By Linda Stamato

Freedom to read is the closest thing we have to freedom to think.

That freedom, to read, is under threat by the political and cultural forces dividing the nation. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry as I read some of the manifestations of this feverish nonsense that wind up directed at public libraries.

One reason to laugh is provided by the Free State of Florida. It has a lot to do with Florida’s fear of kids reading books containing any sexual content. Book-banning frenzy in public schools has reached the dictionary level, according to Frank Cerabino, a columnist for the Palm Beach Post.

Cerabino says banning dictionaries will allow underage students in Florida more time to read the Bible. On second thought, he proclaims “we ought to pull the Bible too.” Why read anyway, he asks. “Celebrate the empty book shelves. You’re living in Florida, the book-banning citadel of normalcy that flags dictionaries.”

Linda Stamato

Bill O’Reilly, previously a supporter of Florida’s removal of books from libraries, has reversed course after two of his books were removed from Escambia County. They were included in a list of 1,000 books temporarily removed pending an investigation of their material under state law.

Across the nation, folks are using the power of the state to limit access to books, pressuring libraries to take books out of circulation. And school boards are considering demands to remove certain books from classroom reading and discussion. Taking a long historical perspective, it’s really nothing new. But it’s no less dangerous.

Fortunately, widely reported spirited and vocal opposition and solid research helps to counter the banning efforts.  In New Jersey, for example, a survey by the Eagleton Institute at Rutgers University found that a majority of adults in the state are concerned about book bans and the political motivation behind them.

Among the findings are these: Self-identified Republicans are the only group where a majority is more concerned about content (67 percent) than censorship or banning books. Democrats, on the other hand, are especially concerned about banning books and topics that are educationally important (79 percent).

It is a good time to be paying attention. Among other developments, a bill is pending in the Garden State–still–that would prohibit public libraries and public schools from banning or restricting access to certain books.

Sarcophagus of a queen in Portugal. Photo by Barry Qualls.

Entitled the Freedom to Read Act,  it sets requirements for library material in public school libraries and public libraries, and establishes protections for school library media specialists and librarians against harassment. It has yet to receive a hearing, let alone become law. Yet it does reflect public opinion.

It is not at all clear what the holdup is. Since there have been no hearings, one can only speculate. Maybe it has to do with the part about withholding state aid for non-compliance.

Parents and guardians can restrict certain books in their own homes, of course. The problem is that some of these parents want to restrict every child’s access to these books in schools and libraries. It’s a step far too far. Educators and librarians are obligated to follow federal, state and local laws, policies and regulations, that, among other things, require them to provide unbiased, high-quality content supported by facts and science.

While there are humorous aspects to all this banning, it is a serious matter. The rise of book bans is the tip of a deeper iceberg: A growing movement to use the levers of local and state governance to control teachers and push an ideologically slanted vision of what children should learn, even feel, about American culture, society, and history.

Indeed, the Freedom to Read Act may seem unnecessary in the Garden State. But given what we’ve been seeing across the country, it should see the light of day. It’s been waiting in the wings for too long. It’s time to act.

As we reflect on the latest manifestation of ignorance, let’s pause a minute to consider the French Revolution. Yes, that revolution, in the 18th century. It provides some insight for us today.

Books are a means for making ideas generally available. Books can matter; they came to matter a lot in France. One factor in the overthrow of the regime in 1789 was the public’s reaction to state suppression of books, particularly those of Enlightenment authors such as Voltaire, Rousseau and Diderot.

Their ideas—of the social contract, sovereignty of the nation, religious toleration, freedom of the press—made alternatives to the monarchy conceivable. Thwarting public access to these works prompted commoners to learn more. They gained access, and they read or listened as others read the books to them.

Before long the monarchy came to an end. The contemporary relevance can’t be missed. Restricting the right to read, and thus the right to think, has consequences.

A statement by the American Library Association on freedom to read was issued in May 1953, and amended in 1972, 1991, 2000 and 2004.

A few quotations appear below:

Now as always in our history, reading is among our greatest freedoms…. We believe that free communication is essential to the preservation of a free society and a creative culture…. that pressures toward conformity present the danger of limiting the range and variety of inquiry and expression on which our democracy and our culture depend. We believe that every American community must jealously guard the freedom to publish and to circulate, in order to preserve its own freedom to read…. that publishers and librarians have a profound responsibility to give validity to that freedom to read by making it possible for the readers to choose freely from a variety of offerings.

The freedom to read is guaranteed by the Constitution. Those with faith in free people will stand firm on these constitutional guarantees of essential rights and will exercise the responsibilities that accompany these rights.

It is sad to see, in a civil society, how the state must enter the fray to protect the public’s right to read. But if that is what we must do, let’s get on with it.

Benedictus Spinoza, a favorite of mine, said in his Tractatus Theologico-Politicus  that any citizen should have the right “to think what he likes, and say what he thinks.”

As for citizens’ right to read, well, Spinoza had to hide his identity and some of his written ideas from Dutch ecclesiastic and political authorities. He feared his efforts to liberate the individual from “bondage to superstitions and ecclesiastical authority” would be seen as subversive. That was 350 years ago.

The need to protect the right to read and to think remains with us. Surely the New Jersey Legislature can summon the courage to codify for the citizens of this great state the right to read.