Local Opinion: AZ Senate bill to ban books is harmful, not needed

I’m a prude. I never use four-letter words. Even ordering chicken breast seems to me somewhat immodest. So I understand why state Sen. Justine Wadsack is pushing SB1700 to get books with sexual content out of school libraries. Her bill is intended to protect “children who are innocent” and to “hold onto that innocence they have.” But her bill is seriously flawed, dangerous to the well-being of some children, potentially expensive, and simply unnecessary.

Much of the bill’s wording is uncomfortably vague. For example, the bill says schools may not make available to students “books that are lewd or sexual.” I am retired now, but I spent over 40 years working in public libraries where I fielded complaints when someone, usually a parent, thought a children’s book was lewd or sexual.

When I worked at the public library in Prescott, well-intentioned parents wanted a children’s science book about space exploration removed from the library. They wanted the book censored because it included an illustration of the plaque attached to Pioneer space probes. The parents claimed the plaque was “lewd” because it included an etching of a naked man and woman. NASA intended the plaque to communicate where the space probe originated and what kind of beings built it. The Library Board did not remove the book from the library, and Pioneer 10 is currently 12 billion kilometers from Earth, carrying the pornographic image to innocent extraterrestrials in some faraway galaxy. This example shows how words like “lewd” can mean different things to different people.

Even Sen. Wadsack’s newspaper comment that children “don’t need to be reading about their best friend’s erection” could be the target of censors. We all know the senator wasn’t referring to erections of Legos or building blocks. She was referring to penises. Of the hundreds of complaints I’ve heard about library books, most of them involved a penis in one way or another. One example is “In the Night Kitchen” by the famous children’s author of “Where the Wild Things Are,” Maurice Sendak. In his story for preschoolers, a little boy falls out of bed, out of his pajamas, and into a fantasy kitchen. There were efforts nationwide to ban the book from libraries because the illustrations showed the little boy’s penis. Of course, it’s unlikely the preschoolers for whom the book was designed were shocked, especially the half of the audience that had little penises of their own. But some parents thought the illustrations were lewd or sexual and tried to have the book removed from libraries.

The lives of librarians would be much more peaceful if authors and illustrators would leave penises out of their books. But even if librarians created penis-free book collections, there are innumerable other reasons people would want to censor.

Often, like with Sen. Wadsack, the censor’s objective is to protect the innocence of children. Protecting children from racism is the frequently stated reason for censoring “To Kill a Mockingbird” and “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.” Protecting children from talking animals has been the reason for attacking “Charlotte’s Web.” Protecting children from spiritualism and witchcraft has been the objective behind efforts to ban “Harry Potter” and “The Lord of the Rings.” I once fielded a request to remove the library book “Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark.” The parent’s objection was the book was “too scary.”

Sen. Wadsack’s current bill addresses books that contain sex-related issues. Under her bill, even The Holy Bible could be removed from schools. Rape, incest, sodomy, masturbation, and other clearly sexual issues are part of The Bible. Perhaps more troublesome, if SB1700 is successful, Sen. Wadsack may use that precedent for future legislation banning other books that might make some people uncomfortable. There are countless subjects, fiction and non-fiction, that could potentially disturb the innocence of some children.

I had the pleasure of working with hundreds of librarians during my long career and I never met one who forced a child to read a particular book. In cases where a parent made a formal request to have a book removed from the library, as in the Pioneer space probe case, the parent was shown every courtesy while the library reconsidered the appropriateness of the book for its collection. Ideally, if a parent objects to a child reading books with talking animals, scary stories or penises, the parent should tell their child not to check such books out of the library. Asking the State of Arizona to intercede with a bill that would remove from school libraries anything that anyone might find objectionable is itself objectionable. Do we really want the government making unwarranted intrusions between parent and child?

SB1700 is completely unnecessary and would be a waste of money if approved. Schools already have procedures for addressing parental concerns about books available to children. Complaints about library books are and should continue to be handled on the local level. The bill would require the state to develop and maintain a list of banned books. Do we really want to pay state employees to work on such a list? Considering the thousands of books published and needing to be reviewed each year, maintaining an up-to-date list of banned books would be quite expensive. Plus, the creation of such lists has a shameful history. Most notably, the Nazis and Catholic Church maintained lists of banned books. The church abolished its list in 1966.

Who, in addition to taxpayers, would be harmed if SB1700 becomes law? Just our children. They would be presented with book collections that fail to reflect the realities of the world as they already know it. Kids know what’s going on and Sen. Wadsack’s bill isn’t going to change that. Weakening school libraries will only encourage children to seek other sources to meet their reading and informational needs. Forcing children to go online to seek information from unreliable and potentially unsafe sources is dangerous. It is safer for children to use their school libraries, even if an occasional book may talk about penises.

Who will benefit if SB1700 creates the Arizona List of Banned Books? Certainly, the employees who are paid to maintain the list. Getting paid a state salary and benefits to read books in search of something objectionable sounds like a pretty good gig. Sign me up if I can work from home. But the greatest beneficiaries of SB1700 would be the lucky publishers and authors whose books are banned. Censoring books is generally terrific for sales and author royalties.

I appreciate Sen. Wadsack’s efforts to protect children, but let’s hope her misguided efforts fail. School librarians currently use their education and experience to select the best materials to meet the diverse needs of their students. Their approach is positive: they want to let the best books in. We don’t need our state government wasting time and money to keep books out.