By Nico Ludwig-Stock
MILWAUKEE, WI – The ACLU of Wisconsin this week filed open records requests with six school districts in efforts to find out information about their decision to ban books in their school libraries.
Menomonee Falls, Howard-Suamico, Waukesha, Elmbrook, Elkhorn, and Kenosha Unified school districts have all removed books from school libraries in response to extremist parent groups, said the ACLU.
In their letter to these school districts, the ACLU noted that book bans threaten the First Amendment rights of students and families, noting more than 40 years ago, the Supreme Court held that “local school boards may not remove books from school library shelves just because they dislike the ideas contained in those books.”
“Under the guise of protecting students from ‘inappropriate’ materials, school districts that remove books are violating students’ First Amendment rights to receive information from various viewpoints, even challenging perspectives and views that may not sit well with conservative majorities,” said Tim Muth, interim director of the ACLU of Wisconsin.
Muth further noted book banning has long been used to marginalize underrepresented communities. The anti-LGBTQ+ stances that book-banning advocates have adopted have been particularly concerning, he added.
Muth added, “Nationally, LGBTQ+ youth are far more likely to be bullied and harassed at school, alienated from their families and communities, and suffer from depression and suicidal ideation than their non-LGBTQ+ peers. For LGBTQ+ youth who are isolated at home, in school, or in their community access to LGBTQ+ representation or information in books and literature can be a refuge–and, in some cases, life-saving.”
Grassroots Menomonee Falls, a group of residents of the Menomonee School District, stated, “There is freedom within libraries and public schools to be a sanctuary for diverse perspectives, expression, and healing. Banning books in our school district is akin to closing the door to understanding ourselves, each other, and the world…let every book be a beacon, not a forbidden fruit.”
Book bans are nothing more than conservative attempts to silence viewpoints that don’t align with their narrow ideology of marginalizing already marginalized people. Since Republicans and the Moms for Liberty don’t have policy priorities that would benefit average Americans, instead they have veered far far right to make LQBTQ+ persons their latest bogeymen and women. They are just attempting to cover up their own inadequacies by hating on LGBTQ+ people. The preceding statements are all factual.
Walter, you represent only one pole in our polarized society, and you choose NOT to walk in anyone else’s shoes. Your comment above could just as easily be restated as follows:
[Walter’s issue of the moment is] nothing more than [a progressive liberal] attempts to silence viewpoints that don’t align with [his] narrow ideology of marginalizing already marginalized people. Since [Walter doesn’t] have policy priorities that would benefit average Americans, instead [he has] veered far far left to make persons [who are different than him his] latest bogeymen and women.
I reject your insinuations Matt. Is Keith asserting he is now a marginalized person? I hope not. My current political and societal issues have largely remained unchanged for decades. You appear to hit on only me because you are friendly with Keith. You have refused to condemn Keith for his numerous lies and misinformation for that same reason.
I do have strongly held policy priorities that would benefit ordinary Americans. Among those are:
Instituting universal healthcare
Strengthening union protections
Limiting inflation by limiting corporate greed
Forcing the 1% and wealthy corporations to pay their fair shares in taxes to reduce the tax burden on the rest of us
Installing a reasonable immigration policy since almost all of us have immigrants in our family histories (including almost all Republicans)
Protecting American democracy from liars, racists, traitors, and insurrectionists
Strengthening civil and human rights protections for LGBTQ+ people and people of color
Rolling back illegal aggression by Russian dictator Putin from eventually overrunning all of Europe. After all Putin was the former head of the Soviet KGB.
Walter, I fully expected you would reject my observations. The alterative would be for you to actualy make an attempt to walk in someone else’s shoes. Historically, your posts here indicate that you don’t seem to be able to do that. Yours is a “It’s my way or the highway” approach.
I’m not hitting on you. I’m simply sharing my obsertions about the (sometimes factually false) things you say, and how you say them.
Calling Keith and me “friends” is a flight of fancy on your part. He and I have actually met in person exactly one time in our lives, and it takes a hell of a lot more than that to build a friendship. Further, our virtual interactions electronically more often than not have seen us on opposite sides of the issue du jour. In addition, I suspect he did not vote for me when I ran for City Council. But I don’t see life in “we versus they” terms, so I respect him as an individual human being.
I haven’t condemned Keith for “his numerous lies and misinformation” because I haven’t seen him tell any factual falsehoods. He shares opinions … strongly held opinions … and in this country of ours we are free to have our own opinionms, as well as free to voice those opinions.
Regarding Keith being a marginalized person, did you look at the election results of the 2020 Presidential election in Davis? Trump got approximately 15% of the vote. If you are in a group of 100 people and 85% of them vehemently disagree with you, are you marginalized?
Your list of policy priorities is a good one. I personally agree with most of them. Perhaps you might want to step away from your ad hominem approach where you consistently concentrate on the “messenger”, and instead provide everyone here your thoughts on why the items in your list of “messages” is worthy of both discussion and action.
I’m not saying that all of the books that have been banned or are on the radar to get banned should be, but I’ve seen some so disgusting that as a grandparent I wouldn’t want my grandchildren reading them at the library. I can’t understand how any parent would be okay with their children reading some of the filth associate with these books.
It’s hard to evaluate in the abstract, example?
Here’s an example. David there are many if you’re willing to do a Google search.
https://nypost.com/2022/11/16/dearborn-parent-reads-graphic-passages-in-revolt-against-pornographic-books-in-school-libraries/
That’s not an example, it’s an article. What I wanted was an example of a book that is at the library that you believe is inappropriate.
But since I know you will hem and hedge on this, let’s look at the first book cited.
Flamer by Mike Curato.
Description: “Award-winning author and artist Mike Curato draws on his own experiences in Flamer, his debut graphic novel, telling a difficult story with humor, compassion, and love.”
That seems like the exact type of book we would want in a high school library.
Maybe you need to dig a little deeper into the book, you know like illustrations and passages.
Have you read the book?
I read the NY Post piece he provided.
From the example provided, the book is not “pornography” right out of the gate, since it’s appealing to something more than a reader’s sole prurient interest.
Additionally, the book is aimed to teens, but of course the book banners will try to claim it’s being aimed at the children (pearl clutch), which is just another one of the right’s tactics based purely on emotional appeal.
And guess what? Teen boys masturbate. *gasp* Teen boys also *talk about* masturbating, oftentimes in a crude manner (I worked with teens prolifically for about a 12-year period in this city; I heard it; it’s normal). I would wager many of the men on this very board engaged in such “locker room talk” when they were young.
And guess further what? Teens (and even younger) watch *actual* pornography of the most disgusting and extreme sort on that little computer most of them start carrying around with them from about second or third grade.
In one NY Times article, it was mentioned that the average age of first contact with porn right now, since it is so easily available and ubiquitous, is about 11 years old.
And what they are watching makes “Flamer” look like a Disney cartoon. *eyeroll*
Since I don’t have the book in front of me, I have no idea what the rest of it is like. Maybe 80% of it is of a completely non-sexual nature and focuses on other things. Right wingers, however, want to construct the narrative that LGBTQ+ humans are just sex fiends focused solely on sex acts and aren’t fully “human” with the full range of relatable human experiences that we all have.
I suspect most of it is likely not as crude as the cited example (that’s just how the M4L and book banners roll, taking things out of context, as one M4L did at a Davis School Board Meeting back in August, IIRC).
If they’re worried about “porn,” and are using relatively anodyne definitions for that, they’d better remove the Bible solely for the quotation about how one woman enjoyed fantasizing about her lovers having genitals the size of donkeys and emissions like those of elephants. Among other things in there.
But they are trying to shut down one side here, so they’re not going to use consistent “reasoning.”
https://costamesaconfidential.com/2022/08/graphic-inappropriate-novel-discovered-at-wilson-elementary-school-library/
Have you read the book?
No, have you read it?
Why would I read that book? But I have read some of the passages and seen several of the illustrations.
Not something that I would want my grandchildren reading.
I just ordered it. You got me curious. Based on the description, I would say it’s important for students to read these types of things. It reminds of what I would read as a kid – things like Judy Blume. It’s got some very good reviews. Seems like a knee jerk reaction given that you haven’t read it.
I guess we have different standards in what I want my grandchildren reading and what you’re okay with.
I’m going to have my daughter read it, just so you know.
That’s your daughter and your choice.
I would never though, just so you know.
Which is fine, but then you want to ban a book that you’ve never read and tell other parents what their kids can or cannot read.
I just read it. It’s outstanding for the demographic that it’s aimed at. Appropriate for middle school and high school ages.
I happen to have an 11 year old granddaughter in 6th grade.
I don’t want her reading that book.
We’ll have to agree to disagree.
2 hours , not posting. Why?
Then tell her not to read it, but why should your attitude (and frankly, your fear) be forced upon every other patron of the library? Who are you to dictate to the community what is an appropriate book, especially when you have not even read the work in question? Are you really that afraid of being exposed to ideas from outside your bubble?
Also Grandparents don’t have parental rights anyway.
I have patiently waited for up to 5 hours without whining.
Here’s a link to the article with some disgusting illustrations and captions, you are warned:
https://thedaughter.substack.com/p/34th-filthybooks-example-flamer-by
I’ve read the book. You haven’t. So you don’t know anything about it, but you are going on and on about it as if you actually had some idea about it. You don’t.
From your link:
It does not “depict young teenage boys in sexual acts.” That is false, and the illustration in your link is misleading.
It does discuss sex at about the teenage level.
I suggest you stop posting about things you’re completely uninformed about.
How about the caption over the illustration of the Mountain Dew bottle?
I won’t write it here because it’s disgusting, not something children should read in my opinion.
Since Keith has been presenting right wing descriptions of the book, here’s the NPR book review: https://www.npr.org/2020/10/22/926285834/flamer-offers-real-hope-not-just-rainbows-to-queer-kids
“Being a teenaged boy looks hard. It looks brutish. It looks intimidating. It looks confusing. It looks vulgar. It looks, well, really uncomfortable.”
This seems like a very important book for many youths to read.
That point aside, I think the debate here illustrates exactly why we should not be banning books. There is no agreement as to what books are appropriate or inappropriate and so that’s best left to individual families.
The problem is you have 11 and 12 year olds at their school libraries who have access to these controversial books where their parents have no idea what they’re reading. Like you said, you’re okay with your daughter reading the book, but there are other parents who aren’t. Shouldn’t their concerns count?
If the caption above the Mountain Dew illustration from “Flamer” was attempted to be posted here I doubt you or your blog’s filter would allow the entire passage, that’s how disgusting it is.
As a grandparent of an 11 year old girl I know I wouldn’t want her reading that.
There are a number of problems with your approach.
1. No agreement on which books to ban or even whether to ban the books
2. There is an important educational value to the books, these deal with critical issues.
3. You have no rights as a grandparent
The proposed solution of banning books seems extreme. I would suggest there are less drastic ways to address your concern.
I have lots of rights and can sure as Hell voice my opinion.
Unless you are their legal guardian you do not. You have the right to voice your opinion as any citizen does, but not on account of being a grandparent.
A question for you David. If I tried to post the Mountain Dew bottle illustration’s caption from “Flamer” would you or your blog’s filter allow it?
Not sure. But that’s not the test you think it is. The reason the Vanguard restricts language and such has less to do with being offended by it and more to do with directing conversation away from the lowest common denominator.
A better test would be this: if Mike Curato submitted an article that illustrated some of the dialogue and illustrations from his book, we would likely publish it.
Keith, I suspect if you handed your granddaughter a typed copy of the text of the caption she would be able to tell you what it means.
Back in 1981 my 10 year old son gave me a clear example of how much he had learned from interacting with his classmates
I think that’s a good point. I remember a few years ago eye opening conversations with our daughter about what she had learned in sex education. When my wife wondered about the graphic lessons, I reminded her that our niece had gotten pregnant about the same age as our daughter at that time. I was slightly younger when I read the Judy Blume books, granted the message was toned down compared to this, but we live in a different time than forty years ago.
Different times, but the biology is the same. My wedding picture from 1971 has my mother holding my son in his 1month swaddling clothes.
Keith, my brothers and sister and nieces and nephews all got together this June for my Mother’s 100th birthday. In one of the interludes between the events of the weekend a half a dozen of us were sitting around my sister’s living room and the subject of the Birds and the Bees … specifically the number of times either my Mother or my Father had a Birds and Bees talk with any of us … came up. For all four of us siblings the answer was “zero times.” We are all old enough that sex education was not a subject that was taught in school, so we learned what we learned from the ambient environment around us … and we all somehow did come up to speed on the vagaries of sex.
When I look back on that, and think of the time when I was about 12 years old … the same age as your granddaughter … at summer camp in Maine, I probablyn would have been better prepared to deal with the unwanted sexual advances/assault that on of my fellow campers made to me. As they say, fore-warned is fore-armed.
I guarantee you she wouldn’t.
Matt, I don’t care what your past is or when you got married and had a child, no 11 year old girl needs to read the caption that was above the Mountain Dew bottle in the book “Flamer”.
Technically speaking the book is not written for 11 year old girls, its written for adolescent boys – that seems to have gotten lost in this whole discussion. That said, I disagree with you – she does need to read this book and others like it because I remember from school, boys that were sexually ambiguous (in terms of their sexuality) at the time were bullied by boys and girls alike. She’s going to be dealing with these issues in a few years. One of my daughter’s best friends – a boy- is gay. The world is not the same as it was when you were a kid.
The other problem that you don’t seem to recognize is that while you have a strongly held belief, a whole bunch of people on here clearly disagree with you. I think the problem with book banning, is who decides? And if you can impose your will on one book, what’s to stop others from doing the same? This is the whole free speech dilemma as well – if you can stop someone you disagree with from speaking, so can they.
Keith, I agree that she doesn’t need to. There are all sorts of things we as human beings don’t need to do, but that is why discretionary choice exists … because if need were the criteria that determined whether we did things or not, we would only do a small fraction of the things we do each day. We need to eat, drink water and sleep. Other than that, our needs are almost nonexistent. We don’t need to drive a car, or post here on the Vanguard … the list of things we don’t need top do is endless.
The problem is how far is too far David? We’re talking about a children’s school library. What would be the limit for you before you would say no to reading material that middle schoolers shouldn’t have access to at school? Playboy, Hustler magazines? Remember, if you can stop someone you disagree with from speaking, so can they.
Who decides what’s too far? With respect to the second part of your post, there is a clear educational purpose here. That would seem to be a key line.
Professional librarians.
This is an interesting read: https://www.milibraries.org/assets/docs/IFToolkit/Collection%20Development%20Overview.pdf
Oh, so you do have a line.
We see how well that worked out at the Davis Library.
I don’t understand your comment
I believe I understand Keith’s comment. He can correct me if I have misunderstood it.
What I hear him saying is that the librarian’s judgment in the events of the Blanchard Room event was not very good. I’m pretty sure you agree with that in principle. Keith then makes the association between that individual librarian’s judgement quality in that live, spontaneous situation to the judgment of the library’s professional staff in deciding on individual books.
The differences are numerous … individual judgment versus the collective, consensus judgment … instantaneous decision making, with polarized actors ratcheting up confrontation versus an established consideration process executed in a quiet conspicuously uncharged atmosphere … an opportunity to get it right with only one chance to do so versus an opportunity to get it right within a mult-step process that has no fixed timeline and no externally imposed urgency.
My confusion was more based on the apparent inconsistency of his positions – in as much as he appears to be situationally arguing both for and against censorship.
” I reminded her that our niece had gotten pregnant about the same age as our daughter at that time.”
This is so, so important, David.
And not just the pregnancy issue. Recent surveys of girls and reports from the CDC show that adolescent girls are at their highest rates for depression and suicidal ideation (and attempts), with no corresponding rise in these feelings among boys in the same cohort.
Among the top reasons girls cite for feeling this way is sexual violence, and this is predominantly due to boys trying to commit acts of violence against them, which is mostly due to the rise in the ubiquitous availability of porn to children and teens at a young age.
Boys watch porn and don’t understand that it’s staged/fake, and so try to perform acts they see on girls and are hurting them (including trying to choke them and other violent/extreme acts).
Sex education definitely needs to be substantive enough to meet today’s challenges for tweens and teens. And as has always been the case, if parents don’t like it, they can remove their child from public schools and have them enrolled in the private religious school of their choice, or home school them.
So, yes, what is covered in today’s sex ed curriculum and depicted in some books aimed to tweens/teens is more graphic and explicit than a couple of decades ago, but as you point out, this is a different world.
Walter, why is your quoted material germane to Davis? If you don’t provide that local context it is easy to dismiss your post as little more than spam.
The moderator decided my comment was relevant because it dealt with right wing book banning among other issues. The original post pertained to Wisconsin. There you go Matt. Your post could be considered spam.
Walter, reading is fundamental. I asked you why your quoted material is germane to Davis. If I wanted to know Don’s opinion I would ask him directly rather than asking you, but I didn’t ask him. I asked you.
Since you post on the Davis Vanguard my questions to you about the relevance of your comment to Davis isn’t spam … it is legitimately about something happening in Davis.
I fully read your comment Matt. Does Keith know for a fact that the book he cites is in any Davis public schools? If not, it is irrelevant to Davis Matt. There are no indications of which moderator approves my comments. It could be David, Don or someone else entirely. It could be a moderator that never comments on this site. I don’t know all of the inner workings of the Davis Vanguard nor do I want to Matt.
Walter, you don’t need to know the inner workings of the Vanguard in order to know the inner workings of yourself … and how to act like a gentleman.
Your answer about Keith seems to indicate that you actually do not know of any lies that he has actually posted … you just assume that they are lies in order to assail him politically. But what “seems to be” might not actually be correct, so I continue to await any example of Keith’s lies that you can provide.