with decisions that, while controversial, were instrumental in shaping the nation’s path and its enduring relationship with the US. As the world reflects on Carter’s life and his recent passing at the age of 100, his presidency marked a transformative era in Taiwan-US-China relations, particularly through the landmark decision in 1978 to formally recognize the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as the sole legal government of China, effectively derecognizing the Republic of China (ROC) based in Taiwan. That decision continues to influence geopolitical dynamics and Taiwan’s unique
Having enjoyed contributing regular essays to the Liberty Times and Taipei Times now for several years, I feel it is time to pull back. As some of my readers know, I have enjoyed a decades-long relationship with Taiwan. My most recent visit was just a few months ago, when I was invited to deliver a keynote speech at a major conference in Taipei. Unfortunately, my trip intersected with Double Ten celebrations, so I missed the opportunity to call on friends in government, as well as colleagues in the new AIT building, that replaced the old Xin-yi Road complex. I have
On New Year’s Day, it is customary to reflect on what the coming year might bring and how the past has brought about the current juncture. Just as Taiwan is preparing itself for what US president-elect Donald Trump’s second term would mean for its economy, national security and the cross-strait “status quo” this year, the passing of former US president Jimmy Carter on Monday at the age of 100 brought back painful memories of his 1978 decision to stop recognizing the Republic of China as the seat of China in favor of the People’s Republic of China. It is an
RSS