On Book Banning. Why I support book banning, and you should too.

Over the last 6 months in Virginia, there has been a particularly virulent discussion on the role of parents in our children’s education. The then gubernatorial campaign was in full swing. With the Democratic candidate Terry McCauliffe taking the stance that there is “no role for Parents in school curriculum.” A majority of Virginia, however, disagreed with McCauliffe and voted instead for the now governor Glenn Youngkin. Whose principal platform in the last three months of his campaign was on parental rights.

Unfortunately, the debate hasn’t gone away with the conclusion of the campaign season and a clear direction from Virginia citizens. On day one Youngkin issued a series of executive orders outlining what parents’ choice looks like; and what is, and is not, acceptable in public schools. Yet most school systems have dug their heels in and instead of working with the new directives coming from the Governor’s office and the VDOE, those schools are doubling down on their opposition to this new directive. Even the Virginia Association of School Superintendents (VASS) penned an open letter to the Governor opposing his action. Recent news has indicated that like the letter the National School Board Association sent to President Biden calling parents terrorists, that VASS letter was not approved by all superintendents — again indicating a clear divide on the issue.

At the heart of this matter, ultimately, is the curriculum (books) that our local schools use, and the discussion that comes out of those books. This leads to the question that we all must answer: “Do we support ‘book banning’?”

If we are going to ensure the integrity of our society and the mental health and well-being of our children, the answer must be, a resounding, yes.

First off before I begin, let’s make something clear. There is a difference between banning books from the curriculum and libraries of a school, and the archaic practice of book burning. I fully support the 1st amendment, and if an author or an opinion writer wants to have a differing opinion then I hold, that is both their right and prerogative. I can even see a case to include such a book in a public library as long as it has a “mature” rating or some other basic parental control. However, just because someone holds a differing opinion does not mean that we have to validate it by including it in a school library or having students debate it in class. This leads me to my first point.

1. Not all theory is valid

On November 16th, 2021, Old Dominion University placed professor Allyn Walker on administrative leave after a Nov. 8th interview discussing her book defending pedophilia, and saying sexual attraction to kids is not always immoral (as long as it isn’t acted on). ODU made a relatively quick decision after this interview became mainstream, yet they knew about this book and her research well before the November interview brought attention to their university (the book was originally published in June of 2021).

Let’s be clear. Child sexual abuse is morally wrong and has no place in our society. In this case, the professor’s book and her theory are very clearly wrong. No amount of normalization and validation from her, or anyone else, makes that any different.

We have other things that are very clearly wrong. These include things like racial discrimination, the beliefs that all whites are racist, that America is fundamentally a racist nation, support for forced redistribution of wealth, or any other tenant of Critical Race Theory/Culturally Responsible Teaching “CRT”. Yet these theories and a wide variety of books with their underpinnings have made their way first into our collegiate level education system, and more recently into our K-12 school system.

These theories are no more valid than the belief that it is okay for an adult to be sexually attracted to a minor. So when do we allow them even a foothold in our children’s minds?

2. We are called to take every thought captive

We have a morality problem in our nation. Before I can address that we need to understand what morals are, and where they come from. Morals in Webster Dictionary are defined as “a person’s standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.” Morality, therefore, is the acceptance and affirmative action of what is right and what is wrong. That definition can only come from one of three places. Either yourself — in which case right and wrong is whatever you want and therefore nothing is right or wrong. From society — in which case morals can shift based on popular opinion and we can easily end up in a society like as we saw in 1930s/1940s Germany that supported the holocaust. Or finally from tenants of beliefs such as the Bible, Quran, or other religious texts.

Being a Christian, I will address this issue from a Biblical context, however, many similarities exist in other religious texts. The debate between biblical morality vs. the Islamic equivalent vs. other religious views is far outside the purview of this essay. The point is that these are defined views with clear directives that we are expected to live by — i.e. unchanging morality.

2 Corinthians 10:4–5 tells us: “For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ.”

Philippians 4:8 tells us: “Brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable — if anything is excellent or praiseworthy — think about such things.”

Galatian 6:7 tells us: “Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap.”

There are many, many more biblical references to the concept of taking our thoughts captive and only giving our minds and thoughts over to what is right. Proverbs 14:7 sums it up best when it tells us to “Stay away from a fool, for you will not find knowledge on their lips.”

Much of the so-called “knowledge” that exists is simply not worth considering or evening debating. We all have an innate understanding of what is and is not right and wrong. Let’s stop trying to justify bad books by suggesting the content put forth in them is worth considering. It quite simply is beneath consideration, and by considering such content we contaminate our minds.

We should not normalize bad behavior

I recently spoke at a Lynchburg City School Board meeting, where I was providing references and direct quotes from a book that was being used in a freshman literature class. Before I got to my third example I was gaveled down and told that the language that I was quoting was inappropriate for a school board setting. I would later go on to end my comments with one additional quote that was indicative of the language used throughout the books telling the school board, “Strap on a pair and get your shit together.” (Reynolds, J., & Kiely, B. (2017). All American Boys. pg.76.)

When books like this are being held up as a standard-bearer by schools it is no wonder they are seeing behavior issues. Yes, these kids are “exposed to much worse” from derogatory music to drug culture, to internet pornography, to abusive relationships. Our kids have a lot to deal with. However, when our school books and curriculum normalizes behavioral norms in their assignments it just substantiates that bad behavior. This applies to not just vulgar language, but also issues like drinking, drugs (including unhealthy uses/applications of marijuana), sex, and other issues that — while yes our students get exposed to — we should not be reinforcing as normalized and accepted behavior.

There are always alternatives — we can tell moral stories better ways

On one hand, you can’t teach a moral story without also identifying immoral behavior to call it out as wrong. At the same time, that also shouldn’t give authors free reign on literary depictions that are just unnecessary to the story.

One of my favorite book series is “Jumper” by Steven Gould (nothing like the Hayden Christensen movie adaptation). The series begins depicting a teenage boy in a physically abusive parental relationship and uses that abuse as a catalyst for him discovering that he has the power of teleportation. The abusive behavior would later play a role in shaping the way the protagonist, Davey, views his world, fighting his demons, and ultimately positively influences his relationship with his daughter. This abuse is a necessary part of the story but is presented in a way that calls that behavior wrong, and allows the protagonist to overcome that adversity.

Unfortunately tucked into this backstory is a short, and graphic, depiction of attempted rape while he is running away from home. This sub-insert does very little to add to the story and what it provides easily could have been written in another way. In fact, in subsequent books, the Author easily finds other high-stress environments that enable future “jumpers” (Davey’s Wife and Daughter) to discover their powers. Yet because of this one unnecessary depiction makes it difficult for me to recommend the series even though I enjoy it so much.

I have had similar experiences with many other great novels and non-fiction works that just have unnecessary content in them that do nothing to the story and only make it unusable or un-recommendable.

The point I make is that in almost all cases you can provide a way to illustrate the “moral of the story” or the takeaway without resorting to including content that is just not necessary. It is, in fact, possible to talk about difficult issues, such as race, without requiring a freshman class to spend multiple weeks on a very vulgar novel about a police officer beating a teenager and normalizing bad language, underage alcoholism, drugs, and sex.

Book Banning isn’t about book burning

We, the parents, have a responsibility to guide and shape our children’s future. For many (the majority), we have entrusted (either by choice or by necessity) government schools to come alongside us to assist in that upbringing. However, government schools do not supplant that parental responsibility; and just because a government bureaucrat believes a specific ideology doesn’t make it right. Furthermore, the children of the parents who have chosen alternative education will still grow up with public school students as their peers. Ultimately we have a generational overlap where we all are impacted by what is coming out of our school system.

A focus on what is and is not in that curriculum, therefore, isn’t about restricting content, but rather focusing our attention, our efforts, and our thoughts on things that will reinforce positive growth — rather than validate poor moral decision-making. It is also something that we all need to be involved in, rather than simply “trusting the experts,” because as history has shown us our so-called experts are frequently wrong.