In high school, I read “To Kill a Mockingbird,” Harper Lee’s classic novel about a lawyer defending a Black man falsely accused of assaulting a white woman in the Depression-era South. It’s a Pulitzer Prize-winning novel that confronts difficult themes including racism, injustice, violence and moral courage, offering an honest look at the deep inequalities that have shaped the American experience.
But despite its literary and historical importance, Lee’s frank depiction of racism and injustice makes some people uncomfortable. As a result, “To Kill a Mockingbird” has frequently been targeted for censorship. In fact, it remains one of the most commonly challenged and banned books in schools and libraries across the country.
We’re seeing it here in North Dakota, too, with dozens and dozens of books either being formally challenged and/or cited by name in conjunction with proposed legislation or local school board actions. We’ve compiled a list dubbed the most feared books in North Dakota. But what’s there to be afraid of?
To be sure, no one is going to agree on the merits of every book on a library’s shelf. Some books will make you uncomfortable. Some books will make you angry. There might be books you think children shouldn’t read. There might be books you hope no one will read.
But we don’t get to decide what others read – and neither should the government.
Despite its “preferred position” in our constitutional hierarchy, our nation’s commitment to the First Amendment and freedom of expression has been tested over and over again.
Recently, we’ve seen book bans and censorship attempts come roaring back into the public consciousness, as groups of extremists have become increasingly active and organized in their attempts to control the ideas and perspectives available to local communities through their schools, libraries and other public spaces. These groups have mobilized a loud minority of activists to hijack public meetings seeking to ban or censor books that contain messages with which they disagree. Unsurprisingly, their targets are usually stories amplifying the voices of LGBTQ+ and Two Spirit people, racial minorities, and other marginalized groups.
Some of these efforts have gone viral, and more than a few of these public commenters have become social media famous with recorded speeches and podium histrionics that are comically over-the-top. But there is nothing funny about the censorious and exclusionary undercurrent that propels this movement.
There is also a growing phenomenon of “quiet” book bans that take place outside the rancorous but democratic arena of public board meetings. Individual parents or other community members often lobby librarians and school administrators directly for the removal or restriction of books or other content, bypassing the community at large. After all, removing a book from the shelf isn’t the only method that amounts to censorship – requiring parental permission to read it or moving it to a less accessible section are both examples of soft censorship. The quiet pressure applied by this small group has an undeniable chilling effect, leading to self-censorship by librarians, administrators and educators driven by misguided attempts to avoid controversy or soothe dissension in their increasingly divided communities.
As the attack on our right to read evolves, it becomes ever more important for community members to stay involved and engaged.
While organizations like the ACLU are on active lookout for attempts to undermine our First Amendment rights, threats are often nearly impossible to identify without the help of supporters with ears close to the ground in their communities. It’s important to show up to public meetings and make your voice heard.
Banning books, after all, means more than just taking them off the shelf. It threatens the very foundation of our democracy. We have a responsibility to learn from our nation’s history, to reject discriminatory attacks by prioritizing inclusive policy change and to protect the fundamental right to read, think, believe and be.
Note: A version of this column also appeared in the North Dakota Monitor.