JAMES
M. WALL
Editor
and President from 1972 to 1999 of the Christian Century
Foundation that publishes the magazine, James M. Wall was
named Alumnus of the Year 2000 by the University of Chicago
Divinity School. Since 1990 he has also been Adjunct Professor
of Religion and Culture at Claremont School of Theology
in California.
This
article is abridged from Speak Out Against the New Right
edited by Herbert F. Vetter (Boston:
Beacon Press, 1982)
The darker side of the conservative mood affecting this
nation now reaches into our schools and libraries and threatens
to impose restraints on books and reading. At its best,
conservatism has sought to preserve what is valued and cherished
in a culture. But what we are witnessing in this newer version
of "conservatism " is a move by right-wing activists
to dictate to schools and libraries a particular world view
by blocking what they term "objectionable" books—and
in some instances, films—from public and school view.
This development was to be expected as the religious New
Right and its secular allies, including Phyllis Schlafly's
Eagle Forum, gained media attention and political clout.
They have frequently insisted that society should not tolerate
books containing material, particularly that related to
sex, which is contrary to what they term "traditional
American values." Their campaign is widespread and
well orchestrated, and it follows a pattern of intimidation
of local and state school and library officials.
The goal of these forces is to reverse a trend they call
"permissiveness" in public schools, and in the
application of the First Amendment's protection of our right
to read. They have found a favorable public climate, for
there is no doubt that major changes have occurred in life
styles and sexual attitudes over the past two decades. These
changes have shocked parents who find it difficult to relate
to a younger generation that not only rejects but at times
ridicules older values. But censorship is not the answer
to changing values. The prudish Victorian era, as just one
example, produced some classic pieces of pornographic literature.
Repression does not eliminate an interest in sex; it merely
drives it underground.
Schools do need to be sensitive to material made available
to young people, especially that which contradicts prevailing
cultural standards. But sensitivity does not mean repression.
What groups like the Moral Majority and Eagle Forum propose
to do is turn back the cultural clock, raiding schools and
libraries and demanding adherence to a narrow, limited view
of sexuality. There is growing evidence that they are succeeding.
Even as we examine these cases, we have to acknowledge that
there are certain rights parents have regarding the type
of education their children receive. The public is not entirely
at the mercy of schools and libraries regarding available
reading matter. In this, as in all matters of public life,
there is a tension between individual rights and group rights,
a tension basic to a pluralistic society. But fundamental
to any free people is the right of access to printed matter,
regardless of its worth. The First Amendment was added to
our Constitution in part to protect words and ideas which
the majority might find objectionable. These are protected
under the amendment because freedom is a precious commodity
that flourishes best in an atmosphere of openness.
II
Among
cases that have emerged, most notable has been a fact-finding
trial growing out of the removal in 1976 of nine books from
school libraries in Island Trees, New York. The local school
board, having acted to remove the books, then requested
dismissal of a suit that sought to overturn its decision
to remove the books. Judge Newman, in calling for a trial,
said the books' removal posed a "sufficient threat
to the free expression of ideas within the school community
to establish a First Amendment violation." The books
involved were not pornographic, and in many school libraries
would be considered modern classics: works by Bernard Malamud,
Kurt Vonnegut, Eldridge Cleaver and Desmond Morris.
In Alabama four parents appeared before the state board
of education, requesting that the board remove a six-volume
textbook series, Justice in America, then being used
in classrooms throughout the state. Objections varied, but
they included claims, according to NCAC, that the books
"undermined parental values, taught disrespect for
law, encouraged dependence on welfare, contained profanity,
included discussion of abortion and divorce, were anticapitalist
and pro-labor, were hostile to the Bible, supported equal
rights for women, and did not stress that the United States
is 'a republic and not a democracy.'" Testimony from
teachers found the textbooks to be realistic, fair and valuable.
The board voted to remove the books from the state's approved
list.
III
The
Moral Majority of Washington Legal Foundation, acting on
behalf of a group of parents, filed a complaint in December
1980 against Mead School District No. 354, in the state
of Washington. The complaint asks that Gordon Parks's book
The Learning Tree be permanently removed from use
in the district's schools. The complaint alleges that teaching
of The Learning Tree "tends to inculcate the
anti-God religion of Humanism, which is antithetical to
plaintiffs' beliefs and which violates the free exercise
and no establishment clauses." In other words, this
particular book offends the sensibilities of some of the
citizens in the area.
And in
another Washington case, the Moral Majority filed suit against
the state library, demanding disclosure of the names of
public schools that had borrowed Achieving Sexual Maturity,
an award-winning sex education film. Apparently having made
its point, the organization asked the court for "dismissal
with prejudice" of its own case and promised to go
to individual schools to determine which ones were using
the film.
In Illinois, a bill pending before the General Assembly
would make librarians criminally liable for "harmful"
materials that might be read by children. Again, the motive
would appear to be worthwhile: the protection of children.
But it is obvious that this is one of those bills that are
designed not to protect children but to intimidate librarians.
Its language is too extreme, its categories too vague, to
be enforceable. Ironically, this bill introduced by legislators
who usually favor getting the government "off our backs"
would establish a huge, unworkable monitoring system that
would require numerous bureaucrats just to define what is
"harmful."
IV
The pattern is clear. A narrow view of human sexuality is
to be imposed on all of the public. A method of intimidation
is unfolding, and from other reports it appears that local
school boards and libraries are finding it easier to give
in to the threats of lawsuits than to stand firm against
encroachments upon the U.S. Constitution.
There is no doubt that parents grow frustrated over the
content of books to which children are exposed in our public
educational system. And not every book on the shelf of a
public library is to the taste and preference of every citizen.
But nothing is more reprehensible on the printed page than
the word "censorship," a word denoting an act
which violates individual rights and determines the tone
of a society from the perspective of a limited few.
The Moral Majority and its allies are exploiting a public
which is uneasy over cultural changes, and longs for a return
to old ways. Not all of the new is better, of course, but
public tastes and preference should be shaped, not controlled.
What these forces seek to do is to control our schools and
libraries through intimidation. If we prefer freedom over
repression, and want to resist this alarming trend, we have
an alternative. We can stand up for freedom when school
and library board elections are held, and we can speak up
for pluralism when hearings are announced. It should not
take costly court cases to determine that the real majority
in this nation prefers to protect the right to read, not
to repress it. The religious New Right wants to intimidate
public officials. The way to meet intimidation is not to
yield to it, but to insist on public dialogue. Truth has
always been its own best advocate.
Click Here to view books about James M. Wall on Amazon
| TABLE OF CONTENTS
|
