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.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS