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.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS